- Last Active
radarthekat said:The article suggests the lawsuit will center on the definition of refurbished. Really? The lawsuit should focus on evidence, if there is any, that proves the refurbished product she received was NOT functionally equivalent to new. I'd be very interested to learn what aspects of an electronic computer device, which runs all the exact same software at the same clock speeds, etc, could possibly be defined as not functionally equivalent to every other one in existence.
Maybe the speaker surface has deteriorated and will not last as long as a new one?
Maybe she can somehow ascertain there's only 4,322,568 more clicks of the Home button where a new Home button would yield more lifetime remaining clicks?
But these are inconsequential, as a person with AppleCare could simple get another replacement should some physical part wear out sooner than a new one would have. And These examples would not be supportive of her case, as functionally equivalent implies a part's current status, not its remaining lifespan. If pressing the Home button on a refurb feels and functions the same as on a new device, then it's functionally equivalent. Even if ten presses later it dies, though that would speak to the equivalent reliability aspect. So let's see if this is where the lawyers go.
I am thinking with all of this FBI stuff, they may have to appear in places. Best to give it an extra week.
sog35 said:I'm 100% okay with this.
If the hacking method involves physical access to the phone.
If I lose my phone or it gets stolen I can easy do device lock.
What I'm TERRIFIED about is a hack that can be done remotely without me knowing. Those type of hacks could be used by Russia and China or ISIS. Those type of hacks can be done on MILLIONS of phones at the same time. Physical hacking does not bother me because I will KNOW my phone is open to attack and I can do something about it.