New Service Lets Users Try Apple's New IPad For 30 Days Before Buying

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Service Lets Users Try Apple's New IPad For 30 Days Before Buying

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday March 15, 2012 @10:01AM from the give-it-a-spin dept.

zacharye writes "A new subscription service allows potential gadget owners to test out new devices like Apple's new iPad tablet before committing to a purchase. YBUY, which bills itself as a try-before-you-buy online subscription service, charges users a flat monthly fee of $24.95 for access to a wide range of consumer electronics as well as home and kitchen gadgets. Users can choose one device at a time from YBUY's catalog and trial the gadget for up to 30 days before returning it. Beginning in April, the company's inventory will also include Apple's new iPad."

150 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

ill have double by wjh31 · 2012-03-15 10:03 · Score: 0

with eggs and bacon
1. Re:ill have double by jaxtherat · 2012-03-15 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  You should see how nuts some of the blogs dedicated (yes dedicated) to the new Ipad are O_o:
  http://whereismynewipad.tumblr.com/post/19363428088/when-it-comes
  
  --
  http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
2. Re:ill have double by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  This might actually be useful. All the people who own Ipads bought them because they're fanbois or they feel it adds status.
  This is for the people who might actually use an Ipad.. all 4 of them.
3. Re:ill have double by hairyfeet · 2012-03-15 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  I have a really good question....why? I mean if there is one device that people either know they want or know they don't its iPad and other Apple gear. Apple has always been one of those "love 'em or hate 'em" kind of companies, with half praising everything they do while the other half make "Ur holdin it wrong" YouTube videos. Its not like you need to research this thing or don't know what it does, its an iPad which is probably the most over-saturated device when it comes to the press in history. Hell I was watching a movie review last night and one of the reviewers talked about how much shilling the movie was doing as the character was supposed to be an advertising exec and he had a Sony Viao and "as everybody knows the press uses Apple duh!".
  So seriously WTF? 30 seconds in a store is gonna tell you if you want it or not, its not like this is some device with a serious learning curve ya know, its an iPad. you poke it, it does stuff, really not that hard to figure out.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
At face value... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-03-15 10:03 · Score: 1

At face value, this sounds pretty slick. Kinda like Netflix for blinkie things. I do hope their 'completely sanitized' procedure actually works, though. The last thing I would want is to rent a tablet then find somebody's snooping my email.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
1. Re:At face value... by mhajicek · 2012-03-15 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  "But we never received your returned item. You owe us $600."
2. Re:At face value... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-03-15 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Shock! Horror! And... a good way for their business to dry up in a hurry.
  Incidentally, if you lose your cable box you'll be out $500, too.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
3. Re:At face value... by Cormacus · 2012-03-15 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  UPS package tracking FTW
  
  --
  Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
4. Re:At face value... by tripleevenfall · 2012-03-15 10:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It sounds more like people will rent things for vacations and flights who have no interest in actually buying the things.
5. Re:At face value... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-03-15 10:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What's wrong with that?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
6. Re:At face value... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  At face value, this sounds pretty slick. Kinda like Netflix for blinkie things.
  Yes, sort of like Netflix. A Netflix where all the new releases and ridiculously popular items are all checked out and have been reserved for the next six months.
7. Re:At face value... by rhook · 2012-03-15 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure they pay for return postage and insure it. And the tracking number proves you sent it back.
8. Re:At face value... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-03-15 10:43 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Well given that this whole article is just an advertisement, how about we consider a fact people really need to know?
  iPad market share fell by 7 percent last quarter. It would seem that in spite of a carefully crafted perception to the contrary, Apple's tablets are headed in the same direction as Apple's phones: absolute numbers shipped up, market share down. Apple's response will be to cut margins to slow the decline. This will not show up as a revenue slip for a while. So for now, Apple's share price will continue to tread air. But the writing is on the wall.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
9. Re:At face value... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure they pay for return postage and insure it. And the tracking number proves you sent it back.
  No, the tracking number proves you sent _something_ back. Suppose they claim they received an empty box, then what?
10. Re:At face value... by Nerdfest · 2012-03-15 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  It is a walled garden, but you're not supposed to tease the plants.
11. Re:At face value... by rhook · 2012-03-15 11:03 · Score: 2
  
  The last several times I sent something through UPS they verified the contents. They do this now because of all the people mailing packages of drugs.
12. Re:At face value... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-03-15 11:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I really do wish people around here would understand what fuck 'marketshare' actually means. Apple could sell 20% more iPads this year than last and still fall in marketshare. Why? Because their marketshare was 100% until their competitors came along.
  If you want to experess doom and gloom, go by how much their sales of dropped, not marketshare. Derr.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
13. Re:At face value... by Chuck+Chunder · 2012-03-15 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  absolute numbers shipped up, market share down.
  In other words, doing well where it actually matters to a company, not doing so well where it matters to dick-waving fanboys?
  
  --
  Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
14. Re:At face value... by causality · 2012-03-15 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  The last several times I sent something through UPS they verified the contents. They do this now because of all the people mailing packages of drugs.
  Wouldn't they rather claim something similar to the telecoms' "common carrier" status? In other words, is there really zero chance that the one cleverly-concealed package of drugs that slips by wouldn't get them in trouble for drug trafficking?
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
15. Re:At face value... by Tough+Love · 2012-03-15 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Let's all just give a big shout-out to Apple for helping make this the year of Linux on the Tablet!
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
16. Re:At face value... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  really? I ship UPS several times a year and they have never verified the contents. I drop them off with a label already on the box though.
  Maybe you just look like a drug dealer?
17. Re:At face value... by sco08y · 2012-03-15 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Let's all just give a big shout-out to Apple for helping make this the year of BSD on the Tablet!
  FTFY.
18. Re:At face value... by Tough+Love · 2012-03-15 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Let's all just give a big shout-out to Apple and Linux for helping make this the year of No Windows on the Tablet!
  FTFY.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
19. Re:At face value... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-03-15 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  I really do wish people around here would understand what [bleep] 'marketshare' actually means. Apple could sell 20% more iPads this year than last and still fall in marketshare.
  See, it turns into a race between increasing absolute numbers and decreasing margin. That is where market share really counts, simple.
  I have to ask: why is only Apple fanbots who profess not to care about market share? I am sure Apple does, as does everyone in business.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
20. Re:At face value... by causality · 2012-03-15 11:55 · Score: 2
  
  I really do wish people around here would understand what fuck 'marketshare' actually means. Apple could sell 20% more iPads this year than last and still fall in marketshare. Why? Because their marketshare was 100% until their competitors came along.
  If you want to experess doom and gloom, go by how much their sales of dropped, not marketshare. Derr.
  Seems to me you need both figures to get the whole picture.
  
  Let's say your sales go up a little but your marketshare drops drastically. It means you're doing a little better and your competitors are doing much better. It indicates you are no longer so competitive.
  
  Short-term, it's just like you say -- no big deal, it's a fairly new market, etc. Long-term, if that doesn't change, it will prove to be unsustainable. That's the part that remains to be seen. It's easy to have good sales and good marketshare when there are no other players in the market. I'm much more interested in what happens when that environment changes.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
21. Re:At face value... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-03-15 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Long-term, if that doesn't change, it will prove to be unsustainable
  Why? Apple has millions of units out there and plenty of software to support it.
  I wouldn't mind, but this is the exact same rationale people have been using to predict Nintendo's death for over 10 years.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
22. Re:At face value... by Rakishi · 2012-03-15 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it'll be just like that thing apple used to sell. The Macbook I think it was called. Never gained enough market share so they had to kill it. Oh wait.
  a) Not having 100% market share doesn't matter as long as you don't keep losing that market share indefinitely.
  b) Marketshare is different from marketshare. A Ferrari and a Jetta are both cars, according to you logic that'd put them both in the same market. Apple doesn't care about people who buy $100 tablets and would have never bought an iPad.
23. Re:At face value... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-03-15 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Long-term, if that doesn't change, it will prove to be unsustainable
  ...this is the exact same rationale people have been using to predict Nintendo's death for over 10 years.
  By no means the end of Apple, but the end of Apple as a good investment. To understand this using your own analogy, just look at Nintendo's five year performance:
  http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NTOA.F+Interactive#symbol=ntoa.f;range=5y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
24. Re:At face value... by Relayman · 2012-03-15 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Shipped is not the same as sold. Any number for Kindle shipments or sales is bogus as Amazon doesn't release that information.
  
