Q: how do i uninstall IOS7

No, it's the same old lefty tactic of attacking those who disagree with you by name calling and cynical elitism. We who disagree with your position are materialistic, greedy, rampant consumers who are cluttering and poisoning the planet.

Nice strawman you built there.

Right. So both updates were compatible with your machine. And any prompt to upgrade should check for just that.

Tsk. Yeah. Should've read that disclaimer more carefully. I admit: for litrally decades I had grown conditioned to trusting that Apple only prompted to install upgrades if they were, in fact, compatible with my setup --even though all the previous "Terms & Conditions" included that very same disclaimer.

Mark D Larsen wrote:

 

Right. So both updates were compatible with your machine. And any prompt to upgrade should check for just that.

 

Tsk. Yeah. Should've read that disclaimer more carefully. I admit: for litrally decades I had grown conditioned to trusting that Apple only prompted to install upgrades if they were, in fact, compatible with my setup --even though all the previous "Terms & Conditions" included that very same disclaimer.

So, you were aware of the disclaimer.  Then, respectfully, any compatibility issues are your responsibility.  I recognize that you are frustrated.  But the truth is, you, ultimately, are responsible for your own personal property.

You know, I do understnad the "read the terms and conditions" argument. But, really, who reads those?

If you've been enjoying a bag of M&M plain* every day for the past 20 years, and then today's bag sends you into shock and you have an allergic reaction, and nearly die, would it be reasonable if someone swooped down and said, 'hey, man, should've read the fine print on the back of the bag. see? they changed factories and now they use a plant that also manufactures peanuts. It's all on you. Remember: every time you buy, eat or do anything, gotta read the legalese.

(now, I know m&m plain is made in the same factory already and always has beenwith the peanut and all other varieties. for the sake of a quick example, i used m&m. turn it any any example product you'd like)

But, that's the point. After all, one of the features of the 7 is to automatically update your apps. Hey! Not only don't you have to push a button agreeing to the installation, but you don't have to read the legalese either.

Again, even more important than quality, is a level of trust in a corporation. Yeah, I've always hit install on updates. Not anymore. Between this and the iWork fiasco, for the first time ever, I'm holding off on updates.

A shame.

Hohohohahaha...! It's only a "strawman," yet you use "we"! If the shoe fits, kick the cobbler...?!"

adamdavid80 wrote:

 

You know, I do understnad the "read the terms and conditions" argument. But, really, who reads those?

 

Anyone who actually has a clue?

So then I'll assume you haven't opted for your phone to automatically update your apps?

Because, I'll tell you, a LOT of people have. That's why Apple even included it as part of 7.

So, that would comfirm two things:

1) there are a lot of people without a clue out there.

and

2) there are a lot of people WITH a clue out there, who rarely if ever read the legalese.

If you look at the discussion about Pages 5 on this board, there a lot of professionals who simply assumed the update was also an upgrade. Instead, lots of folks are baffled to find that their documents are no longer in the formats they chose, that their work suite is no longer of the quality and sophistication they've had with Pages '09, and can't figure out why Apple didn't go beyond the legalese to stress that the new iWork is essentially a completely different, and inferior, set of tools.

(btw, there's no way ANY of us could get on with our day if we had the legalese attached to EVERYTHING we do: our modes of transportation, the municipal laws, the hot dogs we eat, etc)

It's horrible. What a disgusting new look. Our was once a nice looking display looks like something from the cheapest nastiest tablet you would buy at the warehouse nz.  Having gone to android on our phones and loving it I think the next step is an android tablet in the future. Why does apple not ever listen anymore or even seem to give a s--t. Bad apple. Baaaaaad apple.

Oh- and my wife was just doing what she thought was a simple update skype and some other apps. Not a whole change. Yes - she didn't read the small print. Neither did she expect an entire change to the whole bloody thing.

Shame.

adamdavid80 wrote:

 

So then I'll assume you haven't opted for your phone to automatically update your apps?

 

Because, I'll tell you, a LOT of people have. That's why Apple even included it as part of 7.

 

So, that would comfirm two things:

 

1) there are a lot of people without a clue out there.

 

and

 

2) there are a lot of people WITH a clue out there, who rarely if ever read the legalese.

 

If you look at the discussion about Pages 5 on this board, there a lot of professionals who simply assumed the update was also an upgrade. Instead, lots of folks are baffled to find that their documents are no longer in the formats they chose, that their work suite is no longer of the quality and sophistication they've had with Pages '09, and can't figure out why Apple didn't go beyond the legalese to stress that the new iWork is essentially a completely different, and inferior, set of tools.

