First off: an opinion isn't libel. I never represented a single thing I said as indisputable fact. Maybe armchair lawyer wasn't your strong suit.
Sorry! You are dead wrong.
Part of the definition of "defamation of character", which covers libel (printed) and slander (spoken), only requires that it be a STATEMENT made. In order for what you said about "opinion" (which is true) to be an avoidance to suit, you must CLEARLY point out that you are stating an opinion; which you most assuredly did not do. I agree that you would likely ultimately prevail, but not before the defamation suit was filed.
But that's not the point.
I actually agree with what you have said in your reply to my response to your comment. There is no way that APPLE should be held liable for these idiots' failure to exercise due diligence. I admit that, by the time I got to your comment, I had read about ten too many comments that bent over backwards to call the parents "victims". If they were "victims" of ANYONE, it was the APP DEVELOPERS (which are not even named in this suit?); not Apple.
Apple has put about as many safeguards in place as they can without totally making in-app purchases a royal PITA. At some point, it's up to the ADULTS to be, well, ADULT.
So, despite your snarky comments about me not backing down, I hereby admit that we are pretty much on the same side on everything, as long as your "Slimy Business Model" agreement was directed at the App Devs, not Apple.
That is EXACTLY what rabid Android fanbois around here do EVERY SINGLE TIME there is an article on Slashdot about some new and even more evil Phishing or Trojan app downloaded from wherever!
"Well, the permissions are clearly stated when they installed the app! It's their OWN DAMN FAULT they got hosed!" I literally can't COUNT the hundreds of times I have read that "defense" from Androids on this very site.
I'm gonna have to disagree... just look at the Smurf Village game. In order to do about anything, you have to use Smurfberries (which you can buy). That game is definitely targeted at children. It's a predatory practice, kinda like those web games asking to dial in a 900 number to buy stuff for your game...
Children won't know the difference between virtual and real money and will ramp up a bill...
BTW, Farmville is no different...
I agree that it is a predatory practice... BY THE APP DEVELOPERS, not Apple.
Every. Single. Time Apple "bans" an app from the App Store, a zillion "pundits" and slashdotters cry foul; so, Apple is loathe to "ban" stuff willy-nilly (e.g., "banning" a game because it more-or-less REQUIRED in-app purchases). And no, I don't want to hear a blow-by-blow about how Apple arbitrarily banned this or that. In the end, it's their store; nobody forced you to buy an iOS device (remember that "normal diligence", that I have argued here is incumbent on the user BEFORE buying an iOS device?). But, I digress...
So, back to the actual point you raised: Not only is it incumbent upon the PARENT to give the game a shot BEFORE simply handing their iOS device loaded with an "untested" app to their kid (here's that cool NAMBLA app you wanted. Now go away. Daddy's busy!); but, IIRC, Apple allows PARENTS to establish "Kid's Accounts", where the PARENT can set certain rules and LIMITS ON SPENDING. That way, a PARENT can, in a fashion similar to "Age Restrictions", completely avoid the "sticker shock" that the ignoramuses that have filed this lawsuit (and the even BIGGER ignoramuses, like you, that now DEFEND their position) now claim is somehow APPLE'S fault.
Seriously, man, how in THE fuck can Apple "win" with a mentality that begins and ends with "Apple is Teh Evilz". They must ALLOW every single app (or be raked over the "Walled Garden" coals); but they must SIMULTANEOUSLY be the Nanny for every single whining ADULT that can't be bothered to use the tools that APPLE HAS PROVIDED to help them BE a RESPONSIBLE PARENT?
As I have said before, this lawsuit should NOT be naming Apple; but rather the PREDATORY APP DEVELOPERS.
Nobody has been "attacked" here, save for the poor TSA agent who's being bullied by schmucks like you who think you're entitled to do whatever you want the constitution to say. You have the right to request to speak to a supervisor or to file a grievance. You can even sue the TSA if you have a problem with their policies. If you choose to act out, be disruptive and incite a riot at the airport, you open yourself to being detained just like any other crazy person.
