8 posts • joined Saturday 29th August 2009 10:11 GMT
Sale of Goods Act
Not just fit for the purpose intended, but also of satisfactory quality (what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory). And it matters not a jot what Steve Jobs says - he can say the phone can actually increase the efficiency of your hot water boiler if he wants, but it doesn't affect your rights under the Act. Plus, the Act puts the responsibility on to the retailer, not the manufacturer, to refund or replace the item (your choice).
And if the retailer refuses, you can insist on the phone being sent away for an independent evaluation, although I can't remember who pays for it - probably you up front, with the retailer refunding if it goes your way, but don't quote me.
I'd love to see someone try it.
Just how badly does Apple have to treat customers before the balance tips people away from buying their stuff?
No more bricks
Every firmware update since 3.0 has almost bricked my iPod Touch and I've had to use iTunes on XP to get it back as the recovery drivers refuse to work on Win7 (or Vista before it).
Looking at the Apple forums shows that this is a common problem but Apple as usual won't even acknowledge it, let alone fix it.
Until this issue is sorted Apple can stick its update a mile up its California-tanned botty!
Re Kid admin?
I'd say yes they do, judging by the appallingly unprofessional message given.
Commercially sensitive or comemrcially intended
I can only see one reason for considering as commercially sensitive the average amount that youngsters are prepared to pay for music and that is that UK Music is intending to start their own business selling music. If they aren't out to make money themselves, why is it commercially sensitive? Oops!
Someone's front room?
I especially like the ordinary sofa and the obvious radiator draped with a cheap throw and a couple of wooden elephants. Looks to me like an unusual and modern attempt to get some quick comedy fame.