Slashdot Mirror
Australian Buyers Say They Were Told "No iPad Without Accessories"
CuteSteveJobs writes "Australian iPad buyers have been forced to buy all manner of unnecessary add-ons, including screen protectors, docking stations, covers, chargers, and extended warranties, due to a reported official Apple policy. Shoppers reported sales assistants said it was 'company policy' or 'Apple policy' to sell the devices only with accessories, or not at all. A store manager for Authorised Apple Reseller JB Hi-Fi said it was 'a bad policy but it was Apple's policy and they couldn't sell one without it.' Other customers were told they must 'buy a Telstra SIM because the iPad is locked to Telstra,' even though it wasn't. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission and Consumer Affairs are investigating the complaints."
Not so hard to believe, but I think it's more likely that the retail shops are pawning it off as Apple's doing. It's probably just what they've been told to say. If you asked corporate of those stores, they'd probably justify it by saying "Apple forced us to by not letting us have enough of a margin on the product, so we need to sell accessories or we're practically selling them at a loss!"
As bad as I think Apple is and can be, I *know* corporate retail is worse.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
This was a large consumer chain making up requirements so they could pawn off high margin 3rd party accessories and blaming apple for them. This included the need to buy power adapter to charge as contrary to the box there was no power supply.
Why are you assuming Apple really did any of this? Has it occurred to you that these resellers are simply making whatever excuses they need to for their backroom distributor/vendor deals to shine through?
Do you think it's impossible for a salesman to lie?
Why is this modded a Troll?
If you're running 10.5 Leopard, Apple sells an upgrade to 10.6 Snow Leopard for $30 (US). If you're running 10.4 Tiger, the same upgrade CD works, but Apple tells you to shell out $169 for a "Mac Box" containing Snow Leopard plus unwanted copies of iLife and iWork. Apple does have a tendency to push combos.
Yes I think it's fairly obvious it's not official Apple policy since you can, in fact, buy the iPad from Apple themselves in Australia (online or in an Apple store), and they do not have such a policy...
This is just the retailer (JB) realising that demand for iPads is so high that they can get away with making a bit of extra money by telling desperate consumers that they'll have to buy some extra crap with it - the customer will usually still make the purchase. When you (or your sales staff) are paid on commission, it's very tempting to do this kind of thing.
Having said that, they won't get away with it. The ACCC is one of the toughest consumer watchdog organisations in the world when it comes to this kinda crap (and IMO is one Government department that is WELL worth the money spent on it!)
Why should Apple be doing this? They aren't doing this anywhere else. My first thought is dishonest retailers or dishonest salespeople being paid on commission but only for higher-margin (for the store) accessories.
That's what pisses me off the most. If you don't like the seller's terms, don't buy the damn iPad. There are other places to buy it - online especially, but other stores as well. Walk out, do some research, then buy from someplace that isn't going to ask you to spend another $150 just to get out the door.
Even if you can see through the bullshit at that store & persuade them to break the "policy", you're still supporting them by buying there - and the next 100 customers may not be so lucky. The store will make up that money they lost on you by getting it from some other sucker.
This "current netbook" whose display you compare to the >$1000 iPad's is only about $300.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The right to free speech.
Then they reconsidered an offered him a refund, but only if he signs a lifelong gag order (non-disclosure agreement).
Have you considered that if the NDA is legal, then free speech isn't a right in this case? Over here in the states, free speech is guaranteed to never be deprived by the government... but private industry has no such limitation.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Now what Apple's doing isn't illegal, and what the Bondi store's doing probably is, but ethically, they are certainly close enough to hold hands.
No, they aren't. Two totally different things. JB advertises an item at a certain price, but they refuse to sell at that price... you must buy extra stuff. Apple has always said that the iPhone can only be used with AT&T, and OS X can only be purchased for a Mac, and that apps can only be purchased through their app store.
You might not like it, but it doesn't make these things the same or even similar.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
So basically, you performed an armed robbery. Guess what happens next? Hint: it involves sirens and flashing lights.
And of course this assumes that another employee or customer doesn't also have a firearm and blow your brains out when you start threatening people with yours.
Thus proving that the rules for getting it are too lax.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You'd be 100% right apart from one thing - the fact that he's totally making it all up.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If you're not trying to be threatening why are you exposing your firearm to the clerk?
it's people like you that give gun owners a bad rep. Why don't you go get a penis enlargement, and put your gun away until you grow up. Dousche.
I want to shoot the messenger!