 

(btw, there's no way ANY of us could get on with our day if we had the legalese attached to EVERYTHING we do: our modes of transportation, the municipal laws, the hot dogs we eat, etc)

Anyone who agrees to a legal document without reading it does not have a clue.

Really? Did you read the legal papers regarding participating on this discussion board?

We're splitting hairs here, unfortunately. Yes, in a perfect world we'd all read every single document that comes our way. We would never be ripped off by managers (like, say, Bruce Springsteen, early in his career), anyone who invested with Steve Cohen's SAC (in the papers today) or John Corzine's or Bernie Madoff, we'd never have had the tobacco industry (whose legalese were almost works of art) etc., your prescription meds, etc. your coffee, car, plasma TV - heck, even cell phones (jury is still out on the brain damage these bad boys can do)

Your argument is spot on - yes, we SHOULD - but it's also an ideal - most people DON'T.

Are you saying Apple would have been wrong to have the changes be front and center, like, say, nutritional information on the side of a cereal box - rather than buried in the legalese, which most people (alas) interpret to be so much gobbledy-gook?

If so, legally, yeah, Apple's in the clear. But they're also (as a matter of reality) setting themselves up for a lot of disgruntled users.

adamdavid80 wrote:

 

Really? Did you read the legal papers regarding participating on this discussion board?

 

Yes, I did.

adamdavid80 wrote:

 

 

We're splitting hairs here, unfortunately.

 

Your argument is spot on - yes, we SHOULD - but it's also an ideal - most people DON'T.

 

No, seriously we are not splitting hairs. It has been repeatedly established that failing to read a legal document, and then signing off on acceptance of its content either physically or electronically - does not obsolve you from being bound by its terms. It has nothing to do with being an ideal, nor is it changed by the fact that many people do so. If you choose to accept legal obligations without knowing what they are, and that ignorance is a function of your own behavior, you're an idiot.

So Tim Cook is an idiot? Because odds are he doesn't read every legal document that comes across his desk - that's why Apple has a team of lawyers - very well-paid, and they know their jobs well.

But that's not the point. Apple could have been more upfront is what the eariler poster was attempting to articulate. It shouldn't be buried somewhere in the document - it should (and could) be something said during the (so to speak) sales pitch.

When John Kennedy was putting together his civil rights program, he was advised (by Lyndon Johnson, among others) to be upfront and say why the civil rights program was morally important - to not "stand back and hide behind legal documents, and say, well, I'm just maintaining the law. At least that way they'll respect you for looking them in the eye"). Whatever else is said, saying "caveat emptor" is - though a technically correct argument - one that will never win the public's affection. Knowing that something "new" is being done - and the reasons for it - go a long way to winning the public trust.

As far as courthouses go, your approach wins. As far as people's homes go, nope. As evidenced by many on this board, there's a feeling that Apple didn't look their users in the eye. As evidenced on this board, there are people who have or are contemplating a switch to Samsung devices.

You can't win by losing.

The best thing about this thread, were the other threads just like it when the other releases of iOS were launched and people downloaded them unknowningly. Yes this is the most visual change so far, but nonetheless, this thread happens every iOS launch.

Come to think of it - A better example - and the reason why I'll be an aficionado of Amazon for a long time.

When the first Kindle Paperwhites first came out, Amazon quickly noticed that there was a minor glitch with the device - a slight blue emerging from the bottom of the screen.

What did they do? Hide behind the legalese and say, "oh, well, you had 14 days to return it. Since you didn't...oh, well. Your fault."  They sure COULD have...and you could argue it would have been in their interest to do so.

But what they did instead is issue their own "caveat Emptor" of sorts - they put it right there on the device's page that there have been reports of some minor problems. Nothing that was harmful, or made the device unusable - but a glitch that SOMEWHAT affected the level of quality for some people. (many people wrote in the reviews that they do see the discoloration, but it wasn't somethign that distracted them.

(the new generation, btw, fixed this)

Amazon also made clear - upfront - that these devices aren't compatible for Audible books since there's no headphone jack (to their discredit, they claimed that including it would have made the device heavier). People who didn't know it couldn't say well, I searched and searched the legalese and it was buried in there somewhere - but I couldn't find it.  It was right THERE in the launch of the device and on the web page.

Apple could have used this approach. It coouldn't have hurt. And, from my own perspective as a consumer, it would have helped.