You're a delusional idiot. There are laws that mandate wheel-chair accessibility. Just because Apple puts shiny designs on weak products doesn't mean they can discriminate against classes of people.
How do you think a disabled iraq vet would feel if they tried to enter this store and had these problems. I guess you would call them greedy idiots too?
How does the origin of one's disability or the perceived pluses and minuses of Apple's products have any bearing on this?
Regardless of whether a wheelchair-bound shopper was disabled from birth, hit by a car, maimed in war, or lost his leg in a tragic bass fishing accident - the fact is that this suit isn't well-founded and reeks of money-grubbing. And who cares if Apple 'puts shiny designs on weak products' - that doesn't have a thing to do with it either. Even if this suit was filed against a high-end, legendary, admired retailer like Tiffany or Neiman Marcus how can one claim physical and emotional losses due to difficulty getting around a store?
And Apple doesn't discriminate against a whole class of people in their stores. I've received top customer service from a wheelchair-bound Apple employee at their Pentagon City store in Virginia, and wheelchair-using customers have been able to purchase and use Apple products at their stores for years. The store design may need some tweaking to increase accessibility or some employees need to be taught how to better serve those who can't get around as easily, but Apple doesn't discriminate against these people.
Guess what PK that might be convincing for a geek fanboy like yourself but guess what! When they show the court the law, and then show how the store is in violation of that law, Apple will lose.
As I said, Apple is more likely to seek a quiet settlement, because the longer this plays the more likely Disabled Rights groups will take up this issue and work on a class action lawsuit - which I hope happens. If Apple wants to work in the real world, they have to play by the rules.
It's ironic for you to speak of the "real world" when it's quite obvious that the world you live in is far from that.
These two women are looking for a cheap, pathetic, cash grab. Nothing more! Did you notice where it says "Alleged Violations"? In other words, these two women are trying to make a case out of nothing and haven't even proven that there is in fact a violation being committed.
Perhaps I should go into McDonalds and claim that they are violating my healthy breakfast routine by not trying to dissuade me from ordering 3 Big Breakfasts and 6 Sausage McMuffins.
Pull your head out of your ass and understand the situation for what it is. Two pathetic people trying to make a quick buck!
Nothing like siding with the one voice of reason...
The "alleged" works both ways here. If it's decided that there is no violation, the case is dismissed. If it's decided that there is a violation, these women win and so will every other handicapped person who ever enters this store. If the violations were defined as anything other than "alleged" there would be no question.
Your "alleged" breakfast routine sounds unhealthy, by the way.
is it just me or is there room right behind that last row of stadium seats that people in wheel chairs would be able to park in order to see and listen to the instruction? I know that the Apple Store on Michigan also has room behind the last row for people to stand and watch.. why cant a person in a wheel chair watch from there? I'm not trying to be insensitive, but why rip up chairs that were being used and make big empty spaces when people that are already in chairs could use the pre-existing empty space (where people stand?)
Its just so odd that its been how many years and now someone has complained.. either they are very very touchy sensitive people.. its really not as much of a hassle as they are making it out to be and decided they wanted a payout. If they are looking for a solid case these two women should look into visiting a Whole Foods store that place is impossible to get around in.
@ FreeRange - Can I borrow your rose colored glasses?
As others have already pointed out, there are strict building codes which must be adhered to. I find it VERY hard to swallow that the store would have been built, and no one noticed that it wasn't accessible for differently abled people.
These two women are probably just pissed off because they've had problems with an Apple product and figure this is an appropriate way to get back at them.
I find it amusing that the loudest voices when it comes to discrimination, are generally the biggest hypocrites.
...Khris the violations are listed as "alleged" because its a pending lawsuit & until they win the case the violations are legally defined as "alleged". In America the law is "innocent until proven guilty". If I rob you and 500 witnesses saw me, its still "alleged" until I'm proven guilty in a court of law. Their claims being listed as "alleged" have nothing to do with their validity because the case is still pending judgment! Are you slow or something?
Oh, and you can go to McDonalds and claim anything you want, but if you file a *frivolous* lawsuit they can sue you back and seek potential damages.