Obviously this tied selling scam originated within the retailer, whether at the salesman or managerial levels, we have no idea. Considering though that commission on accessories are a salesman's best friend and the profit margin on marked up accessories are very lucrative for retailers, both would benefit from this policy. However, since tied selling in instances like this is generally illegal, I doubt the retailer as an entity would ever approve a policy like this. Most likely, this idea was hatched from a greedy little salesman or department manager so they could afford new spoilers for their shitty tuner cars.
>>>So basically, you performed an armed robbery.
No I didn't. In my *imaginary* scenario I never removed or even touched my gun - it's just hanging there inside a holster. And I did not steal, because the iPad was paid for ($530 cash handed-over for a $529.99 item). So what exactly can I be charged for? Nothing. No laws have been broken by me.
I suppose one could argue the store refused to sell the Pad, but that itself is a crime (discrimination), and the owner would be guilty not me.
Hold up there cowboy. I too have a concealed carry permit and I do carry. Everyday. I don't know where in particular you are, but most everyone who has commented is partially wrong.
technically, yes, you have broken a law, atleast if you're in the US. As said before it is brandishing, and you'd probably have your permit revoked. But no, someone else with a permit wouldn't have the legal "go-ahead" to blow your brains out.
I also agree that you wouldn't be committing a robbery of any sort (armed or otherwise) since the money was handed over. However, most private shops have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as it's not based on race or whatever. If you have a firearm, they can ask you to leave and come back without it. They could also refuse service to you because you are wearing blue, and no that is not illegal.
ps. I am a non-attorney spokesperson........ j/k
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
To be succinct, that's horseshit.
The UK iPod owner was not forced to sign the NDA, he made the choice to do so in exchange for a new iPod. If anything, he whored himself out for new gizmo.
This ain't rocket surgery.
You are the exact type of person that should not be allowed to carry a firearm.
I hope your boss reads this.
i like that term. none held a gun to there heads and said BUY IT.
The usual contrived argument that regularly appears in response to stories like this. I'm sure that everyone (including yourself) understands the implicit subtext that they're forced to buy the accessories *if* they want to buy the iPad.
Of course, perhaps you accepted that but meant it to tie into this...
just don't buy whine and all will be fixed
...another tedious chestnut that appears like clockwork whenever a company gets criticism for sales practices or goods people don't like.
Some people assume that the freedom of others to not buy their favourite company's latest product (i.e. "don't like it, don't buy it") somehow exempts that product/company from criticism. Well, it doesn't.
I'm perfectly entitled to voice my opinion of the iPod, Apple's selling practices, or anything else, even if I have no intention of buying it. Even those buying the iPad (to a lesser extent) have the right to criticise aspects they don't like, though they can't really complain that they didn't know what they were getting into if they did nor that they didn't accept Apple's policies.
But to get back to the point, "don't like it, don't buy it" isn't a valid response to criticism. It's a free world, and both buyers and non-buyers are free to criticise Apple or anyone else for questionable sales practices. To echo the original implication, if companies don't like that, they're free to not sell their goods.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
If the neighbor got the first call off and said "OMG HE PULLED A GUN ON ME FOR NO REASON" the cops are probably going to respond. I've never had to draw or display a weapon in a deterring fashion, but if I did, I'd probably report the interaction to the local PD just so I get my story in first. Plus I know the local cops which helps.
No I didn't. In my *imaginary* scenario I never removed or even touched my gun - it's just hanging there inside a holster.
Your implied meaning was very clear- that you would use the gun to back up your position in the dispute. If you hadn't meant that, then you wouldn't have shown them the gun in the first place.
Even if you hadn't intended using the gun- and no-one in the shop is obliged to "know" that- the implicit threat is clear.
(This is- I assume- why "brandishing", AKA "menacing" is considered a crime, as others pointed out.)
Your clearly implied argument "oh, I just *showed* them the gun, I didn't *do* anything" is patent BS, in the same way that the stereotypical mafia guy ("nice business you have here... it'd be shame if anything... happened to it") was "just" admiring someone's shop.
If you genuinely don't see that, then you're an idiot. And depending upon whether or not you would actually act like this in real life or were just hypothetically mouthing off, you're either an Internet Tough Guy or a psychopath, or both.
You know that you're full of it when other gun carriers and self-declared libertarians condemn you for your irresponsible attitude.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
It doesn't threaten anyone, or shouldn't, but it is brandishing, which is an offense and should be.
