Australian Buyers Say They Were Told "No iPad Without Accessories" 412
CuteSteveJobs writes "Australian iPad buyers have been forced to buy all manner of unnecessary add-ons, including screen protectors, docking stations, covers, chargers, and extended warranties, due to a reported official Apple policy. Shoppers reported sales assistants said it was 'company policy' or 'Apple policy' to sell the devices only with accessories, or not at all. A store manager for Authorised Apple Reseller JB Hi-Fi said it was 'a bad policy but it was Apple's policy and they couldn't sell one without it.' Other customers were told they must 'buy a Telstra SIM because the iPad is locked to Telstra,' even though it wasn't. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission and Consumer Affairs are investigating the complaints."
Re:bad apple policies (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so hard to believe, but I think it's more likely that the retail shops are pawning it off as Apple's doing. It's probably just what they've been told to say. If you asked corporate of those stores, they'd probably justify it by saying "Apple forced us to by not letting us have enough of a margin on the product, so we need to sell accessories or we're practically selling them at a loss!"
As bad as I think Apple is and can be, I *know* corporate retail is worse.
Re:You got to wonder sometimes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You got to wonder sometimes (Score:3, Insightful)
This was a large consumer chain making up requirements so they could pawn off high margin 3rd party accessories and blaming apple for them. This included the need to buy power adapter to charge as contrary to the box there was no power supply.
Re:Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)
No, JB are bad. They're dodgy people from Keilor East. Thugs and crims, they've been caught up in a few instances of false advertising, and I seem to recall they were in hot water about grey imports/bootlegs a few years back.
Re:You got to wonder sometimes (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you assuming Apple really did any of this? Has it occurred to you that these resellers are simply making whatever excuses they need to for their backroom distributor/vendor deals to shine through?
Do you think it's impossible for a salesman to lie?
Re:It's about time a stop was put to these combos (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're running 10.5 Leopard, Apple sells an upgrade to 10.6 Snow Leopard for $30 (US). If you're running 10.4 Tiger, the same upgrade CD works, but Apple tells you to shell out $169 for a "Mac Box" containing Snow Leopard plus unwanted copies of iLife and iWork. Apple does have a tendency to push combos.
Re:Bad summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes I think it's fairly obvious it's not official Apple policy since you can, in fact, buy the iPad from Apple themselves in Australia (online or in an Apple store), and they do not have such a policy...
This is just the retailer (JB) realising that demand for iPads is so high that they can get away with making a bit of extra money by telling desperate consumers that they'll have to buy some extra crap with it - the customer will usually still make the purchase. When you (or your sales staff) are paid on commission, it's very tempting to do this kind of thing.
Having said that, they won't get away with it. The ACCC is one of the toughest consumer watchdog organisations in the world when it comes to this kinda crap (and IMO is one Government department that is WELL worth the money spent on it!)
Re:Illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should Apple be doing this? They aren't doing this anywhere else. My first thought is dishonest retailers or dishonest salespeople being paid on commission but only for higher-margin (for the store) accessories.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:2, Insightful)
The first time I used one I found that since all websites use the 1024x768 resolution as a base standard the iPad just made websites look poor. Since 1024x768 (or 990px to include scroll bars) its the minimum of what everyone programs for website borders get eaten and stuff just looks like its been "crammed in".
It would be been so much better if they had it in a higher res and allowed you to zoom like the iPhone/iPod does if the site wasn't legible. Rather, most websites viewed on it struggle to look good because the iPad defaults to the websites bare minimum resolution standard.
For something new and latest, its a bit of a let down. You can argue this point technically all you want, but practically the argument fails.
Kind of like all the hype vs the real thing ...
Re:Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)
First, learn to distinguish between general malware, viruses and trojans. Then you get to criticize other people's security arrangements.
Re:You got to wonder sometimes (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are you assuming Apple really did any of this?
On this site? Are you kidding?!
And yet they still bought the iPads (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what pisses me off the most. If you don't like the seller's terms, don't buy the damn iPad. There are other places to buy it - online especially, but other stores as well. Walk out, do some research, then buy from someplace that isn't going to ask you to spend another $150 just to get out the door.
