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."

Comments

Get Mick Dundee

[Fluffeh]

He would sort this shit out quick smart!

Re:Get Mick Dundee

[oztiks]

That's not a tablet! This is a tablet!

http://nozama.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ed05fc288330128771bd234970c-800wi

Re:Get Mick Dundee

[Tacticus.v1]

No we need http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Fels instead of the current plant from Howard

Re:Get Mick Dundee

[Lars T.]

He would sort this shit out quick smart!

Yeah, he'd quote the article thusly: "The practice is not sanctioned by Apple either. An Apple spokeswoman said while she could not comment on company policy, “consumers could buy iPads directly from us” without any add-ons.". Then he'd go and punch CuteSteveJobs and timothy in the face for such a flamebait story summary.

bad apple policies

[WarJolt]

no flash... No ads...now no ipad without accessories...it's not so hard to believe

Re:bad apple policies

[twidarkling]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[oztiks]

I went into JB-HI on Friday with the aim to purchase one of these babies. I tell you the top line iPad costs just over $1,000 and is simply not worth it.

The crappy res (nearly a decade out of date), poor website rendering (javascript struggles), the constant blank spaces navigating websites (cause of no flash), and the lack of camera just made the whole experience redundant. Its just a big iPod touch with less features.

IMHO if it was half the price, I would of purchased it for what it was but for its current price and feature list, its just not a smart buy.

http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/38566-five-reasons-the-ipad-will-fail-in-australia

Re:bad apple policies

[Ethanol-fueled]

But if you put on the tinfoil hat, Australia could be a test-bed for Apple trying to determine how much price-gouging* the masses will put up with before they say, "fuck it."

* And the total raping of civil liberties and establishment of a corporate-sponsored police state in general, but who's counting?

Re:bad apple policies

[oztiks]

The first time I used one I found that since all websites use the 1024x768 resolution as a base standard the iPad just made websites look poor. Since 1024x768 (or 990px to include scroll bars) its the minimum of what everyone programs for website borders get eaten and stuff just looks like its been "crammed in".

It would be been so much better if they had it in a higher res and allowed you to zoom like the iPhone/iPod does if the site wasn't legible. Rather, most websites viewed on it struggle to look good because the iPad defaults to the websites bare minimum resolution standard.

For something new and latest, its a bit of a let down. You can argue this point technically all you want, but practically the argument fails.

Kind of like all the hype vs the real thing ...

Re:bad apple policies

[oztiks]

Your Comment ...

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Eee-PC-1005PE-Seashell/dp/B00322PYZO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1276424549&sr=8-1

My comment ...

IMHO if it was half the price, I would of purchased it for what it was but for its current price and feature list, its just not a smart buy.

Well gee thanks for reinforcing my point further! :)

Re:bad apple policies

[PopeRatzo]

Not so hard to believe, but I think it's more likely that the retail shops are pawning it off as Apple's doing.

That's right, but in a way, the Bondi stores that have been perpetrating this nonsense are only trying to take advantage of something Apple has been doing since before the iPhone came out. "Oh, you want the iPhone, well, you'll have to take AT&T with that. Oh, you want OSX, well, you'll need to buy this overpriced hardware with that. Oh, you want an iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch, well, you'll have to buy all your apps from us from now on."

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[PopeRatzo]

This "current netbook" whose display you compare to the >$1000 iPad's is only about $300.

Re:bad apple policies

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Name one civil liberty that apple has raped.

Re:bad apple policies

[Stupendoussteve]

Not to pull teeth, but the netbook costs more in Australia too (though only by around $100).

Re:bad apple policies

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Australia we do business a little differently from the way you do business over there. Also, how many shops can afford to stock the iPad, over there in the trailer park?

Re:bad apple policies

[oztiks]

Here is the same product in australia -

http://www.onlinecomputer.com.au/product_info.php?products_id=3195&osCsid=94d9cee4e4c06d8fd24db4e016eceb38

These guys are not the cheapest by any means either. Eitherway, like i said, iPad's value, 1/2 the price of whats advertised they would of had my money.

Re:bad apple policies

[mustafap]

>*(Before you freak out, I have a concealed carry permit issued by the government.)

Wow, what country do you live in where you can get a permit to threaten shop staff with a firearm?

Re:bad apple policies

[bondsbw]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[rolfwind]

An iPad only costs $500 (no clue in Australia but since we were talking Amazon's US price). So you get pricing for a "top of the line" one and it surprises you it goes up? A 25k Honda Odyssey also turns into a 40k car when you're adding features.

Really, if it doesn't do what you need at a reasonable pricepoint in your opinion -- don't get it!

Re:bad apple policies

[bondsbw]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[erroneus]

* In any place where concealed firearms are permitted, that is an activity called brandishing and you would likely lose your permit at the very least and likely receive a fine on top of that.

On the other hand if you didn't "intentionally" reveal your gun, say at the time you were reaching for your wallet, that's another matter.

Re:bad apple policies

[ultranova]

ME: (opening coat to reveal concealed gun)* "No I don't. You have the money. I have my phone. We're done here."

And walk out the door with my phone. I will not be forced to do things I do not want to do, especially when the store, Apple, or whoever is in violation of consumer protection laws.

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.

(Before you freak out, I have a concealed carry permit issued by the government.)

Thus proving that the rules for getting it are too lax.

Re:bad apple policies

[Hognoxious]

You'd be 100% right apart from one thing - the fact that he's totally making it all up.

Re:bad apple policies

[Anonymous Coward]

On what planet are you paying over $1000 for an iPad? Even the 64GB WiFi + 3G model is under that mark by more than $150.

Re:bad apple policies

[Antisyzygy]

There is such a thing as a Hackintosh. You can install OS X on a self made PC.

Re:bad apple policies

[icebraining]

Don't worry, I'm sure your penis is not that small...

Re:bad apple policies

[commodore64_love]

>>>Name one civil liberty that apple has raped.

The right to free speech. When a UK iPod owner had his device suddenly start smoking and then burn-up, Apple initially denied the problem existed by blaming the owner for abuse. Then they reconsidered an offered him a refund, but only if he signs a lifelong gag order (non-disclosure agreement). They muzzled him.

Granted this is standard practice with most corporations, but it doesn't make it moral. It's the equivalent to if Toyota told the people that testified before Congress, "You are not allowed to discuss how your car refused to stop," and therefore they could not answer Congresses' questions. It's treating citizens like Serfs rather than humans with rights.

Re:bad apple policies

[Barny]

Well, not sure about your local laws, but in Australia (where this story is) you would have police called on you and have the shops silent alarm triggered very quickly if you showed a hidden handgun without a police badge in plain view.

Civs don't get either the right to carry a handgun concealed nor the right to flash such a hidden weapon at a store clerk to prove how big a man you are.

Re:bad apple policies

[ImprovOmega]

Internet tough guy is tough.

Re:bad apple policies

[oztiks]

I completely agree with you.

You have to understand us poor aussies can't really use them as eReaders, we don't even have iBookstore. The other thing is the Tax our wonderful govt puts on the product, we were assured going back 10 years ago that GST was the only tax products would suffer now everything has a sub-category Tax associated with it.

What i would of liked "personally" if the iPad was made for me would be that it would had a camera that works with skype, a bigger screen res, flash, upgradable storage space and a usb slot. Mate, I would of paid $1,500 for something all that.

Everything else in the market supports most of these things, why does Apple refuse to do so? and why do Apple lovers get upset when people say how frustrating it is? really, its freaking annoying, Apple has great tools but they are so limited and its a killer. I don't believe it has anything to do with them "delivering a better product" its utter nonsense IMHO. Its them trying to milk more money for later releases of their product and its not something I really want to be part of.

If you look at the mobile computing market if you spend $500 you get a certain level product, at $1000 you get another, at $1500 another $2000 another and $2500 yet another. Each of them with fairly clear price point advantages, like accelerometers on hdd and 5 in 1 slots, etc.

The iPad its just a few extra gigs and 3g capability, it kind of is petty if you think about it.

Re:bad apple policies

[NekSnappa]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[oztiks]

Its called planet Australia

http://www.jbhifi.com.au/computers/apple-ipad/

Re:bad apple policies

[Hijacked Public]

It doesn't threaten anyone, or shouldn't, but it is brandishing, which is an offense and should be.

Re:bad apple policies

[gyrogeerloose]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[delvsional]

>>>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

Re:bad apple policies

[rtb61]

The retail chains are simply taking the attitude, if they are gullible enough to buy an I-Pad, they are gullible enough to buy the "you must purchase an accessories" yarn. Suck it up guys, baaaaa ;).

Re:bad apple policies

[gyrogeerloose]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[securitytech]

You are the exact type of person that should not be allowed to carry a firearm.

I hope your boss reads this.

Re:bad apple policies

[sv_libertarian]

T ME: (opening coat to reveal concealed gun)* "No I don't. You have the money. I have my phone. We're done here."

And walk out the door with my phone. I will not be forced to do things I do not want to do, especially when the store, Apple, or whoever is in violation of consumer protection laws.

* *(Before you freak out, I have a concealed carry permit issued by the government.)

And you just lost it right there bubba. Or at least in every state I've lived in. Here in Washington we call that "Unlawful use of a weapon to intimidate another", which means you committed an act that manifests intent or warrants alarm for the safety of another person. You in essence were stating that you were willing to used armed force over the consumer sale of a phone. Concealed carry permits are not given out to allow you to enforce the law, but to protect yourself from potentially lethal harm. (Or in many states you are allowed to intervene to save the life or protect someone else from severe bodily harm) YMMV, IANAL. I am a concealed carry permit holder myself, and also often open carry, and am disgusted by the attitudes of people like you. Gives the rest of us a bad name.

Re:bad apple policies

[sv_libertarian]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[securitytech]

If you opened a shirt, intentionally to show off your holstered gun over a fucking ipod accessory, many law enforcement officers would take it from you.

Re:bad apple policies

[insertwackynamehere]

If he displays his firearm in a way which causes the cashier to decide the best course of action is to give into his demands as opposed to correctly do her job than he has obviously threatened her and it is robbery. You think I could flash a gun at a bank after telling the teller to empty the safe?

Re:bad apple policies

[MightyMartian]

If I were a clerk, I'd be phoning the cops. I suspect your "explanation" would carry little weight in a court. An implied threat is still a threat.

Re:bad apple policies

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, its Australia. The chance of anyone having a gun in a store is next to zero

We just headbutt people who give us the shits, then appologise later & buy them a beer

Re:bad apple policies

[couchslug]

You are a disgrace to firearms owners and a thug.

"*(Before you freak out, I have a concealed carry permit issued by the government.)"

Who the fuck ELSE issues CC permits? Idiot. Crawl back into Mom's basement, her strap-on awaits thee.

BTW the way to punish the store is to spit out that Apple-shaped dick and not buy Apple products from them or anyone else.

Proceeding with the purchase would make you a fanboi AND a thug. I'm not sure which is more contemptible.

Re:bad apple policies

[couchslug]

The proper response would be for the clerk to draw faster, shoot him in the face, then call the police to clean up the trash. Another positive outcome for the Armed Citizen column to cite, and the permanent "rehabilitation" of the malefactor by someone in _legitimate_ fear of their life.

OP is a good reason for the rest of us to be armed.

http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/Default.aspx

Re:bad apple policies

[Dragonslicer]

Blah, I swear I didn't select "Redundant". Stupid UI.

Re:bad apple policies

[Lulfas]

A concealed permit is for carrying a concealed weapon. If whatever country/state he is in does not allow people to carry loaded weapons openly, he's committed a crime and will be losing his CCW.

Re:bad apple policies

[Dogtanian]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[Nyder]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[Kielistic]

As long as you offer them five dollars for it apparently.

Re:bad apple policies

[MidoriKid]

The iPad costs $499.

Re:bad apple policies

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[Skuld-Chan]

Apple fan boys have done this for years compare their top of the line to the bottom of the line in PC tech. When my dad was a teacher apple sales people use to compare 10k$ machines to PC's (not even XT's or AT's) with dual floppies. a) that netbook isn't current (and if you want it to be - you can get one for around 250-300 dollars) and b) there are netbooks out there with the capability to display HD quality - http://usa.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=4pE8iOzApxXWWAvF - which in fact has a higher resolution screen than the iPad, is cheaper and can playback 720P video.

