3 ms·

The point of this is to teach the company good behavior. Any case has more goals than restitution to the victim. And I think it is actually good lawyers get w

The point of this is to teach the company good behavior. Any case has more goals than restitution to the victim. And I think it is actually good lawyers get well paid here. They are representing public interest and fighting large organization. That's hardly something you or I can do, even assuming you had time to put your life on hold to fight Apple over broken LCD. In a class action like that usually, if it is won, judge orders the company to right the wrong, depending on some estimate of culpability. If they just made an honest mistake they would probably be punished much less than if they did it knowingly. A lot of times it is difficult to show they knowingly deceived customers and that's why you might see those seemingly unfair payouts.

alpaca128 5y ago
> The point of this is to teach the company good behavior Apple seems to have learning difficulties then.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  Well, it is not perfect system. Scale of Apple is such that these actions are probably just calculated risk for them. It is probably cheaper for them to absorb these than improve r&d and production and pay in delaying product launch. And it seems the market is quite inflexible - most people seem to absolutely have to buy it even if it breaks if you look the wrong way at it. Normally repeated class actions should discourage customers, but Apple seems immune to it. Though I would like to see honest numbers of how many units are affected with which fault, then compare to competition. Maybe it is just the case that Apple customers are louder with their demands because the loss was more financially painful to them.
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  People like to think that influencing bad behaviour has to happen bottom up. And while that "may" be true, it's only true, because the people that are actually responsible for enforcing proper rules and protecting the consumers are lazy, slow, or corrupt or all three at once. It's like the old debate of who's responsible for forcing change on plastic production. The consumer buying veggies or the regulators? It's clearly the regulators and companies, even though people like to blame the consumer for not making the right choice. It's how we justify the bad actors behaviour, just because they're more powerful and we want to rationalize it somehow.

alpaca128 5y ago

> The point of this is to teach the company good behavior Apple seems to have learning difficulties then.

lmilcin 5y ago
Well, it is not perfect system. Scale of Apple is such that these actions are probably just calculated risk for them. It is probably cheaper for them to absorb these than improve r&d and production and pay in delaying product launch. And it seems the market is quite inflexible - most people seem to absolutely have to buy it even if it breaks if you look the wrong way at it. Normally repeated class actions should discourage customers, but Apple seems immune to it. Though I would like to see honest numbers of how many units are affected with which fault, then compare to competition. Maybe it is just the case that Apple customers are louder with their demands because the loss was more financially painful to them.
rjzzleep 5y ago
People like to think that influencing bad behaviour has to happen bottom up. And while that "may" be true, it's only true, because the people that are actually responsible for enforcing proper rules and protecting the consumers are lazy, slow, or corrupt or all three at once. It's like the old debate of who's responsible for forcing change on plastic production. The consumer buying veggies or the regulators? It's clearly the regulators and companies, even though people like to blame the consumer for not making the right choice. It's how we justify the bad actors behaviour, just because they're more powerful and we want to rationalize it somehow.