Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Businesses Government Apple News

Class-Action Suit Filed Against Apple 125

Posted by timothy from the newton-felt-the-same-way dept.
AC writes "A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Apple. The plaintiffs allege that Apple failed to fully honor service contracts and warranties, didn't get repair and service businesses properly licensed, stole trade secrets from its own resellers, and sold used computer equipment as new."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Class-Action Suit Filed Against Apple More

Class-Action Suit Filed Against Apple

Comments Filter:

  • Wait... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NewWaveNet ( 584716 ) <me@austinheap.com> on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:01PM (#11723941) Homepage Journal
    Are there already legit complaints or are they just looking for people to tell on Apple [tellonapple.org]?

    • Re:Wait... (Score:5, Informative)

      by compactable ( 714182 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:11PM (#11723994) Homepage
      Given that the article mentions :
      The lawyers are also already representing several aggrieved current and former Apple-authorized resellers who have sued the company in separate actions.       ... and TellOnApple is a smear campaign by those self-same ex-resellers you're probably dead on the money ...
      • ... especially considering that TellOnApple is even mentioned in the article.

        Armes runs the website www.tellonapple.org. He says his business had $20 million in sales in 2002 but that he has had to close all five of his stores.

    • Question on Tell on apple (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gremlins ( 588904 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @05:08PM (#11724696)
      It seems like the resellers are pissed about the apple owned stores. I don't know if charging their own stores less is against the law but if it is, thats nuts. They own the store and the product. Well you be the judge.

      TellOnApple.org suggests Apple shareholders demand Apple Computer answer these questions at its upcoming shareholders meeting on April 22, 2004 in Cupertino, California:

      1. Is Apple Computer the subject of any governmental probes or criminal investigations?

      2. Do the company owned retail stores pay the same price for Apple products as independent Apple resellers when purchasing the same products directly from Apple?

      3. Do the uncovered invoices show what the company owned retail stores actually pay for Apple products? Do the company owned retail stores actually pay $2.70 for Apple Care Extended Warranties while most resellers pay approximately $118 to $244 for the same product?

      4. Are the company owned retail stores actually profitable if they paid the same price for Apple products as independent Apple resellers?

      5. Is Apple misleading shareholders as to the company owned retail stores profitability?

      6. Apple has always stated that there was a level playing field between the company owned retail stores and the independent Apple resellers. How does Apple explain the pricing, promotions, and allocation discrepancies between the two?

      7. Have Apple sales at the independent Apple resellers increased or decreased year over year? If they have decreased, is Apple simply moving sales from the independent Apple resellers to Apple direct?

      8. Five down, 95 to go was Apple's main reason for opening the company owned retail stores. "Apple has about 5 percent market share," Jobs said in 2001. He noted that most of the other 95 percent of computer buyers "don't even consider us." Why has Apple's marketshare decreased instead of growing? And what benefit is there to Apple to eliminate the independent Apple resellers?

      9. Has Apple ever intended to put the independent Apple resellers out of business? Would this bring any benefit to Apple or Apple's customers? Is there a future for independent Apple resellers?

      10. When Apple first opened its retail stores, it publicly recognized that working with its existing lineup of independent resellers would be a priority. Why has this changed?

      11. In Apple's ethics document posted on their website, Apple states, "In some cases, the law may also view our resellers as our competitors when we are actually competing for the same types of customers in the marketplace." Why is Apple competing against their independent resellers? Why is Apple offering special prices to consumers, which can be lower than the independent resellers cost?

      • Re:Question on Tell on apple (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NSash ( 711724 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @01:27AM (#11727198) Journal
        11. In Apple's ethics document posted on their website, Apple states, "In some cases, the law may also view our resellers as our competitors when we are actually competing for the same types of customers in the marketplace." Why is Apple competing against their independent resellers?

        This question is idiotic. By definition, a store is competing with all other stores that try to sell the same things to the same people. A legitimate question would be "Why does Apple run its own retail stores?" to which the obvious answer is: because they make money. Somehow, I'm having difficulty envisioning the shareholder outrage.
        • If Microsoft had a physical software store and deliberately undercut every retailer that sold their products, there'd probably be frothing at the mouth on /. When Apple does a similar thing, people jump to their defense. O_o
      • TellOnApple.org suggests Apple shareholders demand Apple Computer answer these questions at its upcoming shareholders meeting on April 22, 2004 in Cupertino, California

        Guess this means it's time to take the wraps off the iTimeMachine...

      • 3. Do the uncovered invoices show what the company owned retail stores actually pay for Apple products? Do the company owned retail stores actually pay $2.70 for Apple Care Extended Warranties while most resellers pay approximately $118 to $244 for the same product?

        No. All the lawyers would need to do is read Apple's public filings with the SEC in order to learn about this issue.

        8. Five down, 95 to go was Apple's main reason for opening the company owned retail stores. "Apple has about 5 percent market

      • Re:Question on Tell on apple (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sribe ( 304414 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @10:38AM (#11728641)
        4. Are the company owned retail stores actually profitable if they paid the same price for Apple products as independent Apple resellers?

