Jobsian drones shackle gamer with 'lifetime' iPad ban A US gamer has been banned from ever buying another iPad. Why? He reached his "lifetime limit". Who knew that such a limit existed? Not The Reg. Using the handle Protocol Snow, the now-banned iPad buyer tells his story of intrigue in a personal blog post. But be forewarned: as he notes, the post "is getting hammered with …
>Nothing is sadder than seeing the look on a little kid's face when you don't have the toy they want, because you just personally sold the last half-dozen to a shady guy in sunglasses who reeks of cigarette smoke<
Who's probably a paedophile to boot! A crazed murderous psychopath off his meds.
It would seem that Apple are getting crazier by the decision. I would imagine the next ban will be those accused of smoking as they would not be able to offer a warranty on any of their products.
'Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted.' Kafka.
Does remind me of the Air hostess in Meet the Parents at the check-in queue :D
Don't you love it whenyou enter a dialog with someone that has low IQ but very clear instructions ? the shear frustration that you're fab education and self-aware intelligence tells you you will loose no matter what :D
A mate of mind brough 4 back from the US and he bought them all in a shap, using his same self, with, admitedly, 2 cards.
Your (you're? :) ) writing style is more Essex chav, and the mistakes more characteristic of an ill-educated native speaker than any characteristic problems that you see in EFL.
I suspect that you're a useless waste of skin, caught dry-humping the failboat, and now you're just lying and back-pedalling. Either way, thanks for the huge laughs provided by your hilarious comment.
"Don't you love it whenyou enter a dialog with someone that has low IQ but very clear instructions ? the shear frustration that you're fab education and self-aware intelligence tells you you will loose no matter what :D
A mate of mind brough 4 back from the US and he bought them all in a shap, using his same self, with, admitedly, 2 cards."
I don't know how the legal side works in the US, but I expect in this regard it's similar to the UK; a shop is never legally obliged to conduct a transaction with you. They are perfectly within their rights to refuse, on pretty much any grounds they like. This is why you can't, if a product has a mis-labelled price, demand that the shop sell you the product for that incorrect price. They can simply refuse to make the transaction with you.
Of course, doing this repeatedly pisses off customers, so it's not something shops do very often, but it is legal, I believe.
It strikes me as a perfectly sensible way for a vendor to behave if the supplies are limited, for some reason. I think the same thing's done for things like concert tickets, isn't it? To discourage touts? You put a limit on the number of tickets the punter can buy at once.
I agree the "lifetime limit" is bloody silly though, it's just unnecessary.
Was in a US apple store yesterday looking at an iPad - it did cross my mind to buy one to flog back in the UK to someone fool enough to actually want one. I didn't, though.
Actually, in the US you *can* buy something for what the product has been mis-labelled for. They will only check the mis-labelled price tag, and then proceed to sell it to you for that exact price. I think that the "transaction refusal" may also fall under discrimination laws as well, so I doubt that they'd be able to do this as well.
However, I've seen "quotas" on big events, like concerts and such so I'm not quite sure if quotas are also legal on things that aren't really that finite. You can always buy an iPad, but there is a finite amount of tickets for your standard Metallica concert, so quotas do make sense in the latter case.
As I understand it, in the UK if a price label is on the product itself then the store must sell it at that price. However, if the price is on the shelf and not the actual product then they are under no obligation to sell at the incorrect price.
This is why, besides the logistics, big stores price mark shelves and not individual items.
I wouldn't be surprised if the situation is the same in the USA.
The store is also at liberty to refuse to sell any item to any customer they feel like.
I would imagine that this chap encountered an over zealous shop assistant. We've all encountered jobsworths in our time, they are frustrating and more often plain wrong. I doubt very much that the notion a lifetime came from Jobs, more like the furtive imagination of the salesdrone--much like the furtive imaginations of a few of the commenters here...
Err, no:
If an item scans higher at checkout than the sticker price on the item itself or the price posted on the shelf, in Connecticut, you’re entitled to that item at no cost. You don’t pay the higher price OR the lower price. In fact, the store must give the item to you free, up to a value of $20.
http://www.ct.gov/dcp/cwp/view.asp?a=1629&q=454534
At non-grocery type stores you can insist upon the marked price so long as its reasonable. Ie, you can't buy a car for $20, but I have purchased a mp3 players for a fraction of the cost as scanned in based upon mismarking ($60 versus $20, IIRC).
