XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: nospam@nospam.invalid
In article , badgolferman
wrote:
> >> Give the
> >> consumer the choice of what to do with their purchased device rather
> >> than trick them into buying new ones.
> >
> > nobody is being tricked into buying new phones.
> >
> > in fact, it's the very *opposite* of that.
> >
> > 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 Applešs.
nope, they settled. further, no court can overrule the laws of physics
(although some have tried).
> What Apple did was
> sneaky and limited the consumeršs control over their own device.
how did it limit their control? what apple did wad intended so that the
user's device did *not* unexpectedly shut down, thereby making the
device *more* useful. further, sudden shutdowns risk data loss and
hardware damage in extreme cases.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