        5. Is Apple misleading shareholders as to the company owned retail stores profitability?

        I didn't even catch this the first time:

        • The suit alleges that Apple's predatory practices have driven independent resellers out of business.
        • The suit implies that the Apple stores are losing money for Apple.
        • Apple is posting huge record profits. Even if you subtract out iPod sales, Apple is posting healthy profits.


        So my question is this, where the heck do the complainants think all of Apple's profits are coming from? The online stores? Their online sales are not that big a portion of sales. Education sales? They deal with huge orders, but the margins are razor thin. I think if the Apple stores were run at a loss, this would show up somewhere.

        Now they do write off part of the cost of running the big "flag ship" stores as a company-wide marketing expense, and without that the few biggest stores might show losses. This is legitimate in that those stores are used heavily as PR, and subject to legitimate differences of opinion over how much of the cost should be so attributed, and could possibly be abused. But it doesn't change the fundamental question: if resellers are being driven out of business and the Apple Stores are being run at a loss, where is all that profit coming from???

    • Especially since it was filed just under the wire concerning the new class action legislation, and seeks to include everyone back to 1995 .

  • An actual question... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:05PM (#11723955) Journal
    This isn't a troll or anything, I really don't know... It seems like one of the main complaints is that Apple stores are undercutting other resellers.

    How is this different, from, say, Mattel making small doll stores pay more for Barbies than Wal-Mart or Target, resulting in the big chains being able to sell the dolls for less than the independent doll stores are paying Mattel? I mean, neither practice seems particularly nice, but if one is legal shouldn't the other be?

    • Re:An actual question... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by compactable ( 714182 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:18PM (#11724034) Homepage
      There's already a seperate set of suits against apple for being twits to their resellers - this one is a class action for consumers. The thing that is a bit whiffy to my nose here is that the class action is being organized by the same group that represents the resellers, which to me says that this is either:
      • a smear campaing to make apple look bad in the public's eyes
      • a cash grab at apple because their business is booming
      ... I'm not surprised that Steve Jobs isn't the kind and nurturing type when it comes to his resellers, and I'm sure they're ticked off, and there may well be cause to sue in that area, however I'm not sure this specific action has much merit.

      Truth be told, if the "apple zealot" level on Slashdot is any indcator, Apple didn't have any users before the iMac G5 (-;

      • this one is a class action for consumers

        The only new greivence I read in this article is they are now saying Apple sold used computers as new. This would be realllly sleezy, but I'd have to see some proof. The Tell on Apple [tellonapple.org] guys were wronged, but they are also pretty vengeful about it.

        It's kind of sad to see these old Mac shops close, but I don't think Apple has done anything wrong with respect to their customers.
        • Actually, the only time I had someone sell me a used computer as new was a reseller. The powerbook came mail order with the box taped back exactly as if new, but once inside it had clearly been returned. I think somehow the tip off was that under everything else they had left the returned receipt with the guy's complete AMEX card number with expiration and what he had paid for it; and when he had returned it. If I had been a tough guy I could have used his card to order a better book. They were lucky I wasn
    • I think that has to do with the fact that Apple forces retailers to sell their products at a set price. For a *long* time (up until two or three months ago), it was impossible to find an iPod for less than retail price, period.

      Now most of the 'low' prices for the iPod result from storewide rebates and coupons. But there's a reason there are never 'sales' on Apple merchandise.
      • This isn't what Apple does...it just sells its products at such high wholesale costs that resellers can't possibly sell below "Suggested" retail price and make a profit.

        Since Apple is in competition with resellers, setting a fixed price would constitute price fixing.
        • That sounds bitchy, but not really sueable... Much like Mattel.
        • Actually, Apple sets a minimum advertised price, dealers can lose their authorization for advertising a price below that. Everybody is advertising at that price, so no dealer can as a practical matter sell at a higher price. So, it is, in effect a fixed price for any publicly displayed advertising.

          Somehow, Amazon gets away with ignoring it.

          They also have a very high wholesale price that they charge most dealers, so most dealers are not able to give any discounts below the minimum advertised price.

          And n
          • Technically MAP pricing is illegal in the United States.

            Companies can often find way around it. Limiting advertising dollars given to a retailer for instance, etc.

            It also means a company with decent lawyers can find enough wriggle room to advertisze, and sell items at whatever price they want.

            The little guy without the lawyers tends to get screwed, and can least afford to lose advertising dollars.

        • This isn't what Apple does...it just sells its products at such high wholesale costs that resellers can't possibly sell below "Suggested" retail price and make a profit.

          I don't know how it works in the USA, but in Denmark where I live, that practice is considered anti competitive and is illegal. Not that that is stopping companies like B&O from doing it anyway since it is so hard to prove them guilty of it.