I cannot believe that within the EU, including GB, that the consumer protection would be less than above. I flat out reject your contention that a shop can just decline a transaction. What about a "no irish or dogs" type sign? Get real.
I.e. What would the reasonable man think? Which is why you can't buy the car for $20. But we also expect a "reasonable man" to understand that mistakes happen and not to apply punitive measures to a shop that makes an honest mistake.
Let's say a camera was marked up at £180 when it should have been marked at £220. Why should the shop be punished by having to sell it at £40. The shopper has suffered no material loss by the camera being marked wrongly because until they actually try and buy the product and find it was marked wrongly no money has changed hands.
And the idea that the shop would have to give you the product free is just crazy! I'm assuming that in Connecticut (sic) they don't have a thing called "common sense".
The argument that it's about consumer protection doesn't hold water because over here we have other legislation that would stop a shop from repeatedly marking prices low on purpose in an effort to get people to buy them and then trying to charge a higher price.
Refreshing to see, for once, a UK person assuming that UK laws apply all over the globe ;-)
In lots of places across the pond (most, AFAICT), retailers do have an obligation to sell a mislabeled item at the advertised price minus a punitive compensation; it applies only to items that are not individually labeled (i. e. in supermarkets), and is indeed a way to protect customers against deliberate mislabeling (the compensation varies from place to place, and cannot exceed the value of the item, i.e. if the revised price is lower than the compensation amount they just have to give the article for free, you cannot ask for cash on top).
Voila voila.
Not that it has much to do with the present case of course.
. . . that you speak of would be down to the case of Boots the Cash Chemist vs Pharmeceutical Society of Great Britain, which enshrined in law the idea that the price on an object in a shop was a willingness to negotiate to sell at that price, not an offer of sale if you give them that amount.
One of the few actual pieces of case law I remember from Uni. Luckily IANAL.
that one has a "right" to buy something from a seller. Some years ago (OK, many years ago) I worked in a garage when there was a tanker driver's strike. The proprietors issued 'regular' customers with a card so they could buy petrol, but refused passing trade. Loads of non-regulars went mental when I told them they couldn't have any petrol. They all said "You can't do this, it's not legal, I've got a right to buy petrol if I want" - they just didn't get the idea that the petrol belonged to the garage & if they didn't want to sell it, they didn't have to.
I must admit it was pretty funny saying 'No' to them & watching them get their knickers in a twist ( I was 15)
They don't have to sell somthing to you at the price shown, and can refuse to sell, but if they do not realise untill after the sale, too late.
However, if a company continualy, or intentionaly, advertises at the wrong price they will fall foul of advertising laws and trading standards will prosecute them.
... it is the way as described by others - if a wrong price is noticed before the item is sold (before any money is handed over), the shop can refuse to sell it.
If the customer buys the item, then notices they paid the wrong price, they have to be refunded (as it counts as deceiving the customer).
Most shops, if the price difference is minor, will sell at the lower price, to avoid annoyed customers, then go correct/remove the price label.
I used to work at a large supermarket chain, and was trained as to the above ¬¬.
This is pretty much the policy regarding "goods in demand" (which meant nearly everything) that was operated in ex-USSR. You had to queue nicely for your stuff or buy it off the grey market for up to 1000% (yes 1000%) the price and you had daily and lifetime limits on purchase. A new Lada was 10K at the end of a 5+ year queue and 17k on the side. Washing machines, boats and even books were sold in such a pricing environment.
We should probably congratulate general secretary Jobs for successfully reinventing "developed socialism" and applying it as an essential part of a business model in a developed world economy.
Right.
So he'll be unable to purchase another iPad if he uses an alternate method of payment? (i.e. different debit/credit card, cash, cheque, wire transfer online etc.).
No, thought not. What a complete non-story. Still, fun to stick it to the man, isn't it?
The Apple Store manager spotted something fishy and took action, all kudos to him.
AHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAAAAA 21 Downvotes (at time of writing)?!?!? That's gotta be a record man! Could it possibly be because you totally missed the point of the story?
