Re: What the heck is with the new iPod?

"Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
teadams$2$0$0$3-023E0F.18594328092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on
9/28/07 3:59 PM:

In article <C32224A5.92743%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
teadams$2$0$0$3-95F8DC.05553628092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on
9/28/07 2:55 AM:

In article <noone-F0A078.20044927092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve Carroll <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...
You claimed that they did... a claim you failed to support.

So sorry you are having a hard time reading michael.

Um, that's *Steve* you are responding to. In any case, the situation is
clear, even though it goes over Steve's head (and, as you show, yours):

Yet you had to snip out your claim that preceded the line from Steve that
proves
my point that you can't read.


I noted Apple did went above and beyond what they were
contractually obligated to do. Steve claimed to disagree
and said there were contractually obligated but never
provided a shred of evidence. Not a shred.

IF you bothered to READ, and were able to UNDERSTAND Apple's warranty, you
would clearly see that Steve it correct.

He is not... but even if he was, of course, he has failed to support this.

"Dead On Arrival (DOA) Product: System Failure Out of the Box An
Apple-branded
hardware product is considered DOA if

Ok, let us look at the *requirements* to be considered DOA:

it shows symptoms of a hardware failure, preventing basic operability, when
you first use it after opening the box.

Can you show where this was the case?

Your own posts point that out or don't you remember claiming having the system
locks up on you? That in itself is enough for a support person to decide that
the unit is DOA.


Keep in mind that it worked fine for
me for weeks without showing *any* sign of hardware failure that prevented
"basic operability". After several weeks of flawless operation (with the
exception of a data transfer problem that did not prevent basic
operability), it started having problems.

Further proof that your system meets Apple's requirement as laid out in their
warranty as a DOA unit. read it sometime.

What makes you think that if a system works flawlessly for several weeks it
is DOA?

If you believe that your product is DOA, please call AppleCare Technical
Support at 1-800-APL-CARE (1-800-275-2273) within 30 calendar days of the
invoice date.

This is the killer for you and Steve... 30 days is a pretty specific limit.
Not 31 days. Not 32... which is the number of days that passed from my
invoice date to my *first* call about the issue. By the time it was
determined it was a hardware issue more time than that had passed - but I
think I could have argued that the date should be based on my first call.
Still - I *missed* the deadline. I had the problem shortly before the
deadline but did not call. Can you understand that?

Do you understand that that 30 days isn't cast in concrete? Tech support
people
do have lee way in deciding issues especially if similar problems have come in
on a newly released product. BTW, compare your invoice date with the date you
called tech support from help transfering files. You were very likely 'put on
the 30 day's' when you first called for help.

As you were told: I called 32 days later... 32 is more than 30.

As such, Apple assumed very correctly that they were dealing with a totally
tecnically incompetent boob like John W. and decided the fastest way to get
rid of you was to send you a new unit.

Gee, you cannot figure out that 32 is more than 30, but you then call me
incompetent.

LOL!


Do not get me wrong: I think Apple *should* replace the unit - it clearly
stopped working correctly within weeks of being put into service. That is
completely unacceptable and Apple no doubt has the obligation to correct the
situation. They did not, however, *have* to call it DOA (based on the date
I called, if nothing else) and they are not obligated to place a rush order
on the replacement... by doing so they are going above and beyond their
contractual obligations.

...


You quoted a whole lot past the requirement. Had you understood what you
were reading and posting you would not have done so. Ironic, eh?


If a system locks up 10 years after you buy it do you think it should be
considered DOA? I do not. There is a cut off... and Apple makes theirs
clear: 30 days. I called two days after the deadline. Simple concept...
but you and Carroll struggle with it so much. Oh well.

Apple is doing the right thing here... and I am happy for it. Not such a
hard concept... for adults.


--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What the heck is with the new iPod?
    ... that's *Steve* you are responding to. ... let us look at the *requirements* to be considered DOA: ... called tech support from help transfering files. ... contractual obligations. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: What the heck is with the new iPod?
    ... that's *Steve* you are responding to. ... but even if he was, of course, he has failed to support>> this. ... > the unit is DOA. ... >> me for weeks without showing *any* sign of hardware failure that>> prevented ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: What the heck is with the new iPod?
    ... Snit wrote: ... that's *Steve* you are responding to. ... let us look at the *requirements* to be considered DOA: ... contractual obligations. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: What the heck is with the new iPod?
    ... Snit wrote: ... So sorry you are having a hard time reading michael. ... that's *Steve* you are responding to. ... let us look at the *requirements* to be considered DOA: ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: What the heck is with the new iPod?
    ... Snit wrote: ... So sorry you are having a hard time reading michael. ... that's *Steve* you are responding to. ... let us look at the *requirements* to be considered DOA: ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)