Re:bad apple policies

[MightyMartian]

It's a considerable stretch to call a civil court enforcing an NDA are allowing damages for breaking one to be equated with the government limiting freedom of speech. I've signed a few NDAs in my time, my current employer and the one contract I'm still looking after required it because I deal with sensitive data (in one case to do with thousands of clients and their private and personal information, and in the other case to do with a highly competitive industry where the leaking of trade secrets could cause enormous harm). Are you actually arguing that I'm free to ignore the NDA and that if my employer (more likely ex-employer by that point) sues me for breach of contract, they shouldn't have a case because a civil court would somehow restrict my freedom of speech?

This goes into the same category of libel and slander laws. The government creates civil courts for the purposes of mediating disputes between private citizens and organizations. The government isn't imposing limitations on speech in the case where you violate an NDA and the company you made the agreement goes after you, it's imposing the agreement you and the company made in good faith. No one forced you to sign the NDA, you could simply have said no. It might mean not getting a job or not getting some critical information, but that is the freedom. It isn't the same as some government official seizing all copies Huckleberry Finn or Mao's Red Book.

Re:bad apple policies

[gyrogeerloose]

I actually tried to call the police before I grabbed my gun but my call didn't go through. I mentioned that to one of the cops and he looked at another cop and they both nodded knowingly. Apparently, they were aware that there was a problem with the 911 system. The city has revamped their entire emergency phone system since then.

Re:bad apple policies

[therealkevinkretz]

"*(Before you freak out, I have a concealed carry permit issued by the government.)" .... and if you think that permits you to brandish and threaten deadly force any time you see fit, it should be revoked.

Re:bad apple policies

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I agree, the shop has to be brazenly lying about it, it's likely that store's policies and they deflect it by blaming Apple, obviously they're not going to be honest and say it's a seller's market. If it really was Apple's policies, we would have heard it from somewhere else too. The solution is to not shop at that store again.

Re:bad apple policies

[gyrogeerloose]

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.

That's exactly what happened. Once the cops arrived and sorted things out, they immediately took my side on the issue, but warned me about the laws on brandishing a weapon. Given the circumstances, I think they handled it well even if I did end up in handcuffs for a while. They were very calm throughout and actually polite. Of course, we were also cooperative; it's kind of hard not to be when you've got a fully-automatic weapon trained on you.

Re:bad apple policies

[WCguru42]

ME: "No. Now here's your $500 cash plus $30 for tax."
CLERK:"But sir you must buy accessories."
ME: (opening coat to reveal concealed gun)* "No I don't. You have the money. I have my phone. We're done here."

And walk out the door with my phone.

So you feel that instead of finding another place to do business where they don't require the purchase of accessories you'd rather commit armed robbery? You have the right to have a concealed weapon (depending on where you live) and that's fine. You don't have a right to use that weapon to get whatever you want. If the store will only sell you the product if you buy secondary products then that's the breaks. Don't buy from them, voice your complaints, but you're $530 isn't the selling price for that item because you did not purchase the accessory with it.

Is the policy smart, no. Is it fair, most likely not. Does it warrant criminal activity, definitely not.

Re:bad apple policies

[Khyber]

"If you're not trying to be threatening why are you exposing your firearm to the clerk?"

Because I'm trying to get the dumbfuck to suck my dick! I got loads other than lead that he can eat!

Re:bad apple policies

[WCguru42]

Nobody should ever lose the right to speak freely about a device, car, whatever that has caused them harm.

In the Apple case mentioned earlier it appears that Apple refused to give the person a refund unless he said he wouldn't discuss the issue. The person had all the rights in the world to trash on Apple and their product, but he wasn't going to be getting his refund if he did that. This is a prime case of Apple dickery but it isn't a breach of civil liberties.

Re:bad apple policies

[guruevi]

Free speech is not ever to be deprived by anyone but yourself if you choose to do so. If you sign an NDA, you deprive YOURSELF to exercise your right to free speech on a particular matter. On the other hand, such NDA's and other contracts cannot be overly broad as to limit one's constitutional rights in all aspects of life.

Re:bad apple policies

[Khyber]

"technically, yes, you have broken a law, atleast if you're in the US"

Learn your open carry laws as you are dead wrong as well.

And my fiance has a Federal Firearms License, which is TONS more restrictive than your crappy concealed-carry.

Re:bad apple policies

[WCguru42]

I also agree that you wouldn't be committing a robbery of any sort (armed or otherwise) since the money was handed over.

Not an attack on firearms, but if I was to go into a seven eleven and pickup $50 worth of stuff, brandish my firearm and then toss $50 on the counter it would still be robbery. The exchange of money does not change the fact that a robbery occurs. Say I break into your home and take your TV and leave $1000. Still robbery there as well, even though money was exchanged.

Re:bad apple policies

[vertinox]

Name one civil liberty that apple has raped.

I do agree with you there, but this does bring up a valid point about violation of civil liberties through proxy.

Currently, corporations are becoming even more wealthy than some smaller countries themselves and often blur the line of where the corporation ends and government begins with lobbying.

Eventually we might see larger corporations actually censor and violate rights guaranteed by the constitution and those who are repressed by it can not do anything because they are black listed.

Lets say, you said something that a corporation didn't like and they put you on a black list where they wouldn't hire you or service you in their stores. That is usually fine and dandy, except when they are so large or in alliance with other corporations that you can no longer shop anywhere or get a job either because you are globally black listed.

Now this is a dystopian idea of mine, but perhaps it won't be so farfetched in 10 to 20 years.

If nothing else it causes a chilling effect on freedoms today as some people won't say things to upset their employer.

It would be my suggestion that the bill of rights apply to corporations as well so that people can still enjoy their rights when someday corporations are in fact more powerful than the legal bodies that run this nation or are rather in their pocket.

Re:bad apple policies

[nanter]

That is ridiculous. You were in your own home, and you were displaying a firearm to show that you had the means to protect your family. Brandishing a firearm is legal when you are concerned about your own safety. How do you think a concealed carry permit holder can draw a firearm to defend himself? By brandishing it, of course.

I'd have had one serious conversation with the lieutenant of that police department. Brandishing their firearms and detaining your whole family like that was excessive.

Re:bad apple policies

[Pence128]

Yet it still escalated to the point of M16s, handcuffs and being marched outside. Land of the free indeed.

Re:bad apple policies

[BrokenHalo]

dude, its Australia. The chance of anyone having a gun in a store is next to zero We just headbutt people who give us the shits, then appologise later & buy them a beer

(+n Informative.) Except that headbutting people is fucking stupid, since it hurts the butter as much as the buttee. But we have no need for firearms. After all, you can do a lot of damage with a screwdriver, and you don't need a licence for that.

Re:bad apple policies

[gyrogeerloose]

You were in your own home, and you were displaying a firearm to show that you had the means to protect your family. Brandishing a firearm is legal when you are concerned about your own safety.

Right, and that's what kept me out of jail, but it was a good lesson about what's legal and what's not.

Re:bad apple policies

[Pence128]

I wish more wars could be settled that way. rounds of head-butting until one side gets knocked out, and then a huge kegger when they come to.

Re:bad apple policies

[gnasher719]

In the Apple case mentioned earlier it appears that Apple refused to give the person a refund unless he said he wouldn't discuss the issue. The person had all the rights in the world to trash on Apple and their product, but he wasn't going to be getting his refund if he did that. This is a prime case of Apple dickery but it isn't a breach of civil liberties.

Except that if he trashed Apple enough then Apple would probably have had a very, very close look at the iPod in question, and if the problems turned out to be caused by external damage blamed incorrectly on Apple, then he could have been in trouble. Look what happened to the epidemic of "exploding" iPods which strange enough didn't explode from the inside out, but with damage starting at the outside.

Re:bad apple policies

[gnasher719]

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.

Say there are two stores side by side selling iPads. I go to the first store, they say "you can buy an iPad, but only if you buy all this other stuff that you don't want". So I go the the other store and buy the iPad there. That's what is called competition. Now say in the first store they say "you have to buy all this other stuff because it is Apple's policy". I believe it. No point to go to the second store because they would have the same policy, right? But the sales guy lied. They made me buy stuff I didn't want by lying to you. They got my money by lying to me. That's called fraud.

Re:bad apple policies

[commodore64_love]

It occurs to me this is why we are losing our freedoms. Politicians know they have nothing to fear from us. What's the point of saying, "We the people are the rulers," if we're unwilling to back it up? "I'm going to right a stern letter of rebuke," which of course the politicians just throw in the trash.

This is why your MP Conroy ignores you, and keeps plowing straight-ahead towards internet censorship. He knows you won't do anything to stop him.

Re:bad apple policies

[commodore64_love]

And if he had Not signed the NDA, what was he supposed to do? Just turn his blackened $300 iPod into a paperweight? The guy was wronged and Apple owed him a new one. There should not have been any strings attached.

Re:bad apple policies

[Anonymous Coward]

The first time I used one I found that since all websites use the 1024x768 resolution as a base standard the iPad just made websites look poor.

Huh? If the website standard is developing for 1024x768, and the device has a resolution of 1024x768, what's the issue?

It would be been so much better if they had it in a higher res and allowed you to zoom like the iPhone/iPod does if the site wasn't legible.

You mean, like the iPad?

Rather, most websites viewed on it struggle to look good because the iPad defaults to the websites bare minimum resolution standard.

What? Seriously, what?

I'm amazed moderators were able to sort through the broken English to get anywhere. What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Re:bad apple policies

[Mashiki]

That's because two neighbors didn't do the thing that cops are paid to do. Enforce laws, keep the peace, and figure out why two neighbors are fucktards. Both of them are idiots, the one that went for the gun was the bigger of the two. One started pushing, the other pushed back until the other grabbed a gun in a threatening manner. Tip for anyone who has drug-addled nitwits in their neighborhood. They probably know the law better then you do, which in itself a bit of irony. But it's because they've been through the system, or know people who've been through the system and will give away said information/tips.

Angsty teenagers and so on can whine all they want about the cops. But this is a fine example of what happens when things escalate, and you are somewhere that doesn't have castle doctrine.

Re:bad apple policies

[insertwackynamehere]

It doesn't matter how smugly you can act like what you're doing is only interpreted as a threat, when you are on the internet, but I'm sure in an actual court you would be found guilty of something.

Re:bad apple policies

[gyrogeerloose]

And if he had Not signed the NDA, what was he supposed to do?.

Well, if free speech were that big of an issue to him, he should have exercised his right and made a big loud issue of it to force Apple to back down on the NDA. Apparently, he was more interested in getting a new iPod so it's sort of disingenuous to make an argument that his rights were "raped," as you have put it.

Re:bad apple policies

[antdude]

Or there isn't one. [grin]

Re:bad apple policies

[nitehawk214]

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.

I cant see how it is legal. A company screwes a guy out of a lot of money, then offers to give it back as long as he never says anything bad about the company.

So the company gets to gag someone for life for nothing? Sure that is fair.

Re:bad apple policies

[bondsbw]

More specifically, you can buy a license to the upgrade without buying a Mac. Apple does not sell a full retail version of OS X that does not come bundled with a Mac.

Re:bad apple policies

[Lars T.]

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?

Re:bad apple policies

[bondsbw]

They aren't even close! One is talking about fraud... illegal. One is talking about license bundling... which is perfectly fine, and Apple has never been misleading about it.* How do you say these are similar?

*Apple is misleading about some policies, like excluding apps that don't meet certain internal criteria. That's plain wrong, and they should be taken to court over it IMHO.

Re:bad apple policies

[WWWWolf]

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.

Re:bad apple policies

[icebraining]

Then don't sign the NDA and sue them/complain to consumer protection/etc.

Re:bad apple policies

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

*(Before you freak out, I have a concealed carry permit issued by the government.)

No you don't. If you did, you would know that brandishing a firearm is illegal.

Re:bad apple policies

[PopeRatzo]

An iPad only costs $500

Yes, but this conversation started when someone compared the resolution of a "top of the line" iPad with an eeepc. Obviously, you get features on the iPad that the eeepc doesn't have. My only point was that those features all together had to be worth more than $700 to make up the difference.

To some people, they will be well worth it. I wonder how many people are actually opting for the most expensive iPad to the WiFi-only one, which is the one I opted for. But then, where I live, it's pretty hard to find somewhere that's NOT covered with wi-fi.

Re:bad apple policies

[PopeRatzo]

Mate, I would of paid $1,500 for something all that.

I'd have paid $1500 too, if they'd included ten $100 bills in the box.

