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

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

[PopeRatzo]

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

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

[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

[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

[icebraining]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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).

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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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: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

[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

[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?

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.

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.

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: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.

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).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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]

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: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:Get Steve Irwin

[erroneus]

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

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.

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: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: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.