I think the main thing that people have a problem with here is that they are suing for emotional losses. Cut the crap you didn't lose anything emotionally from not being able to access the "genius" bar. Instead of going for a cash grab they should be getting apple to make their stores more accesible not suing them.
I defined "alleged" and said your breakfast sounded unhealthy. Where were the glasses rose-colored?
Are you reading anything or just jumping up and down like a moron?
Yes, there are strict building codes and these women are alleging that Apple (or their contractor) did not adhere to them. I'm not saying they won't be proven wrong, just that you don't know what "alleged" means. I'm sorry you learned something today.
I'm sorry that you've completely missed the point that these two women are suing because of "emotional and physical" losses. The only physical loss they have is the use of their legs!
Honestly, how much emotional damage do you experience when you can't reach something on the shelf? Do you sit down on the floor and cry until someone reaches the item for you? Do you run off and write slanderous statements on your blog about the mean nasty person who did this to you? Or do you find another way to get the item you want? OOoo....I'll take option number three please!!
Jesus Christ! The sooner people start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions, the sooner shit like this will be a thing of the past.
The only one making a fool of themselves are the ones who get suckered into thinking these women have actually "suffered" at the hands of the big bad Apple store.
If you had any amount of common sense and rational thought, you'd know that these are two money hungry people looking for a quick buck.
Unfortunately it seems you have nothing left but cheap insults. I'm sorry you've used up your intelligence quota for the day. Try back tomorrow.
I think the important thing that you are missing is not their motivations but their suggestion that apple has opened a store that does not cater to their needs. Whether or not this is the case will be decided by people more qualified than you or I. (I'm assuming you do not work for any governing body that decides these sorts of things or else your argument may have been more apt to the situation). I, honestly, work in a different field.
I would like, in parting (for the moment) to quote something you, yourself, said, "Jesus Christ! The sooner people start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions, the sooner shit like this will be a thing of the past."
You meant it in terms of the two women (how, I don't know, because they are in wheelchairs so I'm unsure how their "actions" are in question) but I'd like to apply it to Apple. If it turns out they did not make their store to code, they should take responsibility for themselves and their actions. The sooner companies make their stores/buildings to code, the sooner they'll be free of frivolous lawsuits.
Haha, so true. You forgot to mention their horrible overpricing of said products.
Anyways, your main point is quite valid. That store should cater to the disabled as well. I have a disabled sibling and it really hurts that often people look down on the disabled as lesser people.
But, since these particular people are seeking compensation and not just accommodations, it seems they might just be gold diggers.
I won't deny for one second that if there are violations on Apple's behalf, they should take actions to correct them. Anything less is unacceptable.
I do feel that the "grounds" for the lawsuit are less than ideal which in turn, leans opinions towards it being frivolous.
Anyone can suffer emotional loss from events ranging from stubbing their toe, to losing a loved one. Perception is reality....the way we perceive an event makes up what we consider reality. What one person deems as an emotional loss, another person may not and that's where things become tricky. How do you properly decide how much "emotional loss" a person has been subjected to by a specific event?
I don't doubt that those two women feel they've been wronged, however I do feel that they have ulterior motives and are using this event to further their quest for monetary compensation.
Had they approached the situation from a slightly different angle, and argued simply that the store does not allow proper access for everyone, I think they would get further. Taking the position that they have experienced emotional and physical loss because of this, is simply their own greed getting the best of them.
Resolution- If uncompliant. Apple makes store compliant, pays city fines. For the customers Physical loss. Give them a power bar. For the customers emotional loss. Give them a tissue.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
-1_thumbnail.jpg)
Emotional and Physical losses?!?! Perhaps they should worry about their current mental state first!
"Never underestimate the power of idiots in a large group!"
You're a delusional idiot. There are laws that mandate wheel-chair accessibility. Just because Apple puts shiny designs on weak products doesn't mean they can discriminate against classes of people.
How do you think a disabled iraq vet would feel if they tried to enter this store and had these problems. I guess you would call them greedy idiots too?
