SMH. How much force would one have to actually pound the strap being changed into the screen to scratch it? Not even sure why band would be in contact with screen. Been wearing my watch daily since I got it day one of release (AW3), on my third band, and zero scratches. Lawn work, car work, wrestling with two large 50 lb plus dogs, landscaping with bricks and gravel, etc. Not one scratch. Banged into car doors, walks, fences. Not one single scratch. Bet if I took an awl and dug into the screen I could scratch it.
Agree the Canadian identification is unecessay. Just as many dumbass gold diggers in the US and around the world. Hence the stupid crap like “Hot coffee is hot”. Now Apple will have to open AW with a screen that reads “if you pound objects into screen, it may scratch”.
It was probably a very expensive model not the cheap aluminium model you all have ߘ馬t;br> Throwing money away on expensive watches, fashion, cars or Vegas trips is a very difficult thing for sensible computer nerds to cope with (speaking from experience), and none of us were happy about Apple entering the fashion market so I think this kind of lawsuit is long over due and I hope he wins and teaches Apple a lesson not to try to sell their loyal customers over priced junk. Double price RAM is the most we’ll pay ߘⰟ肰
You don’t know. If it’s the natural SS model, then it’s more expensive than the anodized aluminum models, which are actually harder to scratch, since anodized aluminum is around 70 Rockwell C, while 316L SS is closer to 30 Rockwell C. That’s a very big difference. But all SS watches scratch, and that includes a couple of $15,000 models I had over the years.
your post is hysterical. If you think Apple shouldn't made nice looking things, then buy ugly things from some other company. But that’s your mental difficulty, not Apple’s, nor their customers’.
Attn: AppleInsider
Lost in here is a more interesting story. Once upon a time, it would be common for an Apple Store to replace an item like this just to make the customer happy. That does not seem to be happening much any more. In fact in my experience, service at Apple Stores is much more customer hostile than it used to be. Try this: Do a poll and ask your readers if they have found that Apple Store service is getting better, about the same or getting worse over time. The results could hint at a real story.
It sounds like this guy is looking for a court to quantify the word “brilliantly.” What are the units of measure that comprise brilliance when applied as a superlative in flowery advertising? Maybe it is “brilliance scale” or BS for short. So is this guy really complaining that there is too much or too little BS associated with the Apple Watch advertising? Based on the limited veracity of this guy’s claim I’d say he has a lot of experience with BS.
If there wasn't a chance of a (negative for Apple) precedent being set, why did Apple offer to settle after the small claims lawsuit was filed? Assuming that part of the story is true, you could say a replacement watch would cost less than sending a lawyer to court to represent Apple but they've never before let common sense stand in the way of settling for fear of encouraging others to do the same.
So why this time? I'd say because there's something to this fellow's claim.
There are two things AppleInsider omitted: Apple does say "scratch resistant", but two lines after they proceed to say "with a refined finish that won't scratch or tarnish". Exemple: can you say "x product is resistant" then two line after say "x product is indestructible"? The second question you should be asking yourself is: why is Apple selling a Milanese Loop with a diamond-like finish that they know will scratch the watch?
Unfortunately this is just the kind of David vs Goliath story that the mainstream tech media will gobble up and plaster all over the Internet. Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait.
If there wasn't a chance of a (negative for Apple) precedent being set, why did Apple offer to settle after the small claims lawsuit was filed? Assuming that part of the story is true, you could say a replacement watch would cost less than sending a lawyer to court to represent Apple but they've never before let common sense stand in the way of settling for fear of encouraging others to do the same.
So why this time? I'd say because there's something to this fellow's claim.
Not necessarily. It’s far more expensive for Apple to defend in small claims than the one bringing the charges. Apple likely felt that spending thousands for their lawyers would be far more expensive than just exchanging the watch.
There are two things AppleInsider omitted: Apple does say "scratch resistant", but two lines after they proceed to say "with a refined finish that won't scratch or tarnish". Exemple: can you say "x product is resistant" then two line after say "x product is indestructible"? The second question you should be asking yourself is: why is Apple selling a Milanese Loop with a diamond-like finish that they know will scratch the watch?
Can you provide a link to Apple’s website where it says that?
FWIW, my wife has had a 2nd gen SS with Milanese Loop and her watch is scratch free. She is constantly swapping her ML for a Sport Band when she works out and then back again. Everything is good.
I’m not an expert, but isn’t there a difference between scratch resistant and scratch proof? Personally, when I see resistant on anything, it doesn’t suggest to me that nothing can happen, it means it resists under normal operation and that something more can cause issue.
I don't know about small claims in Canada, but in the US you can't sue for punitive damages, "lost life", etc. In small claims court. You can only sue for actual concrete economic losses. So you could sue for the cost of the watch, but none of the other crap the guy listed. Canada may be different in terms of small claims court (but I doubt it). The guy needs to be careful the judge doesn't reject the case as not appropriate for small claims.
To the question as to why Apple offered to replace the watch, it is simple. It is less expensive for Apple to replace the watch than to send someone to the court to contest it. I've used this to my advantage a few times against Compaq and Amazon when I had complaints (not with Apple).
Yet I’m sitting here looking at my series 0, 48mm stainless steel w/Milanese loop band bought in June 2015, worn daily ever since, and without a single scratch or smudge to report. How’s that possible if it’s a flawed design?
There are two things AppleInsider omitted: Apple does say "scratch resistant", but two lines after they proceed to say "with a refined finish that won't scratch or tarnish". Exemple: can you say "x product is resistant" then two line after say "x product is indestructible"? The second question you should be asking yourself is: why is Apple selling a Milanese Loop with a diamond-like finish that they know will scratch the watch?
Can you provide a link to Apple’s website where it says that?
FWIW, my wife has had a 2nd gen SS with Milanese Loop and her watch is scratch free. She is constantly swapping her ML for a Sport Band when she works out and then back again. Everything is good.
Comments
Agree the Canadian identification is unecessay. Just as many dumbass gold diggers in the US and around the world. Hence the stupid crap like “Hot coffee is hot”. Now Apple will have to open AW with a screen that reads “if you pound objects into screen, it may scratch”.
You don’t know. If it’s the natural SS model, then it’s more expensive than the anodized aluminum models, which are actually harder to scratch, since anodized aluminum is around 70 Rockwell C, while 316L SS is closer to 30 Rockwell C. That’s a very big difference. But all SS watches scratch, and that includes a couple of $15,000 models I had over the years.
your post is hysterical. If you think Apple shouldn't made nice looking things, then buy ugly things from some other company. But that’s your mental difficulty, not Apple’s, nor their customers’.
But, idiots like these do make me embarrassed to be Canadian
I mean, sue his English teacher. It’s really not Apple’s fault if you don’t understand the meaning of the word “resistant.”
I think it’s funny that the commenter who sided with him wrote “tought” and “fanatism.”
So why this time? I'd say because there's something to this fellow's claim.
There are two things AppleInsider omitted: Apple does say "scratch resistant", but two lines after they proceed to say "with a refined finish that won't scratch or tarnish".
Exemple: can you say "x product is resistant" then two line after say "x product is indestructible"?
The second question you should be asking yourself is: why is Apple selling a Milanese Loop with a diamond-like finish that they know will scratch the watch?
FWIW, my wife has had a 2nd gen SS with Milanese Loop and her watch is scratch free. She is constantly swapping her ML for a Sport Band when she works out and then back again. Everything is good.
To the question as to why Apple offered to replace the watch, it is simple. It is less expensive for Apple to replace the watch than to send someone to the court to contest it. I've used this to my advantage a few times against Compaq and Amazon when I had complaints (not with Apple).