So apparently, in the middle of discussion with you and someone else about whether you were swearing I not, this qualifies as "absolutely chastising" you:

"Swearing or not, its certainly a just plain rude display of condescending impatience."

I'll concede a degree of hypocrisy on my part, but comparing Apple to Gadafi and Mao was utterly (utterly!) ridiculous. So I think any frustration at what was being said was a lot more justified.

Apple clearly knew they were going to loose the case. Although they could have tried to drag it out like they normally do.

Go read the legal document:

http://www.scribd.com/embeds/1715415...endations=true

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm sure Apple knew that the case would be lost, because AT&T had so blatantly done a u-turn on there data plan contracts.

I don't understand why I'm getting so much grief here - that the contracts were AT&T contracts, not Apple contracts, isn't exactly an obscure or pedantic point.

Why do you suppose the value AT&T were ode degree to pay per customer was six times the value Apple were ordered to pay?

Apple gets operators to pay them huge amounts of money, for subsidising and promoting iPhones! That's why. Is that so difficult to understand?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07...nyet_to_apple/

still going with the same old drivel is he

Im afraid so :yawn:

Does the apple juju come free with every device or do you have to source it separately either Way old CP has had dangerous levels I think

Yes, I know that, although I don't see the relevance here.

What is it that you think I'm saying here?

As far as I can tell this is what happened:

The iPad was originally only available with data plans with AT&T.

AT&T offered data plans with unlimited data.

Apple and AT&T promoted AT&T's unlimited data plans.

AT&T stopped doing the unlimited data plans, and reneged on their agreements with their customers.

The lawsuit was taken out against Apple and AT&T.

AT&T were the primary guilty party as it was AT&T that changed AT&T contracts with AT&T customers. As a result they were ordered to provide customers with $240 worth of credit.

Apple were guilty by association, having used AT&T's data plans to promote the iPad. As a result they were ordered to pay each affected customer $40.

Which part of the above is incorrect?

Apple control how their products are promoted by the networks. They are not some innocent bystander that you make them out to be!

They also want to control how their products are given away as prizes


http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/...one-giveaways/

Apple wanted the unlimited data plans because that would be a better incentive for people to buy them.

Are you basically saying that Apple made AT&T change their data plans, to something that would be less likely to help sell iPads?

If you have a link to a source confirming that, I'll gladly have a look, and be right back here to agree with you 100% on all of this.

It seems likely that AT&T decided to alter the data plans after customers had signed up. I doubt Apple would be happy but hey that's business for you!

Indeed! Iv'e told him this already but he completely ignored it!

This is why apple are paying out as well.

Completely ignored it?

Apart from where I said this originally:

"Apple may have co-promoted the offer with AT&T, and presumably took some of the hit because of that."

And this in reply to one of your posts:

"I have already said why they are involved. Presumably they promoted it alongside AT&T, so at the very least they are guilty by association."

I think the trouble here is that you always reduce things to either "Apple did something wrong" or "Apple did nothing wrong", with no room for context or perspective.

I did not say that Apple did nothing wrong.

I said that their part in this seems to be that they promoted AT&T's data plans as part of their iPad marketing.

But it was AT&T who changed their data plan contracts with their customers.

So we're at least agreed that they were AT&T plans, and it was AT&T who changed those plans?

And now you even go as far as to say you don't think Apple would have been happy about that.

In which case why have you been arguing with me just for saying that AT&T are more likely the main culprits here rather than Apple?