According to news reports the district notified Apple about the curriculum deficiencies a year ago. The action Monday was a response to Apple's failure to cure it according to other published reports.IMHO it's actually the district trying to distance themselves from the entire shady project that began with the the way the bidding process was set up to eliminate any contractor but Apple and their partner Pearson from meeting the requirements.
Simple question: Who is the "contractor" referred to in that paragraph?Pretty darn sure that's Apple and thus the contractually-bound party. Pearson was Apple's to deal with and if they can't correct the the deficiency after official notice then the School Board has the right to search for a replacement, up to and including even the hardware that Apple was supplying per paragraph 21. Isn't that how you read it?
Always remember the only things that are binding are written within the bounds of the contract pages. In this case Apple accepted their designation as the responsible party, no matter whether you think they shouldn't have or how Pearson ended up as Apple's sub-contractor.
IMO swapping out TomTom/Teleatlas maps for Here would be problematic at this point. The two mapsets have significant global differences. Apple's POI data and navigation probably won't match up to Here in many places.
So you got the answer to "who settled what in the EU" and don't actually disagree with anything I wrote, much less with the statement that Apple made the right choice to settle to avoid a potential 10% fine.(and a point I thought you too were making). Your issue must be with something Singularity said or didn't say.Well that took awhile.