They had a flawed policy, and someone brought it up to their attention. They fixed the issue and apologized by giving her a free ipad - What better could have they done?
Taken her money in the first place, I guess.
They had a flawed policy, and someone brought it up to their attention. They fixed the issue and apologized by giving her a free ipad - What better could have they done?
Taken her money in the first place, I guess.
Im thinking priorities are wrong if your on a fixed income and your getting an ipad
I thank you for your response. I guess the very nature of my question/comment was of a judgmental tone. Clearly, that wasn't my intent, as I was merely curious.
Perhaps you can think of a way to rephrase my initial question in a way that won't come off sounding.. as it did.
I mean that completely seriously.
Thanks.
Clearly, she doesn't have a lot of money. Not to be offensive, but what in the HELL does this woman need with an iPad? Am I missing something?
Isn't it illegal to refuse legal tender (i.e. cash)?
Unbelievable how judgmental so many people here are. As others have rightly pointed out, none of us knows anything about Diane's situation. But really, that's irrelevant.
How many of us here who bought an iPad could have spent our money (notice I'm including myself here too) on something more necessary and useful, including, oh I don't know, maybe making a donation to hunger relief. Already donate? Not an adequate rebuttal. There's ALWAYS some other worthy cause to which to contribute. Or, just increase your initial donation by, oh, $500 or maybe $829. Just sayin'.
Unbelievable how judgmental so many people here are. As others have rightly pointed out, none of us knows anything about Diane's situation. But really, that's irrelevant.
How many of us here who bought an iPad could have spent our money (notice I'm including myself here too) on something more necessary and useful, including, oh I don't know, maybe making a donation to hunger relief. Already donate? Not an adequate rebuttal. There's ALWAYS some other worthy cause to which to contribute. Or, just increase your initial donation by, oh, $500 or maybe $829. Just sayin'.
taht lady is going to need to buy a computer now...to even use it
NOPE. Apple offers free set up at time of purchase to activate it.
Ironically, it'll have to be a PC. It's not possible to buy a complete new Mac system on $500. My first Mac system was $500, but then, my first system was a used IIsi with 5 MB of RAM and 20MB hard drive, and a 13" Apple monitor. Now that Apple has pulled all the authorized reseller licenses of any place within 100 miles of an actual Apple Store (or did they take all of them now?) the only way to buy a non-new Mac is a refirb from Apple.Well now she can spend the $500 on a cheap computer to sync the iPad with.
You are missing the point. She can spend her money on whatever she wants. However if she does not even have a checking account at this point she might be misapplying her focus at this time.
I don't even have a freaking iPad yet. Why? Because I have other more important things to worry about for the time being.
I agree that it doesn't matter she can spend her money however she wants... but it is not wrong to call people out for having out of whack priorities.
Checking account has nothing to do with anything. Believe it or not I know a few people who live their life on a cash only basis, no checking account, no credit card, no nothing, just cold hard cash.
taht lady is going to need to buy a computer now...to even use it
Because she likes CASH better, and she is not alone!
You can say thanks to the (US) crediting system for mucking up the whole world since last year...
Apple's policy of "2 iPads per 1 person" is ridiculous!
I haven't studied US law, but in our country its downright illegal. One should be able to buy 10 iPads if he wants it - and Apple should be grateful if he does - it means more profit for them.
They are offering a certain product to the public (offerta) and can't refuse selling or restrict the number of units it to any one who comes to buy it (accept).
I'm at a loss why such policy even exists in the first place![]()
That might be your friends choice in terms of his way of living, but unfortunately the world doesn't work this way and his choices will be limited with his narrow way of thinking. He won't be able to buy a house or rent a place or rent a car with no means of tracing him since he lives on a cash only basis.
Since your using a crazy word like "mucking" - I'm going to assume your British.
However, I'm sure your country has something similar to the FDIC (like in the US) which insures deposits up to a certain amount - was $100,000 per account in the US until last year when it was changed to $250,000 (if you have more money than that - you just break it up between accounts and it is all protected)
However, I'm sure your country has something similar to the FDIC (like in the US) which insures deposits up to a certain amount - was $100,000 per account in the US until last year when it was changed to $250,000 (if you have more money than that - you just break it up between accounts and it is all protected)
You only owe to a debt when you already have the merchandise in hand ...
I thank you for your response. I guess the very nature of my question/comment was of a judgmental tone. Clearly, that wasn't my intent, as I was merely curious.
Perhaps you can think of a way to rephrase my initial question in a way that won't come off sounding.. as it did.
I mean that completely seriously.
Thanks.