Slashdot Mirror
Apple to Accept Returns of Mac OS X on Some G3s
An anonymous reader writes "A class-action lawsuit was filed over Mac OS X not working correctly on some of the older G3's, and Apple has tentatively agreed to refund the purchase price of the OS ($129) to people who purchased it for use on those computers, and wish to return it." The agreement is not final. If you wish to continue using the OS on your computer, despite it not working fully, you can instead receive a $25 coupon. The deal will, apparently, apply to the iMacs through the fruit-colored models; the pre-chiclet iBooks; the PowerBook G3s; the first three Power Mac G3 models; and the all-in-one Power Mac G3.
...you mean the toilet-seat cover iBooks?
bananas like monkeys.
How come you have to class action these companies to be responsible. Isn't there laws that say they need to deliver on their product claims. I am about ready for some tougher legislation I pretty much feel powerless as a consumer and I doubt I am alone. Although this particular mac issue doesn't affect me.
***I GOT NUTHIN***
so . . .
Apple said in Tuesday's court filing that it "continues to vigorously deny all of the material allegations" of the lawsuit but is willing to settle to avoid the costs of continuing to fight the legal action. An Apple representative declined to comment further.
. . . but . . .
"If you are completely dissatisfied (with Mac OS X), you can return it and get your money back," Ferlauto said. "If you want to keep OS X, but are kind of annoyed that you don't have full support, you can get (a $25) coupon."
. . . and of course, the winner is . . .
Apple has also agreed to pay up to $350,000 in legal fees to King & Ferlauto.
everything in moderation
....It just works!
do() || do_not();
Windows NT won't work on my PCjr. I'm going to sue.
Nice troll, but its a pretty simple case of Apple not delivering on promises it made in order to get people to give them money.
If you had a G3, were promised OSx would work great, and your video card is STILL not supported (and Apple said now they changed their mind, it never will be) PLUS you can't play DVD's on your OEM DVD drive (same situation) then you might want the $129 you spent to "upgrade" back as well.
That is why they are settling, idiot. They are basically admitting they fucked up.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
A software maker granting a refund for a product (even if it is under threat)? I can hear the fuses popping in certain brains in a nameless northwestern city.
Seriously though, this tells you a lot about the both the Mac community and Apple. The machines are so good that people are able to file a lawsuit due to expecting X performance on a machine and not getting it, and expect to have a case. Wow.
Personally, I doubt Apple deserves this (I mean, come on - older machines tend to not be supported as well, and early releases of software are know to be less solid than later ones.) But it does say a lot about the Apple World.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I'll put the $125 from Apple towards the $700 SCO says I owe them!
Trolling is a art,
I'm in partial agreement with this case. While I currently use Jaguar on a Powerbook DVI, formerly I used earlier versions of OS X (10.0 and 10.1) on a Powerbook Lombard (the model with the bronze keyboard). While DVD players were an option with that model, the one I purchased (or rather, the university I work for purchased for me) was the model with the DVD reader. Thus, I used it quite a bit to watch DVDs in OS 9 and was pleased that I could do so. I took it on a few trips and carried entertainment with me.
... we'll have to see. A partial refund was more my expectation since a lot of other features DID work as advertised, but hey, I can use the cash for a discount on a new iPod (I want the backlit-buttons version in part because I plan to use it in my Volkswagen, and the red illumination of the controls in the car matches. It'll look really spiffy. :) )
When 10.1 came out it was quite a big deal that it finally added DVD viewing support, and there was no mention of the fact that it was not going to work fully as advertised on all systems. In fact, Apple made a big deal of the fact that you could run OS X on a lot of older systems going back to some of the old beige towers (I'm pretty sure about that) and implied in the "usable on older systems" was the fact that all features would work as they were advertised to on all of those systems. I was in full expectation that all of the features would work, and I can't possibly have been alone.
I was quite disappointed to discover that apparently hardware acceleration, which I have long been told from many sources is actually better because it offloads a lot of the processing tasks onto the video system instead of the CPU, was actually the reason why DVD playing did NOT work. I couldn't play DVDs -- if I tried I'd get a message stating that my system wasn't compatible -- even after Apple released a DVD player update! How was I supposed to fix this? "Go buy a new Powerbook". That was unacceptable given the fact that Apple had always given the impression that OS X would be fully supported on G3 systems. That apparently meant "some G3 systems" even though no qualifiers were printed on any preview materials.