  --
  If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
25. Re:At face value... by Relayman · 2012-03-15 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that Apple worries about market share as much when they're shipping every unit they can make. Currently, they are constrained by production, not by competition. And, let's see, how much does Amazon lose on every Kindle sold vs. Apple's profit on every iPad sold?
  
  --
  If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
26. Re:At face value... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-03-15 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  > I have to ask: why is only Apple fanbots who profess not to care about market share?
  Apple isn't hurting for cash, developers, or new customers. An alternative question is why, exactly, are the Haterade Addicts so fixated on marketshare? Is it because there's a really good reason, or is it just interesting because it's a number that went down?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
27. Re:At face value... by causality · 2012-03-15 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  I see you making some statements of the obvious. The thing is, I didn't dispute any of them. I was talking about Apple's performance as a company when compared to competitors. You know, that thing I kept referring to? Yeah, that.
  
  If there is something I said that you believe is in error, as in factually incorrect, let me know.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
28. Re:At face value... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-03-15 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Of course Apple worries about market share, because it worries about its prospects on a timeframe of more than just one quarter. What I said about Apple cutting its margins? It already happened. Quadrupling its screen resolution has a price: higher bill of materials cost.. Now hang on for a moment... some actual numbers are not going to kill you. Let's think about what the numbers actually mean. So Apple's bill of materials went up 6% expressed as a fraction of selling price. That translates to roughly $38 extra cost against Apple's gross margin of $319. That is 12% profit decrease. So Apple needs a 12% increase in volume just to stay flat. And with Apple's stratospheric stock price, breaking even is nowhere near good enough. See what I mean? This is already heading in the direction of Apple as a shrink stock, even faster than I expected.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
29. Re:At face value... by mattack2 · 2012-03-15 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Then short the stock please, I look forward to the short squeeze.
30. Re:At face value... by Rakishi · 2012-03-15 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  I see you making some statements of the obvious
  Yes, when I talk to dense people I tend to try to dumb it down to their level. Apparently I need to do so even more with you.
  Apple has shown itself perfectly capable of retaining market share while keeping margins high. Their competitors have not. This is because Apple positions their products at the high end and generally competes on features instead of price. They are a brand and not a chine made piece of plastic.
  Other competitors cut each other's throats to get the cheapest computer, monitor, phone and tablet out into the marketplace. Apple does not. In essence they are not Apple's competitors but simply each other's competitors.
31. Re:At face value... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-03-15 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  AAPL is not the best short in the market, but I would not go long either, based on the cracks now appearing in its mainstay franchises. This is entirely appart from the fact that I do not make a habit of investing in unethical organizations.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
32. Re:At face value... by BasilBrush · 2012-03-15 14:09 · Score: 0
  
  The fact people really need to know is that you, Daniel Phillips, might be a rapist
33. Re:At face value... by BasilBrush · 2012-03-15 14:12 · Score: 0
  
  Is this the end of your possible, rapist activities?
34. Re:At face value... by BasilBrush · 2012-03-15 14:13 · Score: 0
  
  Raping young girls has a cost too.
35. Re:At face value... by BasilBrush · 2012-03-15 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  You possibly make the habit of being a a rapist though.
36. Re:At face value... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-03-15 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has shown itself perfectly capable of retaining market share while keeping margins high.
  Excuse me, but both Apple's market share and margins are currently slipping. Or have we now entered that proverbial reality distortion field?
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
37. Re:At face value... by Tough+Love · 2012-03-15 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Most insightful comment... ever.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
38. Re:At face value... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  Ridiculous. UPS could never operate a business where they require inspection of all packages.
  If you are mailing delicate, expensive electronics by throwing them in a beat-up Dell box half-full of peanuts, then they may demand to inspect the packing materials before agreeing to a high declared value. (But fuck you anyway, in that case.)
39. Re:At face value... by rhook · 2012-03-15 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  I recall seeing something on the form referencing a CFR that mandates this.
40. Re:At face value... by rhook · 2012-03-15 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  If you drop them off with a label already on the box I assume you have an account with them. In which case they know where to find you.
41. Re:At face value... by Xeranar · 2012-03-15 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  and suppose you stopped being an AC so these sorts of schemes can stopped being brought up as an actual worry. This service would get sued so fast for pulling this their collective class-action heads would spin. A simple review of UPS documents along with inventory in the discovery phase of the lawsuit would ruin this and for what? A few thousand dollars in merchandise? Even if a couple employees did this after the first few items went missing their internal review would find out quickly. Businesses that operate on a return rental model always have this possibility of scam but never do it because it's so painfully obvious.
42. Re:At face value... by Xeranar · 2012-03-15 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  A.) Haterade addicts & Fanbois are incredibly incendiary terms and probably have no place in the discussion.
  B.) Apple will inevitably fall to their relatively normal 30% market share if history tells us anything. Their PC marketshare hovers around 10% and will probably grow somewhat but not to 30% simply because of price.
  C.) They're a brand that sells largely over-priced electronics. I won't lie, I really find apple designs endearing and well-crafted. They spend money on quality materials where others do not. But it doesn't justify a 100% premium over their competitors. It just so happens that in the tablet market they're leading the way but given the future and barring some radical development Apple will be a trendsetter but never a market leader. The iPhone opened the door but it's losing overall ground to Android just as it will inevitably to Android in Tablets as well. Why is the inevitable so offensive? Is it that big of a value judgment? It's sadly ironic in that Apple value judgments come from the "just works" and class-based aesthetic and the Android value judgment comes from the Price and power-based aesthetic. Neither really coincides in the same realm so even on the subjective level it is comparing apples to oranges.
43. Re:At face value... by Xeranar · 2012-03-15 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Apple will remain healthy for the foreseeable future and I agree they don't want or need 100% marketshare. I do believe though a great number of Apple fans were so proud to declare the marketshare when it was higher and now as it falls they rely on profitability which frankly unless you own Apple why would you want to bring it up? I own a Toyota Scion, doesn't mean I am proud when Toyota makes a profit, I could care less since I never see a dime of it and their R&D continues right along with out me. Apple's obnoxiously oversized war chest of cash actually proves they've largely been ripping off customers for the last decade...
  I hate to sound like I hate Apple because I don't but when you argue profits as if you have a stake in the game and you don't it just comes across as incredibly stupid.
44. Re:At face value... by BasilBrush · 2012-03-15 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  Daniel Phillips, your past might be a bit distorted.
45. Re:At face value... by rolfwind · 2012-03-15 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  See, it turns into a race between increasing absolute numbers and decreasing margin. That is where market share really counts, simple.
  I have to ask: why is only Apple fanbots who profess not to care about market share? I am sure Apple does, as does everyone in business.
  Er, not really. Many japanese companies tried the whole marketshare-at-all-costs thing at a loss with no real gain, selling products at a loss trying to achieve this fleeting Holy Grail. When Steve Jobs went back into Apple in 1997, he cut nearly all things that didn't make money for Apple (they had an extensive, confusing line up that blended together into a myriad of choices instead of differentiating themselves quickly and easily, which too many companies still have today), and ceded the PC wars to Microsoft for the time being. Enough that they worked with Microsoft at least.
  Michael Dell of Dell Computers, back in 1997 Job's return, asked what he would do with Apple, said he's basically just sell off the assets and scrap the company. Dell is a very marketshare oriented driven company and their stock price is lower today than it was during the dotcom days.
  At the end of the 90s and beginning of the 00s, they had hardly any marketshare in computers and yet still made themselves profitable by not chasing elusive dragons.
  iPhone and iPad don't have to outsell everyone else, they just need to make a profit and have a large enough and affluent audience to get developers. Both products have features (outside of technical specs) that customers want, like quality of construction materials, that competitors often don't touch and also the iOS ecosystem which Android really isn't competing in terms of $ turnover and ease of getting Apps out there & simple testing (multiple models from a variety of manufacturers every generation vs 1 product from Apple per generation) that is enticing developers to switch and only use android, while there are enough apps that are iOS only.
46. Re:At face value... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-03-16 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  See, Apple has never had to compete with a product - Linux - which tries its level best to be good for the customer, above all else. That's a new and terrifying threat for Apple. And rightly so.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
47. Re:At face value... by datavirtue · 2012-03-16 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  In ten years they will be on the ropes again with no one to bail them out.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
48. Re:At face value... by Y-Crate · 2012-03-16 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  The last several times I sent something through UPS they verified the contents. They do this now because of all the people mailing packages of drugs.
  Wouldn't they rather claim something similar to the telecoms' "common carrier" status? In other words, is there really zero chance that the one cleverly-concealed package of drugs that slips by wouldn't get them in trouble for drug trafficking?
  No, because then they'd get completely fucked by people sneaking HAZMAT shipments through as regular packages that don't need special TLC and shouldn't be bouncing around with 70lb spools of wire smashing into them on conveyor belts above the heads of their workers.
49. Re:At face value... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-16 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  I have to ask: why is only Apple fanbots who profess not to care about market share? I am sure Apple does, as does everyone in business.
  Because we see how chasing marketshare has worked out for say... HP.
50. Re:At face value... by sglewis100 · 2012-03-16 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  So Apple's bill of materials went up 6% expressed as a fraction of selling price. That translates to roughly $38 extra cost against Apple's gross margin of $319. That is 12% profit decrease. So Apple needs a 12% increase in volume just to stay flat. And with Apple's stratospheric stock price, breaking even is nowhere near good enough. See what I mean? This is already heading in the direction of Apple as a shrink stock, even faster than I expected.
  Let's see:
  