Even if you can see through the bullshit at that store & persuade them to break the "policy", you're still supporting them by buying there - and the next 100 customers may not be so lucky. The store will make up that money they lost on you by getting it from some other sucker.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:1, Insightful)
That's right, but in a way, the Bondi stores that have been perpetrating this nonsense are only trying to take advantage of something Apple has been doing since before the iPhone came out. "Oh, you want the iPhone, well, you'll have to take AT&T with that. Oh, you want OSX, well, you'll need to buy this overpriced hardware with that. Oh, you want an iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch, well, you'll have to buy all your apps from us from now on."
Now what Apple's doing isn't illegal, and what the Bondi store's doing probably is, but ethically, they are certainly close enough to hold hands.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:5, Insightful)
This "current netbook" whose display you compare to the >$1000 iPad's is only about $300.
Re:Apple is not the problem, JB Hi Fi is (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you have it backwards. Go to the store when it is full, speak clearly and loudly (but politely) and make sure to talk about how dishonest the policy is, how the competition has lower prices, etc. It always works for me, as they are more afraid of losing business and as long as you are in the right, they just want to get rid of you.
The only way you can level the field with someone being an asshat is to (politely) be an asshat as well.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
>*(Before you freak out, I have a concealed carry permit issued by the government.)
Wow, what country do you live in where you can get a permit to threaten shop staff with a firearm?
Re:Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)
6-8% of the market is still over 50 million computers. There were somewhere between 30-40 million Macs sold in the last 5 years. That is way more than enough for cyber-criminals to target.
Re:And yet they still bought the iPads (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you did have a choice. You didn't have to buy one at all.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to free speech.
Then they reconsidered an offered him a refund, but only if he signs a lifelong gag order (non-disclosure agreement).
Have you considered that if the NDA is legal, then free speech isn't a right in this case? Over here in the states, free speech is guaranteed to never be deprived by the government... but private industry has no such limitation.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
An iPad only costs $500 (no clue in Australia but since we were talking Amazon's US price). So you get pricing for a "top of the line" one and it surprises you it goes up? A 25k Honda Odyssey also turns into a 40k car when you're adding features.
Really, if it doesn't do what you need at a reasonable pricepoint in your opinion -- don't get it!
Re:bad apple policies (Score:4, Insightful)
Now what Apple's doing isn't illegal, and what the Bondi store's doing probably is, but ethically, they are certainly close enough to hold hands.
No, they aren't. Two totally different things. JB advertises an item at a certain price, but they refuse to sell at that price... you must buy extra stuff. Apple has always said that the iPhone can only be used with AT&T, and OS X can only be purchased for a Mac, and that apps can only be purchased through their app store.
You might not like it, but it doesn't make these things the same or even similar.
Re:And yet they still bought the iPads (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And yet they still bought the iPads (Score:3, Insightful)
Then buy something else with the voucher.
Or sell the voucher to a friend for face value or take a 5% hit on it.
riiiight (Score:2, Insightful)
"Australian iPad buyers have been forced to buy all manner of unnecessary add-ons including screen protectors, docking stations, covers,"
in March Apple banned the sale of screen portectors in both the online and retail stores here in the states.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/apple-bans-protective-screen-film-from-apple-store/ [ilounge.com]
so if this was an "apple" policy why would they force you to buy something from a 3rd party they don't want you to buy at one of their own stores (and take their cut of that sale directly).
it's like blaming Sony because the BestBuy monkeys try to sell you a protection plan with a tv.
there were rumors of this kinds of shit at ATT for the frist phone. turned out it did happen in some stores - to boost sales of high margin items.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically, you performed an armed robbery. Guess what happens next? Hint: it involves sirens and flashing lights.
And of course this assumes that another employee or customer doesn't also have a firearm and blow your brains out when you start threatening people with yours.
Thus proving that the rules for getting it are too lax.
Re:Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary, government intervention is often necessary and extremely good for the vast majority of people... Otherwise you get monopolies and cartels which lead to high prices and poor service...