Re:bad apple policies

[PopeRatzo]

The iPad costs $499.

Do you understand that the iPad costs $1000 in Australia, which is where this story takes place?

Re:bad apple policies

[commodore64_love]

So when the Foxcomm makes its Chinese workers sign a waiver to work over the 60-hour legal limit (or else be fired), they weren't really raping the workers' legal rights. After all they *chose* to sign that form.

/end sarcasm

Re:bad apple policies

[Dogtanian]

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).

Re:bad apple policies

[ultranova]

No I didn't. In my *imaginary* scenario I never removed or even touched my gun - it's just hanging there inside a holster.

You didn't get your way, so you deliberately showed the clerk you have a gun. Please explain what you were trying to do if not threaten?

And I know your scenario is imaginary, like I said you'd be behind bars otherwise, if not dead.

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.

Yes, they have. You were offered the iPad on certain terms (which may be legal or illegal, that is irrelevant). You refused these terms and used threat of deadly force to coerce the clerk to give you an iPod by your terms instead.

You refused store's terms. The store refused yours. No agreement was reached, thus the iPad was never yours, whether you left money in the store or not. Taking something that is not yours from the store is theft. That you used a gun in the theft makes it armed robbery.

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.

The store refused to change the terms of the sale to suit you. That is not discrimination, quite the contrary, it's treating you like everyone else.

Those terms may or may not be illegal by themselves, but that neither makes your behaviour legal nor has anything to do with discrimination.

Re:bad apple policies

[mustafap]

>It doesn't threaten anyone

I must be soft then, cause it would frighten the fuck out of me.

But then, I don't live in such a brutish country like his.

Re:bad apple policies

[nedlohs]

So if there's no threat why are you claiming the clerk's behavior would change?

Re:bad apple policies

[mustafap]

I'm getting the feeling that the reason you have a permit is that lots of people would like to shoot you.

I no longer wonder why.

Re:bad apple policies

[commodore64_love]

>>>To be succinct, that's horseshit.

Okay. Well we differ in opinion. I have observed that megacorps share many of the same powers as government, such as a concentration of wealth to hire security guards, strike-busters, et cetera. Megacorps can not throw people into jail, but they can tie them up for a decade in frivolous court cases and thereby bankrupt the citizen (see RIAA and MPAA cases).

I think we need a Second Bill of Rights that limits corporation in order to protect people from these types of evils. I don't care what a megacorp does on its campus, but when it starts reaching-out its tendrils to abuse individuals (million dollar fine for uploading 10 songs) then it needs to be stopped.

Government is a dangerous concentration of power.
Corporations are almost as bad.

Re:bad apple policies

[jo_ham]

Do you understand that the iPad $AUS was compared to an Amazon $US price of the netbook it was being compared with to accentuate the difference?

Re:bad apple policies

[commodoresloat]

Maybe he thought the store clerk was a pro-censorship politician?

Re:bad apple policies

[commodoresloat]

(+n Informative.) Except that headbutting people is fucking stupid, since it hurts the butter as much as the buttee.

That's the point then, isnt it? Mutual assured destruction; kept peace between the superpowers for decades.

Re:bad apple policies

[MightyMartian]

You know what's really ironic about you. On the one hand you lecture about the abusiveness of governments and corporations, and on the hand you think it's A-okay to threaten a store clerk with a concealed weapon to get a better deal on a piece of fucking electronics.

Re:bad apple policies

[DJRumpy]

Since not a single individual can point to a policy (from Apple), and the 'source' was some 'forum', and the store doing these illegal sales claimed that (and more) about required accessories, I would tend to think the local sales manager and/or sales staff are simply padding their sales numbers.

Which is more believable: A very public (and image aware) company with a hidden policy that all retail stores who sell iPads MUST sell iPads with accessories. A policy which is apparently ignored at every other retain chain in the world, or some bad Apples (no pun intended) in a retail chain in Australia, that is breaking the rules, since their own corporate office even refuses to admit their company would endorse such a policy.

I know the Apple haters love to look for dirt, but the only place it's going to stick in this case, is on the retain chain. The retail chain corporate office is even stating it's probably just some overzealous staff.

From TFA:

"A Telstra spokesman confirmed last night that the carrier has no agreement in place with any reseller to push SIM cards to iPad buyers.

“The iPad is definitely not locked to Telstra and shouldn’t be sold on that basis,” he said adding Telstra has asked the store chain to look into the claims.

The practice is not sanctioned by Apple either. An Apple spokeswoman said while she could not comment on company policy, “consumers could buy iPads directly from us” without any add-ons.

Late on Friday, JB Hi-Fi’s newly installed chief executive Terry Smart told the Herald the sale tactic was not company policy “in any way shape or form”.

He said it may have been one isolated store in NSW, but admitted he was concerned there had been multiple complaints on the forum. He could not say if it was the action of a few over-zealous sales staff.

“We’ve addressed it with Warrawong and told them it’s not our policy.”

Smart said JB Hi-Fi stores would refund any device or accessory which shoppers believed had been bought under pressure.

“We will do whatever is required. We fully understand our obligations under the Trade Practices Act,’ Smart said."

Re:bad apple policies

[oztiks]

The grammar isn't great but the point is fairly obvious so if you can't figure it out let me try again ...

1024px or typically 990px to include the scrollbar is the bare minimum width used in web development since about 2001 and iPads render it at the bare minimum resolution making most websites look like crap.

If i wanted to see websites look like this I would of purchased a 8 year old laptop with IE6 and XP off ebay for a fraction of the price rather then going to the store to buy something brand spanking new.

Or should i even explain it simpler than that. Epic fail for Apple! there, got it yet?

Re:bad apple policies

[oztiks]

Instead of giving an honest opinion, what you did was repeat a line of bullshit that you'd read elsewhere. A line that doesn't hold up under even the most casual scrutiny. I notice you still don't try to justify your 'opinion'.

AKKKKKKKK!!! APPLE HOW DID YOU BREED THESE NUTCASES!?!?!

(I only ask because I'm thinking Scientology and Apple both have this whole cult concept really well thought out)

Let me break this down for you, I went TO the store to BUY one because of what I READ from news sites / TV. From what I READ iPad's seemed really GOOD but when I arrived I TRIED one and _DID NOT LIKE_ how they worked ...

Let me say that again I TRIED ONE AND DIDN'T LIKE HOW THEY WORKED!

Did I breach that reality distortion field yet? or you still cant figure it out?

Re:bad apple policies

[oztiks]

Not sure what 3G is like in the states but here in Australia not very good unless you live in the really built up areas or unless you use Telstra which is the one and only brand that has decent 3G coverage and they really make you pay for it.

It would be interesting to see which of the 6 different types of iPad out which one is the biggest seller.

For me, I'll probably end up getting one as my company will give me one eventually (I'll have to make iPad friendly websites at some stage, and that isn't a freaking racket if you ask me and yet another redundant aspect too the iPad) but it certainly wont be something I'll use my own money on.

Actually that exclaims my point. Why go to the trouble of having to build iPad friendly websites if these things are standard? its all really so tiring, iPhone based sites and now iPad based sites. How many different types of stylesheets do we have to apply to websites thanks to Apple and their "standard" behavior?

Re:bad apple policies

[shutdown -p now]

It occurs to me this is why we are losing our freedoms. Politicians know they have nothing to fear from us.

It may be just me, but you weren't talking about flashing your gun to a politician...

Re:bad apple policies

[sjames]

So basically, you performed an armed robbery. Guess what happens next? Hint: it involves sirens and flashing lights.

Not actually. After all, his idea is to leave the correct amount of money (and even let them keep the change) based on their own advertised price. Depending on how you open your coat, it may not be interpreted legally as a threat. It sounds like somewhat forcefully taking them up on their published offer.

It's a bit like a situation I saw here where beer may not be sold on Sunday. A woman walked in, got a 12 pack and slapped enough cash on the counter on her way out the door. She did not steal the beer since she paid for it and the store did not willingly sell it. The law prohibits selling but not buying. So, no law was broken. At most she MIGHT have been fined for disorderly conduct if a cop had sen it and cared to do anything about it.

Re:bad apple policies

[shutdown -p now]

Huh? If the website standard is developing for 1024x768, and the device has a resolution of 1024x768, what's the issue?

To hold an iPad conveniently, you have to hold it in portrait mode, and that's 768x1024, not 1024x768.

Re:bad apple policies

[shutdown -p now]

An iPad only costs $500

My netbook - which still cost me a hundred bucks less than $500, and I bought that a year ago - has a resolution of 1366x768 (it was an optional upgrade).

Re:bad apple policies

[toddestan]

Open carry requires that the gun be carried in plain sight. Under a shirt would not count. In any case it would still be brandishing.

Re:bad apple policies

[Pointy_Hair]

Most people who legitimately carry concealed wouldn't brandish like that. Keep it put away until your life is threatened.

douchebag +1

Re:bad apple policies

[perryizgr8]

this is not funny. its more insightful than the gp.

Re:bad apple policies

[mjwx]

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.

Remember this is in Australia,

In Australia we are mature enough to sort out our problems without the use of guns or other weapons. The only time an Australian would actually brandish a weapon in a retail store would be if they were to rob it at gunpoint. If an Australian escalated a retail problem to violence they would just punch the guy and have done with, none of this weak pointing of guns.

Re:bad apple policies

[totally bogus dude]

The beer was still sold on a day when it's not permitted to sell it, and thus the law was broken. Just because you can get away with breaking the law doesn't mean the action is legal.

Look at this way: what if a police officer had happened to be in the store at the same time and witnessed it?

Option a) the shopkeeper doesn't attempt to stop the transaction, and gets charged with violating the law prohibiting the sale of alcohol on a Sunday.

Option b) the shopkeeper tells the woman she can't buy that, and she walks out with the beer regardless. She gets charged with theft.

There is also the possibility of option c) the police officer doesn't bother to enforce a law he sees as pointless. In which case, he potentially gets charged with whatever it is police officers are charged with when they fail to uphold the law.

Re:bad apple policies

[JosKarith]

Read up on Brandishment sometime. FFS I'm not even a 'merkin and I know your gun laws better than you seem to.

Re:bad apple policies

[commodore64_love]

I believe ALL power belongs to the People, and when any organization tries to steal-away that power without permission, then the People have an obligation to stop them - preferably via peaceful means (courts et cetera), but also with the recognition that in most cases you need a little revolution to water the Tree of Liberty (see Eastern Europe circa 1989).

Re:bad apple policies

[MightyMartian]

So you feel threatening a store clerk because they try to bundle some extra shit with your iPad is an example of watering the tree of liberty?

Re:bad apple policies

[batura]

It's no longer concealed at that point, and with your intentions clear, it's brandishing. You make it harder for me to lawfully and respectfully keep and bear arms. Thanks.

Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article & forum thread, it's pretty clear that this is JB Hi-Fi being assholes, not Apple "official policy"

Re:Bad summary

[elronxenu]

JB's not bad, but I have learned to never pay their ticket price on electronics. I always ask for, and get, a discount.

Re:Bad summary

[MichaelSmith]

My wife bought her macbook from JB a few months ago. They kept trying to sell her antivirus software. She called me and I told her to tell them absolutely no on the antivirus so she didn't get it but if I hadn't been available she might have.

She has since dropped herbal tea in the keyboard so its not working. The guy at JB was pretty helpful, suggesting places I can go to get it fixed.

And BTW: of course after she spilt the fluid she spent five minutes playing with the laptop as different systems went inoperative. I wish we could have a public information campaign: If your device is wet remove all power now.

Re:Bad summary

[sortius_nod]

No, JB are bad. They're dodgy people from Keilor East. Thugs and crims, they've been caught up in a few instances of false advertising, and I seem to recall they were in hot water about grey imports/bootlegs a few years back.

Re:Bad summary

[Cimexus]

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!)

Re:Bad summary

[aussie_a]

and IMO is one Government department that is WELL worth the money spent on it

If Americans have taught me anything, its that the government interfering in private companies is ALWAYS bad. So clearly this must be false. Despite the well documented gains from the department. Hopefully Tony Abbott will continue Howard's tradition of becoming more like America. Hail Jesus!

Re:Bad summary

[goatherder23]

I suspect it's also got a lot to do with retailers getting SFA margin on any apple product. Have you ever asked why the actual sell price on any apple product in AU is really close to the apple store price? Accessories are the only way a retailer can make anything selling apple gear. Maybe this is what the ACCC should be looking into...