How does the origin of one's disability or the perceived pluses and minuses of Apple's products have any bearing on this?
Regardless of whether a wheelchair-bound shopper was disabled from birth, hit by a car, maimed in war, or lost his leg in a tragic bass fishing accident - the fact is that this suit isn't well-founded and reeks of money-grubbing. And who cares if Apple 'puts shiny designs on weak products' - that doesn't have a thing to do with it either. Even if this suit was filed against a high-end, legendary, admired retailer like Tiffany or Neiman Marcus how can one claim physical and emotional losses due to difficulty getting around a store?
And Apple doesn't discriminate against a whole class of people in their stores. I've received top customer service from a wheelchair-bound Apple employee at their Pentagon City store in Virginia, and wheelchair-using customers have been able to purchase and use Apple products at their stores for years. The store design may need some tweaking to increase accessibility or some employees need to be taught how to better serve those who can't get around as easily, but Apple doesn't discriminate against these people.
@ mr friggles
Hi Kettle, this is the pot. YOU'RE BLACK!
Guess what PK that might be convincing for a geek fanboy like yourself but guess what! When they show the court the law, and then show how the store is in violation of that law, Apple will lose.
As I said, Apple is more likely to seek a quiet settlement, because the longer this plays the more likely Disabled Rights groups will take up this issue and work on a class action lawsuit - which I hope happens. If Apple wants to work in the real world, they have to play by the rules.
@ mr friggles
It's ironic for you to speak of the "real world" when it's quite obvious that the world you live in is far from that.
These two women are looking for a cheap, pathetic, cash grab. Nothing more! Did you notice where it says "Alleged Violations"? In other words, these two women are trying to make a case out of nothing and haven't even proven that there is in fact a violation being committed.
Perhaps I should go into McDonalds and claim that they are violating my healthy breakfast routine by not trying to dissuade me from ordering 3 Big Breakfasts and 6 Sausage McMuffins.
Pull your head out of your ass and understand the situation for what it is. Two pathetic people trying to make a quick buck!
Nothing like siding with the one voice of reason...
The "alleged" works both ways here. If it's decided that there is no violation, the case is dismissed. If it's decided that there is a violation, these women win and so will every other handicapped person who ever enters this store. If the violations were defined as anything other than "alleged" there would be no question.
Your "alleged" breakfast routine sounds unhealthy, by the way.
is it just me or is there room right behind that last row of stadium seats that people in wheel chairs would be able to park in order to see and listen to the instruction? I know that the Apple Store on Michigan also has room behind the last row for people to stand and watch.. why cant a person in a wheel chair watch from there? I'm not trying to be insensitive, but why rip up chairs that were being used and make big empty spaces when people that are already in chairs could use the pre-existing empty space (where people stand?)
Its just so odd that its been how many years and now someone has complained.. either they are very very touchy sensitive people.. its really not as much of a hassle as they are making it out to be and decided they wanted a payout. If they are looking for a solid case these two women should look into visiting a Whole Foods store that place is impossible to get around in.
@ FreeRange - Can I borrow your rose colored glasses?
As others have already pointed out, there are strict building codes which must be adhered to. I find it VERY hard to swallow that the store would have been built, and no one noticed that it wasn't accessible for differently abled people.
These two women are probably just pissed off because they've had problems with an Apple product and figure this is an appropriate way to get back at them.
I find it amusing that the loudest voices when it comes to discrimination, are generally the biggest hypocrites.
...Khris the violations are listed as "alleged" because its a pending lawsuit & until they win the case the violations are legally defined as "alleged". In America the law is "innocent until proven guilty". If I rob you and 500 witnesses saw me, its still "alleged" until I'm proven guilty in a court of law. Their claims being listed as "alleged" have nothing to do with their validity because the case is still pending judgment! Are you slow or something?
Oh, and you can go to McDonalds and claim anything you want, but if you file a *frivolous* lawsuit they can sue you back and seek potential damages.
What a dunce.
Better look in the mirror before you start calling other people names there princess.
You're just full of irony today aren't you? The lawsuit by these two women is nothing short of frivolous.