"Arrogant complaining" is employed as a social engineering trick. I'm guessing you'd be one of the first in line to complain about the TSA being "too stupid to fall for a simple SE trick."
Are you saying large corporations should be excused from unethical behavior? Are you saying consumers should not assume that everything Apple (and other corporations) does is hostile to consumers' best interests?
Not at all. But in this particular case, the problem lies STRICTLY and PROXIMATELY with the PARENTS.
Why?
Because at the very same time that Apple added in-app purchases (iPhone OS 3.0), they added a password-protected global control for same. Check out this iPhone OS 3.0 User Guide for the iPod Touch, showing the in-app purchase control (among others).
So, was it "unethical behavior", or "sloppy parentlng" that was the PROXIMATE cause of these purchases?
Your username gives you away as the Apple astroturfer that you are. Geeks might understand the difference, but the average consumer doesn't understand how locked in they are until it is too late.
First, if I was an astroturfer, don't you think I would pick a less-obvious username?
Second, there is the little issue that at the very same time Apple first introduced in-app purchases (iPhone OS 3.0), it also added a password-protected global setting to the OS to enable/disable (among other things) in-app purchases. See page 115 of this iPhone OS 3.0 User Guide for the iPod Touch.
So, NOW who's fault is it? Apple's, or the ADULTS?
This has perplexed me since I first bought an IPod 4th gen. Why on earth are you required to attach a credit card to an account? I fail to see the need for it. As far as kids racking up bills...That would immediately solve the problem. All the kids would have access to are the free apps. Heck, even something similar to the way Android handles app purchases.
I've owned an iPhone 3GS and now I am using a Samsung Captivate. Personally, I know iPhones are "Hip" but, if I were buying a phone for my kid I'd take the Android system. Simply because of the way Google handles app purchases and transactions.
So, I guess having a global control over in-app purchases (among other things) isn't a good way to solve this? See page 115 of this PDF for an iPhone 3.0 device (the same version Apple first allowed in-app purchases).
I feel sorry for your kid. You're like Ballmer, making his kids use the much-inferior Zune, just because YOU can't be bothered to do normal diligence before assuming a device isn't thoughtfully designed.
While I agree that the APP DEVELOPERS are mostly to blame, it is really the brain-dead parents that are ultimately responsible. Why?
Apple added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. Look at page 115 in this User Guide for an iPhone OS 3.0 device. Note the global setting for enabling/disabling in-app purchases.
I agree with you about the business model. That's why I don't buy iPhones. That's why I wouldn't buy them for anyone else, especially someone too young to be expected to understand financial responsibility. Problem solved.
Next time, instead of spreading FUD to all those around you, why don't you become EDUTATED?
Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model. For Apple to allow it is atrocious. There are much better alternatives, such as a short window to allow returns. I have kids with iOS devices, and thus hoping they win. Bad parenting? I don't have time to play every game to know its business model, but do try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.
Um, Apple first allowed in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. At the very same time, they instituted a global preference to disable in-app purchases (see page 115 of the PDF).
I believe your ire SHOULD be directed to the "slimy business model" of the app DEVELOPERS; who put absolutely ZERO restrictions or "reasonability tests" into the APP to prevent this, and then laughed all the way to the bank. Which one of THEM has stepped up to the plate and offered a REFUND?
Curiously enough, that set has a nearly 100% overlap with the set of parents now participating in this lawsuit, and whining at Apple (yet again!) here on Slashdot.
One parent got 10,000$ bill for this.
And before you cry "bad parenting", you can't disable that feature.
You/your kid just installs some innocent and free game, and then when you are absent, he jacks up the phone bill.
Yes, the phone bill, no CC needed.
Until the password handling changed it was a bit of an issue. Having a "live" password for 15 minutes was like holding a ticking grenade. i.e. once you'd entered your password to download the free game (fine) it was also valid for in app purchases until the cooldown wore off. That I think was the major source of this issue, as you've said, now fixed (I think?).