Re:Bad summary

[JonJ]

Having a mac doesn't mean you have no viruses. You can still have malware installed. False security blanket is false.

First, learn to distinguish between general malware, viruses and trojans. Then you get to criticize other people's security arrangements.

Re:Bad summary

[BasilBrush]

Very few OSX users use a virus checker. Not a single one that I personally know of. And also not a single one of them has ever got a virus. The number of viruses that have ever been reported in the news for the Mac you can count on one hand. Most of them were never in the wild, and have anyway been long since prevented by OS updates. If there was one that was a real threat to users, you can be sure it would be reported as a slashdot story.

No, viruses are not something that you worry about as a Mac user. It's a problem for those Windows users. And a few oddball hysterics on Slashdot that can't tell the difference between theoretical risk and what actually exists; people that have been listening to anti-virus vendors trying to shift their pointless wares.

If and when viruses become an actual risk, rather than a theoretical risk, on OSX, I'll buy an anti-virus package. But in 8 years of being a user, that point has not arrived.

Re:Bad summary

[lukas84]

There have been many cases of trojaned iWork/iLife packages on Piratebay.

Not a problem if you only install legitimate software, but the issue exists and it will only get worse as Apple gains more marketshare.

Re:Bad summary

[oztiks]

Yeah but Safari only makes up 6 - 8% of the market.

Obviously Apple isn't significant enough in the eyes of cyber-criminals to really care about writing exploits for Apple just yet.

Re:Bad summary

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Not the greatest example as this specific trojan is detected by the OS in 10.6. While the known genuine threats can still be counted on the fingers of one hand, it's easy for Apple to keep up.

Not against the idea of AV, but running an on-access AV scanner with no actual definitions for active OSX malware is a bit stupid (despite what AV vendors would have you believe).

The time for something more than http://www.clamxav.com/ may be coming, but it's not here yet. Retailers pushing AV solutions should be avoided.

Re:Bad summary

[Sparx139]

the government interfering in private companies is ALWAYS bad.

I'd have to disagree there. I have no problem with the ACCC slamming businesses who try to screw over the general public. It's good to have someone policing the corporations. Prevents another company doing what Microsoft used to do (although, if someone was to point out Telstra then I would have to concede the point)

Re:Bad summary

[OrwellianLurker]

Learn how to identify sarcasm.

Re:Bad summary

[KDR_11k]

I think it's the same for game consoles and their ilk so the iPad isn't the only thing that needs looking into.

Re:Bad summary

[BasilBrush]

Yeah but Safari only makes up 6 - 8% of the market. Obviously Apple isn't significant enough in the eyes of cyber-criminals to really care about writing exploits for Apple just yet.

Maybe you're right. It still means I don't have any virus worries or need to fuck around with anti-virus apps.

Re:Bad summary

[mustafap]

Your inability to recognise sarcasm is very American, somewhat proving his point :o)

Re:Bad summary

[Kalriath]

And you should see the shit the get into in New Zealand.

They've gained themselves quite some derogatory names and slogans.

"JB Lo-Pay"
"Always lowest wages"

I know someone who works there, and they apparently make Dick Smith look angelically ethical by comparison.

Re:Bad summary

[BasilBrush]

There have been many cases of trojaned iWork/iLife packages on Piratebay.

ONE case, reported by multiple people that downloaded it.

All computers that can accept 3rd party software are susceptible to trojans (not the same as viruses). And so if you download executable software from unknown people on a torrent site, you are pretty stupid.

the issue exists and it will only get worse as Apple gains more marketshare.

As I said, if it ever becomes a real treat, rather than a theoretical one, it's time to get an anti-virus. But not before.

Re:Bad summary

[Posting=!Working]

6-8% of the market is still over 50 million computers. There were somewhere between 30-40 million Macs sold in the last 5 years. That is way more than enough for cyber-criminals to target.

Re:Bad summary

[Kalriath]

You only wish the ACCC would hammer Telstra like the Commerce Commission here in New Zealand hammers Telecom.

Re:Bad summary

[elronxenu]

Thanks for the information. I can't confirm that from my own experience, but I'll be wary.

I have had some bad experiences with Strathfield however ... they are definitely a shop-of-last-resort.

Re:Bad summary

[cyber-vandal]

You think they wouldn't want the credit card and bank account details of rich people with lots of disposable income?

Re:Bad summary

[Bert64]

On the contrary, government intervention is often necessary and extremely good for the vast majority of people... Otherwise you get monopolies and cartels which lead to high prices and poor service...
The "free market" just doesn't work without regulation to keep it free, a free market is bad for business and any business that becomes powerful enough will try to cement their position.

Re:Bad summary

[ultranova]

All computers that can accept 3rd party software are susceptible to trojans (not the same as viruses). And so if you download executable software from unknown people on a torrent site, you are pretty stupid.

Store-bought software almost always comes with DRM-related trojans, while torrents have usually been disinfected of them. Pirate Bay is a safer place to get software than Wall-Mart.

Re:Bad summary

[BasilBrush]

Store-bought software almost always comes with DRM-related trojans

Not so much with OSX software.

Re:Bad summary

[blackraven14250]

Good thing OSX has 99% of all consumer software written for it.

Re:Bad summary

[blackraven14250]

No, it isn't. You, just like the cyber-criminals, can compare 50 million to ~850 million, and go "let's go for the bigger target since only a small percentage will actually fall for our scheme anyway".

Re:Bad summary

[Kielistic]

You mean the college kids' info from the macbook their mommy and daddy bought them? I mean sure it's easy but why try to bleed a stone?

Re:Bad summary

[BasilBrush]

Well, it has 99% of the well-designed consumer software.

Re:Bad summary

[Pence128]

A free market means no regulation what so ever. The free market is bad. Everyone is confusing it with the perfect market, which is good, but also impossible.

Re:Bad summary

[insertwackynamehere]

This isn't insightful, it's a stupid attempt at being edgy. First of all, OS X software doesn't work like Windows software; the install process for most software packages does litter shit around your machine in the hopes that the application can take full control over everything. Secondly, the Pirate Bay is not safer for the average user.

OS X is based on BSD. Viruses aren't made for Apple but when they are, the whole system will be able to handle them a lot better than Windows can. Hopefully with Macs, a messy gigantic database of potential virus signatures and file scanning won't be the solution when OS X becomes a target.

Re:Bad summary

[insertwackynamehere]

Why are you so resentful of people who own Apple products? Why do you resent people who's parents have bought them things?

Re:Bad summary

[Kielistic]

I resent neither. I do, however, doubt that empty bank accounts of college students are high priority targets for hackers.

Re:Bad summary

[yobjob]

Before JB Hifi I had to search 5 different CD stores over 3 square km (in a city of 1 million people) to find some albums I wanted, and I was paying more for them 15 years ago (not in real terms, raw dollar for dollar). Yeah you know what, they pull some shit, but life got easier after they came along, and I get more shit for the dollar. Suck it up and don't buy an iFad.

Re:Bad summary

[jo_ham]

So you are saying that 100% of the Mac user base is US college students?

Re:Bad summary

[Posting=!Working]

And I, just like the cyber-criminals, can see 50 million unattacked people and see they're ripe for the picking, rather than 850 million repeatedly attacked people.

50 million is way too many to ignore, regardless of how many are on the other side of the equation.

Re:Bad summary

[Sparx139]

Ah, I forgot about coles/woolworths*. But still, I'd rather have someone who deals with the problem half the time than nobody to hold them accountable at all.

*For the non-australian reader, these are the two large grocer chains in Australia. They have a very bad track record (a good summary of what goes on can be found here ) in terms of playing fair.

Re:Bad summary

[Kielistic]

What I'm saying is 100% of Mac users are not rich people with lots of money. I also never said anything about the US. I would definitely say that college/university students make up a much larger percentage of OS X's install base than they do Windows', though.
If you look at percentages OS X is just not a good target. XP+IE6 is vastly more common and easier to attack. Even if the attack is only successful 10% of the time that's still more successes than damn near every possible OS X computer.

Re:Bad summary

[Mal-2]

Very few OSX users use a virus checker. Not a single one that I personally know of. And also not a single one of them has ever got a virus.

I have a simple question. If they have no virus checker but did have some bit of malware operating under the radar, how would you know? If it's quiet (to the user) and doesn't break anything, would you have any reason to go looking for it?

Mal-2

Re:Bad summary

[shutdown -p now]

Viruses aren't made for Apple but when they are, the whole system will be able to handle them a lot better than Windows can.

Can you explain how exactly a BSD-based system can handle viruses better than Windows (Vista/7), once user runs the infected executable on the machine?

Re:Bad summary

[jo_ham]

And the number of webservers running IIS back in the day was much less than those running Apache on top of Linux, yet somehow the more popular one was the less-attacked.

People have been trying hard to expose the weakness in the "supposed secure" OS X since it came out, and despite a few high profile proof of concept things and a lot of people with a point to prove, it has stood up remarkably well.

I'm not saying it is immune to threats - that is clearly nonsense, but the Unix core and a decent security culture make for a pretty potent combination. It's not *all* down to the smaller user base that there are no major in-the-wild malware. Would you say the same was true for Linux? Its desktop share is even smaller than OS X. Is the lack of malware on Linux down to being a vanishingly small install base on the desktop compared to Windows?

Re:Bad summary

[BasilBrush]

Because, any malware for the Mac is so rare, it is always big news when it does happen. Almost none have been in the wild, of those that have, I've not done the thing (e.g. Downloaded iWork from a torrent) by which such Malware has been spread. If I was ever at risk, I'd investigate (and if necessary do the fix) manually. But I haven't even been at risk yet.

Re:Bad summary

[Kielistic]

I would say that Linux's tiny install base has a factor in its lack of malware, yes. It's not the only factor but it is a factor and saying otherwise is foolish.
It does not matter if "people" have been trying to expose weaknesses in OS X. The work will be put into where the money is.
I also never said OS X was weak. In fact, I clearly said XP+IE6 was an easier target.

Re:Bad summary

[teh kurisu]

For the non-Australian reader, a message reading "This content is only viewable from within Australia" appears.

Re:Bad summary

[ekhben]

If by "many" you mean "two" ... then, yes. Mac virus scanners of the time were not able to detect them, either, so you know, still not a good argument for the dungware that is AV software.

Apple still isn't targeting the mass market with their computers. They continue to produce and market as trendy consumer items, not attempting to compete on price. So I have my doubts that their market share will ever grow large enough to (a) be a serious threat to Microsoft or (b) be a worthwhile investment in virus development.

(But I still take reasonable steps to protect myself, with an external firewall, NoScript, and avoiding anything made by Adobe).

Re:Bad summary

[insertwackynamehere]

Well I honestly don't know much about Vista or 7 but back when I was an XP user and Windows was hated by the Slashdot crowd more than Apple, I remember everyone would ramble on about how Windows was inherently less secure than Unix and BSD derivatives, mainly in regard to how each handled user privileges (the fact that Unix and BSD have root which is only specifically accessed for certain tasks I think was a big point).

Re:Bad summary

[shutdown -p now]

the fact that Unix and BSD have root which is only specifically accessed for certain tasks I think was a big point

This was generally true in XP, too, just not its default configuration. But you could run under non-admin, and elevate to admin only as needed.

The two problems there were: 1) lack of a convenient sudo/gksu replacement, and 2) the fact that most apps at that moment were still written with Win9x assumptions in mind, and regularly wrote to system folders etc, requiring root. Combining those two meant that even most power users ran as root.

Vista added UAC to fill the sudo niche, and defaulted to non-admin user account... which broke a lot of existing software, but finally forced people to code their stuff properly. Today, on 7, the only apps that still require elevations on my box are pre-Vista games (e.g. NWN).

Re:super kawaii~

[Fluffeh]

pirst fost!

this one is for super kawaii and the kawaii supers

Yer good kid, real good, but while I'm around, you'll always be second best... see?

Apple is not the problem, JB Hi Fi is

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about Apple per se, this is about JB Hi Fi being completely dishonest.

I got really angry with Watergardens JB Hi Fi (in Vic) recently when they sold me a pre-owned Airport Extreme. I know someone else had it before me because it was locked to their username and password*. The thing that really incensed me was that I'd seen that it wasn't shrink wrapped and I'd made the sales guy swear to me that it wasn't pre-owned.

Yes, you can complain to the store manager, and after arguing with him for 15 minutes you can get a refund, but then he makes you wait for another half an hour, because he can.

