- Last Active
sog35 said:avon b7 said:dysamoria said:Good. There's no telling what's potentially wrong with a refurb that's been missed and when you paid for a new device, you should not be given a not-new in exchange after finding out your brand new device has a defect.
This should be standard, everywhere, for all "replacement as warranty service" situations. If you start with a new product that has a defect, you should end up with a new product without defect as warranty protection against defect.
For mobile devices and laptops/desktops.
No, I don't think it should be mandated for repair instigated by damage. Give the customer an option between actual repair or replacement with refurb. Oh wait, Apple doesn't have the will to do component level repair even though we know it's possible...
The same goes for any repair. Apple never guarantees you will get unused, new parts in repairs. They reserve the right in most jurisdictions to use reconditioned parts. They should also be obliged to hand over the defective piece unless the user expressly states that is not wanted.
They should get reimbursed for the market value of the phone. If they used the phone for 1 year they should get cash back for a 1 year old phone, not a brand new phone.
This is basic common law. The customer already had the benefit of 1 year of use. They do not deserve a brand new phone.
Seems that the lobbyists are making much noise. Anyone well versed in EU Privacy Law and who has read and understood the decision of the EUCJ (the last-instance in EU Jurisdiction ... equivalent to the US Supreme Court) will understand that the "Privacy Shield" is a joke and is hignly unlikely to survive a challenge before that court.
Just for those who don't understand the full picture ... The privacy shield is an administrative act by the EU commission ... and the EUCJ has already determined that the EU Commission is subordinate in legal affairs to the EUCJ.
It is also quite likely that the privacy shield may well be challenged or declared invalid by individual national data protection authorities, independently of anything the EU Commission may wish to believe. In addition to its other findings, the EUCJ clearly stated that such administrative decisions of the EU Commission do not impair in any way the rights and obligations of the national data protection authorities to exercise their full statutory independence. Think about that for a moment or two before getting too excited about the Privacy Shield :-)
It would be very unwise to stake any real hopes that the Privacy Shield will survive ... or any subsequent measure absent meaningful changes to US law. That is the crux of the matter.
Seems odd to me that some people here are getting their nickers in a knot about this. I haven't seen the actual complaint so I don't know if it has anything to do with "monopoly". Nobody else here seems to have seen the complaint either so it's a bit silly to take a position pro or contra. I can well imagine that there may be some legislations or regulations relating to fair competition as in the EU and maybe other countries.
I also doubt that many here have either the ability to read chinese (no, the legal process in China probably doesn't require the documents to be submitted in English ;-) ) and I have even more doubts that ANYONE here has the slightest inkling about Chinese law. It strikes me as the height of arrogance to assume that everything in all aspects of chinese society is directly controlled by "the government". The chinese legal system may be "strange" to some americans, but to assume that it is completely disfunctional is just mindless arrogance and disrespectful of a culture that deserves better ... even if we don't like every aspect of it. I sure do like chinese food better than US junk food :-).
Its pretty senseless to apply American legal concepts regarding commercial and civil law to any foreign jurisdiction, although many americans on AI do that regularly.
So just wait and see what comes out and calm down :-)
awilliams87 said:rob53 said:awilliams87 said:ericthehalfbee said:Trump is missing the point. It's not possible because there aren't enough people with the necessary skills. One example previously talked about by Cook were tool & die makers, an essential part of any product assembly (where you're making a large number of devices). People just aren't going into this trade in the US simply because most products are made overseas. There's no job market.
Is Trump going to allow Apple to bring in thousands of foreign workers because there aren't enough in the US? Is he going to create incentives for people in the US to choose these as a career? Will he allow Apple to delay manufacturing until such time that there are enough people in the US trained in the various disciplines required (which would take years)?
This is not something you can do overnight (if you can at all).
The worst thing about Trump's statement is this one, "Tim, you know one of the things that will be a real achievement for me is when I get Apple to build a big plant in the United States, or many big plants in the United States," which shows he really doesn't care about supporting the country only getting his "star" on Pennsylvania Ave. The President is supposed to be concerned about the people of the US not themselves. All his other hyperbole shows he's simply going to try and do whatever he can to promote big business, including his own, at the expense of all the citizens, including all those who voted for him.