Kind of like that sudo timeout, eh?
Usability vs. Security is always a tradeoff. At least Apple fixed the problem when it was brought to their attention.
Apple take a cut of all sales. All sales have to go through Apple. If you've seen the ipod/phone/pad games, you will know they're 99% kiddy shit, and Apple does not provide a password option to prevent purchases from the device. They want this to happen, despite people asking for password/pin protection. You can't even download "free" games without Apple having you complete credit card details. That's obvious a problem, and they want it precisely clock up sales like this.
I'm not saying Apple hasn't been somewhat irresponsible for making it so easy to run up bills
I am.
Apple put a system-wide configuration option in iOS even BEFORE all this. It is up to the adult to use normal diligence when handing a device linked to their credit card info to their children and simply walking away.
I also believe that it is/was incumbent on the APP DEVELOPERS to limit the number of "smurfberries', or whatever, purchased during a particular time-period.
But, I guess everything is ultimately Apple's fault here in Slashdot-land.
OTOH I've had my kids' phones "virused" with pay-per-month crap... The invitation is sent as a text, and it's the typical "Hey check this out!" and all the kid has to do is reply. Bang! $10/month for ever for a monthly fortune. I don't know what stuff Apple was pulling, but certainly the texts my kids got were deceiving and not clear. And T-Mobile was complicit in allowing these operators to continue, no doubt getting a big slice of the action. I asked my daughter if she ever subscribed intentionally; she didn't even know she had subscribed. And T-Mobile admitted when I bitched about it that the come-on was often deceptive.
These were in-App purchases. No "texts" were required; just a kind of "pop-up" IN THE GAME.
Apple wasn't "pulling" anything, dumbass. And PROMPTLY fixed the problem (which was a, in retrospect, stupid usability decision, related, IIRC, to the fact that the App Store remained "logged-in" during a "session", once someone had logged-in to make a purchase (like purchasing that new game to get your kid to STFU)).
Tip: You might want to do some actual research before posting the next time.
An obvious problem with all these "stupid parent posts" is that these kids in most jurisdictions can't enter contracts without the consent of their parents or guardians, so I'm curious as to why everyone is saying "stupid parent", when they should be saying "stupid Apple lawyers".
Um, because parents, as ADULTS, are expected to have the requisite judgment to not simply allow unfettered access to their bank accounts by their children?
Apple promptly fixed this loophole when the "child abuse" (see what I did there?) was uncovered. It was one of those, in retrospect, "ease-of-use over security" decisions, and Apple, to their credit (no pun), promptly fixed their usability-hole problem, so the issue would be done and over with.
There was no willful and wanton attempt by Apple to defraud or fleece consumers. If anyone deserves your ire, it should ultimately be the greedy App developers, not one of whom, AFAIK, has refunded a single penny of those in-app purchases that THEY DID NOT PUT REASONABLE LIMITS ON THEMSELVES.
And yes, the parents share at least some of the blame, for using their iOS devices as nothing more than a glorified pacifier/electronic restraint (like "chemical restraint") system.
There are several much better reasons for class-action suits against Apple. Don't get me wrong: I'm a fan of the company. But their lock-down and lock-in tactics surrounding iOS are much more worthy of class action than this nonsense.
Really?
So, what you are saying is that the consumer should be excused from normal diligence before purchasing an iOS device?
I mean, anyone who doesn't know that iOS is a "closed" platform at this point only has themselves to blame.
Here's an idea: Try filing that lawsuit yourself and see how quickly the Judge laughs you out of court.
The only other issue I can imagine might crop up would be discovering the hard way that some polymer used in one of the system's components doesn't handle oil exposure well in the long term. I suspect that most are fine; but if the plasticizer used to soften the insulator coating on some important bundle of wires leaches out over 18 months in a warm oil bath, and the embrittled insulator cracks and shorts the next time you mess with it, the joke would be on you...