    • To prevent such undercutting, Apple signed contracts with their resellers saying that Apple stores would not recieve priority shipment of products over other retailers, not would they recieve discounts on products or lower prices than the other retailers. If apple did this, they would destroy their reseller market and most probably destroy their marketshare. As far as Mattel making small doll stores pay more, this is because small doll stores order far less and thus do not recieve the massive bulk prices t
      • But if you look at it this is the same; the Apple Retail stores are a chain, right? The indi stores are the little small apple stores. Essentially, the retail stores buy in bulk, or are given a quota of the produced products, which are allowing for more profit, right?

        Truthfully, I have been shopping in Indi apple stores for over 10 years in N. America and in Europe and they have been, on the whole, crap. I was in one in the Beltway about 5 years ago that was ok. My experience with apple retail has been

        • I can't speak to other mac stores around the country, only to one in the western suburbs of Chicago that I used to work at. And I can't even speak about how it's been in the last couple years after the last close friend of mine left.

          But the Apple stores don't fix broken macs (they ship them out) and we did. And we did substantial onsite work including network and crossplatform stuff that I'm fairly sure they didn't do. And we were a lot bigger than any of the local Apple stores. And I believe we were t

  • Too bad . . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:19PM (#11724035)
    Too bad none of these resellers hit on a formula to grow Mac market share. They never figured out ways to attract new customers. Isn't that the business of sales?
    • I hardly feel bad for Mac Resellers, considering many of them stayed in business by shafting people with vastly markedup memory and peripherals. Furthermore, the Mac reseller business survived for a decade longer than on the PC side -- when's the last time anyone has bought a HP or IBM from a local shop?

      However, criticizing them for not growing Mac Market Share is an non-starter, because 90% of the problem is/was Apple's product lineup and positioning. Apple made the Mac a boutique computer and these guys

      • Re:Too bad . . . . (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I also quesiton how much Apple Stores have done to increase marketshare versus just sending the retail profit back to Apple.

        I have never been in an Apple Store where the machines weren't in perfect working order and set up for demos. The employees can actually answer questions correctly. The stores are bright and inviting and well-stocked with a variety of Mac software and accessories.

        Contrast that with CompUSA, who even after their 'store within a store' agreement with Apple, keep the Apple section in t
        • Last week, my nearby Apple Store was packed. Although it was the weekend before Valentine's day...

          I think a lot of iPods were being sold, but many computers seemed to be sold as well.
        • To make it clear, I wasn't talking about the mass-market Circuit City's or Fry's, but the boutique full service Mac shops that were pretty much driven out of busines by Apple Stores.

          As for marketshare increase, the numbers haven't shown it. However with a more retail oriented lineup like iPods and Mac Mini, I have no doubt that Apple Stores are moving a lot product.
      • Then explain Apples memory pricing.
      • Most resellers charge LESS for memory than Apple...
    • The reason none of these resellers hit the magic formula for world domination is that they are in my experience (in Australia) usually incompetent or just plain old rip-off merchants.

      They often try and sell outdates stuff to unsuspecting customers. For example apparently apart from the cosmetic differences there is no difference between a 4g and a 3g iPod. Who needs those extra MHz ...

      I now recommend friends purchase stuff off of Apples web site. Personally I don't care if most of the resellers die, th

  • FTFA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by downlo ( 529531 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:27PM (#11724084) Homepage
    Apple is trying to pass off old parts as new, starting warranties from the time they ship to the reseller rather then when the customer buys it, not reimbursing the reseller for parts under warranties, and trying to direct reseller customers to their own Apple stores.

    There are two suits, one brought on behalf of customers, the other on the behalf of the resellers. Although the two cases are related since the consumers case is based around products bought from resellers.

    These are big issues, especially for all the apple zealots out there who think apple is a "kinder gentler company."

    • Re:FTFA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ZackSchil ( 560462 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:49PM (#11724243)
      They are. Kinda. Ok, well they've done some pretty sleazy things but have you SEEN what kinds of horrible things are considered common [google.com] business [google.com] practice [walmartwatch.com] in 2005? I wasn't surprised to see the suit being filed by a diehard mac reseller. I'm sure for those guys getting burned by Apple ends up being more emotional because of zealotry that tends to follow the company. I'd say bitterness filed this lawsuit more than the quest for money.

    • Re:FTFA (Score:1)

      by JawzX ( 3756 )
      First off let me say I'm not trying to say that I think any of these practices are "good" or "nice" or even "smart business" however, Every one of these claims against apple are SOP for quite a few sucessfull consumer electronics manufacturers. I work in retail electronics, and on a slow day I read through the fine print of all the waranty terms and stipulations for several of our major electronics suppliers and manufacturers.

      Mind you these are names you know: Magnavox, Philips, Sony, RCA, Zenith , Speaker
    • Apple is trying to pass off old parts as new, starting warranties from the time they ship to the reseller rather then when the customer buys it, not reimbursing the reseller for parts under warranties, and trying to direct reseller customers to their own Apple stores.

      Is there any evidence to support these claims?

  • Munney Gubbing (Score:5, Funny)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:41PM (#11724190)

    "The plaintiffs allege that Apple failed to fully honor service contracts and warranties, didn't get repair and service businesses properly licensed, stole trade secrets from its own resellers, and sold used computer equipment as new."