*Yes, I know how to reset it, that's not the point, they shouldn't have been representing used goods as new - if they'd been honest (and offered a suitable discount) I'd have been quite happy to take the 'problem' off their hands.

Re:Apple is not the problem, JB Hi Fi is

[Sneeze1066]

I bought a Sony portable DVD player a few years ago from JB HiFi store and when I openen it up at home could hear loose parts inside floating around. Turned out to be parts of the laser mechanism. Took it back less than 24 hours later and flat out said this isn't new and looks like a broken return they've sold me. They were initially skeptical and seemed reluctant to replace it. There's something seriously wrong if they can "accidentally" put faulty returned items back on the shelf and resell them. Also purchased a spindle of blank DVD's and every disk appeared to have greasy speckles all over them obviously from a fault in the manufacturing process. The discs could be written too without first cleaning them with alcohol wipes. Took the spindle back and told them the sitation. They said yes they were aware of it but "couldn't take them off the shelf" for some reason.

Re:Apple is not the problem, JB Hi Fi is

[Pharmboy]

Then you have it backwards. Go to the store when it is full, speak clearly and loudly (but politely) and make sure to talk about how dishonest the policy is, how the competition has lower prices, etc. It always works for me, as they are more afraid of losing business and as long as you are in the right, they just want to get rid of you.

The only way you can level the field with someone being an asshat is to (politely) be an asshat as well.

Re:Apple is not the problem, JB Hi Fi is

[snowgirl]

Shit dude... that sucks.

That's fucking fraud. If you ever have to deal with them again (I wouldn't), I would notify them that you are asking a material question as to the condition of the product, and that your purchase is absolutely dependent upon their representation being true, and that if they are making a misrepresentation as to the condition of the product that it will constitute fraud, which would be promptly reported to the relevant authorities, as well as open them to the liability of statutory damages in addition to a simple refund.

Re:Apple is not the problem, JB Hi Fi is

[thegarbz]

No what you do is complain to the ACCC. The ACCC become especially heavy handed when they have to investigate the same complaint twice. The ACCC website lists that they were investigated for exactly this practice when selling "new" mobile phones.

It's no skin of the manager's back if he comes down to talk to you for 2 min only to swap the product and put it back on the shelf. The complaints are what can hurt them.

Re:Apple is not the problem, JB Hi Fi is

[Dexter Herbivore]

Retail store's return policies ocassionally go wrong... news at 11!

Re:Apple is not the problem, JB Hi Fi is

[perryizgr8]

The only way you can level the field with someone being an asshat is to (politely) be an asshat as well.

why polite?? i hate being polite. if you are rude people take you much more seriously. instead of saying "hey! but the shop opposite the street are selling it at half the price! your policy is dishonest...blah...blah." you should say, "asshole!! pull your head out of it and see that others are selling it cheaper. you are lying, cheating bastards!"

Re:Apple is not the problem, JB Hi Fi is

[Pharmboy]

Because if you are not polite, they have a reason to ask you to leave, thus defeating your goals.

False Flag

[Anonymous Coward]

This is definitely NOT Apple's policy and they are not to be blamed for it. It's simply a lie from that particular retailer (it was not even an official Apple store). I guess when Cupertino HQ and SVP for Retail hears of these complains, that shop enjoyed their very last day as Apple reseller.

Re:False Flag

[itsdapead]

Shush! Dont you know that Apple are solely responsible for rogue Australian electronics stores, massive Chinese factories with below-average suicide rates, the security of AT&T's website, the state of the 3G network, global warming, exploding lithium batteries, the BP oil spill and the Kennedy Assasination?

In fact, Apple are responsible for original sin: the company name is a dead giveaway.

Re:False Flag

[Kalriath]

Unlikely. In our neck of the world (South Pacific), there are no official Apple stores, so Apple needs all the resellers they can get.

Re:False Flag

[vegiVamp]

While I also tend to feel that it's unlikely that such a policy comes from Apple, you seem to be *very* adamant, indeed. What are you basing your 100% certainty on ? You almost sound as if you're the lord our Steve himself...

Re:False Flag

[DaveV1.0]

You forgot to mention the men in black and UFOs

Re:False Flag

[itsdapead]

You forgot to mention the men in black and UFOs

I did - but I was typing on my iPad and so it probably got filtered out.

However, the UFO guys stopped using Apple kit when their "iAnalProbe" App was rejected for using a private API.

Re:False Flag

[Lars T.]

What are you basing your 100% certainty on ?

Apart from the fact that TFA is actually saying it several times? Well nothing.

Re:False Flag

[AscianBound]

massive Chinese factories with below-average suicide rates

Wait... that doesn't seem to fit. Or maybe you're saying that keeping Chinese workers alive is a problem. In which case, you've got a point...

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[jimmetry]

You might want to actually read the forum it references. This was not Apple. This was a regional manager of JB Hi-Fi.

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[ollie231]

And for what? A few extra dollars? Australian dollars at that.

Sorry to be pedantic, but it's about .85 AUD to the USD at the moment, and its been hovering around .90 for a long time, so its not that much of a difference.

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[risinganger]

Congratulations on clearly not reading the article. I'd explain myself but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't read it :)

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[sjwt]

Yup, that's exactly what we tell the Kiwis, we certainly dint make fun of their exchange rate.

Re:It's about time a stop was put to these combos

[sjwt]

Sounds like the same argument you had with the good lord when he was trying to force you to get a neural net.. why get all those millions cells when it seems you could be quite happy with just a few of them

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[SeaFox]

Why does Apple even bother with this? Do they really think that nobody is going to complain? And for what? A few extra dollars?

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?

Illegal

[Bob Gelumph]

In Australia, you aren't allowed to limit the sale of something because a person doesn't also buy something from a different provider.
The ACCC will rip shit into Apple over this if it is true.
They'll probably also lay into the retailers that are performing the actual transactions. Any clause like that in an Apple agreement is illegal and therefore void, so the retailers shouldn't be enforcing it.

Re:Illegal

[rolfwind]

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.

Re:Illegal

[whisper_jeff]

You honestly think this was Apple's policy? Really?

Re:Illegal

[drinkypoo]

In Australia, you aren't allowed to limit the sale of something because a person doesn't also buy something from a different provider.

That's not what's happening. They're limiting the sale of iPads without people buying additional iPad accessories made by Apple. If they sell more Apple accessories, it is theorized, they will be allocated more product to sell, including more iPads. Sure, Apple builds profit into every product, in the form of iCandy, but accessories are typically where the real profit is.

They'll probably also lay into the retailers that are performing the actual transactions. Any clause like that in an Apple agreement is illegal and therefore void, so the retailers shouldn't be enforcing it.

You have failed to demonstrate that it should be illegal. Perhaps you incorrectly summarized the law when you began your comment. But odds are that there is no Apple agreement like this (put up or shut up, I say) and that they are doing this of their own accord.

Re:Illegal

[insertwackynamehere]

You can buy an OS X install easily; in fact it's a lot easier to get a fully working OS X disc than a Windows one. Windows has 15 million ways to lock you out and like 20 different "levels" of OS. OS X has the latest version. And it's just there on the disc. There aren't 50 million approval hoops to jump through.

In America, you can't get a lot of phones without contract. Or, you can (just like the iPhone) but they can only be used under one provider. This is the state of the cellular phone industry in America, not Apple.

The whole App Store thing is completely fair. You can choose not to buy an iPhone if you don't like the App Store concept and vote with your money, but it is made clear that the App Store is the one way to legally get applications so if you are too stupid to do research before getting the phone, too bad. I could buy a flip and start screeching loudly, too, because it doesn't have Flash and a limited distribution channel but I didn't have to buy the fucking phone.

What the article describes is an electronics store (aka a trashy, seedy money grubbing shit hole as is usually the case with electronics stores) lying to the customer, outright. This is completely different than anything in your post as your post covers complaints about a product not tailored to fit your needs whereas the electronics store was committing fraud and ripping off its customers.

Re:Illegal

[insertwackynamehere]

I doubt they are Apple accessories as Apple really doesn't put out their own accessories. They have a case for the iPad that everyone apparently loves, but screen protectors and stuff have nothing to do with them. They advertise them on their online store from preferred providers but that is most likely more for the benefit of the consumer and to build up general hype for their product; I think they are probably happy to advertise third party accessories on their web site for free because everyone wins.

Re:Illegal

[drinkypoo]

I doubt they are Apple accessories as Apple really doesn't put out their own accessories

That is completely false. In fact, the iPad is designed specifically to sell accessories, or it would have had USB2 OTG and a multi-format card reader. If you would argue this point you are an iFanboy. This is not a false dichotomy because there's no second way. If you want decent functionality out of an iPad, you will need accessories, Apple-branded or not.

They have a case for the iPad that everyone apparently loves,

Thank you for proving my point about your loyalties from paragraph number one. You are attempting to use the propaganda technique "bandwagon" here.

but screen protectors and stuff have nothing to do with them.

"Stuff"? That's a little vague, isn't it? It seems to me like an attempt to associate all accessories that are not a case or screen protector with the fact that Apple has proscribed screen protectors, but only with as much misdirection as possible. In fact Apple makes a whole lot of "stuff" for the iPad, like the forty-nine dollar composite video/usb connection cable you'll want if you'd like to "gather up your friends, and watch videos or slideshows together on the big screen."

They advertise them on their online store from preferred providers but that is most likely more for the benefit of the consumer and to build up general hype for their product; I think they are probably happy to advertise third party accessories on their web site for free because everyone wins.

They would clearly rather sell their own accessories, but since they tend to bury licensing chips in cables now, they have achieved whole new levels of evil even when others sell accessories. It's almost like a games console... that's no good for gaming.

Re:Illegal

[perryizgr8]

You can buy an OS X install easily; in fact it's a lot easier to get a fully working OS X disc than a Windows one.[citation needed] Windows has 15 million ways to lock you out and like 20 different "levels" of OS.[citation needed] OS X has the latest version. And it's just there on the disc. There aren't 50 million approval hoops to jump through.

In America, you can't get a lot of phones without contract. Or, you can (just like the iPhone) but they can only be used under one provider. This is the state of the cellular phone industry in America, not Apple.

The whole App Store thing is completely fair. You can choose not to buy an iPhone if you don't like the App Store concept and vote with your money, but it is made clear that the App Store is the one way to legally get applications so if you are too stupid to do research before getting the phone, too bad. I could buy a flip and start screeching loudly, too, because it doesn't have Flash and a limited distribution channel but I didn't have to buy the fucking phone.

What the article describes is an electronics store (aka a trashy, seedy money grubbing shit hole as is usually the case with electronics stores) lying to the customer, outright. This is completely different than anything in your post as your post covers complaints about a product not tailored to fit your needs whereas the electronics store was committing fraud and ripping off its customers.

this is why people hate apple fags. they spew out random gay bullshit about other vendors/companies/software and refuse to see any of their deity's own assholishness.

Re:Illegal

[yurtinus]

This is also true in the US - usually called "bundling." Retail stores will still try to pull it off because #1) Apple's newest toys generally have pretty low profit margin for the resellers, and #2) Most consumers don't know that they have rights. I'd put money on this being a greedy store manager looking to boost his daily profit margin ratings (a big deal for retail chains).

Re:Illegal

[soppsa]

LOL Apple hatin', you are SO original.

Re:Illegal

[insertwackynamehere]

If you don't like Apple products you don't have to use them. Seriously, the whole shift from hating M$ to hating Apple is just more of the same "I HATE YOU FAGGUTS" asperging bullshit and if you can't exist in a world with companies that you don't like, then fuck yourself and die. Use Loonix or 7 or whatever operating system makes your dick feel a couple of inches bigger and kill yourself.

As a former Apple Premium Reseller employee

[JonJ]

I have to say, Apple would never make this an official policy. A reseller just got caught with their pants down and is trying to blame Apple for it. Apple almost never interferes with sales policies at resellers, as long as you don't try to pull a fast one with regards to usage of the logo or other images. We would regularly get yelled at for some of Apples antics in the press, people never seem to be able to distinguish between Apple and resellers. What's more depressing is that nobody on /. seems to be able to either.

Re:As a former Apple Premium Reseller employee

[dncsky1530]

I also used to work for an Apple premium reseller and there was never any such policy, as the article states. Further they have mentioned that JB HiFi might be doing this to increase their accessory attachement rate in hopes of being allocated more iPads.