Hard drives aren't the only thing designed with "vent holes".
Every single electrolytic capacitor has a tiny vent hole (to keep them from acting like a mini fragmentation grenade if they develop an internal short circuit, etc.) Over time, with thermal cycling, the oil might get pumped in and out of the vent holes, thus degrading the electrolyte (guessing), and one fine day...
And as you say, think of the insulation on the cables...
What the story didn't mention was the fact that Apple ALSO sold the Apple II as just a bare board sans case, just like the Apple I. They didn't offer this option very long, but I do remember it being available.
In fact, you are correct.
When I saw a site a few weeks ago with some early Apple ][ documentation, it mentioned what specifications you'd need for your OWN power supply.
I emailed Woz about it, and he replied with the following (reprinted without permission):
Yes.
I [Woz] had visited a few tech types at Hughes in Orange County, CA, and told them we'd probably sell the Apple }{ board for $500 or $600. Our investor and marketing head, Mike Markkula, wanted to only sell fully built Apple }{'s for a much higher price. Out of kindness to me, he allowed a very small initial sale to proceed for the board, but it wasn't heavily promoted (in ads) and disappeared right after a few were bought that way.
Slashdot Mirror
First off: an opinion isn't libel. I never represented a single thing I said as indisputable fact. Maybe armchair lawyer wasn't your strong suit.
Sorry! You are dead wrong.
Part of the definition of "defamation of character", which covers libel (printed) and slander (spoken), only requires that it be a STATEMENT made. In order for what you said about "opinion" (which is true) to be an avoidance to suit, you must CLEARLY point out that you are stating an opinion; which you most assuredly did not do. I agree that you would likely ultimately prevail, but not before the defamation suit was filed.
But that's not the point.
I actually agree with what you have said in your reply to my response to your comment. There is no way that APPLE should be held liable for these idiots' failure to exercise due diligence. I admit that, by the time I got to your comment, I had read about ten too many comments that bent over backwards to call the parents "victims". If they were "victims" of ANYONE, it was the APP DEVELOPERS (which are not even named in this suit?); not Apple.
Apple has put about as many safeguards in place as they can without totally making in-app purchases a royal PITA. At some point, it's up to the ADULTS to be, well, ADULT.
So, despite your snarky comments about me not backing down, I hereby admit that we are pretty much on the same side on everything, as long as your "Slimy Business Model" agreement was directed at the App Devs, not Apple.
Please stop blaming the victims.
SAY WHAT?!?
That is EXACTLY what rabid Android fanbois around here do EVERY SINGLE TIME there is an article on Slashdot about some new and even more evil Phishing or Trojan app downloaded from wherever!
"Well, the permissions are clearly stated when they installed the app! It's their OWN DAMN FAULT they got hosed!" I literally can't COUNT the hundreds of times I have read that "defense" from Androids on this very site.
So, why is it any damned different for iOS users?
I'm gonna have to disagree... just look at the Smurf Village game. In order to do about anything, you have to use Smurfberries (which you can buy). That game is definitely targeted at children. It's a predatory practice, kinda like those web games asking to dial in a 900 number to buy stuff for your game...
Children won't know the difference between virtual and real money and will ramp up a bill...
BTW, Farmville is no different...
I agree that it is a predatory practice... BY THE APP DEVELOPERS, not Apple.
Every. Single. Time Apple "bans" an app from the App Store, a zillion "pundits" and slashdotters cry foul; so, Apple is loathe to "ban" stuff willy-nilly (e.g., "banning" a game because it more-or-less REQUIRED in-app purchases). And no, I don't want to hear a blow-by-blow about how Apple arbitrarily banned this or that. In the end, it's their store; nobody forced you to buy an iOS device (remember that "normal diligence", that I have argued here is incumbent on the user BEFORE buying an iOS device?). But, I digress...