I'll be returning my discs for a refund since it didn't work as advertised (which did bother me) and because I don't use OS X on that old Powerbook anymore. It's just relegated to Photoshopping in OS 9. It sounds like what I've seen so far is indicating a full refund, which I won't argue with if true
The point of this case was (rightfully) that if there are going to be exclusions for "it works with existing stuff" the exceptions need to be listed so nobody ends up disappointed like I was. It's just fair. It's a real shame there had to be a lawsuit to make it happen.
i am a soviet space shuttle
...are the minimum specs for a reason. I wouldn't expect much out of Windows Xp with its minimum specs of running a 233mhz Celeron with 128mb ram. Newer OS run faster on faster equipment. Trying to run the latest and greatest OS on older equipment is a trying experience. In general I would recomend sticking with the OS the computer came with, its cheaper, and most likely beter suited for the machine. It may sound like Apple is being all great by refunding all or part of the purchase price, but they're only doing that 'cause they got sued.
You mean Apple actually has to accept returns of it's product, when it doesn't work? Like, if there was a warranty or something? This is a sad and black day for the software industry, maybe one day we will even have to act responsively...
How about just not reading the comments if you don't feel theres anything worthwhile to say?
Why?
I applaud this insightful comment. This is the very reason that every news post needs to allow comments. If this had been locked, we would have never realized that it should be locked.
If it wasn't for the lawyers nobody would get anything.
They did all the work they should get most of the money.
War is necrophilia.
They way I see it, the consumer is definitely coming out on top with this one.
ANd I don't see any issue with the lawyers getting some money for their "win" (qualified, of course, because Apple vigorously denies all the material allegations... but hey, I like to save face in public, too).
Let see, without those lawyers and their legal fees (who only work on contigency) let me calculate what you and the average consumer would get back. Let's see, add for the user base, divide by 2, carry the 1.... ah yes. ZERO DOLLARS and zero cents.
You can get all of your money back! Or if you still want to use it, you can get some money back!
That is what I like to call having your cake and eating it too.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
I use one of the "pre-chicklet" iBooks. (I'm running OSX 10.3 Jaguar on a 466mHz G3 iBook SE with 384MB RAM) Other than it being a tiny bit slow, OSX works great.
I think this is really a statement about how Apple's customers have come to expect so much from the fruit company... yeah, Apple said they would support G3's. And they do. It's just when you try and scrape by with the minimum recommended requirements, things don't usually work as well as you'd like.
Sure, refunding the purchase price on a product that didn't work as expected is understandable, but it's too bad it had to happen in court. I guess that's just the way of doing things these days. Too bad.
It seems better than par to me. The usual outcome to this type of suit is the lawyers getting millions rather than a few hundred K, and the customers getting no cash, only a rebate on a future purchase (ie, an inducement to give more money to the folks who ripped them off). The Zip disk "Click of Death" lawsuit, for example, ended up like that.
Under the circumstances, a refund seems like a reasonable outcome for the customers involved. I'm not bothered by the lawyers' fee, either. It's much smaller than I expected, and they appear to have earned it by really representing their clients, rather than just throwing them a bone & running off with all the money.
- iBook: P1 (aka ToiletSeat, 1999), unsure about P1.5 (ToiletSeat2, 2000).
- iMac: Bondi (aka RevA & RevB, 1998), LifeSavers (aka RevC & RevD, aka 5 Flavors, 1999).
- PowerBook G3: Hooper (aka original, 1997), MainStreet/WallStreet (aka G3 Series, 1998), Lombard (aka Bronze, 1999).
- PowerMac G3: Beige (aka Gossamer, 1997), All-in-One (aka Artemis, 1998),
Not covered:I've seen basically two kinds of posts in resoponse the the article. There's been Mac zealots who are lauding Apple for "taking responsibility," and there have been people slamming them for false advertising. There have also been several "OMG APPLE IS TEH SUX" trolls and jokes of various degrees of wittiness, but that's to be expected.
First things first. Apple is not "taking responsibility" for all those users out there with poor OS X support. They are refunding them, and doing so to settle a lawsuit. Taking responsibility would be adding full support to OS X. Their settlement sounds pretty fair as far as class action suits go, but it's not done out of benevolence. As has been pointed out before, Apple is a company, and its motivation is primarily money.
Second, Apple's advertising in this matter was not exceptionally shady. They said they'd support G3s, and it turns out that they do not fully support all of them. The OS runs on these G3s (which are below the recommended minimum specs), but poorly, and doesn't fully support their hardware.
Fine. All companies advertise in language like this. Plenty of laptops are in various Linux distros' supported lists, but don't have power management support. If you think promising to support something and then doing a half-assed job is bad, look at advertisers that get away with what would be called a lie anywhere outside a court.
This case is neither a big win nor a big loss for Apple. It does not show that their character is particularly good or evil. Give it a rest.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.