It is true that Apple collects statistics on accessory attachement rates however that is only for Apple accessories. In some cases resellers may have to purchase a certain percentage of Apple accessories along with their purchase of the iPads. But that percentage (in the past) has never been very high and always seemed to be along the lines of how many accessories were sold anyway.

JB HiFi had better be careful though because Apple has very strict agreements for resellers and certainly wouldn't appreciate the negative press or customer experience over this. Retail sales staff are usually paid on commission and margins on Apple hardware is very slim so a few accessories could easily double gross profit from an iPad sale (and the salesperson's cut).

Re:As a former Apple Premium Reseller employee

[perryizgr8]

Apple almost never interferes with sales policies at resellers, as long as you don't try to pull a fast one with regards to usage of the logo or other images.

i distinctly remember an article on /. in which apple refused to sell its stuff to a specific retailer just because the retailer was selling istuff at lower than prescribed prices. so either you are a gay apple fanboi who spews bullshit out of habit or you are just plain stupid.

Re:As a former Apple Premium Reseller employee

[indiechild]

Something tells me that this particular store, or JB Hifi in general, is about to be put on Steve's ban list.

Re:Now is the time...

[denmarkw00t]

I assumed you were using this as a chance to lampoon Apple with no real merit or actually following TFA's links but then...

Do the right thing. Get a PC.

If you mean one with Windows then I think you made a really good joke. We're proud of you.

Re:It's about time a stop was put to these combos

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Wii?

[rhizome]

Didn't we see this happening at BestBuy or Walmart or something back when the Wii was hard to find? I remember the whole controversy starting this way, stores saying it was manufacturer's policy, when it then turned out to be 100% store policy only. Maybe it was PS3. Anyway, the PR department of the chain should be releasing a statement in the next few days saying they were isolated incidents.

Re:Wii?

[amnesiacopera]

I think you're thinking of Sears. I purchased a Wii at launch from them and was forced to buy a game and two accessories as well. Here's an article from Ars Technica about it. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/6030.ars

Re:Wii?

[rworne]

I don't know about WalMart, but Best Buy routinely bundles, and was still bundling the white Wii's and PS3 as recently as this past April.

Re:Wii?

[nedlohs]

As long as they don't advertise them for sale individually and then refuse to sell you one even though it is clearly in stock it isn't a problem. Surely?

Re:Wii?

[batura]

That was different- they never advertised *just* the wii or ps3- they advertised their bundles as the only way to get it. Accessory attachment is perfectly legal (and I would even say ethical) so long as it is clearly advertised as such.

No force

[maxwell demon]

"Australian iPad buyers have been forced to buy all manner of unnecessary add-ons"

No, they have not been forced to buy those add-ons. They could simply have refused to buy an iPad under those conditions. If enough people did this, the policy would be reverted really fast.

Re:No force

[grimJester]

"Australian iPad buyers have been forced to buy all manner of unnecessary add-ons"

No, they have not been forced to buy those add-ons. They could simply have refused to buy an iPad under those conditions. If enough people did this, the policy would be reverted really fast.

I'd say the sentence is correct since they wouldn't be iPad buyers if they didn't buy iPads. In addition, they didn't know they could buy iPads in other stores without the accessories so normal competition had no chance of working. Had they known this wasn't an Apple policy they would have been far more likely to buy elsewhere.

Re:No force

[maxwell demon]

But they were not forced to become iPad buyers. It's not as if you got major problems if you don't own an iPad. So no, they have not been forced to buy the add-ons. They just decided that they preferred to buy an iPad plus those add-ons to having no iPad at all.

Re:No force

[insertwackynamehere]

On one hand you are correct, but on the other the retail chain committed some sort of crime (IANAL) by telling the customer they couldn't find a cheaper price anywhere else because Apple commanded this accessory purchasing for everyone and going to another store would not have fixed it. No one is forced to buy an iPad but you can't lie about Apple and say what you will, but Apple's choke hold on their products allows them to strike quickly on people like this who try and exploit their products. Something tells me Apple will not be happy with this store at all and this will probably benefit the consumer somehow.

Always happens with over subscribed products

[DrXym]

Some people absolutely have to have some product day 1 and retailers know it. So retailers stack up the bundles forcing customers to buy a bunch of shit they don't need.

As always patience is a virtue. Supply and demand even out and a few weeks or months allows the hype to disappate and consensus to form. If a product is THAT GOOD it will still be on sale, and if it isn't, well you've saved some money.

It was jb - not apple.

[PeleusX]

I'm actually "Ryan" from the article. Yes I don't believe for a second that this was in any way related to apple, simply because they wouldn't have a policy such as this - and secondly, they wouldn't be trying to force me into buying belkin accessories for their product. To be honest, it wasn't even the money which bothered me as much as the fact I was being forced to purchase accessories that I did not want. Usually I would simply walk out and shop somewhere else when met with behavior such as this, but I had a voucher which restricted my options as to where I could purchase it. The CEO has responded saying that it was no a JB Hifi policy, but rather the actions of individual stores. I would expect him to say nothing less, and essentially comes down to making the statement "No, of course we weren't breaking the law", do you expect anything else? Saying that - I've never heard of the policy of point blank refusal of a sale if you don't purchase accessories of anything else in the past. What are the chances multiple stores suddenly begin refusing sales on iPad's without accessories when they have never had this policy in the past? It seems extremely unlikely multiple stores would magically decide on this policy on the same day. I hope the ACCC really does look into it, but most likely it will result in a "Please explain" and not much more than that without any further evidence (I.e. emails instructing stores to refuse sales unless they have a certain amount of accessories attached).

Strewth, etc.

[Hognoxious]

I didn't think there were many of Apple's target demographic in Australia.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why are you assuming Apple really did any of this?

On this site? Are you kidding?!

And yet they still bought the iPads

[barzok]

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.

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[PeleusX]

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.

Again - usually I would do exactly that, but because I had a voucher which was only able to be spent in that store, I didn't have a choice. Saying that - it is the last thing I will be buying from JB.

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[DaveV1.0]

No, you did have a choice. You didn't have to buy one at all.

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[hairyfish]

"There are other places to buy it" In this case there aren't. The initial shipment sold out of the 3G version in the first few days. I've been ringing all the resellers every few days since including and no-one has any. My guess is that JB picked up on this demand/supply issue and tried to use it to increase their margin with upsell.

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[PeleusX]

Yes, letting them keep hundreds of dollars of my money by way of not spending my voucher will really stick it to them....... Not buying an iPad is hardly a choice (once the decision was made I wanted one). Firstly it's cutting off my nose to spite my face, and once more at that point they already had my money. Financially buying the iPad or not made no difference to their income as a lot of the purchase price was a voucher.

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[barzok]

So put a hold on one elsewhere for the next shipment. Or buy it online. You absolutely must have it right now?

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[barzok]

Then buy something else with the voucher.

Or sell the voucher to a friend for face value or take a 5% hit on it.

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[PeleusX]

Again, apart from me being punished by not getting what I want (an iPad), how does this financially punish JB? Instead of purchasing a low margin item where they make a small amount of money I should purchase something else which allows them to make more?

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[DaveV1.0]

You still miss the forest for the trees. You can want something until hell freezes over, but if you don't need said thing, then you have the choice of just not getting the thing. That you had a voucher is irrelevant.

In fact, it says to me that you paid for an iPad sight unseen, before it was available. To me, that is just foolishness of the fanboy/gadgethead type.

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[Nazlfrag]

No, the store had a choice. They chose to advertise it for price X, but came up with some bullshit about Apple to try and hike it to price Y. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission does not look kindly on this sort of decietful behaviour (if not outright fraudulent) and you can bet there will be consequences for the false advertising.

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[DaveV1.0]

And, when the store did that, one had a choice of capitulating or walking away. In either case, one had a further choice of complaining to the ACCC.

All this whining about not having a choice is just bullshit.

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[martinX]

This isn't a fanboy thing or an iPad thing, this is "JB Hi Fi are a bunch of jerks" thing. While being jerks isn't illegal, bundling is and they tried to pin it on Apple. Perhaps this should serve as a warning about JBs more than anything else.

There are some stores I walk in not expecting any help at all: JB is one of them, in addition to Wow, Harvey Norman and usually Dick Smith's. You go there because they are cheap,not because they are good at anything.

The Apple stores, by way of contrast, are great.

Re:And yet they still bought the iPads

[yurtinus]

If somebody wants an item, can afford said item, and decides to buy said item - that is their business and not foolishness of the fanboy/gadgethead type. This isn't just a matter of walking away from a company you disagree with. The point is the company was doing something *illegal* to try to increase its profits on the sale. Walking away to let somebody else get victimized isn't the only thing to do here.

Why do you buy it?

[devent]

So just don't buy an iPad? If I would buy me some hardware and the guy said I need to buy some stupid stuff with it because it's some kind of policy than I would just call him crazy and walk out of the store.

Crooked, but the only game in town

[dbIII]

If you want to buy the things then and there you are stuck. Buying it from Hong Kong and waiting for it to ship is obviously better but not many people do that.
Don't blame me, instead I got a Nokia N900 that is jailbroken by design (it's linux and you have root) and had it shipped in from Hong Kong. I didn't want to have to crack a device just to be able to install some software.

Re:It's about time a stop was put to these combos

[risinganger]

Well I can't speak for the GP but I'd like to respond to yours.

Any purchased disk of OS X has no serial verification or copy protection. All allow a fresh install as far as I know. Now the fact that they do this (and don't try to restrict the number of machines which it is placed on) is, I believe, separate from the licence agreement. The offer of a cheaper upgrade for Leopard users was meant in some way as a nod towards the short time between Leopard coming out and Snow Leopard. Somebody wishing to move to Leopard from Tiger was expected to pay the full amount, just as they are expected to if you move from Tiger to Snow Leopard. There very well may be perfect examples of Apple doing as you suggest, I would argue that this isn't one of them though.

No they haven't.

[drsquare]

Australian iPad buyers have been forced to buy all manner of unnecessary add-ons

No they haven't. They were perfectly free not to buy an electronic gizmo they had no need or use for before it was announced.

Re:No they haven't.

[aussie_a]

they had no need or use for before it was announced.

I've been waiting for the iPad since September last year, and I didn't even know it existed back then. I did have a need, and the iPad filled that need. But then I wasn't stupid enough to buy it at JB Hi-Fi as well.

thats what you get if you block the internet...

[Splatus]

Tinfoil Hat! Apple convinced the AUS government to block all access to internet sites where the true sales value and company policies could have been viewed. We were all wrong thinking that China and Japan had bought Australia for its ore, Apple bought it!

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[LaRainette]

OK, let's say they did lie, which is also what I believe.
Either you want to start a criminal investigation, in which case knock yourself out, or maybe we could focus on what's interesting, i.e. what does that event implies as to how Apple and its policies are perceived by their dealers and their customers.

On one hand you see that some customers apparently bought the scam, and that even those who didn't really buy it had a reasonable doubt, at least enough not to make a scandal and just buy the damn iPad with no accessories or reporting to the police. This tells us that Apple put them through so much crazy shit they would actually think it is believable that Apple enforces a racket policy.

On the other hand we see that dealers are becoming S.MA.R.T. This is how it goes : for the last 5 years all the dealers of the world who wanted to sell Apple branded product HAD TO promote they pro-actively in a way that would put them in a favourable position regarding their competition.
As an example of that I call the CRAZY 20 meters long stand in the FNAC next to my place. It's the same in every store that sells Consumer Electronics in France and I don't see why it would be different in other countries.
My point is just that part of Apple's business plan is that they have a very positive image that CE dealers want so they sold that positive image for in return free advertising IN STORE, which btw is GENIUS. So all I'm saying is Apple relies a lot on its dealers to promote their product, even though those dealers sell products from HP, Dell, Sony, Samsung, Archos, whatever... and this is one thing that gave and still gives them a real crazy competitive advantage.
So what happened while CE dealers were advertising for Apple ? Well Apple made a hell of a lot of money and enforced crazy policies, but CE dealers not so much.

Conclusion : Maybe, and that's just my analysis, some CE dealers are a bit tired of compensating all the shit Apple's been putting them through and they want a share of the cake. And maybe this guy just found the solution : Apple is not going to stay "Cool" forever so now might be a good moment to make so real cash out of gullible CE illiterate before all this goes to waste.

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[Anonymous Coward]

And for what? A few extra dollars? Australian dollars at that.