    I other words some lawyer's trophy wife wants a new yacht.

    • Re:Munney Gubbing (Score:2, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "In other words some lawyer's trophy wife wants a new yacht."

      In other words, It's Apple and they can do no wrong.

      • Re:Munney Gubbing (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 ) *
        Well so far there wasn't any evidence the the article about any wrong doing just convictions. It sounds more like the Guy who started the Class Action was POed at Apple for loosing his business, to the Apple store. But made it a class action so he could raise the damages to Apple Yes it is possible that Apple was contending in wrongdoing or the evidence was collected of 10 years of mistakes that someone on Apple did. Getting shipping mixed up and switching a New System with a Refurb. (the person who go

      • Re:Munney Gubbing (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CptNerd ( 455084 )
        "
        In other words some lawyer's trophy wife wants a new yacht."

        In other words, It's Apple and they can do no wrong.

        No, in other words, no one wins class action lawsuits except the lawyers involved.

    • I other words some lawyer's trophy wife wants a new yacht.

      Exactly. Consumers are never helped by these kinds of lawsuits.

      At best those who bother to take the time to write a letter will get a $25 coupon to the Apple Online Store or something equally as inane, and the lawyers on both sides will make millions.
      • They arent supposed to help the consumers that take part in them, they are supposed to punish the offending company. You are by all means welcome to start your own private suit against the company yourself, but be prepared for all the legal bills and such.
        • They arent supposed to help the consumers that take part in them, they are supposed to punish the offending company

          If that is the case, it is a perversion of English common law.

          A tort results in a remedy, with an award pf damages to the plaintiff. It has been throughout the history of English law intended to right a civil wrong. Only in extreme cases are punative damages awarded.

          Unfortunately class action law suits are generally rigged to reward lawyers, not the victims. It is gross.
          • "Unfortunately class action law suits are generally rigged to reward lawyers, not the victims. It is gross." Unfortunately, this is FUD. There are cases of greedy lawyers doing this, but it is the exception not the rule.

            I think most people don't realize how much they need tort to stay the way it is until they are offended.

            Put it this way, in order to get the money out of the company, the company needs to have wronged people for at least that amount of money. Would you rater have the nasty company have the

          • Unfortunately class action law suits are generally rigged to reward lawyers, not the victims. It is gross.

            Not in the slightest. In filing the suit, the lawyers take all of the risks while the members take none. As in if the case isn't won, they don't get paid. The defendant gets punished and you get some compensation, without having to do any work. You get something for nothing, and you complain because someone else got more? Just who is really being greedy here?

            It's been said that the greatest tric

            • Re:Munney Gubbing (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Golias ( 176380 ) on Monday February 21, 2005 @09:39AM (#11735646)
              If somebody is "guilty" of something which demands punishment, then it should be done throught he criminal justice system, where their debt to society can be paid to society.

              Everything you said about civil suits is bullshit. I've been sent letters inviting me into dozens of them, and while I have not signed on, I have watched what happened. In every single case, ALL OF THEM, the following was true:

              1. The case was frivolous. The company in question had crappy service, but didn't do anything that was actually illegal. In many cases (such as my problem with Qwest), they had already offered partial refunds and discounts to partially make up for said screw-over.

              2. The case was resolved with a settlement without going to trial.

              3. Each person who signed on for the suit got some pittance (free rentals from Blockbuster, two free months of phone service from Qwest, a $50 gift certificate, etc.)

              4. The lawyers pressing the case got enormous piles of money.
              • Oh yeah, and usually:

                5. The product or service the company who was sued now offers costs more without any improvement in quality or service, because they need to recoup their legal costs.

                Class action suits hurt consumers as well as companies, and line the pockets of asshole lawyers. When you get a class action invitation letter, please, for all of our sakes, throw it in the trash.

                If you really were harmed by the company in any way that really matters, sue them yourself as an individual.
              • Okay, with SBC, I got back all the money they bilked me out of and stopped the nasty pratice of selling people "basic service" that was the fully loaded (and most expensive) service.
                • So... the crime SBC was guilty of was... offering a "basic service" which had more extra services than you and some other people wanted to buy?

                  How is that any different than a car company making cruise control a "standard" feature?

                  Sounds like another frivolous lawsuit to me. I mean, obviously you were not damaged by them. You willingly paid them that money for that fully loaded service, at the price they asked, even though you wanted to pay less for a more stripped-down service. Then you turned around
                  • When I called I asked for their cheapest service, they told me their top of the line service was their cheapest.

                    It is about the same as the only mattress service in town only selling the top of the line mattress and saying that it is the base model

                    Look, what you may not realize is that a jurry of your peers has to agree with you for you to win a lawsuit.

                    Furthermore, if you really want tort reform, what you also want is big government and the big government regulation that goes with it. Tort is a very effi

    • Sounds like... every... other... computer manufacturer...