  3Q 2010 - 3.27 million sold.
  4Q 2010 - 4.19 million sold. (28% increase)
  1Q 2011 - 7.33 million sold. (75% increase)
  2Q 2011 - 4.69 million sold. (64% decrease)
  3Q 2011 - 9.25 million sold. (97% increase quarter over quarter, 182% year over year))
  4Q 2011 - 11.12 million sold. (20% increase quarter over quarter, 165% year over year)
  1Q 2012 - 15.43 million sold. (39% increase quarter over quarter, 111% year over year)
  
  With 2Q 2011 widely attributed to supply chain issues (a problem they rarely have), I suspect they may cover your 12% increase. A casual glance at the 2-3 week backorder delay on new orders of iPads, it would seem the continuation of tens of millions of iPads being made, can't make them fast enough is continuing.
  
  The iPod scaled similarly, with huge gains. Once it saturated the market, it began to decrease, but by then, replacement products were already on a meteoric rise, specifically the iPhone and iPad.
  
  I think the market for tablets is neither saturated, nor is the iPad the last product Apple thinks it will ever have to produce. I'm sure their people are already working on concepts for future products. All throughout this, the Mac laptop business has been steadily increasing as well.
  
  Will their stock ever dip? Probably. Is it imminent? No, of course not.
51. Re:At face value... by mjperson · 2012-03-16 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  >They spend money on quality materials where others do not. But it doesn't justify a 100% premium over their competitors.
  Actually, that is pretty much the *only* thing that *does* justify such margins. In just about every other manufacturing industry, there's the cheap crap you can buy at a discount, and the high-quality, well-made stuff that has a much greater than >100% price premium. Toasters, Dining Room Tables, Cars... You name it, and paying for quality has always been profitable.
  The only question that remains is whether you think Apple is providing the quality. Given your statement above, it is.
52. Re:At face value... by Xeranar · 2012-03-16 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, see you're confusing exclusivity with quality. Ferraris through most of their existence have been truly awful cars. Good for tracks but not much else. Even in the fabled 60s/70s/80s a much cheaper Jaguar and Corvette could destroy them. Only in the 90s when advanced computers render their hand-hew designs obsolete did Ferrari really become a truly fast car. The same basically applies for almost all other 100+ price premium things. It's a game of exclusivity that makes them valuable. Coach bags aren't really that much better at carrying things or that much more beautiful (in all honesty in their attempt to become status symbols they've grown disturbingly ugly, but that's me). I can only think of a handful of companies that follow a quality justifies premium and almost all of them are watch makers and a fair portion of their cost is in labor because of the quality needed to make them.
  Apple is a consumer electronics manufacturer that uses near-slave labor like all other consumer electronics manufacturers. They're verging on commodities because of their generic similarities. Apple insists on their price premium because of their class-based image and exclusivity pricing. They build out of metal which was what I was commending for the most part but that doesn't really add a huge cost onto the price, not the several hundreds of dollars of difference that they add.
  This is why I avoid complimenting apple...their lovers come out and try and twist it into something deeper...
53. Re:At face value... by causality · 2012-03-16 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  So once again you reply to me with an adverse tone, without actually refuting a single statement I made?
  
  Are you that sensitive about any mention of Apple? Does the color of my tie offend you or something?
  
  Other competitors cut each other's throats to get the cheapest computer, monitor, phone and tablet out into the marketplace. Apple does not. In essence they are not Apple's competitors but simply each other's competitors.
  Yes, Apple is somehow not a business and therefore it is wrong to regard them like any other business. There's Apple, and then there are businesses. Wait, what?! Say, that makes no sense whatsoever...
  
  Honestly I don't care one way or the other -- nothing Apple does affects my life in any way. But really if you believe that Apple has no competition, could never have competition, and could never go back to the verge of bankruptcy (that they have known before), then OK. At this point I'll humor you like a child who just doesn't want to admit Santa Claus isn't real. No sense arguing with such a person. I just hope Apple doesn't share your arrogance if they want to remain successful.
  
  And really, you fanboys need to stop being so damned hypersensitive. You remind me of how religious fanatics would respond to a cartoon (yeah, a fucking piece of paper with a particular set of colors on it) of a certain prophet. It's all emotional BS that you go back and try to rationalize because you think that will legitimize it and make it less obvious. It doesn't.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
54. Re:At face value... by omnichad · 2012-03-16 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  An empty box would track with a weight of 0lbs. and a few ounces. UPS keeps record of that for a reason. Fill it up with rocks, and they'll see rocks when they open the box and know it was intentional fraud.
55. Re:At face value... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-03-16 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  The iPod scaled similarly, with huge gains. Once it saturated the market, it began to decrease, but by then, replacement products were already on a meteoric rise, specifically the iPhone and iPad.
  Very insightful. And now it all plays out all over again, except this time the replacement products rising meteorically are Android phones and netpads. And the customer wins again!
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
56. Re:At face value... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-22 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  See, Apple has never had to compete with a product - Linux - which tries its level best to be good for the customer, above all else. That's a new and terrifying threat for Apple. And rightly so.
  Your blind zealot's myopia is so amusing.
  Linux -- as Linux -- isn't even on Apple's radar, they don't really compete head to head with it anywhere.
  Android does have Apple's attention, and it's a form of Linux, in somewhat the same way that iOS is a BSD UNIX. But Android is not a new threat (Apple's been living with it for almost the entire life of iOS), nor is it terrifying to them. Despite countless predictions of impending Android-based doom from idiots like you, Apple just keeps doing better and better with iOS every year.
  You see, the thing is, Android does try to do its level best to be good for the customer -- but the problem is, the customer isn't you. The customer, as with everything Google does, is the advertiser who wants to buy end users' attention and/or information. The other major customer for Android is the network carrier.
  Apple is happily secure in the knowledge that they're the only ones in the business with a big enough stick to fight off most of (note: I do not claim all) the horrible anti-user demands of the network carriers. They also know they can offer a better overall experience than Android simply because they aren't beholden to advertisers the way Google is.
The first hit is free by dkleinsc · 2012-03-15 10:03 · Score: 1

Just like any other drug.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:The first hit is free by pankkake · 2012-03-15 10:09 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Except in that case most people will realize they don't have an use for one.
  At least that's my experience of iPad users. Past the "it's so cool" period, they pretty much only use it in the toilet.
  I don't think Apple will like this.
  
