MPH

About

Username
MPH
Joined
Visits
0
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
36
Badges
0
Posts
12

Reactions

11Like5Informative

  • iPhone 7 Plus Intel or Qualcomm modems at crux of small claims court victory over Apple

    MPHMPH
    riverko said:
    Well, did he recorded what he exactly asked and what he was exactly told? Or he just stated what he thinks he asked and what he recalls to be told? Used to work on the other side of the shelter so i can remember, that people often think they asked something and they didn’t. Of course he won, because in these cases the consumer is taken as the weaker one so he’s the one who gets it right. But yet again - i wouldn’t be so strict to blame the Apple Store only
    I didn't record the audio of the transaction, but I have never, ever bought a carrier-restricted phone in my life. I made it clear this model needs to work on all carriers (like the previous 6S model) and was clearly told it would. Then it didn't.
    muthuk_vanalingamairnerd

  • iPhone 7 Plus Intel or Qualcomm modems at crux of small claims court victory over Apple

    MPHMPH
    smiffy31 said:
    tht said:
    Apple store rep messed up and all they needed to do was change the phone to a Qualcomm modem one.

    It could be the buyer was a jerk and no communication between himself and Apple could have ensued. Well, in that case, they both messed up.
    Easy to just change a 2 YEAR OLD phone for a new one because he said it should work anywhere !

    I bought the phone in October 2016, and tried using it on Verizon in January 2018 - 15 months, not 24. And I asked, and was told, that the phone I purchased would work anywhere. That's exactly why I bought it.
    muthuk_vanalingamairnerd

  • iPhone 7 Plus Intel or Qualcomm modems at crux of small claims court victory over Apple

    MPHMPH
    JFC_PA said:
    Promised in writing he could submit as evidence? OR a sales rep made an oversimplified mistake, possibly out of ignorance, while the actual written tech specs documented the fact of their being multiple versions. 
    I was using T-Mobile at the time. I asked for a carrier unlocked phone. I was told this was. I paid for it and got the receipt. It clearly stated "AT&T". I said I don't use AT&T and was told not to worry as it was carrier unlocked and would work with any carrier. I think the Apple Store sales rep didn't understand there were two separate models of this device and their intricacies. I am attaching my receipt - no where does it say what modem or carrier limitations it has.
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • iPhone 7 Plus Intel or Qualcomm modems at crux of small claims court victory over Apple

    MPHMPH
    robin huber said:
    A nation of the opportunistic aggrieved. 
    Perhaps, or perhaps I just didn't get what I paid for. And when I complained about it, I was told to leave the store.
    muthuk_vanalingamairnerd

  • iPhone 7 Plus Intel or Qualcomm modems at crux of small claims court victory over Apple

    MPHMPH
    GeorgeBMac said:
    This all relates back to a central question:
    "What exactly did he ask for and what exactly was he told when he bought the phone?"

    This term "unlocked" has had multiple meanings throughout the years and created grey, muddy waters for most people.  And, for most in the general public, they don't even realize the waters are muddy.  They don't even know that there is a question to be asked.

    Back in the day, a carrier would "lock" a device to their network until you had paid off its 2 year contract.  Essentially, the phone and the carrier were inseparable.   Later, as people started keeping phones longer, carriers were required to remove that lock (aka "Unlock") the phone after it was paid off.

    Meanwhile, nobody explained to GENERAL PUBLIC that certain modems would only operate on certain networks and certain bands.  It took me 2 months to get that point across to a friend of mine. 
    ... But, there was still a difference between "unlocked" and able to operate on "any" domestic carrier. 
    .........In fact, there isn't even a term to describe a phone as able to operate on any carrier!

    Apple has defaulted now to calling those phones "SIM free" -- which technically means it doesn't come to the Apple Store with a SIM card in it!

    I think that Apple could have done better to explain these technicalities to there customers and helped to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.  I suspect that this lawsuit relates back to that.  The customer thought he was buying a phone that would operate on any carrier while the more tech savvy Apple Store employee simply sold him an "unlocked" phone without clarifying that it was restricted to only certain carriers.
    I made it very clear that I needed a carrier-unlocked phone for my business. I bought what they sold me. At the time, I was not aware that the 7 Plus had two models of unlocked devices - one full unlock and one partial.
    airnerd