Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Man sues Apple over Time Capsule data loss

Apple

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Kway

Kway
  • Proud to be a Brony

  • 1242 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:56 PM

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...le-lawsuit.html

A Surrey, B.C., man is suing the Apple computer company for $25,000 after his Time Capsule backup drive crashed, taking with it a year of photographs including those showing the birth of his first child.
In his suit filed in B.C.'s small claims court, Perminder Tung says he bought the Apple Time Capsule in June 2009 and used it to back up two MacBooks and an iPhone.
...
In his claim, Tung is suing Apple Canada for just over $25,000 to replace the hardware and to compensate him for the loss of recorded memories like the birth of his first child.


Apple sued for a HDD failing after 3 years and losing "backups" of irreplaceable data.

#2 Hydrogen

Hydrogen
  • Neocodex Co-Founder

  • 22213 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:10 PM

The guy had all his data on one drive? :/. Hard drives fail. It's a fact of life. Still, it will be interesting to see the outcome of this case.

#3 Romy

Romy
  • Neocodex Elite Four Member


  • 4876 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:28 PM

Wow....thats really idiotic of him. I usually keep 2 or 3 backups of my info.

I wonder if he will actually get the money though.

#4 Soak

Soak
  • 58 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:39 PM

Those time capsules are reallyyyyy prone to failure as far as I'm aware. If you read the comments on the product listing on the Apple website it's a common problem, usually after 18 months of purchase. However, yeah, most people don't sue.

Will be interested to see what happens.

#5 Melchoire

Melchoire
  • 5284 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 June 2012 - 09:57 PM

Perminder Tung

Indian first name, asian last name. I wonder where he's from...

#6 Morph

Morph
  • 55 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 11:58 PM

I think the guy makes a decent case. Sure, the pictures were supposedly precious to him and maybe he should have made more than one backup. But how much does he really know about this kind of thing? Maybe he's just a simple dad trying to retain a lot of cherished memories with his kid. Supposing this is true, and knowing the way that Apple obviously talks up all of its products, if he were to go to a store and find this magical "Time Capsule" hanging on a shelf, claiming huge storage size and awesome protectability right on the front cover of its packaging, what do you think he would do? Purchase this one, plus two others just to be safe? Naw, I doubt it. It is a "TIME CAPSULE" after all. You put something in it and leave it for a hundred plus years underground, in a storage room, etc. and it withstands everything it needs to for the next generation or one after to find it and the things inside it unharmed. Why would something that claims to be the technological file-saving equivalent of this turn out unable to take even a handful of pictures/videos/whatever and keep them safe for several years? I didn't read up on the actual article or anything, but I think it's definitely possible this guy was simply blindsided by Apple and their over-advertised product in this case. If not, then I'm sure many other unsuspecting non-tech-savvy people were taken by surprise when they spent a fortune on one of these Time Capsules. They don't expect to need more than one. So regardless, it's at least a good thing it's being thrown out into the open a bit more with this lawsuit, and maybe Apple will actually be forced to make some changes to some things.

#7 IcedEarth

IcedEarth
  • 724 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 12:52 AM

People have always told me that if you don't have 2 other copies of your data then it doesn't exsist. I'd be upset if I lost my stuff but I'd only blame myself for not backing up properly.

#8 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:20 AM

From the Apple Website

It automatically backs up everything, so you never have to worry about losing your important files.



Is this persons claim silly, yes. Does he have an actual case? Yes.

No where in Apples packages or brochures does it ever say "This does not guarantee that your data will remain save, make sure that you have more then one of these". All that Apple ever does is talk up their product and not worry about the rest. For people on the forum here, this seems logical "well yeah, backup shit to more places". But every day I deal with at least 10 people who don't even know they should have 1 backup, much less more then 1. Whenever I purchased an external HD that came with backup software, the very first thing that I read was a warning that told me that backups are not guaranteed and you should make sure you have more then 1 backup of important files.


As a tech person, you kick yourself when shit like this happened. "Ahhh, fuck. I knew I should have saved that file to this other hd to". When you don't know anything about computers, you sue the person who promised your data would be safe.

I feel Mac users who get viruses should also sue Apple. Even if they don't get away with it, it will teach Apple that they can't just say whatever they want, and it will raise awareness for people who Apple products that they are not virus immune.

#9 Hydrange

Hydrange
  • 504 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:51 AM

I can look too ignorant, because I am not an Apple user but, what Apple calls "time capsule" is what the rest of us call "external hard drive" or am I missing something? I could google it but I am too lazy ...

#10 Senrath

Senrath
  • 305 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:08 AM

It's a combination external hard drive and wireless router.

Edited by Senrath, 15 June 2012 - 07:09 AM.


#11 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:11 AM

Perminder Tung

Indian first name, asian last name. I wonder where he's from...


But India is in Asia. :p

#12 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:22 AM

It's a combination external hard drive and wireless router.


No.

It is not a wireless router.

#13 Senrath

Senrath
  • 305 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:54 AM

Um, if it's not a wireless router, then what is it?

Edited by Senrath, 15 June 2012 - 07:54 AM.


#14 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:55 AM

Um, if it's not a wireless router, then what is it?


An external hard drive with wireless capability....

At best, it would be a wireless switch.

Edited by iargue, 15 June 2012 - 07:57 AM.


#15 Senrath

Senrath
  • 305 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:03 AM

It allows wireless access to the internet, and also has 3 LAN ports and a WAN port. It also allows port forwarding and other router features. How is that not a router?

#16 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:07 AM

It allows wireless access to the internet, and also has 3 LAN ports and a WAN port. It also allows port forwarding and other router features. How is that not a router?


Because it doesn't have the features that separates a router from other internet connectivity devices.

It is a base station.

#17 Senrath

Senrath
  • 305 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:10 AM

...everything I can find says that wireless router and wireless base station are interchangeable terms.

#18 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:19 AM

In my opinion it is both, technically it is a Wi-Fi base station which can be used as a router if you connect a modem.

#19 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:43 AM

...everything I can find says that wireless router and wireless base station are interchangeable terms.


And everything in my CCNA training. MCSE, and job as a System Administrator tells me its not a router.

In my opinion it is both, technically it is a Wi-Fi base station which can be used as a router if you connect a modem.


It lacks routing capacity which makes it a switch.

#20 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:44 AM

It lacks routing capacity which makes it a switch.


I'm not pedantic enough to care.

#21 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:46 AM

I'm not pedantic enough to care.


Given that is the ONLY thing that separates a router from a switch, its kinda important :|

#22 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:55 AM

Given that is the ONLY thing that separates a router from a switch, its kinda important :|


Most people would describe it as providing the same functionality as a router regardless of the technical differences. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...

#23 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 June 2012 - 12:09 PM

Most people would describe it as providing the same functionality as a router regardless of the technical differences. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...


It doesn't swim like a duck though. :|

#24 Senrath

Senrath
  • 305 posts

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:58 PM

What are the features it lacks that, say, a Belkin N150 Router has?

#25 Mew

Mew
  • 626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:06 PM

Apple will probably settle out of court.
What's $25,000 to them really ? The change down the back of the sofa.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Apple

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users