Exactly, and it's something I once got in trouble for doing. The following is a true story:
One day years ago, I had been having some trouble with a drug-addled neighbor. It had escalated throughout the day and finally reached the crisis point around 7 PM, when I though he was going to come in through my window and cause harm to my wife, a dinner guest and I. I ran into the bedroom, grabbed my Mini-14 and made sure he saw it as I racked the action. The guy left, but a while later, I noticed the motion sensor light in front of the house had come on. Thinking it was my neighbor returning for more trouble, I peeked out through the blinds only to see that it wasn't him, it was several police officers. Armed police officers, one of whom had his M-16 pointed right at me. Trust me when I say that that's not a good feeling.
In short, all three of us in the house were ordered out, handcuffed and sat down on a wall while the PD sorted the whole thing out. In the end, I wasn't arrested or anything--in fact, the cops said it was my neighbor's fault--but I learned that just showing a weapon can be considered a crime under certain circumstances.
Your problem was: not calling the police before hand, complain about your neighbor, and tell them he was acting like he was going to break thru your window to attack you. That you were scared for the safety of your family and your guest, and that you were going to get your gun out for safety, and could the police come take care of this dude before he broke into your house.
Sure, you don't like to narc on people. I was brought up like that, deal with your own problems, don't go crying to others about it. Guess what? That don't mean shit in the real world. I found thru working, any time you do something someone doesn't like, they go crying to the boss. And since you don't, it suddenly looks like your a dick because peeps are complaining about you, but you aren't complaining about them.
And I'll give ya some info about druggies, mainly since I used to be one. They don't like cops just showing up out of the blue. They don't care when they know they are coming and can get rid of all illegal stuff that might be on them, but if they aren't expecting them? Usually it goes bad for them.
Sure, I know, you own a gun and you wanted to look tough for your wife and house guest, but look what happened? You got treated like the criminal at first.
I hope you learned the lessons this incident taught ya, because you weren't in the wrong, you just didn't do it like society wants us to do it.
Be seeing you...
This idiot can be condemned because he's a walking talking shitting argument for gun control.
When I was six or seven years old and was first introduced to guns by my grandfather, it was reinforced many times the power and danger of a firearm. The most important lesson ever taught me is that you never point a gun at a man unless you have every intention of doing it. To me that extends to displays that you carry one. If you're going to expose your holster, it's to tell someone "I can shoot you."
To do that because some twerp at a big chain electronics outlet tries to scam you into buying unnecessary items for your iPad is a sign of some sort of sociopathic tendencies, and such a guy should not be permitted to carry or own a gun.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Stores that require that you buy OTHER items to get item #1, are in violation of consumer protection and pricing laws. They advertise an iPad for $499 - they have to sell you the iPad for $499.99. The end. It's called "bait and switch" to make the customer buy all kinds of other accessories on top of that price.
I would have laid down my $500 cash on the register, plus $30 for tax, said "I've paid", and walked out the door with the iPad. No way am I going to let some retail shit manager screw me up the ass by forcing me to buy extra junk. Baiting-and-switching is illegal. And of course no store would press charges, because the judge would end-up fining the store a few thousand dollars for violating the law.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yet it still escalated to the point of M16s, handcuffs and being marched outside. Land of the free indeed.
So when you call the police to report somebody pointed a gun at you, you'd expect a lecture that you were living in the land of the free.
No wait, you wouldn't have called the police in the first place, you'd shoot anybody who looked like he might point a gun at you, right?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The UK iPod owner was not forced to sign the NDA, he made the choice to do so in exchange for a new iPod. If anything, he whored himself out for new gizmo.
Soooooo.... in other words, Apple thinks that human rights and consumer rights are somehow mutually exclusive, and you can not have one while having the other?
And demanding a replacement for a defective product still within warranty is called "whoring out" these days?
If you have to give up your human rights to have your basic consumer rights upheld... that, if anything, shows that the company has a problem.
In a reasonable world, people should the right to get the replacement for a clearly defective product if it's still within warranty - and have the right to speak their mind about that matter.
How does showing the gun holstered on my hip "threaten" anybody? It has not been aimed, or even unsheathed. It's simply there.
If you're not trying to be threatening why are you exposing your firearm to the clerk? it's people like you that give gun owners a bad rep. Why don't you go get a penis enlargement, and put your gun away until you grow up. Dousche.
It occurs to me this is why we are losing our freedoms. Politicians know they have nothing to fear from us. [etc]
Smooth, and (ironically) just like a real politician.
Your reply doesn't actually respond to what he said (criticising your position)- probably because there *is* no response that hasn't already been panned elsewhere in the thread- and instead implies he's said something else, giving you the excuse to shift the ground of the argument and make a speech about politicians that makes you look good (rather than bad, as any continued attempt to defend the indefensible would have).
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).