Sorry to be pedantic, but it's about .85 AUD to the USD at the moment, and its been hovering around .90 for a long time, so its not that much of a difference.

The primary difference in the two currencies is US dollars used to be exchangeable for gold where as the AUD is exchangeable for beer.

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[Kalriath]

Yeah, but our government does it deliberately.

As an importer, I have one thing to say to them: fuckers.

Re:It's about time a stop was put to these combos

[Anonymous Coward]

The $30 snow leopard upgrade CD they sold actually checks for the existence of Leopard system files and then runs a signed, encrypted binary that I assume does some further checks for system files (but I obviously don't know what these are). HOWEVER... you can easily 'fix' this functionality so it installs on any Mac, as the binary just returns a certain value (so we patch the script so it always returns the right value). And Bob's your mothers brother.

Hell, at the top of that file you can remove the checks for RAM and CPU types as well.

So no, the $30 upgrade CD doesn't let you do fresh installs (at least out the box)

All a bit rambly as I've not slept in a couple days.. No one will probably read this anyway.

Re:Get Steve Irwin

[erroneus]

Wotch thes! Oym gonna gow boy an Oypaid without any accessories! Cehful now...heh we go...

Didn't do that to me...

[marcushnk]

I bought from Dick Smiths in Perth CBD, the kid asked if I wanted to buy a cover or extended warrenty. I said no and he was fine with that.
Sounds like JB Hi-Fi being dishonest scum bags to me.

Re:Didn't do that to me...

[insertwackynamehere]

In America, we have Best Buy and then local big name stores, it seems like. Usually the local big name guys are named after someone and their family like P.C. Richards & Sons. I always use Best Buy. Sure the salesmen are generally what you would expect but if you have any clue what you are talking about they will send you where you need to go. I was looking for a female DVI to male HDMI converter a few weeks ago and Best Buy had one for $30 (a rip off seeing that DVI can be turned into HDMI without conversion and the "conversion" is just capping a DVI cable with an HDMI connector that doesn't carry sound.. whatever AV shit is pointlessly expensive I get it). Anyway I go to P.C. Richards to see if they have one for less, just to shop around. Big mistake. Some fucking guy with a heavy Brooklyn accent is like "yeah over heres" and I see hes pointed me to male DVI to female HDMI. I clarify I want the other way around and he's like "DEY DONT MAKE DOZE" and walks off. Fuck you buddy, I'll go to Best Buy then and pay $30 I don't need to go to a seedy "family operated" shit hole electronics store that reeks of damaged goods and scams. The fuck if I'm ever going back into that craphole. That's why family operated businesses are dying; no one wants to put up with the colorful people running these shit holes, they just want a conglomerate where they can get their shit and get out without being treated like crap by some Jersey Shore reject who thinks selling overpriced triple shielded gold plated RCA cabling to mouth breathing idiots makes him an electronics guy.

These places are never honest, they are barely a step up from the electronics stores you see in the shitty areas selling fresh off the truck stereo systems and club lighting that looks like it found it's way from "FIRE HAZARD RECALL" into their stupid cash only ghettotronic shit hole.

Re:Didn't do that to me...

[markimusk]

Don't hold it in, tell us how you REALLY feel!

Re:Didn't do that to me...

[Dexter Herbivore]

Knowing that particular store, the "kids" at Dick Smith have NFI about anything anyway... last time I went there they tried to tell me a DVi cable was the same as a DV cable.

riiiight

[milkmage]

"Australian iPad buyers have been forced to buy all manner of unnecessary add-ons including screen protectors, docking stations, covers,"

in March Apple banned the sale of screen portectors in both the online and retail stores here in the states.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/apple-bans-protective-screen-film-from-apple-store/

so if this was an "apple" policy why would they force you to buy something from a 3rd party they don't want you to buy at one of their own stores (and take their cut of that sale directly).

it's like blaming Sony because the BestBuy monkeys try to sell you a protection plan with a tv.

there were rumors of this kinds of shit at ATT for the frist phone. turned out it did happen in some stores - to boost sales of high margin items.

Re:You idiot.

[Dog-Cow]

It seems more likely you pulled them out of your ass. Or they pulled you out of theirs.

No offense, but after having worked retail...

[MistrBlank]

Policy probably promotes stores that had better sales for accessories or turn around on the sims.

It was probably store management PUSHING sales with these. iPads aren't having a problem selling and people that want them are more likely to buy with them.

Why is this a big deal, when I bought my Wii the first month of its release, I was forced to buy it in an overpriced bundle with a bunch of games with a final price tag of $700 from Gamestop. EVERY store did this and EVERY store sold out.

Once again, corporate blamed for the bite from the little snake in the grass.

Re:No offense, but after having worked retail...

[imthesponge]

You can't buy it for the advertised price if you can't purchase it without accessories. That's the problem.

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[Superpants]

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.

ASW: Access Denied

[beaverdownunder]

If JB's Apple Sales Web access ain't already history, it's soon gonna be lol. AAR's have been struck off for far less than that... Guess the margin wasn't worth it for them...

Re:ASW: Access Denied

[mjwx]

* If JB's Apple Sales Web access ain't already history, it's soon gonna be lol. AAR's have been struck off for far less than that... Guess the margin wasn't worth it for them...

200 bucks says that doesn't happen. Apple love it when this happens as more Apple junk is sold for a premium, locking more people into the iWay.

Apart from selling Mac's I've got nothing but praise for JB HiFi, I got $400 off a Samsung series 5, my housemate got $600 off a series 6 because we both bought a new TV. Consistently low prices for media, on most electronic items they are willing to negotiate (not media), I went in there for a wireless KB, I ended getting it for half price (I love stocktake time). JB and to a lesser extent DSE are great no nonsense retailers but DSE is close to turning into another Harvey Norman.

Just buy and return accessory

[failedlogic]

Here's an easy fix and get your 'revenge' at the same time. Buy iPad + accessories. Go back to your car and put your iPad in the trunk. Accessory in hand, go back to the customer service desk. Tell them, on second thought, this accessory I bought wasn't what I thought it would be. I'd like a refund.

Now I'm sure they would have to refund you. I doubt their terms and conditions of refund behind their receipt would have any wording that would suggest that the iPad would also need to be refunded.

Its a PITA. But I'll bet when it starts costing the store thousands and taking up staff time, they will get the message.

Re:Just buy and return accessory

[Vectormatic]

Better solution:

Say 'Fuck you' to the sales-ape, walk out of the store.

Not getting screwed and keeping your principles intact is worth more then getting an i-whatever a few days early

Re:Just buy and return accessory

[thegarbz]

Even better solution:

Say 'Fuck you' to the sales-ape, walk out of the store.

Not getting screwed and keeping your principles intact is worth more then getting an i-whatever a few days early

Then complain to the ACCC. The ACCC have had to investigate JB HiFi for dubious business practices several times. I know for a fact that they don't like it when companies try a bait and switch scam in direct violation of the Trade Practices Act.

Re:forced

[Dogtanian]

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.

Re:super kawaii~

[arielCo]

On hist, Loskcher?

Doesn't fit with modern "society"

[LynnwoodRooster]

We're supposed to be able to force everyone else bow to our individual demands at any time, for any reason, no matter what the demand. And if that doesn't happen then clearly everyone else is trampling my rights and I need the Government to step in and force everyone to do exactly as I demand. Going elsewhere or waiting a week until the next shipment arrives at another vendor means I don't get my Constitutionally Guaranteed right to immediate satisfaction on my own terms and thus must break hundreds of UN resolutions and human rights!

Re:Doesn't fit with modern "society"

[couchslug]

I'm fine with sellers requiring bundled purchases or none at all.

I can vote with my wallet if I don't like the terms, and it IS amusing when people who crave a thing are manipulated by their betters.
These early adopters should be milked thoroughly (gets the maker a quick return on their investment) so the rest of us can enjoy sweet price cuts later on.

This arrangement has resulted in rapid tech advancement for the masses. the rich Early Adopters can enjoy their penis waving (it's yours, wave it all you like!, and everyone wins in the end.

Re:Doesn't fit with modern "society"

[insertwackynamehere]

You can't lie about "rules" coming from high up in your distribution channel, like "oh Apple says you have to buy accessories, sorry not our rules". This is illegal, because you are deceiving a customer. You could say "oh we're only selling it as a bundle here, sorry".

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[Anonymous Coward]

Rum was the official currency of the colony of New South Wales. Yes, Australia did use alcohol for a currency during the early 19th century, but not beer.

Re:You idiot.

[Fantastic Lad]

It seems more likely you pulled them out of your ass. Or they pulled you out of theirs.

Oh it seems that way, does it? Who are you measuring against? Yourself and the people you call friends?

Yeah, that's a reliable source of intelligence. Because it's obvious that ALL Jews are bad and there's no possible way any reality might exist where people don't have to lie about having friends who aren't boring, predictable losers. Grow a spine and step beyond your comfort zone. Not everybody is an inexperienced, TV-watching coward.

-FL

Re:forced

[Dogtanian]

"Don't like it, don't buy it" IS a valid response, you just don't like it, and thus... don;t buy it.

Only if someone's acting as if they don't have a choice (for whatever reason) when they do. However, the context it was used in here- and frequently is elsewhere- made clear that it was meant as a rebuttal of criticism, the implication being "don't like it, shut up and don't criticise".

Kidding aside, the "Don't like it, don't buy it" crowd is really following the mantra of "free and open trade market", what they fail to see is that only Apple has this product, so the "free and open trade market" is no longer valid.

Well, this depends upon whether one considers they have a free choice.

If Kellogg's charge too much for their corn flakes- sure, I can only buy "Kellogg's corn flakes" from Kelloggs, but there are other makes of corn flakes, and other cereals (*) available from other manufacturers.

On the other hand, if Apple had monopolised the smartphone market and/or had the only widely-supported software ecosystem and/or for various reasons I "had" to buy an Apple iPhone- as opposed to preferring one- that's a different kettle of fish. (Not that I *am* suggesting that this is the case at present).

Re:forced

[joebagodonuts]

"reported apple policy" in this case means 2nd-hand anecdotal information from a forum post.

The source was some store manager from a 3rd party reseller trying to defect blame from his company's dumb-assed ploy. 'Oh there is nothing I can do. It's, ummm... err...Apple! Yeah, that's the ticket. They are making us!'

Didn't AT&T do the same thing with one of the iPhone releases in the states? Minus the blaming Apple, of course.

The real reason...

[morphotomy]

The reason this is happening is that apple products are not sold with a markup. Ipods that are sold in stores for $300 are sold TO the stores for $300. Meaning the only money the stores make is on the overprices accessories (also the reason the accessories cost so damned much anyway). Maybe apple should rethink its distribution method and stop raping vendors.

Re:The real reason...

[dwightk]

The reason this is happening is that apple products are not sold with a markup. Ipods that are sold in stores for $300 are sold TO the stores for $300.

That's not true.

Oh, what's that, you want more than just a bald assertion?

You first.

Re:The real reason...

[speedlaw]

I cannot believe that anyone retails without some markup...how do you expect to get the product sold ? If it is not a 'company store', then the light bill has to be paid. Even fanbois need to eat.

Re:forced

[BrokenHalo]

what they fail to see is that only Apple has this product...

We didn't have this product available before Apple brought it to the market, and now that we can see what it's like, we still don't have to buy it. Apple can kid itself that it is "redefining" the market, but (from my point of view) Apple is living in its own little feedback loop of responses from fanboys. What I want is a real computer in a tablet format, not an overgrown iPod Touch.

I'm not saying all Apple products suck (I have owned 2 iPods and this post is typed on a 2nd-hand MacBook), but a bit of perspective doesn't hurt.

Re:forced

[Riven.exe]

And "Stop me if you can, sucker" is a valid response to people that try to stop criticism.

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[Pence128]

+1: Awesome.

Re:forced

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:forced

[BitZtream]

...another tedious chestnut that appears like clockwork whenever a company gets criticism for sales practices or goods people don't like.

You get those chestnuts because we're tired of retards like yourself and the GP whining about it.

You know the drill.

Its not new, its certainly not new for Apple. They haven't changed. They aren't getting any worse. They aren't the only ones that do this sort of thing, its pretty common even if you're too busy railing against the machine to know how often you buy into this same thing.

We're just tired of seeing you idiots rant on about the same thing over and over again as if its something different and that Apple is just the scum of the Earth for doing it.