The "free market" just doesn't work without regulation to keep it free, a free market is bad for business and any business that becomes powerful enough will try to cement their position.
Re:And yet they still bought the iPads (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Store-bought software almost always comes with DRM-related trojans, while torrents have usually been disinfected of them. Pirate Bay is a safer place to get software than Wall-Mart.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd be 100% right apart from one thing - the fact that he's totally making it all up.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Name one civil liberty that apple has raped.
The right to free speech. When a UK iPod owner had his device suddenly start smoking and then burn-up, Apple initially denied the problem existed by blaming the owner for abuse. Then they reconsidered an offered him a refund, but only if he signs a lifelong gag order (non-disclosure agreement). They muzzled him.
Granted this is standard practice with most corporations, but it doesn't make it moral. It's the equivalent to if Toyota told the people that testified before Congress, "You are not allowed to discuss how your car refused to stop," and therefore they could not answer Congresses' questions. It's treating citizens like Serfs rather than humans with rights.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:5, Insightful)
it's people like you that give gun owners a bad rep. Why don't you go get a penis enlargement, and put your gun away until you grow up. Dousche.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You got to wonder sometimes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>So basically, you performed an armed robbery.
No I didn't. In my *imaginary* scenario I never removed or even touched my gun - it's just hanging there inside a holster. And I did not steal, because the iPad was paid for ($530 cash handed-over for a $529.99 item). So what exactly can I be charged for? Nothing. No laws have been broken by me.
I suppose one could argue the store refused to sell the Pad, but that itself is a crime (discrimination), and the owner would be guilty not me.
Hold up there cowboy. I too have a concealed carry permit and I do carry. Everyday. I don't know where in particular you are, but most everyone who has commented is partially wrong.
technically, yes, you have broken a law, atleast if you're in the US. As said before it is brandishing, and you'd probably have your permit revoked. But no, someone else with a permit wouldn't have the legal "go-ahead" to blow your brains out.
I also agree that you wouldn't be committing a robbery of any sort (armed or otherwise) since the money was handed over. However, most private shops have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as it's not based on race or whatever. If you have a firearm, they can ask you to leave and come back without it. They could also refuse service to you because you are wearing blue, and no that is not illegal.
ps. I am a non-attorney spokesperson........ j/k
Re:bad apple policies (Score:5, Insightful)
To be succinct, that's horseshit.
The UK iPod owner was not forced to sign the NDA, he made the choice to do so in exchange for a new iPod. If anything, he whored himself out for new gizmo.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
You are the exact type of person that should not be allowed to carry a firearm.
I hope your boss reads this.
Re:forced (Score:5, Insightful)
i like that term. none held a gun to there heads and said BUY IT.
The usual contrived argument that regularly appears in response to stories like this. I'm sure that everyone (including yourself) understands the implicit subtext that they're forced to buy the accessories *if* they want to buy the iPad.
Of course, perhaps you accepted that but meant it to tie into this...
just don't buy whine and all will be fixed
...another tedious chestnut that appears like clockwork whenever a company gets criticism for sales practices or goods people don't like.
Some people assume that the freedom of others to not buy their favourite company's latest product (i.e. "don't like it, don't buy it") somehow exempts that product/company from criticism. Well, it doesn't.
I'm perfectly entitled to voice my opinion of the iPod, Apple's selling practices, or anything else, even if I have no intention of buying it. Even those buying the iPad (to a lesser extent) have the right to criticise aspects they don't like, though they can't really complain that they didn't know what they were getting into if they did nor that they didn't accept Apple's policies.
But to get back to the point, "don't like it, don't buy it" isn't a valid response to criticism. It's a free world, and both buyers and non-buyers are free to criticise Apple or anyone else for questionable sales practices. To echo the original implication, if companies don't like that, they're free to not sell their goods.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bad apple policies (Score:1, Insightful)
dude, its Australia. The chance of anyone having a gun in a store is next to zero
We just headbutt people who give us the shits, then appologise later & buy them a beer
Re:bad apple policies (Score:5, Insightful)
No I didn't. In my *imaginary* scenario I never removed or even touched my gun - it's just hanging there inside a holster.