So, back to the actual point you raised: Not only is it incumbent upon the PARENT to give the game a shot BEFORE simply handing their iOS device loaded with an "untested" app to their kid (here's that cool NAMBLA app you wanted. Now go away. Daddy's busy!); but, IIRC, Apple allows PARENTS to establish "Kid's Accounts", where the PARENT can set certain rules and LIMITS ON SPENDING. That way, a PARENT can, in a fashion similar to "Age Restrictions", completely avoid the "sticker shock" that the ignoramuses that have filed this lawsuit (and the even BIGGER ignoramuses, like you, that now DEFEND their position) now claim is somehow APPLE'S fault.
Seriously, man, how in THE fuck can Apple "win" with a mentality that begins and ends with "Apple is Teh Evilz". They must ALLOW every single app (or be raked over the "Walled Garden" coals); but they must SIMULTANEOUSLY be the Nanny for every single whining ADULT that can't be bothered to use the tools that APPLE HAS PROVIDED to help them BE a RESPONSIBLE PARENT?
As I have said before, this lawsuit should NOT be naming Apple; but rather the PREDATORY APP DEVELOPERS.
Period.
She uses her fingernails, filed to sharp points.
Well, alrighty, then!
Fascism? You're an idiot.
Nobody has been "attacked" here, save for the poor TSA agent who's being bullied by schmucks like you who think you're entitled to do whatever you want the constitution to say. You have the right to request to speak to a supervisor or to file a grievance. You can even sue the TSA if you have a problem with their policies. If you choose to act out, be disruptive and incite a riot at the airport, you open yourself to being detained just like any other crazy person.
"Arrogant complaining" is employed as a social engineering trick. I'm guessing you'd be one of the first in line to complain about the TSA being "too stupid to fall for a simple SE trick."
So sayeth the TSA employee.
Are you saying large corporations should be excused from unethical behavior? Are you saying consumers should not assume that everything Apple (and other corporations) does is hostile to consumers' best interests?
Not at all. But in this particular case, the problem lies STRICTLY and PROXIMATELY with the PARENTS.
Why?
Because at the very same time that Apple added in-app purchases (iPhone OS 3.0), they added a password-protected global control for same. Check out this iPhone OS 3.0 User Guide for the iPod Touch, showing the in-app purchase control (among others).
So, was it "unethical behavior", or "sloppy parentlng" that was the PROXIMATE cause of these purchases?
Your username gives you away as the Apple astroturfer that you are. Geeks might understand the difference, but the average consumer doesn't understand how locked in they are until it is too late.
First, if I was an astroturfer, don't you think I would pick a less-obvious username?
Second, there is the little issue that at the very same time Apple first introduced in-app purchases (iPhone OS 3.0), it also added a password-protected global setting to the OS to enable/disable (among other things) in-app purchases. See page 115 of this iPhone OS 3.0 User Guide for the iPod Touch.
So, NOW who's fault is it? Apple's, or the ADULTS?
This has perplexed me since I first bought an IPod 4th gen. Why on earth are you required to attach a credit card to an account? I fail to see the need for it. As far as kids racking up bills...That would immediately solve the problem. All the kids would have access to are the free apps. Heck, even something similar to the way Android handles app purchases.
I've owned an iPhone 3GS and now I am using a Samsung Captivate. Personally, I know iPhones are "Hip" but, if I were buying a phone for my kid I'd take the Android system. Simply because of the way Google handles app purchases and transactions.
So, I guess having a global control over in-app purchases (among other things) isn't a good way to solve this? See page 115 of this PDF for an iPhone 3.0 device (the same version Apple first allowed in-app purchases).
I feel sorry for your kid. You're like Ballmer, making his kids use the much-inferior Zune, just because YOU can't be bothered to do normal diligence before assuming a device isn't thoughtfully designed.
While I agree that the APP DEVELOPERS are mostly to blame, it is really the brain-dead parents that are ultimately responsible. Why?
Apple added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. Look at page 115 in this User Guide for an iPhone OS 3.0 device. Note the global setting for enabling/disabling in-app purchases.
NOW who's fault is it, really?
