bbbbbbb99
-
Posts
12 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Status Updates
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store Home
Posts posted by bbbbbbb99
-
-
On 8/6/2019 at 8:46 PM, Dabombinable said:
I wonder if my Nexus 7 would count (it actually has NFC, though it hasn't been used). It'd have to be tethered via wifi/BT to my phone, but still...they specify mobile phones. Not tablets. Or better yet, smart watches.
Actually the law was updated around the time smart watches were coming out to include those sort of devices, i think its technically legal though if you pay on the smart watch without touching it.
-
On 7/7/2019 at 7:27 PM, mr moose said:
Did you read it? Because it doesn't exactly say anything that changes my opinion nor the information already provided.
So far it seems the only evidence they have that Samsung phones don't do as advertised is the failure of Samsung to honor some warranties. Direct from their statement:
So basically the ACCC are suing Samsung for lack of QC and because they denied a few warranty claims and we don't even know why they were denied.
As I said right back at the start:
Actually this has nothing to do with warranty and actually deals with consumer law in australia, and before this comes up warranties can only extend consumer protections not restrict.
The part of it that matters in this case is the idea of a reasonable use of a product, if you purchase sonething and only use it within certain bounds that are deemed reasonable (common sense will give you a good estimate of what does and doesnt fit) then if it dies before reasonable time has passed then the consumer can get a repair/replacement/refund (theres tons of asterisks im skipping to keep this post from being too long, the accc website has it in more depth if you need).
Generally phones going in water isnt reasonable at all which fits common sense. But the moment samsung advertises their phone in the surf, in a pool, samsung has changed the definition of reasonable for that product their advertising. In a surprise to noone, some phones obviously die in these environments. This only becomes a legal thing when they reject these consumers right to a replacement/repair/refund because it isnt a resonable use of the product. So at this moment the advertising says its ok whilst samsung says its not ok so the advertising is false.
The short version is:
- samsung advertises phone in salt/clorinated water even though its only suitible in fresh water
- consumer law forced samsung to clearly communicate that it wasnt suitible in clorinated/fresh water which is why the rejections are important
- result is advertising and conflicts with reality and therefore false advertising
-
On 7/5/2019 at 8:50 PM, mr moose said:
We don't know anything about those claims. The lawsuit as stated indicates false advertising, it seems only to be based on those few cases. If they are using a handful of cases to claim false advertising then what about all the other supposed waterproof phones? do they have evidence ALL phones aren't waterproof or just a handful that failed (for reasons we don't yet know).
If it turns out that Samsung did indeed fail to make waterproof phones then advertise them as such, then in this case it will be all good and justice will be done, But, if it turns out that the vast majority of phones do exactly as advertised and the ACCC are suing based on normal failure rates (or worse, phones that were tampered with or damaged from dropping making them no longer water proof), then ACCC is only setting consumers up for failure down the line as Australian law only permits you to take legal action a limited number of times.
You may want to read the media release before you give your 2 cents
-
The price essentially, i had the 4s, 5s and 6s but new iphones were overpriced and i didnt have the hassle hurdle of learning a new os since i had been troubleshooting my mums phone for her for a few years and had learnt how to use android before i had bought one myself
-
Everyone will review the 6gb gddr6, 95% of the information o performance online will be the gddr6 6gb variant, a large majority will inadaquately make it clear there are variations in performance due to memory config. The 3gb gddr5 model will be the top seller. Many people will not get caught from a lack of research but rather a lack of information to research without already knowing the difference exists. Thats the problem with this move, that is what pisses people off about this. Those who are unaware of the issue currently will find it hard to be aware when it launches. This leak actually helps nvidia and the aibs since it separates the outrage from the various models and th reviews by atleast a news cycle
-
5 hours ago, ZacoAttaco said:
They must think their core audience is really stupid because this generation they went back to One
They went from xbox "the first one" to 360 to 1 to 1 with suffixes. Tbh anything could be the next name, im hoping they go in the 360 direction but go with 69
-
Suprise just like everything theres an early adopter tax. Simple
-
The reason you cant see a 1080ti is because it is perpetually behind you and in order to see it you need ray tracing.
-
2 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:
So would refurbished batteries fall under "counterfeit"?
The dictionary, no. But us customs and apple yes. Any part with apple logo not shipped by apple is "counterfeit" no matter what it really is
-
5 hours ago, dizmo said:
This isn't price fixing, this is matching supply to demand. You don't make 1,000 Big Mac's if only 100 people want them, and then lower the price so that people buy them simply because they're so cheap. That doesn't make good business sense at all, and it's rather shameful that you'd accuse them of that.
Maybe if you understand how corporations work...
@Wh0_Am_1 A valiant effort, but I'd honestly save your breath. You won't get through or convince them that they're wrong. They're mostly children that only want lower prices, and don't understand how a business functions.
Theres a slump in demand for nand so why is dram getting affected? If its anything but pricefixing
-
Many people appear here and all over the internet are of the opinion once someone opens your phone that isnt apple and replaces the screen, for instance, apple suddenly loses all responsibility for any faliure of the device whether or not it was related to the repair due there being another possible person who could have created the issue and by vertue apple is immune to any repicussions related to the faliure of the device even if apple caused it. This is the last person to touch it is the only one who can be at fault rule i suppose. The australian consumer law might be interesting to you because it was set up and backed up by cases before apple started to try moving goal posts.
The basics of it are:
-If you say you do something and it doesnt happen, make it happen or in trouble (time frames, what is and isnt reasonable then come into play).
-for the lifetime (resonable appears again, 10 year old iphone vs 1 year old iphone kind of logic applies when thinking resonable not 23 vs 24 months) of the product the company is responsible if a faliure arises due to resonable use (so putting phone in pocket alot cause touch disease is apples fault but dropping phone on concrete isnt).
This is where i guess it will be weird for those with the "the last person to touch it is the only one who can be at fault rule" position as these apply to all parties in the original post scenario, apple and the repair shop and all of this appears logical when focusing on an individual phone
Person buys iphone, person drops iphone, iphone is broken but since the person broke it in an unresonable use of the phone (hitting ground at high velocity), person is responsible for repair and gets it repaired,(ACL makes it very clear who repairs it doesnt matter because if something is broken due to faulty repairs because they advertise "make phone work" if they give phone back that dont work it's their problem not apple), phone works again, apple release update, apple update breaks phone, apple responsiblity is verified, apple in deep shit because something purchased called an iphone doesnt iphone and it was apple's fault.
The Australian make sure everyone plays nice website goes into more details and with less iphone related examples.
.png)
Fortnite Sued: As addictive as Cocaine
in Tech News
Posted
Im suprised no parent group has gone after youtube, since google havent made it a secret everything they do is to prey on addictive tendencies to maximise time on site.