Back in October, some users were upset when Apple unveiled the fourth-generation iPad just seven months after the previous model arrived. Now the Brazilian Institute of Politics and Law Software (IBDI) has filed suit against Apple, claiming that the quick release of the iPad with Retina display constitutes “planned obsolescence” with regards to its predecessor, the New iPad.
According to Brazil’s Jornal do Comerciao, IBDI believes that Apple could have implemented the technological updates of the iPad 4 into the iPad 3. By not doing so, they believe that Apple took part in unfair business practices. Were Apple to lose in court, iPad 3 users in Brazil could receive some compensation. "Consumers thought [they were] buying high-end equipment not knowing [it] was already an obsolete version," says IBDI attorney Sergio Palomares. The New iPad and iPad with Retina display are different in three ways. For one, the current generation tablet includes an A6X processor versus the A5X processor that came with the discontinued iPad 3. It also includes a FaceTime HD camera. The previous model included a VGA front-facing videophone camera. Finally, the iPad 4 includes Apple’s new Lightning connector. The iPad 3 included a 30-pin connector. It should also be noted that iPad 3 buyers who had purchased their tablet within 30 days of the iPad 4 announcement were able to make a return. In addition, some retailers extended this policy even further. This isn’t the the only bad news for Apple coming out of Brazil. Earlier this month, Cupertino lost the Brazilian trademark for the iPhone. Retrieved from mashable.com 26/2/2013 1. IBDI believe that apple took part in what? 2. How many ways are the New iPad and the iPad with retina different? 3. What are the three differences? 4. How could this be an example of planned obsolescence? 5. What did apple do to possibly make them exempt from this unfair practice they are being accused of?
10 Comments
Andrew Anoih
27/2/2013 05:26:57 pm
1. Planned obsolescence
Reply
Theo
7/4/2014 08:54:46 am
1. Planned obsolescence
Reply
john cenatiempo
7/4/2014 08:55:40 am
1. planned obselescence
Reply
Andew Sacco
7/4/2014 08:55:54 am
1. Planned obsolescence
Reply
ben
7/4/2014 08:59:29 am
1. Took part in unfair business practices.
Reply
Dylan
7/4/2014 09:00:23 am
Q1. IBDI believed apple was purposely taking part in Planned obsolescence
Reply
coxxyyyy
7/4/2014 09:00:30 am
1. Planned more system space
Reply
7/4/2014 09:00:59 am
1. IBDI believed that Apple participated in planned obsolescence.
Reply
Chris
7/4/2014 09:05:12 am
1. Planned Obsolescence
Reply
Harrison
7/4/2014 09:05:32 am
1. Planned obsolescence
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMr Howe Categories
All
Archives
April 2015
|