  --
  Kill all hipsters.
2. Re:The first hit is free by rhook · 2012-03-15 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  And yet they still buy each new model at release.
3. Re:The first hit is free by CohibaVancouver · 2012-03-15 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  At least that's my experience of iPad users. Past the "it's so cool" period, they pretty much only use it in the toilet.
  Not my experience. Gave my wife an iPad last Christmas . Nearly three months on I'm amazed how much she still uses the thing - Scrolling through photo albums, epicurious recipes when cooking, watching TV shows, playing games with our kids, Facebook - On and on. In our house it's a total multipurpose device - Every week she's using it in some new, nifty neat way.
4. Re:The first hit is free by davester666 · 2012-03-15 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well, there are a lot of people around the world with toilets.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
5. Re:The first hit is free by tomhath · 2012-03-15 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but 30 days means people either:
  A) Are still on the honeymoon and think it will be useful to them
  B) Set it aside after a few days and decided to return it "later"
6. Re:The first hit is free by Tough+Love · 2012-03-15 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Is there an app for wiping?
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
7. Re:The first hit is free by billcopc · 2012-03-15 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  For me, that's exactly how it played out. I'm a programmer, I need a beast of a machine with a good keyboard and tons of display real estate. The only time I ever use the tablet is for playing Angry Birds on the crapper.
  For my wife though, the tablet is her new PC. She uses it almost exclusively, because it does 99% of what she needs from a computer: surf the web, play dinky little games, read email, stream youtube. The other 1% is when she needs to edit a real word doc or print something for work.
  Thing is, there are a lot more non-tech users like my wife, for whom a tablet is enough "computer" for their needs. This YBUY thing could take off, but then again, if you want to try an iPad, you can go to any Apple store and play with the demo units. The YBUY service might be more for people who want an iPad, but only for a week or two (e.g. trip or business demo). In my case, I could rent one to test an iPad app I'm developing, because I don't do enough of that kind of work to justify spending $600 on one.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
8. Re:The first hit is free by billcopc · 2012-03-15 11:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Same as my wife. For a lot of people, a tablet can be the ideal device. If they spend most of their time in a web browser anyway, and don't do a whole lot of typing, the tablet is a shoe-in. A laptop is too much for them.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
9. Re:The first hit is free by sco08y · 2012-03-15 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Except in that case most people will realize they don't have an use for one.
  At least that's my experience of iPad users. Past the "it's so cool" period, they pretty much only use it in the toilet.
  I don't think Apple will like this.
  Yup, definitely on the shitter, plus on the train, or when I'm waiting for someone. Getting half and hour back here or there adds up.
10. Re:The first hit is free by Relayman · 2012-03-15 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe not, but there is an app for unrolling the toilet paper. The faster you unroll it, the more points you get. It's called "Enjoy Toilet Paper" by Lee Jason ($.99, 3 out of 5 stars). Personally, I just check out Facebook while sitting.
  
  --
  If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
11. Re:The first hit is free by Tough+Love · 2012-03-15 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  Totally agreed, and it's a great reason to get her an Android tablet. Save some money, get more free stuff, and flash sites work too.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
12. Re:The first hit is free by realityimpaired · 2012-03-15 13:12 · Score: 2
  
  Personally, I just check out Facebook while sitting.
  That would certainly explain the vast majority of the content on Facebook...
13. Re:The first hit is free by Relayman · 2012-03-15 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I think the worst content on Facebook are the YouTube videos of songs that get posted every day. I wish I could have Facebook block them from my news feed. I just don't care (and am a little worried about copyright infringement).
  
  --
  If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
14. Re:The first hit is free by bloodhawk · 2012-03-15 18:45 · Score: 0
  
  IF all you do is use it to browse the web then an Ipad isn't the perfect device at all, it is probably the least perfect as it is the one most likely to experience problems on sites (lack of flash and other addin support) and is an extremely expensive web browser compared to other options. The Ipad is really the perfect device for people that play with apps, and simple media and photos and sometimes browse the web too.
15. Re:The first hit is free by Cheech+Wizard · 2012-03-15 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's not my experience with iPad users. It got to be pretty weird how many of my friends (going back to the original iPad) have raved, and continue to rave, about how much they use theirs. Many now have 2 or 3 in their house. I can't tell you how many of my friends, business associates and other acquaintances have said to me: "Buy one! You'll love it!" I finally broke down and bought one of the new ones (which is supposed to arrive today). I took what my friends say and have said, I wrote out where and why I would use it and decided that, even if described as a "toy", I would like one and will use it. Then again I'm fairly well to do so I can afford toys, just like I can afford to have 6 computers scattered around the house (Macs, Windows & Linux), three 12TB RAID 5 w/parity enclosures for network access, 18 2TB drives (in storage stuffed with backup data) and various assorted computer and network equipment (some of it dating back to the 1980's). The reality is that other than programmers, CAD people and people like me who work on the internet, desktop machines are slowly but surely on their way out. Taking the population as a whole, the future is "appliances". "Appliances" like the iPad may not be what most nerds call a full blown computer, but they're all *most* people need.
16. Re:The first hit is free by Cheech+Wizard · 2012-03-15 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Which Android tablet, and running which Android version? Android fragmentation is a big problem which to me isn't worth ending up trapped in. As to Flash.... The less the better.
17. Re:The first hit is free by pankkake · 2012-03-16 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Your comment makes no sense.
  You tell us your friends rave about the iPad, and have more than one (WTF).
  Then you tell us you bought one and actually you don't have even used it yet, or didn't even tell us what you planned to use it for. Why event comment?
  Then you tell us that it's "what most people need", except it is besides the point. It's not because it can fulfill most usages that is the what people will prefer, nor that it is the most efficient. And why would people would prefer a pricey, limited device when cheaper, powerful devices are available? And that was my point: people revert to using the better tools after a few months.
  Then you tell us in the last part of your comment, which is more than the half of it, that you are sooo rich. Like someone would care.
  It looks like you already feel stupid about your purchase. Congratulation, you're right on track for becoming a fanboy.
  
  --
  Kill all hipsters.
Returned iPads resold as new? by Nidi62 · 2012-03-15 10:06 · Score: 1

I would hope that this company will have a decent amount of iPads listed as "used" at a reduced price. At lot of things can happen to an electronic gadget in 30 days, especially if the person doesn't have to worry about not being able to return it.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
1. Re:Returned iPads resold as new? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  Or resold as "slightly used" at $1 discount.
2. Re:Returned iPads resold as new? by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-03-15 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  thinking the same thing. before too long all they'll do is churn out refurbs.
  
  --
  insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
3. Re:Returned iPads resold as new? by rhook · 2012-03-15 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  But they do have to worry about paying for it if they should damage it.
This isn't news, this is an advertisement by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 10:07 · Score: 2, Informative

There is no article to discuss, it just goes to a quote of a giant press release. This is spam.
1. Re:This isn't news, this is an advertisement by tripleevenfall · 2012-03-15 10:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I tagged "slashvertisement"
2. Re:This isn't news, this is an advertisement by a_nonamiss · 2012-03-15 10:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's a shameless plug, but it's also an interesting service that many geeks would probably be quite interested in.
  
  --
  -Arthur
  Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
3. Re:This isn't news, this is an advertisement by causality · 2012-03-15 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  ...it's also an interesting service that many geeks would probably be quite interested in.
  Sorry, if you use Apple you have to turn your geek card.
  Agreed. That's the way I feel about Facebook too.
  