    • Re:Munney Gubbing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dmarcoot ( 96402 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:21PM (#11725855) Journal
      so, because you dont like idea of lawyers making a living we should give companies cart blanch do whatever they will to their customers and partners with no penalty?

      since when is every class action suit a BAD thing?
      if people like you had your way, and with this President, you will, we would be living in asbestos houses.

      • Re:Munney Gubbing (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 19, 2005 @09:31PM (#11726198)
        The problem is the disproportionate distribution of damage monies. The lawyers will get millions, the actual victims may get $100. Does that really sit well with you?

        My parents were part of a class action lawsuit for some faulty pipes in the housing development. They got about $300. Lawyers got a HELL of a lot more. Of course the lawyers had to prepare and argue the case and whatnot, but it really doesn't FEEL right when a multi-million dollar settlement makes a lawyer a million, but the leftovers distributed among thousands are barely pocket change to the actual victims.
        • Firstly, what losses did your parents actually suffer? a lawsuit is not like playing the lottery. you're not suppose to win back any more than you lost.

          Secondly, it's irrelevant how much the lawyer got in total ; what's relevant is how much he got as a percentage of the total award. If the award was $1000 per person and lawyers took $700, then it's pretty unfair. If the award was $350 per person and the lawyer took $50, then it's not so unreasonable. A stockholder doesn't whine that a CEO is paid far more
        • Maybe the law firm got millions of dollars, but they pay their junior lawyers $80k per yer to work 80 hours per week. And they probably had a few lawyers work for 6 months on the case, plus the secretaries and researchers.

          Is the $300 better than nothing? Is the millions of dollars that the housing developers had to pay a good deterrant not to do shoddy work again? What would you rather have? No legal system? No possibilty for disputes?

          • Also, law firms need to subscribe to the legal research services like Lexis. That costs money. They also need to pay their rent. That costs money too. And as one of the other posters said, the lawyers are taking a gamble on a class action suit. They might lose the case and get nothing but still have to pay their rent, services, lawyers, secretaries, et cetera.

      • , we would be living in asbestos houses.

        God if only we could. Asbestos is wonderful stuff, unbelievably useful. When recently doing some repairs on some water pipes, I happened to be lucky enough to use a small asbestos heat shield (basicaly something like a piece of cloth, not unlike a pot holder). The pipe I needed to do some welding on was less than an inch from the wood of house. Using the asbestos shield, I finished all the welding and there wasn't even a mark on teh wood that would have indicated s

      • Re:Munney Gubbing (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bryan1945 ( 301828 )
        Remember the Iomega class action suit? After having a drive get the "click of death", I got 4 coupons each worth about $5 for more Iomega products. The lawyers got something like 4 or 5 million. Yeah, great job.

        And what the hell does this have to do with the President?! Yeah, we all know he's pro-business, but saying he'll make you live in an abestos house? A tad much, wouldn't you say? Considering we found out abestos was bad about, oh, 20 years before he bacame President.

  • Reason enough... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kponto ( 821962 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @03:52PM (#11724269) Homepage

    There's probably enough reason for a class action for the iBook logic board issues alone. My first iBook's logic board died before the extension pogram was introduced and Apple refused to fix it without $750 ,so I had to get rid of it. My second iBook, which I still have but don't use often, craps out every six months or so, and my third iBook (and yet I learn nothing) died four times in the first six months I had it. I called them on the third time and told them I wanted a new machine that was outside the defective serial number range, and they said I had to wait for it to die one more time. I figured I could wait a few weeks, and sure enough, two weeks after they fixed it yet again, the logic board failed. I got a brand new g4 model out of it, but that was after a total of three years, as many machines, and a total of 8 logic boards.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a total fanboy, and I want to go down on Steve Jobs just as much as any other fanboy, but after the way Apple has treated large portions of their customer base recently, they deserve whatever it is they've got coming.

    • This claim is patently false. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      $750 for a repair is false.

      The standard out of warranty repair cost for an iBook is ~$300. the only way they'd charge more is if they saw signs of a spill or abuse or drop (cracked case or internal components for example).

      Before you go badmouthing a company, make sure you're giving all the facts and not just trying to garner pity.
      • Deal is, with the Logic Board Issue (which I am also an unlucky victim of), I've been told that the whole board needs replacing, and was quoted an approximate price of $600. I certainly hope what you say is true, though.

        This was on the second time I had video problems, and before we figured out it was the Logic Board Issue. Once we did, we brought it back to the Genius Bar and told them we think it's the Logic Board Issue, and they took it with no complaints-- but the iBook recently came back without repa

        • Re:This claim is patently false. (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          If you are talking about the G3 iBook then the 1-year warranty was extended to 3 years for the motherboard only.

          Also, you should never accept the answer that they couldn't "replicate the problem." The video problem on that logic board is always intermittant, and very well known about. If you already took it back, fine. Next time the video gets fouled up, close the lid (without powering down) and go straight to the Apple Store and show it to them in its not-working state, then insist that it get repaired
          • That's what we're planning on doing. And thanks for the advice about taking the iBook in without powering down; makes a lot of sense, but admittedly, I wouldn't have thought about that.
            • Most faults that take a long time to appear are thermal faults; as a component heats and cools, a circuit trace cracks. When it cools off the circuit re-forms, and as it warms up, it breaks again.