Okay one more time for the synaptically challenged:
The story is NOT about purchasing methodologies. It's about Apple adopting a superficially reasonable sales-restriction policy of 2 iPads per day (and max 10 in total), BUT then implementing it in such a Stalinesque fashion that they leave entire countries scratching their heads in befuddlement that the Fruity Empire has managed to exist this long.
One of the other posters on this page has it bang on - being confronted by a droid with clearly limited intelligence who nonetheless is in possession of "The Policy" is one of the most frustrating experiences on God's green earth. Right up there with airport security guards who are 'Just Doing Their Job(TM)'.
Given that Apple has a market cap of $241bn (with $42bn in cash reserves) one can only assume they're doing something right.
Completely misleading story, btw. "A US gamer has been banned from ever buying another iPad".
Er, no he hasn't.
Now run along, peasants.
"Given that Apple has a market cap of $241bn (with $42bn in cash reserves) one can only assume they're doing something right."
NO The marketing dept got it right, they made it shiney with a couple of new features and marketed it to YOUR type. Bingo! The flocked followed...........
Really, you'll buy ANYTHING if its aimed at your EGO.
Never forget, the measure of a man aint his money.
Market cap means squat.
Look at the P/E when contemplating investing. Last time I looked (last week) AAPL's P/E was hovering around 30 ... that's firmly in the "bubble about to burst" territory. (Full disclosure: I just looked ... today it's 25.77 ... Still well out of the "safeish investment" range.)
Sensors detect a rabid fanboi is nearby... Set phasers to Mactard and execute evasive manouevre Ubuntu Beta 10.04..
Obviously the customer was an escaped mental patient and off his meds, a clear danger to himself and those around him. I applaud the manager's decision to prevent him self harming any further, kudos to him.
Now if only we could get that lifetime limit down to zero...
This a non-story? You consider this "normal"?
"The Apple Store manager spotted something fishy and took action, all kudos to him."
Somebody buys goods, where is the "fishy" bit? What they do with the goods afterwards is ENTIRELY up to them, including sticking them in a blender. I guess you're a fan of Sony's "we'll change your alloys for steel rim wheels a year later" approach to the PS/3 as well then? I find this totally and wholly unacceptable. The only acceptable restriction would be the number of units per customer per sale to preserve stock levels, that's a normal way to allow more people to buy. Anything else, and certainly not lifetime is exerting control over your buyers. "Lifetime" means you would never be able to use the device in business.
Actually, if they pulled this trick on my in the UK I'd have their nuts via the Data Protection Act - let them argue with the commissioner for holding data without notification/permission and in excess of requirement. Just because I can.
The whole point of a shop and of trade in general is to sell, and there is reselling too, that's called "business". What they have stated there is so full of holes I'm amazed there hasn't been attempt to claim "misunderstanding" yet (not that it would help, this seems to fit in 100% with the vastly increasing control freakery of Apple in general).
Possible volume scenarios:
- He buys for an organisation (let's say a school: "think of the children!", but, granted, he could be a catholic priest and we all know you're guilty until proven innocent)
- He has a really extensive disaster recovery strategy, or a large family
- He is planning lab tests, or is a product developer (I have 2 PCs and 2 laptops, and I don't even code)
- He wants one in every room and has a really large house. Damn, that means we'll never get the Paris Hilton logo here because she'd need far more than 10. Ah, Paris can buy them? So it's discrimination instead? Fire up the lawyers - they'll love you..
Imagine I run a company and someone has decided to use iPad for whatever reason (I'd say he'd be a marketing manager or something, but let's go with the idea). That strategy would fall on its nose, so well done Apple. As a matter of fact, this has made me think again about recommending ANY Apple products to customers (however safer and easier to use they are) until I have it in writing they won't pull a stunt like that where I live.
I will wait how this develops, but every time I'm about to advise a company on thinking about Apple products (safer and easier to use) they throw stupid crap like this. I think Jobs is losing it, but I give them another 2 years before the fanboys start realising it. About 2 years ago, the Apple brand was OK but of late I've heard so much weird crap that I would think twice about using their products without some hard, contractual assurances so I can sue their rear ends if they tried anything funny.
Nutcases, the lot of them.
Paris, because she's more decorative than Jobs
Yeah someone who's used an iPad and now wants another one? Fishy indeed.
So fishy in fact that he must be taking them apart and grinding down the memory chips to use in his meth lab. But Steve Jobs only likes LSD so that's a no no.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
