magman1979

Have as much experience as I do with ALL of the other brands listed, and knowing how shitty they are, I find it astonishing the index value between them is that close!

I can only think of two possibilities why that is...

1) This data is "sponsored", which is often the case, or
2) The majority of consumers really have become so inept that they cannot tell the differences, and we've firmly moved into the "it's good enough" mentality

spice-boy said:

MplsP said:

spice-boy said:

wonkothesane said:

Good luck finding that difference. 

This is about a contact Apple has with its customers, Apple did not follow its own agreement. 

Please read the verbiage and tell us how they did not follow the contract. 

It doesn't matter how I understand the contract, I am not a lawyer but a judge says Apple is wrong here.

OMFG, please tell me you’re not that dense... Can you not think for yourself???

Go read the F’ing agreement, specifically focusing on the part about replacement devices, and maybe have Wikipedia or a dictionary open while you do it so you can grasp what is being said there...

BTW, the judge has NOT said Apple is wrong here; all the judge has done is grant class-status to the case, THAT’S ALL! There is ZERO claim of guilt on the part of any plaintiff!

MplsP said:

spice-boy said:

wonkothesane said:

Good luck finding that difference. 

This is about a contact Apple has with its customers, Apple did not follow its own agreement. 

Please read the verbiage and tell us how they did not follow the contract. 

This guy is trolling, I’d just ignore him...

Gulaak said:

It's interesting to see how Apple fans turn on Apple customers when they may have been wronged. The Apple apologists sure do come out in droves when their reverent Apple is "attacked".

This guy is trolling too, they always come out to waste their time doing crap like this instead of trying to be productive members of society, if they can be...

"According to plaintiffs, the practice conflicts with Apple's own documentation, which promises replacements that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability."

This, right here, is plain English as far as I can make out...

Now, here is what Wikipedia says about refurbished electronics...

"The main difference between "refurbished" and "used" products is that refurbished products have been tested and verified to function properly, and are thus free of defects, while "used" products may or may not be defective. Refurbished products may be unused customer returns that are essentially "new" items, or they may be defective products that were returned under warranty, and resold by the manufacturer after repairing the defects and ensuring proper function."

Thus, there is ZERO false marketing by Apple to customers, as their statement of "equivalent to new in performance and reliability" EXACTLY describes what a refurbished item is!

Another fucking pointless lawsuit by scumbag lawyers! When are these a-hats going to face prison time??? Oh, and throw in the idiots who bring forward these types of claims because they're too stupid to read ENGLISH and just want a quick buck!

Too late, your credibility is ruined, and damage is done.

Your app went into the trash bin the moment I finished reading the first few paragraphs of the disclosure, and was even happier I trashed it after finishing the article!

You're dead to me now.