singularity

ksec said:

Well If they closed the tax loop hole, would there be any more incentive for Apple to continue investing in Ireland?

tenly said:

I don't have the time or energy to reply to all of you individually - so this comment is directed to all of those who have blindly sided with Apple's approach of bricking the phone in response to this type of "tampering".

First of all - you don't even know for sure whether bricking the phone in these circumstances are what Apple intended to do.  By calling it a "glitch", they are acknowledging that it is in fact NOT working exactly as intended.

As many of the smarter forum members have opined, there are a number of responses that could have been applied in this situation that are less severe YET STILL 100% SECURE!  But since you don't understand how any of this stuff actually works - or what needs to be protected - you blindly over react.  You're the same people that welcome "perceived security" over "real security" and probably think that all of the security measures in place at the airport actually make your flights more secure - even though they've been proven time and time again to be a waste of time and money whose ONLY value is to provide the PERCEPTION of security!

It's people like you - people that welcome extreme over reactions to perceived threats (real or not) that are going to be responsible for giving away ALL of our privacy and freedoms in the not so distant future.

Should Apple protect my data?  Yes!  Absolutely!  Should they do so by bricking my device?  ONLY IF NECESSARY!!!  And in this case - ITS NOT!!!  There are several levels of response/reaction that could be applied here that would protect your data while still allowing you to use your device!  If you lack the intelligence to know what those responses should be - just shut the hell up - or go ahead and demand a solution that protects your data APPROPRIATELY.  Don't pretend you know what the solution is and demand specific things when it's so very obvious you are responding solely out of fear and ignorance and that you don't have a clue what *should* be done.

Divisionbell said:

Wow scumbag patent trolls are being awarded a ton of money for being the scum of the earth. Yay for Texas. You're so awesome....

charlituna said:

cnocbui said:

No, the crack was probably initiated in the factory and was initially hard to see.  It could have grown just through finger pressure.

I doubt it. A crack like that would have no impact point and Apple would likely have covered it just like they do with iPads and iPhones that have a single hairline crack with no impact point. 

And if you look at the actual quoted article they keep mixing up impact and scratch. that's two different things. And no cosmetic damage caused from use is not covered. So the claim is questionable. A scratch as visible as the photo given wouldn't just magically pop up. one would have to have dropped it on the floor or banged it against something which isn't a defect at all. Apple has never claimed any of their products are impact or scratch proof. The judge seems to have a bug up his butt over this big company 'doing wrong'. But given that Apple will make the money back in less than an hour they weren't going to risk negative PR by pushing it. Sometimes it's just better to roll with the 'defeat'

"A judge at Aberystwyth County Court ruled that the company breached the contract of sale by refusing to repair or replace the watch as it had been falsely advertised.

As a result have changed their description and removed their claim that the watch is resistant to impact."