  Especially for those who remember Apple prior to OS X, the major selling point of Apple and "computing for the rest of us" was that they made devices that didn't require a geek to use. And I admit that claim had some merit; completely non-technical people I know who bought a Mac some years back were delighted not to have all the problems with it that they had with Windows PCs.*
  
  * Most of which involved malware, some involved the tendency Windows had to accumulate cruft and require periodic reinstalls, some came from flat-out refusing to read the fucking manual (the one written in 5th-grade English just like the newspaper), and others came from their inability to choose quality software and expressing surprise that the NoName Freeware with no reviews that they got from Tucows caused problems.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
4. Re:This isn't news, this is an advertisement by BasilBrush · 2012-03-15 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, the attempt to make a virtue out of a preference for shitty products.
  You can't be a gearhead if you drive a BMW. That's way to well designed and pleasant to drive.
  Try driving this customised Edsel, with a mixture of fat and skinny wheels, hydraulic jacks and blue under car illumination. You have to be a real good driver to drive this.
5. Re:This isn't news, this is an advertisement by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  It occurred to me that I get posts like this from friends FB accounts all the time.
  Free iPad, click here!
  Actually, my first thought was that somebody hacked /. and posted that as an ad ;-)
6. Re:This isn't news, this is an advertisement by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2012-03-16 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, if you use Apple you have to turn your geek card.
  Agreed. That's the way I feel about Facebook too.
  I've always wondered exactly what characterises a "geek". Apparently it's something to do with having some kind of superiority complex that forbids you to use anything popular, convenient, and easy to use, and has nothing to do with having some kind of non-mainstream passion or quirky curiosity.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
7. Re:This isn't news, this is an advertisement by causality · 2012-03-16 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  Actually in the case of Facebook, a "geek" is someone who is technically proficient enough to understand that the private information they will inevitably give up is not worth the benefit of what is basically free, substandard Web hosting.
  
  In the case of Apple, a "geek" is what you don't have to be in order to use their products because their products are specifically made for ease of use. Apple didn't design their consumer products for geeks because that's a very small market. They designed them for a general audience because that's where the sales are.
  
  I don't usually indulge such childishness like what you are showing when you take a discussion about Facebook and Apple and decide that you just have to make it about me personally. But what the hell. Since you seem to really want to make this personal...if recognizing reality is your definition of a "superiority complex" then you sound like a very insecure person.
  
  What happened to the adults who could disagree with someone's opinion without making it a personal matter? I miss them, wherever they went.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
8. Re:This isn't news, this is an advertisement by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2012-03-16 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  Actually in the case of Facebook, a "geek" is someone who is technically proficient enough to understand that the private information they will inevitably give up is not worth the benefit of what is basically free, substandard Web hosting.
  Someone technically proficient would understand the sort of private information they will inevitably give up, but the rest is opinion. You're prescribing ideology to something that is ideology-agnostic.
  
  In the case of Apple, a "geek" is what you don't have to be in order to use their products because their products are specifically made for ease of use. Apple didn't design their consumer products for geeks because that's a very small market. They designed them for a general audience because that's where the sales are.
  Apple designs their products for people in general, not for non-geeks specifically. Even if they did, geeks don't have to listen to Apple. There's nothing to say that geeks must have a different taste in consumer electronics to everyone else.
  
  I don't usually indulge such childishness like what you are showing when you take a discussion about Facebook and Apple and decide that you just have to make it about me personally. But what the hell. Since you seem to really want to make this personal...if recognizing reality is your definition of a "superiority complex" then you sound like a very insecure person.
  What happened to the adults who could disagree with someone's opinion without making it a personal matter? I miss them, wherever they went.
  I'm sorry if you took it personally. That certainly wasn't my intention. I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion, but not so much that I found it offensive to any degree. I don't post very politely, but that's part of the thrill of discussion on slashdot: putting passion in your arguments. As I usually do, I had endeavoured to keep personal barbs out of my post (if I want them in there, oh boy, you will know!), but I know that my usual passion can be misconstrued from time to time.
  So, again, sorry for personally offending you. I remember some of your previous posts, and I know we disagree strongly on certain topics, but I too would rather keep discussions respectful (but not necessarily sterilised and boring).
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
9. Re:This isn't news, this is an advertisement by causality · 2012-03-21 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. I think this got lost in a lot of other messages.
  
  Someone technically proficient would understand the sort of private information they will inevitably give up, but the rest is opinion. You're prescribing ideology to something that is ideology-agnostic.
  Eh, unless I really strongly need the casual attention of strangers in order to feel accepted, liked, wanted, appreciated, etc. (i.e. an unhealthy state of looking to the outside world for what can be found within yourself), then Facebook has little or nothing to offer me in exchange for the privacy I am giving up. You can call that "just my opinion" in the sense that other people don't feel that way, but I can say that one of those is definitely superior. Opinions usually don't have "superior and inferior". They are generally all equal because they are all just taste and preference.
  
  If I say that living within your means is more financially stable than spending money you don't have, is that just my opinion? I mean, there certainly are people who choose not to live within their means and plenty of them are not poor. Do they simply have a different preference? Or is one option really better?
  
  Facebook seeks to satisfy an emptiness, a need for attention, that I do not have. I don't believe anyone should have that kind of need, though I observe that the majority does.
  
  Apple designs their products for people in general, not for non-geeks specifically. Even if they did, geeks don't have to listen to Apple. There's nothing to say that geeks must have a different taste in consumer electronics to everyone else.
  People in general are not geeks. That's where I was coming from earlier. Geeks would be a much, much smaller market. Designing devices just for geeks would alienate "people in general". It would not be a good business decision. It wouldn't have produced the results I personally observed -- people who are not technically inclined who bought Macs and suddenly stopped having frequent "computer problems".
  
  I'm sorry if you took it personally. That certainly wasn't my intention. I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion, but not so much that I found it offensive to any degree. I don't post very politely, but that's part of the thrill of discussion on slashdot: putting passion in your arguments. As I usually do, I had endeavoured to keep personal barbs out of my post (if I want them in there, oh boy, you will know!), but I know that my usual passion can be misconstrued from time to time.
  It takes a respectable person to offer an apology when they could just continue to bicker. While I don't think an apology was necessary (I only wanted you to acknowledge that this need not be personal), you honor yourself by offering one.
  
  I know what you mean about passion. That's why I try to be dispassionate, for passion is not the only force your words can have. But I understand what you're saying all the same. I can come across as cutting when I encounter the kind of stupidity that delights in its own resistence to reality, but it's not because I'm offended. It's because that really is an ugly thing to encounter and I am not going to sugar-coat just to be thought of as such a nice guy. That kind of "niceness" is a pathetic substitute for genuine kindness, which often takes the form of a "tough love" type of deal.
  
  When you tell someone they apparently have a superiority complex, though, it's no longer about Apple and their target markets. It is now about you and that person. I just felt like we can do better than playing armchair psychologists to one another. I don't feel that way because of offense.
  