And they have ALL offer a global restriction for in-app purchases (as well as other things). See this User Manual for the iPod Touch.
Apple first added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. AT THE VERY SAME TIME, they added a global lockout on that ability (see page 115 of the linked PDF for the User Manual for iPhone OS 3.0)
Apple first added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. AT THE VERY SAME TIME, they added a global lockout on that ability (see page 115 of the linked PDF for the User Manual for iPhone OS 3.0)
I agree with you about the business model. That's why I don't buy iPhones. That's why I wouldn't buy them for anyone else, especially someone too young to be expected to understand financial responsibility. Problem solved.
Next time, instead of spreading FUD to all those around you, why don't you become EDUTATED?
Apple first added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. AT THE VERY SAME TIME, they added a global lockout on that ability (see page 115 of the linked PDF for the User Manual for iPhone OS 3.0). Just exactly how is that "slimy"?
It's a good thing for you that Apple has better things to do that sue people like you for libel and slander.
Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model. For Apple to allow it is atrocious. There are much better alternatives, such as a short window to allow returns. I have kids with iOS devices, and thus hoping they win. Bad parenting? I don't have time to play every game to know its business model, but do try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.
Um, Apple first allowed in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. At the very same time, they instituted a global preference to disable in-app purchases (see page 115 of the PDF).
I believe your ire SHOULD be directed to the "slimy business model" of the app DEVELOPERS; who put absolutely ZERO restrictions or "reasonability tests" into the APP to prevent this, and then laughed all the way to the bank. Which one of THEM has stepped up to the plate and offered a REFUND?
You wouldn't let your kid drink Windex
Some parents would.
Curiously enough, that set has a nearly 100% overlap with the set of parents now participating in this lawsuit, and whining at Apple (yet again!) here on Slashdot.
One parent got 10,000$ bill for this. And before you cry "bad parenting", you can't disable that feature. You/your kid just installs some innocent and free game, and then when you are absent, he jacks up the phone bill. Yes, the phone bill, no CC needed.
Wrong.
Apple instituted a global lockout for in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0, the very same time the feature was first available.
Until the password handling changed it was a bit of an issue. Having a "live" password for 15 minutes was like holding a ticking grenade. i.e. once you'd entered your password to download the free game (fine) it was also valid for in app purchases until the cooldown wore off. That I think was the major source of this issue, as you've said, now fixed (I think?).
Kind of like that sudo timeout, eh?
Usability vs. Security is always a tradeoff. At least Apple fixed the problem when it was brought to their attention.
Apple take a cut of all sales. All sales have to go through Apple. If you've seen the ipod/phone/pad games, you will know they're 99% kiddy shit, and Apple does not provide a password option to prevent purchases from the device. They want this to happen, despite people asking for password/pin protection. You can't even download "free" games without Apple having you complete credit card details. That's obvious a problem, and they want it precisely clock up sales like this.
BZZZT! Thanks for ASSuming, troll.
Apple added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. Check out page 115 of this iPhone OS 3.0 User Guide for the iPod Touch.
Or do you propose that they should have had the restriction in place BEFORE the feature was even available? Probably so, with your mentality.
I get really sick and tired of all the Apple hate.
I'm not saying Apple hasn't been somewhat irresponsible for making it so easy to run up bills
I am.
Apple put a system-wide configuration option in iOS even BEFORE all this. It is up to the adult to use normal diligence when handing a device linked to their credit card info to their children and simply walking away.
I also believe that it is/was incumbent on the APP DEVELOPERS to limit the number of "smurfberries', or whatever, purchased during a particular time-period.
But, I guess everything is ultimately Apple's fault here in Slashdot-land.
This is one of those issues of parenthood.... My daughter sends some 7K per month
I'm curious: Just HOW thick are the callouses on her thumbs?