As soon as you stop making retarded statements about how evil the company is everytime the do something that makes them money because you disagree with it, then the rest of us will stop saying ...

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT YOU FUCKING MORON.

This is extortion.

[jmactacular]

Exactly. Well said. Why would anyone take that supposed policy at face value? It's an obviously shady scam to try and EXTORT people out of more money. Extortion is illegal. And if they actually had the audacity to print out that policy, which I doubt they did, the piece of paper would quickly become leverage to use to get them to stop extorting people.

Re:forced

[Dogtanian]

Stores that require that you buy OTHER items to get item #1, are in violation of consumer protection and pricing laws.

Quite possibly (though did you mean under Australian law or Slashdot's default of the United States?), and I don't disagree that this should be the case.

However, if you look at what my post, you'll see that wasn't the point under discussion. We were considering whether the iPhone was or wasn't a part of a free market.

It's called "bait and switch" to make the customer buy all kinds of other accessories on top of that price.

I would assume that there are two issues here, that of bundling (or whatever the legal term is) and that of "bait and switch".

In this case it probably *was* bait and switch because they apparently weren't upfront to customers until they got in the shop, then only sold them the iPhone bundle rather than the items on their own.

But I would guess that if they *had* been upfront, it wouldn't be bait and switch, even though it would be bundling (and disagreeable).

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.

Given that your original version of this had you thinking it was acceptable to brandish your gun over a price dispute on some consumer electronics (and not being aware that this was a crime), I'd question your judgement on what is or isn't acceptable, and what you think you could get away with.

You seem to think that just because someone does something illegal, you can get away with doing just about anything in response, including walking out the store without paying.

I suspect that in real life, it wouldn't play out like that.

(Disclaimer; this is *not* a defence or acceptance of price-fixing, bait-and-switch, dodgy retailers or whatever. Because if I don't make that clear, some idiot not paying attention to what I'm saying *will* assume that this is the case).

Re:forced

[Dogtanian]

Its not new, its certainly not new for Apple. They haven't changed. They aren't getting any worse. They aren't the only ones that do this sort of thing, its pretty common

Indeed. Apple are one of the most prominent and popular, however, and that makes it worthy of discussion. The same publicity that gets them in the papers and on television and makes articles like this on Slashdot regular news (when something from Buttfsck Electronics probably wouldn't be). That's why it's discussed.

If you don't like that, either tell Apple to shut down their PR department or head off to an Apple-lovers-only forum. It's not my problem!

even if you're too busy railing against the machine to know how often you buy into this same thing.

Nice strawman. Do you actually think everyone who says anything against Apple is a stereotypical counter-culture consumerist (dreadlocks? cannabis leaf t-shirt? expensive anti-The-Man clothing bought at a capitalist-owned chainstore etc)?

Sadly, you probably do.

As soon as you stop making retarded statements about how evil the company is

In this case, I didn't say anything about how evil Apple is. I said that they weren't entitled to immunity from criticism.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT YOU FUCKING MORON.

Well, y'know... I haven't, and I won't. Because it sucks. (^_^)

Re:forced

[Dogtanian]

You sound like the people who say they are entitled to complain about the government even if they didn't vote. It's technically true, but there is something wrong with it.

In what sense and in relation to which point I made?

Are you suggesting that criticising the iPad but not buying it is somehow analogous to complaining about the government when you didn't vote?

If you don't see that, well, I can't help you.

If you can't make your point more clearly, then please don't try to shift the responsibility for understanding it on to me.

Re:forced

[snowgirl]

You're good to question his opinion in the matter.

There is a notion of "invitation to treat", which generally applies to advertised goods. By advertising a price, you are not obligating yourself into a binding agreement to make that sale.

A shop owner can still, in general, refuse business to any particular individual.

The proper way to go about this, would be to demand to see the manager. Note to the manager, that the object has been offered at a given price, and that you wish to agree to the originally offered deal. They may then either agree or disagree. If they disagree note to them that by making an offer and then rejecting it (due to an unadvertised necessity of a bundle, or "you have to buy accessories") that they potentially run afoul of consumer protection laws. Then, again assert your intent to agree to the original deal. If they decline again, then take your money, leave, and report them to the appropriate consumer agency.

Re:More apple issues

[jo_ham]

This is one of the best troll posts I have ever seen.

Bravo.

JB Hi-Fi has best reputation in country

[CuteSteveJobs]

Posters are ripping into JB Hi-Fi, but they have a very good reputation in Australia. They're #1 on the corporate reputation score:

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Finance/2010/05/04/JB_Hi-Fi_has_best_reputation_in_country_458400.html

Now look at the Weasel words from Apple:
> The practice is not sanctioned by Apple either. An Apple spokeswoman said while she could not comment on company policy, “consumers could buy iPads directly from us” without any add-ons.

That first sentence I think was added since the article was posted. Note the spokesweasel won't "comment on company policy." LOLWOT? She only says you don't have to buy add-ons if you buy straight from Apple. She didn't deny that Apple was behind forcing retailers this. Plus JB is an authorised Apple reseller. If it weren't true you would think Apple would be ripping them a new one. I hope the ACCC gives Apple (and JB) a good bollocksing to get to the bottom of who was behind this.

Re:More apple issues

[stormy_petral]

But the company would do much better I think on a whole if they go rid of Jobs. His moronic ideas of company doctrine will eventually kill the company. Anyone for a vote of no confidence?

Let me check Apple stock price and get back to you.

Re:forced

[halowolf]

I bought an Apple iPad from JB Hi-Fi on launch day from Perth Carousel, and no assistant there forced me to buy any accessories for it. I got the 3G version and they pointed out where the accessories were and asked if I wanted to get a 3G plan, I said I was fine and that was that. In fact the sales assistant was great getting me out of the store in next to no time. No strong arm tactics were used and there was no attempt at coercion. Had that tried any of that stuff on my I would of just told them to sod off. The accessory I did want (the Apple iPad case) was simply not available at the time in store due to a world wide shortage of them (nice move Apple *rolls eyes*).

Its sounding more like a case of over zealous sales assistants rather than store policy to me.

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[thegarbz]

Exactly. I was at the Apple store yesterday and saw loads of people walking out with just an iPad. My friend bought just an iPad, and on the apple Australia website you can buy just the iPad.

This is JBHiFi doing their usual business practices. It seems they really really like talking to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. 45 search results for ACCC on www.accc.gov.au Including selling new mobile phones, not selling items they advertised at the advertised price, and general competition concerns.

Re:You got to wonder sometimes

[shutdown -p now]

The primary difference in the two currencies is US dollars used to be exchangeable for gold where as the AUD is exchangeable for beer.

I thought AUD is backed by crocodile hides?

Re:forced

[Dexter Herbivore]

FYI, in Australia we have the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 10%. The tax MUST be included in the sticker price of whatever good is being sold. Unlike your American system, the sticker price IS the sticker price and we have no "hidden" extras to pay once we reach the counter.

Re:forced

[oztiks]

... I would of just told them to sod off ...

Mate, here in Australia we either use the words "piss" or "fuck" before the word "off". Such as, "piss off" or "fuck off" or for the more creative mind "piss the fuck off".

Using the word "sod" is likely to get you banned from our borders and have you sent to New Zealand.

Re:Get Steve Irwin

[oztiks]

Queensland Accent ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_variation_in_Australian_English#Regional_vocabulary

The rest of the country speaks pretty fairly understandable English :)

Re:forced

[dangitman]

They advertise an iPad for $499 - they have to sell you the iPad for $499.99.

That's a weird law. If they were advertising it at $499, I would have thought they'd have to sell it at $499, not $499.99. Why would consumer protection laws require products to be sold at 99 cents more than they are advertised at?

Re:forced

[commodore64_love]

>>>walking out the store without paying.

It helps if you learn to read. Quote: "I would have laid down my $500 cash on the register, plus $30 for tax". That's called paying
.

Re:forced

[commodore64_love]

The store where I used to work was fined for advertising a price, and then not offering the item at the price. It wasn't just the one store either... the government fined the whole nationwide corporation.

You make it sound like stores advertisements are just "optional voluntary arrangements" but the government does not view it that way
.

Re:forced

[commodore64_love]

We do that with our gasoline, and I think it's a bad idea. If consumers realized they were paying an extra ~60 cents for every gallon purchased, it would be better for democracy overall. Taxes should never be hidden.

Re:forced

[commodore64_love]

Typo. The first $499 should have been 499.99.

Nothing to see here, move along

[Phoghat]

I'm a retired pharmacist and thought it might be fun to work part time at a Radio $hlock selling gadgets (which I've always loved). The last Christmas I worked there I was told that I would have to sell THREE accessories with every cell phone sale. At least three accessories and my job depended on it. We were told that when we sold a cell we would have to pick the three without even asking the customer if they wanted them and bring them to the counter as if they couldn't exist without them if they had this phone.

So what's the big deal? These guys aren't the first, won't be the last to try this crap.

I quit RS, and I'm my own boss selling stuff that I don't have to hold a gun to the buyers head to make a profit.

Re:forced

[Dogtanian]

By the same token, if I leave $0.10 on the counter and leave, I'm "paying".

Please don't give me the "they're not entitled to force bundling of the extras" [true or not] "therefore I'm entitled to brandish my gun / walk out without paying what they were asking / etc" type nonsense either.

They could, should- and probably would- be convicted of something like that in court; it doesn't mean that your manner of solving the dispute is right or legal.

Re:forced

[snowgirl]

The store where I used to work was fined for advertising a price, and then not offering the item at the price. It wasn't just the one store either... the government fined the whole nationwide corporation.

You make it sound like stores advertisements are just "optional voluntary arrangements" but the government does not view it that way .

You're mistaking my statements, and I was likely unclear.

The offer to retreat is not a binding offer. The offering party can still decline the offer entirely, and reject the sale.

Thus, by placing money on the counter and saying "I've paid" does not establish a proper sale (which is a contract) any more than any other unilateral action by one party can force a contract on another.

So, while a seller is obligated to keep a bona fide advertised price* as the maximum price, they are not required or bound to actually make the sale, simply because you offer the money.

*: there are exceptions where an error in advertising a price does not violate consumer protections. N.B. An "intentional error" is not an error.

Re:It would be threatening behaviour, not robbery

[MightyMartian]

As someone else stated, a sale requires to parties exchanging goods. It requires that to be non-coerced. Showing off your gun holster is threatening, it's coercion and thus invalidates the sale, on top of probably being a violation of the laws of just about any jurisdiction that permits the carrying of concealed weapons.

Dont know where this crap came from.

[beta.services]

I bought my iPad from JB Hi-Fi about two weeks ago without any accessories. I was asked if I would like a screen protector. I said no. He said "OK, follow me to the register so I can disarm the security for you." That was it.

Re:It's about time a stop was put to these combos

[soppsa]

Because the license for the $30 upgrade is a 10.5->10.6 upgrade. Upgrade pricing has existed in software for *decades* and doesn't mean 'combos'. Sure Apple doesn't put nasty DRM on it, but you are still violating the license agreement if you put it on 10.4...

Re:forced

[jeffrey.endres]

Except the tax is clearly printed on every receipt.

Selling something at the advertised price is great for consumers. In fact, there has been a recent ruling that restaurants can't put a hidden surcharge on for holidays. If they want to charge more, they have to print other menus.

Re:forced

[dpastern]

Yes, the store is free to refuse to do business with you, but you are quite within your rights to pursue it and get it in writing from them too. And then to go to town as much as possible with how that store discriminates against people who don't play their bait & switch games.

Unlike many, I don't think businesses should have any rights at all. It's a well known fact amongst anyone who has half a brain that businesses will fuck a customer over at the first opportunity, especially if it means making more money. I'm all for 100% consumer rights, zero business rights, because in the end, it's never the consumer trying to fuck the business over, but the other way around.

Dave

Re:forced

[snowgirl]

First, you are not justified in getting it writing. You are perfectly within your rights to pursue the matter, however lacking any evidence of illegal discrimination, your claims likely will not get far.

I will agree with almost all of your opinions about businesses. I am most definitely a strong socialist democrat.

However, there most certainly are people who grift businesses.

Re:forced

[dpastern]

So, witnesses don't count?

Dave

Re:forced

[snowgirl]

So, witnesses don't count?

Witnesses to what? I already said, if you have evidence/witnesses of illegal discrimination, then that would get some traction.

But if you're just complaining then you're not likely to get any traction...