Apple Highlights iPhone 13 Splash Resistance and Durability in New Ads

[Gog2495]

What exactly do you think AppleCare is, if it's not a separate insurance policy? Just because it's offered by Apple (in some regions) doesn't make it appreciably different from the insurance you have -- and have already used. You're not even out any of your own money, and yet you're still moaning about how unfair Apple is!

Basically, what I get from this conversation is that you're just complaining for the fun of it.

You don't get it, do you?! I'm not complaining/fighting because of money, I'm doing this because I believe that there is still such a thing as right and wrong!!!! I sometimes feel that it's an outdated concept but I don't care.

If companies aren't held accountable for what they say and publicize and if they aren't liable when their product doesn't perform as publicized, what will keep them from aledging/publicizing whatever they want to boost sales?? If a new phone is publicized as being water restsiant bla, bla, bla maximum depth of 2 meters up to 30 minutes bla, bla and dies with a few splases of water, the manufacturer either made false claims about the phone's specs or sold a sup-par phone. In either case the manufacturer should be responsible for replacing or repairing the phone.


To boost sales, companies have been allowed to exagerate their products' features or downright lie about them, with little or no consequences, for way too long and people are so used this that many have become desensitized to the problem and are actually ok with it, especially fanboys and girls.

 

[zarmanto]

... I believe that there is still such a thing as right and wrong! ... To boost sales, companies have been allowed to exagerate their products' features or downright lie about them, with little or no consequences, for way too long ...

Except that there are consequences for companies who lie about their products -- even if they're not always the consequences that some consumers may think they should be. The real problem, as I see it, is that the notion of what is "right" and what is "wrong" is by no means universal. (There are of course those who believe it should be -- but that's another topic for another forum.) Interpretations are different from one country to another, from one court room to another, and even from one person to another.

You (and no doubt others) are basically saying that it's "wrong" for a company to get away with ads that imply one thing and fine print which limits their liability over that claim when things don't quite work out for the consumer. In contrast, those companies would counter that it's "wrong" for a consumer to be able to potentially lie about how a device ends up damaged, and get away with claiming a free replacement on the manufacturer's dime. Both can readily be viewed as reasonable statements on the surface -- but they nonetheless clearly place the two groups in diametrically opposed positions with very little in the way of acknowledgement of any sort of middle ground.

So it's not clear cut, and it all depends upon your perspective. Like House said, "Everybody lies; the only variable is... about what?" That includes both the people who work at manufacturers and the consumers. Mind you, some people on both sides of the issue are simply trying their best to be honest and fair, while some others are always working hard to protect their side from those on the other side who would take unfair advantage. But of course, there is always the likelihood that some people on both sides... are flat out lying in some way. Ultimately, sometimes one side wins, and sometimes the other side wins. And both sides invariably still believe that they are "in the right", even after all is said and done.

And my attempts to demonstrate that there is more than one side to an issue does not make me "ok" with that issue... it just means that I think there's a lot more nuance to the situation than you seem willing and/or able to acknowledge.