  I will explain one thing though. I do not believe I am superhuman, especially talented, particularly great, or otherwise special. What I do believe is that if I can read and understand a manual, FAQ, etc. and apply its knowledge to have a great experience, so can any
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
10. Re:This isn't news, this is an advertisement by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2012-03-21 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook seeks to satisfy an emptiness, a need for attention, that I do not have.
  I don't think that's true. It's a tool that can definitely be used in this way, but it's also very useful for a variety of other purposes, which I would say do not simply defer to attention-seeking as the main purpose. It's an excellent tool for communicating instantly, discreetly, and cheaply, as well as the organisation of events, which is the way I have used it (and have seen it used). I use it to organise semi-regular board game nights between friends, or to casually chat to friends from other states. Very rarely (twice, in my recollection) have I used it to satisfy a need for attention. In fact, by and large, I avoid using it for long periods of time, because I often don't want attention, and the feeling of exposure is not pleasant. In fact, I've had facebook for at least four years now, but have only actually started logging in in the last 12 months.
  Am I right in thinking that you've never used it? Your impressions of it sound like you've mostly read about its most negative aspects, so reinforced and repeated that they've become stereotypes and cliches, rather than its less heralded positive aspects. I suspect that if you tried using it for a decent amount of time, you'd find that you and your friends would not use for attention-seeking, and just enjoy the extra communication that it affords. Basically, I don't believe that you have invested the necessary time and gathered the necessary information to support your claim that "Facebook has little or nothing to offer me in exchange for the privacy I am giving up."
  Of course, that's up to you. Nobody is forcing you to be completely informed in your decision against Facebook. However, I would think twice before pidgeonholing people who do use it.
  
  You can call that "just my opinion" in the sense that other people don't feel that way, but I can say that one of those is definitely superior.
  What does superior mean in this context? It certainly doesn't mean that everyone on earth prefers one to the other. What other metric could you be using to judge one superior over the other? Take the example of a celebrity. They have almost no privacy. If they put themselves on Facebook, they basically lose no privacy. The type of information that you can derive from facebook is not the type of information that a celebrity can hide from the public. Are you saying that their (lack of) privacy is worth more than the benefits of facebook? Even if your contention that its primary use is for attention-seeking, this may still be valuable to a celebrity. For example, to Paris Hilton, I can't imagine a downside to facebook!
  I don't believe in absolute superiority, because I am (more or less) a logical positivist. As of yet, nobody has provided a method of verifying that some "thing" X is superior to another "thing" Y in such a way that people generally agree that it is superiority that its measuring (for example, I could say person A is superior to person B if A is older than B, but nobody would call it superiority that I was measuring), and thus the statement that X is superior to Y is, as of yet, meaningless.
  
  People in general are not geeks. That's where I was coming from earlier. Geeks would be a much, much smaller market. Designing devices just for geeks would alienate "people in general". It would not be a good business decision. It wouldn't have produced the results I personally observed -- people who are not technically inclined who bought Macs and suddenly stopped having frequent "computer problems".
  Sure, and this I agree with. However, it is fallacious to conclude the converse: if a person buys a non-geek computer like apple, then they are not a geek (and consequently have to hand in their geek card).
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The maker of games... by GmExtremacy · 2012-03-15 10:09 · Score: 1

It better Gamemaker as such never before.
Terms of service: lost device liability by rwade · 2012-03-15 10:13 · Score: 4, Informative

From the Terms of Service:

6. Delivery Confirmation
Because many instances may occur at your delivery address that is beyond our control, you agree that any delivery confirmation provided by the carrier is deemed sufficient proof of delivery to the card holder, even without a signature.
So let's say that UPS claims to deliver it to you but takes no signature -- and the box promptly walks away. From the language above, it sounds like you have the responsibility to hassle with UPS for an insurance claim.
And on the Chargeback Policy in case you decide that it wasn't your fault that a device didn't exactly isn't on your doorstep when you get home:

7. Chargeback Policy
All references to a “chargeback” refer to a reversal of a credit/debit card charge placed on www.ybuy.com. There is no reason for a chargeback to ever be filed. If a credit is due, simply contact us and we will gladly issue it. Unnecessary chargebacks are theft and can be prosecuted. If you feel that your credit/debit card was used fraudulently on www.ybuy.com, please contact us for immediate resolution at support@ybuy.com.
YOU AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT CHARGEBACK ANY AMOUNTS CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT/DEBIT CARD ON THIS SITE. IF YOU CHARGEBACK A CREDIT/DEBIT CARD CHARGE FOR A PAYMENT INITIATED BY YOU, YOU AGREE THAT THIS SITE MAY RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGEBACK IN ADDITION TO $ BY ANY MEANS DEMED NECESSARY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO RECHARGING YOUR CREDIT/DEBIT CARD OR HAVING THE AMOUNT RECOVERED BY A COLLECTION AGENCY.
1. Re:Terms of service: lost device liability by AarghVark · 2012-03-15 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Selling your soul to the Devil seems tame in comparison.
  
  In fact, I think the Devil might be contacting their legal department for some pointers after this one.
2. Re:Terms of service: lost device liability by Overzeetop · 2012-03-15 10:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You can put anything you want into terms and conditions. If it violates their service agreement with the CC processing service (which it is practically guaranteed to), it will be null and void. Credit card companies value your revenue stream more than they value the vendors. It's very hard to run a service without being able to accept MC/Visa/Amex - and if they really use this tactic, and the CC companies get an earful from several customers, it's likely to put them out of business.
  Yes, you might have to fight with UPS or Fedex or USPS about the delivery - but often (again) you can cry foul to the CC company, and they'll refund your money and take it up with the carriers insurance. For the big carriers, it's cheaper to pay the occasional claim and save the 1-1.5 minutes of downtime getting a signature. You'll notice that tomorrow, none of the carriers will leave the iPads without a signature in any place that's even remotely dicey. Dell boxes tend to get the same careful treatment. These guys track cost/benefit very carefully.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
3. Re:Terms of service: lost device liability by Opportunist · 2012-03-15 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  And considering how UPS and other deliverers usually either toss them over the wall if nobody's home or simply hands it to a neighbor (at least in my country), I guess that will happen more than just occasionally.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Terms of service: lost device liability by billcopc · 2012-03-15 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  "There is no reason for a chargeback to ever be filed" and "YOU AGREE THAT THIS SITE MAY RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGEBACK IN ADDITION TO $ BY ANY MEANS DEMED NECESSARY" (sic)
  Pretty sure that statement's in breach of their merchant agreement. At least it would be for me. Sounds like they found their lawyer at the bottom of the foreign owner's family.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
5. Re:Terms of service: lost device liability by causality · 2012-03-15 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's an incredibly asinine ToS.
  
  There is no reason for a chargeback to ever be filed. If a credit is due, simply contact us and we will gladly issue it.
  In other words ... "trust us! we never make mistakes and we always act on good faith, that's why we demand that you surrender the usual means of recourse in the event that we grossly fail you..." Yeah, that's what honest people always require.
  
  Unnecessary chargebacks are theft and can be prosecuted.
  If chargebacks and the private arbitration that could result are theft, then a legal suit in a real court must be robbery! Yes, as everyone knows, honest businesses always threaten their customers up-front, without reason or provocation, while calling them potential thieves. Damn, where do I sign up?
  
  So do the four major credit card companies have a contact address where we can advise them that one of their merchant account holders is potentially in violation of their agreement, maybe also ask if this is representative of their business practices in general? I mean, since they like a strict Terms of Service then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
  
  Did they hire some RIAA lawyers to draw up this ToS? I would never do business with these people for any reason. They seem to expect that none of their customers will act on good faith. Why shouldn't I assume that such an expectation comes from people who, themselves, do not intend to act in good faith? I hope they fail and go bankrupt, only to be replaced by companies with similar business models who have some respect for their own customers.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
6. Re:Terms of service: lost device liability by causality · 2012-03-15 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  You can put anything you want into terms and conditions. If it violates their service agreement with the CC processing service (which it is practically guaranteed to), it will be null and void. Credit card companies value your revenue stream more than they value the vendors.
  I just wouldn't do business with these "fine people" in the first place.
  
