XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: walterjones@invalid.nospam
badgolferman wrote
>> limiting peak demands *extends* the useful life of people's existing
>> phone so that they *don't* need to buy a new one.
>>
>
> Apparently no courts agreed with your case nor AppleĒs. What Apple did was
> sneaky and limited the consumerĒs control over their own device.
Hi badgolferman,
Remember: Apple only tells the truth when forced to, in court.
What's critical for you to realize is these iKooks don't even realize that
it was only a small subset of Apple iPhones that were affected by this.
*Which means _every_ excuse they foment "about batteries" is bullshit*
Not only that, but they ignore that Apple could have done the right thing.
But Apple chose to save their own skin by _secretly_ throttling devices.
*What Apple _should_ have done is own up to their design incompetence*
*And then make the customer whole by replacing the batteries on a recall*
That is what a reputable company would have done, don't you think?
That morally acceptable response would have not only shown that Apple does
care about the customer (which clearly, Apple does not); but it also might
have been less expensive than paying the billions of dollars it cost them.
Why do you think the iKooks are completely ignorant of the logic above?
--
I ask adult questions on this child-like Apple newsgroup in the hope that
an adult response is possible from the people who post to this newsgroup.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