OTOH I've had my kids' phones "virused" with pay-per-month crap... The invitation is sent as a text, and it's the typical "Hey check this out!" and all the kid has to do is reply. Bang! $10/month for ever for a monthly fortune. I don't know what stuff Apple was pulling, but certainly the texts my kids got were deceiving and not clear. And T-Mobile was complicit in allowing these operators to continue, no doubt getting a big slice of the action. I asked my daughter if she ever subscribed intentionally; she didn't even know she had subscribed. And T-Mobile admitted when I bitched about it that the come-on was often deceptive.
These were in-App purchases. No "texts" were required; just a kind of "pop-up" IN THE GAME.
Apple wasn't "pulling" anything, dumbass. And PROMPTLY fixed the problem (which was a, in retrospect, stupid usability decision, related, IIRC, to the fact that the App Store remained "logged-in" during a "session", once someone had logged-in to make a purchase (like purchasing that new game to get your kid to STFU)).
Tip: You might want to do some actual research before posting the next time.
An obvious problem with all these "stupid parent posts" is that these kids in most jurisdictions can't enter contracts without the consent of their parents or guardians, so I'm curious as to why everyone is saying "stupid parent", when they should be saying "stupid Apple lawyers".
Um, because parents, as ADULTS, are expected to have the requisite judgment to not simply allow unfettered access to their bank accounts by their children?
Apple promptly fixed this loophole when the "child abuse" (see what I did there?) was uncovered. It was one of those, in retrospect, "ease-of-use over security" decisions, and Apple, to their credit (no pun), promptly fixed their usability-hole problem, so the issue would be done and over with.
There was no willful and wanton attempt by Apple to defraud or fleece consumers. If anyone deserves your ire, it should ultimately be the greedy App developers, not one of whom, AFAIK, has refunded a single penny of those in-app purchases that THEY DID NOT PUT REASONABLE LIMITS ON THEMSELVES.
And yes, the parents share at least some of the blame, for using their iOS devices as nothing more than a glorified pacifier/electronic restraint (like "chemical restraint") system.
There are several much better reasons for class-action suits against Apple. Don't get me wrong: I'm a fan of the company. But their lock-down and lock-in tactics surrounding iOS are much more worthy of class action than this nonsense.
Really?
So, what you are saying is that the consumer should be excused from normal diligence before purchasing an iOS device?
I mean, anyone who doesn't know that iOS is a "closed" platform at this point only has themselves to blame.
Here's an idea: Try filing that lawsuit yourself and see how quickly the Judge laughs you out of court.
Money can't buy you love...
But it'll make it easier to rent some for awhile.
The only other issue I can imagine might crop up would be discovering the hard way that some polymer used in one of the system's components doesn't handle oil exposure well in the long term. I suspect that most are fine; but if the plasticizer used to soften the insulator coating on some important bundle of wires leaches out over 18 months in a warm oil bath, and the embrittled insulator cracks and shorts the next time you mess with it, the joke would be on you...
Hard drives aren't the only thing designed with "vent holes".
Every single electrolytic capacitor has a tiny vent hole (to keep them from acting like a mini fragmentation grenade if they develop an internal short circuit, etc.) Over time, with thermal cycling, the oil might get pumped in and out of the vent holes, thus degrading the electrolyte (guessing), and one fine day...
And as you say, think of the insulation on the cables...
What the story didn't mention was the fact that Apple ALSO sold the Apple II as just a bare board sans case, just like the Apple I. They didn't offer this option very long, but I do remember it being available.
In fact, you are correct.
:
When I saw a site a few weeks ago with some early Apple ][ documentation, it mentioned what specifications you'd need for your OWN power supply.
I emailed Woz about it, and he replied with the following (reprinted without permission)
Yes.
I [Woz] had visited a few tech types at Hughes in Orange County, CA, and told them we'd probably sell the Apple }{ board for $500 or $600. Our investor and marketing head, Mike Markkula, wanted to only sell fully built Apple }{'s for a much higher price. Out of kindness to me, he allowed a very small initial sale to proceed for the board, but it wasn't heavily promoted (in ads) and disappeared right after a few were bought that way.