I'll laugh my ass off when their "Allegations" are proven to be false and they no longer have a leg to stand on.......in court that is! ;)
I think the main thing that people have a problem with here is that they are suing for emotional losses. Cut the crap you didn't lose anything emotionally from not being able to access the "genius" bar. Instead of going for a cash grab they should be getting apple to make their stores more accesible not suing them.
I defined "alleged" and said your breakfast sounded unhealthy. Where were the glasses rose-colored?
Are you reading anything or just jumping up and down like a moron?
Yes, there are strict building codes and these women are alleging that Apple (or their contractor) did not adhere to them. I'm not saying they won't be proven wrong, just that you don't know what "alleged" means. I'm sorry you learned something today.
@ FreeRange
I'm sorry that you've completely missed the point that these two women are suing because of "emotional and physical" losses. The only physical loss they have is the use of their legs!
Honestly, how much emotional damage do you experience when you can't reach something on the shelf? Do you sit down on the floor and cry until someone reaches the item for you? Do you run off and write slanderous statements on your blog about the mean nasty person who did this to you? Or do you find another way to get the item you want? OOoo....I'll take option number three please!!
Jesus Christ! The sooner people start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions, the sooner shit like this will be a thing of the past.
Do you need a hand up from the floor now that your little tirade is over? Can I get you some kleenex to help wipe away those tears?
We can all pretend like you didn't just make a fool of yourself, k?
The only one making a fool of themselves are the ones who get suckered into thinking these women have actually "suffered" at the hands of the big bad Apple store.
If you had any amount of common sense and rational thought, you'd know that these are two money hungry people looking for a quick buck.
Unfortunately it seems you have nothing left but cheap insults. I'm sorry you've used up your intelligence quota for the day. Try back tomorrow.
I appreciate your views but disagree with them.
I think the important thing that you are missing is not their motivations but their suggestion that apple has opened a store that does not cater to their needs. Whether or not this is the case will be decided by people more qualified than you or I. (I'm assuming you do not work for any governing body that decides these sorts of things or else your argument may have been more apt to the situation). I, honestly, work in a different field.
I would like, in parting (for the moment) to quote something you, yourself, said, "Jesus Christ! The sooner people start taking responsibility for themselves and their actions, the sooner shit like this will be a thing of the past."
You meant it in terms of the two women (how, I don't know, because they are in wheelchairs so I'm unsure how their "actions" are in question) but I'd like to apply it to Apple. If it turns out they did not make their store to code, they should take responsibility for themselves and their actions. The sooner companies make their stores/buildings to code, the sooner they'll be free of frivolous lawsuits.
"Apple puts shiny designs on weak products"
Haha, so true. You forgot to mention their horrible overpricing of said products.
Anyways, your main point is quite valid. That store should cater to the disabled as well. I have a disabled sibling and it really hurts that often people look down on the disabled as lesser people.
But, since these particular people are seeking compensation and not just accommodations, it seems they might just be gold diggers.
I won't deny for one second that if there are violations on Apple's behalf, they should take actions to correct them. Anything less is unacceptable.
I do feel that the "grounds" for the lawsuit are less than ideal which in turn, leans opinions towards it being frivolous.
Anyone can suffer emotional loss from events ranging from stubbing their toe, to losing a loved one. Perception is reality....the way we perceive an event makes up what we consider reality. What one person deems as an emotional loss, another person may not and that's where things become tricky. How do you properly decide how much "emotional loss" a person has been subjected to by a specific event?
I don't doubt that those two women feel they've been wronged, however I do feel that they have ulterior motives and are using this event to further their quest for monetary compensation.
Had they approached the situation from a slightly different angle, and argued simply that the store does not allow proper access for everyone, I think they would get further. Taking the position that they have experienced emotional and physical loss because of this, is simply their own greed getting the best of them.
I will concede to your argument. Good show.
@ mr friggles
You're a delusional idiot saying Apple puts out weak products. LOLx3
Resolution- If uncompliant. Apple makes store compliant, pays city fines.
For the customers Physical loss. Give them a power bar.
For the customers emotional loss. Give them a tissue.