Your implied meaning was very clear- that you would use the gun to back up your position in the dispute. If you hadn't meant that, then you wouldn't have shown them the gun in the first place.
Even if you hadn't intended using the gun- and no-one in the shop is obliged to "know" that- the implicit threat is clear.
(This is- I assume- why "brandishing", AKA "menacing" is considered a crime, as others pointed out.)
Your clearly implied argument "oh, I just *showed* them the gun, I didn't *do* anything" is patent BS, in the same way that the stereotypical mafia guy ("nice business you have here... it'd be shame if anything... happened to it") was "just" admiring someone's shop.
If you genuinely don't see that, then you're an idiot. And depending upon whether or not you would actually act like this in real life or were just hypothetically mouthing off, you're either an Internet Tough Guy or a psychopath, or both.
You know that you're full of it when other gun carriers and self-declared libertarians condemn you for your irresponsible attitude [slashdot.org].
Re:bad apple policies (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't threaten anyone, or shouldn't, but it is brandishing, which is an offense and should be.
Exactly, and it's something I once got in trouble for doing. The following is a true story:
One day years ago, I had been having some trouble with a drug-addled neighbor. It had escalated throughout the day and finally reached the crisis point around 7 PM, when I though he was going to come in through my window and cause harm to my wife, a dinner guest and I. I ran into the bedroom, grabbed my Mini-14 and made sure he saw it as I racked the action. The guy left, but a while later, I noticed the motion sensor light in front of the house had come on. Thinking it was my neighbor returning for more trouble, I peeked out through the blinds only to see that it wasn't him, it was several police officers. Armed police officers, one of whom had his M-16 pointed right at me. Trust me when I say that that's not a good feeling.
In short, all three of us in the house were ordered out, handcuffed and sat down on a wall while the PD sorted the whole thing out. In the end, I wasn't arrested or anything--in fact, the cops said it was my neighbor's fault--but I learned that just showing a weapon can be considered a crime under certain circumstances.
Your problem was: not calling the police before hand, complain about your neighbor, and tell them he was acting like he was going to break thru your window to attack you. That you were scared for the safety of your family and your guest, and that you were going to get your gun out for safety, and could the police come take care of this dude before he broke into your house.
Sure, you don't like to narc on people. I was brought up like that, deal with your own problems, don't go crying to others about it. Guess what? That don't mean shit in the real world. I found thru working, any time you do something someone doesn't like, they go crying to the boss. And since you don't, it suddenly looks like your a dick because peeps are complaining about you, but you aren't complaining about them.
And I'll give ya some info about druggies, mainly since I used to be one. They don't like cops just showing up out of the blue. They don't care when they know they are coming and can get rid of all illegal stuff that might be on them, but if they aren't expecting them? Usually it goes bad for them.
Sure, I know, you own a gun and you wanted to look tough for your wife and house guest, but look what happened? You got treated like the criminal at first.
I hope you learned the lessons this incident taught ya, because you weren't in the wrong, you just didn't do it like society wants us to do it.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:4, Insightful)
This idiot can be condemned because he's a walking talking shitting argument for gun control.
When I was six or seven years old and was first introduced to guns by my grandfather, it was reinforced many times the power and danger of a firearm. The most important lesson ever taught me is that you never point a gun at a man unless you have every intention of doing it. To me that extends to displays that you carry one. If you're going to expose your holster, it's to tell someone "I can shoot you."
To do that because some twerp at a big chain electronics outlet tries to scam you into buying unnecessary items for your iPad is a sign of some sort of sociopathic tendencies, and such a guy should not be permitted to carry or own a gun.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they aren't. Two totally different things. JB advertises an item at a certain price, but they refuse to sell at that price... you must buy extra stuff. Apple has always said that the iPhone can only be used with AT&T, and OS X can only be purchased for a Mac, and that apps can only be purchased through their app store.
