- Last Active
lorin schultz said:[...]
Mike and Malcolm say that the world works best when consumers have choices, including the particular brand of service Apple offers. I agree. What I'm finding troubling is Apple's trend towards trying to eliminate everything BUT its own brand of service. I appreciate Apple providing me a way to verify the security of my device after service. I do NOT appreciate Apple making it the ONLY option, which they've done with the Home button and the Mac verification routine. If I decide to compromise security to save money, like for an older device relegated to limited duty, that should be my choice. Apple is not my mom.
The discourse regarding repairability is much more complex than most realise, and I suspect there are many implications being overlooked amongst most of the debates that are being had.
This tip/article is way too complicated, having to re-train Siri every time.
All you have to do on a modern iPhone (the requirement AFAIK is one that supports "Hey Siri" on battery power) to stop Siri activating is place the device face-down.
Similarly, "Hey Siri" functionality is disabled when the device is placed into low-power mode.
Why didn't the article mention those two simple tips, before instructing users how to turn off and on "Hey Siri" functionality?
maciekskontakt said:Since when is ABC news is reliable source on technical and legal issues? I would not rely on ABC (like many otyher major media sources) to give public reliable and precise nswers. We have seen this many times over years and especially recently.
In any case allow me to quote to you the relevant parts from the legislation:
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Cth
54 Guarantee as to acceptable quality
(a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and
(b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction;
there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.
(2) Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as:
(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and
(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and
(c) free from defects; and
(d) safe; and
as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).
(6) Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if:
(a) the consumer to whom they are supplied causes them to become of unacceptable quality, or fails to take reasonable steps to prevent them from becoming of unacceptable quality; and
(b) they are damaged by abnormal use.
So a consumer cannot claim that the goods were not of acceptable quality and therefore demand a replacement or repair under the law, if the consumer has caused them to become of unacceptable quality such as arguably through performing or obtaining a botched repair.
The consumer has rights they can hold the repairer to under the guarantees relating to the supply of services in subdivision B in the same document.
douglas bailey said:The issue must have been that Apple said, 'no we won't repair it.'
Presumably, if they said, 'yes we will repair it but it will cost you because you took it to someone who was unauthorized to work on it,' they would have been ok.
But honestly, if the ACCC thinks Apple should foot the bill for the repair after someone else has screwed it up, that's crap.
That fact is noted in this ABC news article.