capserghst42

I do not like WebKit browsers, which is why I’ve been using Firefox for years. I used to use Safari but the changes they made a few years ago, turned me to use FF full time. Even on my i devices.

I am still using 1P6 as I found 1P7 horrible, even with the full license. I’ve been moving towards to enPass for years and will probably do so when I’m forced to upgrade due to is compatibility. 

Looks like they will have some explanation to do in the EU, as per GDRP a company has to inform customers when a data breach has happened. Could end up being a very expensive thing.

The UI of Outlook on Mac have never been great, but the new UI introduced with the last updates is just plain horrible. It’s fat and it basically looks like the IOS version just on a MacOS.... not great, absolutely not great. 

apple ][ said:

spice-boy said:

Apple must do the same when selling in other countries. 

Not necessarily.

Apple has a lot of weight to pull around, and just because certain countries have anti-business rules and practices in place, that does not automatically mean that Apple must consent.

Apple has various options, such as getting them to change their rules or raising the prices of devices in that country to cover the added costs of their retard rules.

I think we all know that Apple might not have as much might out side the US as they would like to have - or let people think they have. The EU have realled in all the big Tech companies one after another. Especially if you produce hardware then you need to follow some really strict laws. The same goes if you sell stuff in California.

And Apple have more often than most been told that their repairability of their products are really not good.

But I think people are getting this completely wrong, the law is there to protect the consumer, and also the producer. Apple is also protected, it is very difficult to sue them for defective products, and there is nothing like in the US where thousands of complainers can be pliled on a court case which would cause the company to pay out millions in damages.

I have been following the case (on and off); in essence  it it not legal to hand back a "refurbished" product if it's not possible to repair the old one - we are only talking about products which break where it was not supposed to break (jumping on your phone validates the warranty). You cannot give the customer a worse product than he/she had prior to the product stopped functioning - which is why Apple was told that it cannot replace a "non-working" phone with a refurbished phone - as the value of it is less than then phone which stopped working. They are allowed to repair it and replace parts with new ones, as the product there by does not loose value. They only have to replace it if they cannot repair it with in a satisfactory time - which normally legal wise in Europe is a couple of weeks, of longer if they cannot get the parts, but they then have to suggest to pay up, or replace with a new phone. 

It's been like that for ages in this part of the world. And if you think Denmark is bad, then look at Italy.