              Sometimes you get the opposite behaviour, and the thermal expansion keeps the circuit closed, and it fails when it cools off. This is the one that takes out servers that "ran for months until that power failure".

              The iBook logic problem (I'm on my 3rd logic board now) is a fairly classic thermal fault; when it

      • Ok, I exaggerated, it was really $749.

        Apple had (and may still have) a tiered system for repairing out-of-warranty machines.The standard out of warranty repair for an iBook was only $300 (though it's actually $349) if the repair is for the monitor only. For anything pertaining to the logic board, it was $749.

        Before you go calling people liars, make sure you're not a raging dumbass.

        • This price is why you should patronize your local dealer. Most dealers charge by the repair, not a fixed rate, and the logic boards for iBooks were less than that, by quite a bit.

          Now, with the repair extension, it makes more sense to send it back to Apple yourself, because the dealers can't get the logic boards for the iBooks covered by the repair extension.

          But for the iBook G4, take it to your local dealer - and buy the AppleCare. $249 is cheaper than most iBook repairs.

    • Re:Reason enough... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Fortunato_NC ( 736786 ) <verlinh75.msn@com> on Saturday February 19, 2005 @09:13PM (#11726106) Homepage Journal
      Agreed on the G3 iBook issues. The fact that an entire production run of two different types of computers (12 and 14 inch) had these problems right up until the last G3 iBook indicates to me that they should have taken fairly drastic steps much, much sooner than they did. People had these problems on the very first 500mhz "dual USB" iBooks, and I had a 900mhz that I bought just as the new G4 iBooks were arriving with the same problem! Like you, I ended up with a G4 replacement (See my journal entry on the subject [slashdot.org]), but it was after a boatload of grief.

      As it worked out, I feel like I was made whole. But Apple has never fully acknowledged the issues with that series of computers, and to continue selling computers with the same logic boards after so many problems was just irresponsible.

    • Oh FUCK NO (Score:3, Funny)

      by ravenspear ( 756059 )
      I want to go down on Steve Jobs just as much as any other fanboy

      I didn't need that mental image!

  • Not sure which is worse... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 19, 2005 @04:25PM (#11724443)
    To an extent Apple have created some problems like this for themselves in recent times, but this article just reads like the usual typical American nonsense:

    "If someone is more successful than me, it is their fault and I will sue them"

    In fact /. seems to be populated with a lot of articles like this giving the firm impression that Americans will do anything to exploit money with all sorts of feeble excuses. Wasn't Bush supposed to be making legislation to make frivilous class action suits harder to press. I don't like Bush, and my sympathises are generally always with the underdog and the individual rather than big business but it does some like the whole situation has become a complete joke in the US. But then I guess with class action lawsuits, they are not about individuals but about groups of so called 'victims' looking to invent spurious reasons to 'legally' steal money from someone else.

    Of course Apple isn't perfect like I say, but I have a hard time believing in this basis of this issue.

    • Re:Not sure which is worse... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You should spend some time in America or read NRO [nationalreview.com] or something. Your ideas aren't bad or completely wrong but they could be tempered with more exposure to all Americans -- not just the Americans from slashdot or popular American media.
    • Here is a cool idea: Pay % caps for lawyers that make sense in class action suits. Here is another one that would solve a lot of problems: use the ethics board and require a "3 strikes and your out" law that would disbar a lawyer that perpetrates 3 frivolous lawsuits (and they would be proven by the ethics board). This would put the fear of being middle class into these bastards. Then this would make the lawyers turn away stupid clients (trust me, my wife is a paralegal and in law school, there are LOTS
    • Wasn't Bush supposed to be making legislation to make frivilous class action suits harder to press.

      That's the problem with any attepts at "tort reform": it is simply impossible to block frivilous lawsuits, which are usually a red herring in the first place, without also blocking legitimate ones as well. The legislation in question has forced some cases to be brought to federal court rather than state court. What that really means is that cases will take longer to process, since federal courts are usuall
      • That's the problem with any attepts at "tort reform": it is simply impossible to block frivilous lawsuits, which are usually a red herring in the first place, without also blocking legitimate ones as well.

        I've been invited into many completely frivolous lawsuits over the years (including this one, which I could sign up for, if I was interested in helping lawyers get rich at the expense of a company I buy stuff from.)

        When I am invited into, or even hear about, a legitimate class-action, I'll let you know.

