Class Action Agents Apple Over G3 Performance

sounds like those listed apple computers had problems running some version of OS X....probably 10.1....hmm, it's not very clear though.
 
If you bought Mac OS X (10.0/10.1) for your early G3 based system and didn't use it, are willing to return your copy, and promise not to install Mac OS X on that system in the future, you are eligible for a refund coupon.

I have systems that are covered... but this doesn't apply to me. ;)
 
RacerX said:
If you bought Mac OS X (10.0/10.1) for your early G3 based system and didn't use it, are willing to return your copy, and promise not to install Mac OS X on that system in the future, you are eligible for a refund coupon.

I have systems that are covered... but this doesn't apply to me. ;)
Click to expand...

i received a letter in the mail about it. there was a lawsuit brought against them because OSX didn't support hardware based DVD players in some G3 computers (I have an old 400mhz powerbook that fell victem)
 
Yes, it does deserve a lawsuit because Apple promised support for certain kinds of hardware configurations, which they ended up dropping in the end -- and that left MANY people with MANY machines out in the cold because they couldn't use basic features of their computer with the new OS, specifically, their DVD drives for DVD playback.

It would be like if Apple promised and then dropped support for internal CD-R drives and only supported SuperDrives. That would warrant a lawsuit because CD-R drives came standard on MANY Mac models, and it would be ridiculous to ship a computer and then cripple it with a software upgrade. I'm not talking about dropping support for 3rd party drives here, I'm talking Apple promising to support and then dropping support of factory-standard equipment.
 
I agree that it deserves a refund, but shouldn't these be good general rules for a refund anyway? If it didn't work, and you're not going to use it because it didn't do what the promises said it would do then you can get a full refund. If it can be shown that Apple intentionally pulled a bait and switch then truth in advertising becomes the issue.

The refund isn't a shame, the refund is proper. It's a shame that it came to a lawsuit on many levels.
 
Another question is that if Apple is such a great company, then why did it take a lawsuit to get them to fix the problem?
 
I believe they didn't fix the problem, jhawk. ;-) However, that's not news anymore. I dunno... There'll certainly a point in time when Apple will stop supporting my iBook G3/800. Maybe 10.4, maybe 10.5. I'll sure hate it (if I'll still have that lil' book by then), but I'll get over it and either stay at the not-latest OS or buy a new 'book.
 
jhawk28 said:
Another question is that if Apple is such a great company, then why did it take a lawsuit to get them to fix the problem?
Click to expand...

Part of the problem... better support for built-in graphics for early models, was finally included by 10.1.5. In the case of 10.2.x, my PowerBook G3 (1998) ran much better then it did with 10.1.5, but this suit was for the original purchase of 10.0/10.1 (and not the additional purchase of 10.2).

Like I said, I don't qualify because of the following line:

  • Apple will pay to Settlement Class Members who did not regularly use Mac OS X on their Covered Products...
And I did regularly use Mac OS X (and still do) on my Covered Products.

:rolleyes:

On the other hand, I wonder if half the reason Apple stopped supporting those very same products in Panther was a direct result of this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top