Say there are two stores side by side selling iPads. I go to the first store, they say "you can buy an iPad, but only if you buy all this other stuff that you don't want". So I go the the other store and buy the iPad there. That's what is called competition. Now say in the first store they say "you have to buy all this other stuff because it is Apple's policy". I believe it. No point to go to the second store because they would have the same policy, right? But the sales guy lied. They made me buy stuff I didn't want by lying to you. They got my money by lying to me. That's called fraud.
Re:forced (Score:4, Insightful)
Stores that require that you buy OTHER items to get item #1, are in violation of consumer protection and pricing laws. They advertise an iPad for $499 - they have to sell you the iPad for $499.99. The end. It's called "bait and switch" to make the customer buy all kinds of other accessories on top of that price.
I would have laid down my $500 cash on the register, plus $30 for tax, said "I've paid", and walked out the door with the iPad. No way am I going to let some retail shit manager screw me up the ass by forcing me to buy extra junk. Baiting-and-switching is illegal. And of course no store would press charges, because the judge would end-up fining the store a few thousand dollars for violating the law.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
And if he had Not signed the NDA, what was he supposed to do? Just turn his blackened $300 iPod into a paperweight? The guy was wronged and Apple owed him a new one. There should not have been any strings attached.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet it still escalated to the point of M16s, handcuffs and being marched outside. Land of the free indeed.
So when you call the police to report somebody pointed a gun at you, you'd expect a lecture that you were living in the land of the free.
No wait, you wouldn't have called the police in the first place, you'd shoot anybody who looked like he might point a gun at you, right?
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
The UK iPod owner was not forced to sign the NDA, he made the choice to do so in exchange for a new iPod. If anything, he whored himself out for new gizmo.
Soooooo.... in other words, Apple thinks that human rights and consumer rights are somehow mutually exclusive, and you can not have one while having the other?
And demanding a replacement for a defective product still within warranty is called "whoring out" these days?
If you have to give up your human rights to have your basic consumer rights upheld... that, if anything, shows that the company has a problem.
In a reasonable world, people should the right to get the replacement for a clearly defective product if it's still within warranty - and have the right to speak their mind about that matter.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
So when the Foxcomm makes its Chinese workers sign a waiver to work over the 60-hour legal limit (or else be fired), they weren't really raping the workers' legal rights. After all they *chose* to sign that form.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:4, Insightful)
How does showing the gun holstered on my hip "threaten" anybody? It has not been aimed, or even unsheathed. It's simply there.
If you're not trying to be threatening why are you exposing your firearm to the clerk? it's people like you that give gun owners a bad rep. Why don't you go get a penis enlargement, and put your gun away until you grow up. Dousche.
It occurs to me this is why we are losing our freedoms. Politicians know they have nothing to fear from us. [etc]
Smooth, and (ironically) just like a real politician.
Your reply doesn't actually respond to what he said (criticising your position)- probably because there *is* no response that hasn't already been panned elsewhere in the thread- and instead implies he's said something else, giving you the excuse to shift the ground of the argument and make a speech about politicians that makes you look good (rather than bad, as any continued attempt to defend the indefensible would have).
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
You didn't get your way, so you deliberately showed the clerk you have a gun. Please explain what you were trying to do if not threaten?
And I know your scenario is imaginary, like I said you'd be behind bars otherwise, if not dead.
Yes, they have. You were offered the iPad on certain terms (which may be legal or illegal, that is irrelevant). You refused these terms and used threat of deadly force to coerce the clerk to give you an iPod by your terms instead.
You refused store's terms. The store refused yours. No agreement was reached, thus the iPad was never yours, whether you left money in the store or not. Taking something that is not yours from the store is theft. That you used a gun in the theft makes it armed robbery.
The store refused to change the terms of the sale to suit you. That is not discrimination, quite the contrary, it's treating you like everyone else.
Those terms may or may not be illegal by themselves, but that neither makes your behaviour legal nor has anything to do with discrimination.
Re:bad apple policies (Score:3, Insightful)
So if there's no threat why are you claiming the clerk's behavior would change?
Re:forced (Score:3, Insightful)
Its sounding more like a case of over zealous sales assistants rather than store policy to me.