  Reading their ToS it occurred to me. Honest businessmen wake up every morning, in a cold sweat, trembling, saying "man, today's the day, I can feel it in my bones! A satisfied customer I haven't wronged in any way is going to seek justice against me, I just know it! They'll probably do it with a chargeback. How EVIL! Damn, I gotta protect myself!" Oh wait, no they don't. Honest businessmen don't do that at all, come to think of it...
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
7. Re:Terms of service: lost device liability by silas_moeckel · 2012-03-15 12:08 · Score: 2
  
  Hope they do not take Amax because there is no way that will stand up to them. You can return anything physical for a full refund period. Anything intangible you can say you do not want. It's heavy handed and some people abuse it but there is no opting out of it.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
8. Re:Terms of service: lost device liability by thsths · 2012-03-15 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  > "There is no reason for a chargeback to ever be filed"
  That's also more of a statement than a contractual term, and a wrong one at that. It is like saying "We never make any errors." IANAL, but I would not expect it to stand in court if they rely on it.
9. Re:Terms of service: lost device liability by jjhall · 2012-03-16 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure this violates their merchant agreement with the various card issuers. Denying customers one of the key benefits of using a credit/debit card is a big no-no. It sounds like they're trying to be way too cheap, trying to ship without insurance and via a carrier that can require signature upon delivery. It actually makes me a little suspicious that perhaps this is part of their business model:
  1. Use a shoddy shipping method without confirmation of correct-person receipt
  2. Wait for packages to get mis-delivered
  3. Charge customer for said merchandise at full retail value
  4. Profit
  I was actually a little intrigued by this service until I read that in their terms. I also don't like that you can only have the item for a month. If they'd correct their shipping method and chargeback terms, and make it similar to netflix where you can keep it as long as you like while continuing to pay the monthly fee, I may decide to give it a try. Sometimes 30 days is not enough time if you're on the fence, and sometimes it may be useful to rent something for a few months.
If this catches on by DarkOx · 2012-03-15 10:23 · Score: 2

Its the final nail in brick and mortar retails coffin. There will be no reasons to even visit the local shop to have a look at something you are going to order on New Egg or Amazon later. Retail at least could hope that might stop in to see the new IPad and leave with something else that just had to have on impulse, now habitual online shoppers will have no reason to set foot in a local store. The can just try out $ITEM in the own home.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
1. Re:If this catches on by DragonWriter · 2012-03-15 10:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Its the final nail in brick and mortar retails coffin.
  I dunno, it doesn't really affect the one compelling advantage of brick and mortar retail -- walk in, walk out with the product today.
  
  There will be no reasons to even visit the local shop to have a look at something you are going to order on New Egg or Amazon later.
  People doing that (unless they change their mind and buy at the store) are a burden, not a benefit, to brick and mortar stores.
  Plus, the main browsing advantage of brick and mortar stores isn't browsing a single chosen item before buying it, its side-by-side comparison of competing items.
  Plus, compared to the ToS posted for YBUY, in-store browsing (even if you are unusually prone to impulse buying under those circumstances) involves less financial risk than YBUY's delivery liability and chargeback-recovery policies.
2. Re:If this catches on by billcopc · 2012-03-15 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  Brick and mortar still wins at "pay now, get it now". There's nothing that annoys me more in this world than women, but my second greatest annoyance is slow/costly shipping for online purchases. If I can drive/bus/taxi to a store 10 minutes away, get my gadget, and get home an hour later vs ordering online, paying $75 in shipping, waiting four days and having to stay home all day because no big name couriers work after 5 pm... yeah, I'm going to the store, saving my money and my time. Even if the retail price is a few points higher than online, it's still a win. If I have any problem with the item, and need repair/replacement, then brick and mortar wins BIG!
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
3. Re:If this catches on by lexman098 · 2012-03-15 11:39 · Score: 2
  
  Plus, the main browsing advantage of brick and mortar stores isn't browsing a single chosen item before buying it, its side-by-side comparison of competing items.
  I'd argue that's actually the main benefit of online shopping. They provide way more details about the item than a tiny postcard in front of a shelf. Comparison shopping is a main driver for cheap online prices as well.
4. Re:If this catches on by causality · 2012-03-15 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  There's nothing that annoys me more in this world than women
  The only ones that annoy me are the majority who are well into adulthood but never really grew up and matured emotionally. They like to complaine, whine, play childish mindgames, and they demand to be an object of worship, getting quite impatient if there is even a moment where they are not the center of attention. They also have a very hard time saying what they mean and meaning what they say. That show "Jersey Shore" provides some particularly obvious and egregiously childish examples. No interaction with women like that is ever going to be a good thing for you. You can be lonely and retain your dignity, but that will be the first (and not the last) thing you lose if you give these the time of day.
  
  Of course, some fraction of them are true ladies. They long ago got over the fact that they have a vagina and they want to relate as equals in an honest way. Those are worth more than their weight in platinum because they are priceless. If you meet one like that, cherish her and be glad you met her, even if you have no intention of being with her. If you have yet to meet one, I assure you they do exist, they just aren't loud and flashy and in-your-face so you might not have noticed them. Of course, that assumes you have enough character and refinement yourself to notice and appreciate them.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
5. Re:If this catches on by billcopc · 2012-03-15 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
6. Re:If this catches on by DragonWriter · 2012-03-16 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Plus, the main browsing advantage of brick and mortar stores isn't browsing a single chosen item before buying it, its side-by-side comparison of competing items.
  I'd argue that's actually the main benefit of online shopping. They provide way more details about the item than a tiny postcard in front of a shelf.
  
  Side-by-side product data (including price) comparison is an advantage of online research; side-by-side look/feel/ergonomics/etc. comparison is an advantage of in-person browsing.
  The relative importance of each depends on the class of product.
7. Re:If this catches on by Gavagai80 · 2012-03-16 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  $25 is more than enough reason for me.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
Easy solution by rhook · 2012-03-15 10:23 · Score: 1

Wipe the device before you send it back. It's not hard to do.
1. Re:Easy solution by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-03-15 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on the device, it depends on the customer, and it depends on the company who claims they'll be sanitizing it.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Or try for two weeks free via an Apple Store. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 10:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Apple Retail Stores have a 14-day, no restocking fee, no-questions-asked-as-long-as-it's-not-damaged return policy on iPads. (And Macs, and iPods, and purchased-outfit iPhones, and pretty much anything that's not software...)
Just buy one at an Apple Store, and return it if you don't like it.
(Posting AC because I'm a Genius.)
1. Re:Or try for two weeks free via an Apple Store. by tooyoung · 2012-03-15 11:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  (Posting AC because I'm a Genius.)
  
  I'm a genius too, but I hardly ever post anonymously.
2. Re:Or try for two weeks free via an Apple Store. by antdude · 2012-03-15 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  But you're too young! ;)
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Pavlovian Response by Sponge+Bath · 2012-03-15 10:38 · Score: 1

Of course the headline shouts about Apple, when the main point is that the company allows renting a range of devices. Haters and fan boys rejoice... oops never mind.
$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by Overzeetop · 2012-03-15 10:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm a bit baffled - $25, less packaging and shipping, on a $500 item (even at wholesale, say $400) means a payback period of no less than 24 months. That's probably longer than the expected lifecycle of a device like this. How many people would be interested in trialing a original iPad?
On the flip side, do you really buy enough stuff to justify $300/year? Especially when you can't get 2-3 similar items to play with side by side (Transformer, iPad, and Note; or three digital cameras like the Lumix TZ20, Sony HX30v, and the Canon SX 260HS).
And then there's the whole - pay retail for a returned and worn product part. I'm sure there's a marketing case for this, but clearly I'm not the demographic!