  • This is for customers? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EggyToast ( 858951 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:27PM (#11725893) Homepage
    If this is for customers, why does it read like it's focused entirely on reseller's problems? While I understand that there are people who have been unlucky with Apple products in the past (such as the G4 MDD problems, iBook logic board problems, etc.), they seem like one of the best companies when it comes to actually repairing and fixing things under warranty. And the reseller gripes leave out an important element -- the Apple stores offer similar prices yet a much better shopping environment. The people there know their stuff, there's very little pressure to buy, and they're happy just letting you use the computers or chat tech with them if they're not super-busy. Nearly every "boutique style" computer reseller takes the opposite approach. I've never been in a small-time reseller that actually felt like I'd want to spend time there and talk to the people, whether they sell Apple or PC products. I know that's just anecdotal, but the Apple stores offer up stiff competition for even PC resellers, let alone Apple resellers. I think the real question is whether the companies like Small Dog and MacMall are really feeling a hit in their business. AFAIK, they're not part of these lawsuits.

    • Re:This is for customers? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Colol ( 35104 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @12:20AM (#11726921)
      I think the real question is whether the companies like Small Dog and MacMall are really feeling a hit in their business. AFAIK, they're not part of these lawsuits.

      Indeed. The fact that they're not involved may well be the answer in and of itself.

      Even when you consider the plaintiffs (claimaints? whatever) alone, it's rather telling what's probably going on: MACAdam is almost universally known for how much they sucked, so it's no big surprise Apple "ran them out of business."

      I also like the bit from TFA claiming Apple Stores were selling product to consumers at 8% under retail price. I don't know what alternate planet the owner of the also-infamous Elite Computers was shopping on, but I've been shopping at my local Apple Store since it opened in 2001 and they've always charged full price (unless you count the one day a year they offer a pittance of a discount on iPods).

      Heck, I generally don't shop at the Apple Store for non-Apple goods simply because their prices aren't (and never have been) competitive. When I want something Apple makes, though, it's always a nice place to go play with it first without any pressure, and just shoot the breeze with the sales staff.

      I don't shop at my local Mac reseller because my experiences with them have not been pleasant. They're either clueless or aloof or trying to cram products down your thoat. Assuming they even have what I want in stock. Therefore the Apple Store gets my business. If the local resellers would bother competing, I could be bothered to shop there. But as many people have mentioned repeatedly through the TellOnApple fiasco, there are a ton of awful independent resellers.

      Imagine, the gall of Apple for opening their own retail stores and charging full price when a network of inept third parties were doing nothing positive for Apple's bottom line or brand.
      • My experiences have been similar- I buy everything I need online these days for the simple fact that the local mac reseller is a 30 minute drive outside of the city and they SUCK. They charge full price for five year old games, 300$ for 120g firewire hard drives, their third party software selection is vestigial, I know more about the hardware I'm taking in for servicing than their so-called "support staff" (it helps that I don't REEK OF POT SMOKE), and gear we've taken in for servicing has come back with

  • Breaking News! (Score:5, Informative)

    by dwightk ( 415372 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @11:19PM (#11726687) Homepage Journal
    This Article [law.com] might be interesting... apparently there is some trouble with the lawyers in the case...
    The named plaintiff in the suit was an attorney with one of the firms.
  • Commodore did something similar to it's resellers back in the day. We were selling Amiga 500's just fine, until they decided to sell huge quantities to the Mail-Order guys. I remember reading a magazine ad and realizing that people were getting Amiga's from the mail-order houses for LESS than I was as a reseller. It was just wrong.

    Never thought about a class action suit tho.

    Nipok Nek

  • Not about customers, it's about the resellers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mstroeck ( 411799 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @05:00AM (#11727781) Homepage
    Frankly, I could not care less. RTFA, this is not about customers, it's all about the resellers. As a customer, I want to buy products as cheaply as possible and without delays. I do _not_ care where I buy them from.

    I don't see why there is all the fuss about some tiny resellers closing shop because of Apple's opening of its own retail stores. Apple is a publicly traded company, for God's sake, they have much more of an obligation towards their stockholders than towards their whiny resellers. You tend to make more money for your shareholders when there are fewer people taking a cut.

    I understand that it's something of a tragedy for those directly involved, but for customers it is more or less irrelevant. Apple is far to insignificant (market-share wise) to warrant all this attention. Go and buy a Windows PC if you don't like their practices. A company with low single-digit market-share should be legally free to open shops and undercut their resellers as much as they want, all those resellers are free to sell a myriad of other hardware and software products.

    Morally, it's questionable of course, but these lawsuits? Please ...
    • I'll have you know that an Apple Authorized Reseller that I am VERY CLOSELY affiliated with once grew from a single store to three, making it the largest reseller in 5 states. At our peak, Apple started opening retail stores. We were somewhat worried, but then Apple reassured us that our sales would not be hurt in the long run. Less than a year later, they opened a store FIVE MILES AWAY from one of ours, and we had to close down shop. That was 2003. Recently, Apple opened another store very close to one

  • Oh, for Christ's sake! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 20, 2005 @10:27AM (#11728597)
    Apple only opened their own stores in the first place because the dealers were doing a lousy job! If the dealers were adequate, would Apple spend the hundreds of millions of dollars that it took to launch a whole new retail chain?

