4 ms·

I can't believe apple allowed their name to be attached to something so shoddy.

by bryan_w 4y ago

LeoPanthera 4y ago
The Apple Store selling something is not the same as Apple "attaching their name" to it.
- johnklos 4y ago
  Actually, while it's not the same, it's basically very similar. It means Apple did no real vetting, which by itself says something about them.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  No, but the point remains: Apple is implicitly vouching for the quality of everything in its store, and with their ultra-limited selection, one would expect the best of the best.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Yes, Apple should be willing to give everyone a refund who purchased this if they stand by their vetting. Especially because all the things sold via Apple are priced higher than similar products elsewhere, so if the products are not higher quality, then Apple’s reputation is getting dinged.
  - everyone 4y ago
    As it's apple, one would expect the most expensive of the expensive. And that's it, quality could be anything, most likely mediocre to bad.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  The purpose of retailers is to signal to consumers that the products they sell were curated and have the approval of that retailer. If B&H started selling cheap equipment off of AliExpress, they'd rightfully take the reputation hit for attaching their name to those products and choosing to sell them to consumers.
Kyragem 4y ago
Apple should apply the same scrutiny to products they sell in their physical stores as the scrutiny they apply to apps in the App Store.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  It appears that they are, given how many scams make it to the App Store[1][2]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-app-store-scams-fraud/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-a... [2] https://www.laptopmag.com/news/84-scam-apps-still-active-on-app-store-steal-over-dollar100-million-annually https://www.laptopmag.com/news/84-scam-apps-still-active-on-...
  - everyone 4y ago
    Yeah randomly blocking high quality apps for no reason, while letting pure scams through does not qualify as scrutiny.
everyone 4y ago
lol! good joke!

I can't believe apple allowed their name to be attached to something so shoddy.

LeoPanthera 4y ago

The Apple Store selling something is not the same as Apple "attaching their name" to it.

johnklos 4y ago
Actually, while it's not the same, it's basically very similar. It means Apple did no real vetting, which by itself says something about them.
khazhoux 4y ago
No, but the point remains: Apple is implicitly vouching for the quality of everything in its store, and with their ultra-limited selection, one would expect the best of the best.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Yes, Apple should be willing to give everyone a refund who purchased this if they stand by their vetting. Especially because all the things sold via Apple are priced higher than similar products elsewhere, so if the products are not higher quality, then Apple’s reputation is getting dinged.
- everyone 4y ago
  As it's apple, one would expect the most expensive of the expensive. And that's it, quality could be anything, most likely mediocre to bad.
heavyset_go 4y ago
The purpose of retailers is to signal to consumers that the products they sell were curated and have the approval of that retailer. If B&H started selling cheap equipment off of AliExpress, they'd rightfully take the reputation hit for attaching their name to those products and choosing to sell them to consumers.

Kyragem 4y ago

Apple should apply the same scrutiny to products they sell in their physical stores as the scrutiny they apply to apps in the App Store.

heavyset_go 4y ago
It appears that they are, given how many scams make it to the App Store[1][2]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-app-store-scams-fraud/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-a... [2] https://www.laptopmag.com/news/84-scam-apps-still-active-on-app-store-steal-over-dollar100-million-annually https://www.laptopmag.com/news/84-scam-apps-still-active-on-...
- everyone 4y ago
  Yeah randomly blocking high quality apps for no reason, while letting pure scams through does not qualify as scrutiny.

everyone 4y ago

lol! good joke!