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by MetalliQaZ · 2012-03-15 10:44 · Score: 2
  
  Probably they aren't paying the $500 retail price that we do. Either they have some kind of agreement or even the very first recipient of a product gets a refurbed item
  
  --
  "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
2. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by DigiShaman · 2012-03-15 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt there's much markup for retail stores selling iPads. Most likely stores will sell iPad units because of all the money they make on 3rd party accessories and other impulse purchases. However, Apple products to tend to retain one of the highest used resell value out there. So that at least might work in their favor to entice the whole try-before-you-buy thing.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
3. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by stephanruby · 2012-03-15 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  I'm a bit baffled - $25, less packaging and shipping, on a $500 item (even at wholesale, say $400) means a payback period of no less than 24 months.
  The $25 subscription fee doesn't cover the purchase price of the device. It only covers the trial of it (and potentially the trial of other devices). If you decide to keep your iPad after one month, then you would buy it at their full listed price (with no discounts).
  Also, it's a subscription fee, so after you've tried out the iPad and a couple of other gadgets after a couple of months, they intend to keep on charging you that $25 a month even if you don't order any other new items.
4. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by rgbrenner · 2012-03-15 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they are losing money on the iPad. It's a product that will get people to sign up for their service. It's like that 1 good song on a CD album. Or that $50 HD on sale today only on an ad flyer for Best Buy -- while everything else is regular price.
  And so far, I would say their going pretty good. They got an article on slashdot. And now I know they exist. +1 for brand recognition.
5. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by Overzeetop · 2012-03-15 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  The resale may be what they plan on using to make up the difference. A well refurbed Apple item will fetch 70% or more of the retail value after a year as the new ones come out. They might be able to flip a lot of these tablets for $300 (for the $500 model, next year's $400 model) around launch time, which means that if they cost $420 wholesale (probably higher at launch, who knows) and they can sell them for $300, less about a 5% return rate and shipping costs of $10, for $275 net. To them, 12 months only costs $145. That's still not great, as there would be no profit after shipping this thing out 11-12 times in a year - $25/mox12mo = $300, less $120 in shipping/packaging/processing (it's free both ways, and $5 for box and shipping is pretty cheap), $5 in typical refurb to check and wipe with a tech at $20/hr burdered x 12 round trips = $60. It's already gone.
  I'm sure there are lower cost items. Maybe they're hoping you'll just not use the service for most of the year.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
6. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by Gen-GNU · 2012-03-15 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  At end of product life cycle (when a new, shinier iPad comes out, for example), old stock could be offloaded through places like Amazon, which already provides for selling of used electronics. This business plan is very similar to what car rental agencies have used for quite a while.
7. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by billcopc · 2012-03-15 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  You're ignoring the fact that they will resell the item as a refurb, recouping a significant chunk of the purchase price. I still see private individuals selling the original iPad for $400 - good old Apple resale value hilarity. I doubt YBUY is worried about this stuff. Any cash they earn by renting them out is gravy on top of the eventual resale, and it's quite likely they've negotiated a volume discount with Apple.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
8. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by rgbrenner · 2012-03-15 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  What discount would Apple give them? They have _maybe_ 100 of these (probably a lot less). That's not a volume purchase. And there are some people that would have purchased iPads, but decided to rent them instead, and decided they didn't like it.
  I really don't see what the upside is for Apple to negotiate with them.
9. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by DigiShaman · 2012-03-15 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  That's a pretty good rough breakdown. Makes me wonder if they'll start pulling a "BlockBuster" or some such. The real profit will be in late fees (no automated billing, just must renew manually each month online) and returned damage fees.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
10. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by billcopc · 2012-03-15 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  Tons of people buy iPads, change their minds, then resell them in the used market. That "hurts" Apple more than a rental.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
11. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by bloodhawk · 2012-03-15 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  Your baffled? I am completely baffled how this even became a story, these rental/try before you buy services have existed for decades now, what suddenly makes them newsworthy?
12. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by nedlohs · 2012-03-15 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Surely the point is if an ipad costs the $500 and they can only loan it to one person at a time who pays them $25/month. Then it will take 20 months for them to break even on buying that ipad. Since there's shipping/etc ballpark it at 2 years.
  Of course loss leading is harldly a new strategy.
13. Re:$25/30d - shipping + ??? = profit? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-16 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  Another way to look at it is if you keep on "trialling" the iPad every month, you can basically rent one for $360 a year, and presumably always have the latest version. Given what the things cost and how often you'd have to shell out to get the latest iPad it's not a bad deal.
May work in your country... by Opportunist · 2012-03-15 10:43 · Score: 2

In my country (as well as most of Europe that I'm aware of) you have the right to return what you buy online within 14 days without questions asked. By law. Some companies already extended this, knowing that people will either return it right away anyway or keep it anyway, so 30 days no-fee returns are pretty common already.
So... well, maybe a nifty idea but I fail to see the news.
Ohhh, slashvertising... never mind, silly me, living in the past when /. was about news and not ads.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:May work in your country... by DigiShaman · 2012-03-15 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not exactly the same, but I got burned by E-Bay-ing something with PayPal. I was selling a used NEC MobilePro which was basically the precursor to the netbook running WinCE. Not cheap. Anyways, the buyer returned it on the 29th day stating it wasn't what he thought it was and that the sell was based on false advertising. That was a lie! He never e-mailed me to complain or work the deal out. Instead, it came back pre-loaded with a bunch of project data indicating a deadline a week before shipping it back to me. That motherfucking cunt bitch ass whore rented it from me on MY DIME!!!
  From then on, I never sold on E-Bay or used PayPal. The whole scam is a racket for sellers.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
2. Re:May work in your country... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-16 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  You should write on your item description:
  Sale is final. Too many people abuse my goodwill for any kind of return at my expense services.
rent a center can say we do the same with no shipi by Joe_Dragon · 2012-03-15 10:47 · Score: 1

rent a center can say we do the same with no shipping or we use own own trucks and crew
Internet contract for one month ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 10:48 · Score: 0

Dont you have to sell your firstborn to get service.
Then you are on the hook for a couple of years!
Verizon, AT&T, and other crooks.
How long before... by GumphMaster · 2012-03-15 10:49 · Score: 0

How long before Apple legal drones come up with some way to call this unauthorised distribution of their "intellectual property" and start demanding a cut of the rental?

--
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Re:ill have double lard by retchdog · 2012-03-15 11:02 · Score: 0

if you compare the calories of eggs and bacon to, say, a muffin or scone, you might be surprised. eating eggs, especially boiled or poached, actually gets kind of unpleasant at the 400 calorie mark... even bacon (crispy) is only ~50 calories a slice.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re:ill have double lard by Formalin · 2012-03-15 11:26 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Yeah, moderation. A fried egg, couple strips of bacon and some whole grain toast is a fine breakfast, moreso if you have a pear or something like this with it.
Eating a pound of bacon for breakfast is something altogether different, though. Limey style (back) bacon is better too, vs. north america's fatter (belly) bacon. Kind of hard to find here, though.
Just don't loan one to a Dutchman by Culture20 · 2012-03-15 11:55 · Score: 1

You won't be able to get a warrant to get it back!
Re:ill have double lard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 13:06 · Score: 0

Yeah, moderation. A fried egg, couple strips of bacon and some whole grain toast is a fine breakfast, moreso if you have a pear or something like this with it.
Eating a pound of bacon for breakfast is something altogether different, though. Limey style (back) bacon is better too, vs. north america's fatter (belly) bacon. Kind of hard to find here, though.
I (as an American) did not know what real bacon was (or a breakfast) until I went to England.
Re:ill have double lard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 14:15 · Score: 0

It's called Canadian Bacon in America, and is available pretty much anywhere.
Re:ill have double lard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-15 15:11 · Score: 0

Nah, Canadian style back bacon is cured like ham, so it tastes pretty much like ham, slightly different.
UK back bacon is the same cut, cured the same as our streaky bacon, and tastes like.. bacon. just less fat, is all.
Re:ill have double lard by Xeranar · 2012-03-15 17:58 · Score: 1

Dear Trolling AC who pretends to be foreign or actually is:
Please recognize that overeating has little to do with actual mass intake and more to do with caloric intake, so the perception of overeating is very different from the reality. A plate of healthy eggs and bacon is usually better than a large muffin of relatively equal mass (carbohydrates add up quickly). As it stands the UK and western Europe is slightly thinner than the US but also has a slightly lower poverty rate. In a food-rich environment like the US the poverty level greatly affects the level of quality nutrition available. In other words: Your trolling failed miserably at the first sight of logic, now crawl back into whatever dank shit hole you live in and stop harping on weight as if it is some actual factor in the quality of a person's worth.