    Some dealers did a good job and they're still in business today. Others, like MacAdam and Elite Computers, were dingy, slipshod operations with a very poor record of customer satisfaction.
    • I agree, it's nearly the same position VW was in just after they came out with the new Beatle. During the 80's and most of the 90's they'd have some very serious declined and had stopped their dealership design standards for a host of reasons. Well as the became a more high profile car maker again they now had all these dealerships that looked like they should be selling Yugos or something. Of course dealerships are extremely expensive properties but their working with them to improve and modernize. They ha

  • Apple Eliteism? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ReallyTweakin ( 695722 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @11:36AM (#11728873) Homepage
    I have been using personal computers of one sort or another since I was sixteen; I'm forty two now. Thats right, I started with the TRS80 Model I from RadioShack :)

    Since the death of CP/M, I've been a diehard PC user, and not always a happy one. The absence of an assembler and linker in the OS was a harbinger of dark times for those of us who were assembler programmers when windows finally rolled out in a (questionably) useable form.

    Late in '94 I found the Internet, or maybe it found me. Within a month I had wiped windows from my box and replaced it with linux (slackware on a 0.98 kernel if you're interested).

    As of one year and eight days ago I became the owner of a refurb dual proc 1.25GHz G4.

    I can tell you that I am in love with this machine, and I can tell you that while the design of the hardware certainly plays into it, cosmetics are not my first requirement; it's all because of OS/X. This OS is what linux wants to grow up to be. And the spit and polish represented by Aqua/Cocoa/Carbon are at the core of the benefits of OS/X.

    As a result of my experiences with OS/X I have made the switch from linux to FreeBSD on my server; and I have to say, as I work FreeBSD on an old wintel box and OS/X on the Mac, the differences are quite apparent; FreeBSD ala Apple and FreeBSD ala carte are very different beasts, the Mac being far simpler and easier both to use and to administer.

    The reason I've gone through all this preamble is to qualify my next statement: until about the time of the advent of Panther, which I consider to be first release of OS/X refined enough for general use, Apple simply had it mostly wrong. The insistence on a price point that alone made them a nich market product, the insistence on hardware and operating system software that were not only proprietary but closed, is so backward that were it not for all the substance of it, it would be not unlike the emporor's new clothes.

    Sometime recently though Big Steve drank the right cup of electric coolaid. The iPod is a device of sheer genius. Not in its design, its implementation or its pricepoint; these features had all been clearly defined by the market place well in advance of Apple's offering. No, the real power of the iPod for Apple is as a marketing device, where it has introduced literally millions of PC users who would never have considered buying an Apple product to the company, just in time to push the Mac Mini under their noses. This has the potential to be a one-two punch for the WinTel world that should have them all shaking in their boots.

    If I haven't made myself clear, I'm really impressed with Apple these days, their products are solid, their support is solid, and they seem to have finally gotten the company on track to become the major force in the market that it should have been all along.

    Maybe it has something to do with Big Steve returning home to roost.

    Anyway, given the success to date since the advent of OS/X, and the consistently right moves made since with the iPod, iTunes, and potentially the Mac Mini, its a no-brainer that the litigious in the world will spare no opportunity to haul them into court for whatever they can get for it.

    All I can say is, go Apple, go Steve, keep up the good work, and don't leave us in the lurch this time.

    Peace
    ReallyTweakin
  • isn't it? not that it wasn't before.
  • Didnt we already go through this sillyness with the infinite lifetime support agreements?

    these certainly are not the same thing... what makes them worthy of a suit ? I've had apple repair all my stuff that breaks.. I'm not quite sure what their problem is.
  • I find it extremely ironic that tellonapple.org is using a .Mac account to host it's videos...

    http://homepage.mac.com/macadamservice/iMovieThe at er11.html -- http://tellonapple.org/quicktime6.php

    And moreover, the video is absolutely ridiculous
  • In regard to the prior suit by the Apple-authorized resellers:

    If Apple is truly engaging in unlawful (or unfair) business practices, or broken a contract, such as underpricing their product sales to their stores, then the the resellers may have a claim.

    But is that really the only problem?

    There was previously an Apple-authorized reseller near my home. The store went out of business three or four years ago. Prior to that, I shopped there on occasion but generally found that there prices were much higher th
  • 1) Introduce new products available instantly on your own store to fanatic consumers who will buy anything and everything you make
    2) screw your long-time resellers
    3) ???
    4) LAWSUIT
  • From my perspective, I haven't really felt any impact as a consumer. The "resellers" are losing the mark-up but the savings are helping the consumer base. I think class-action might not have much if it's only a few vendors complaining. If they can argue that Apple's practices hurt the consumer, then they'll have more teeth. But, otherwise, that's pretty much the way the business cookie crumbles.

  • Pick your battles (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nicademous ( 857607 )
    God knows I LOVE my Mac, but resellers complaining about Apple stealing their ideas is like a hooker crying about the color of bed sheets. When you've got Olaf the thunder stud dumping STD's across your face, you've got bigger problems to conted with.

    Apple's resellers need to stop wasting time in the court room and start selling some fruit. Apple's got less than 5% market share, and I can't hardly wave at people with PC's.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close