Username or EmailPassword
"I don't see why you think Apple shouldn't have to play by the same rules as Microsoft. Just because they have a smaller market share on the desktop market doesn't mean they don't have to play by the same rules. Also please keep in mind that Apple is just as big as Microsoft. They both make billions of dollars every year."
It very much has to do with the marketing model, Apple is a hardware company and the end product (both hardware and software) is considered to be one product. Microsoft Windows is essentially third party software installed on genaric machines.
That being the case, I understand the argument for refunds for people who do not want Windows on their machine, however, I think it is pretty shady to require (require being the key word) a company to offer a refund on a perfectly working product that they knowingly and intentionally purchased.
It ain´t shady at all as long as the EULA states that you have the right to ask for a refund if you do not accept the terms of said EULA ...
The thing is that even if you do buy a computer knowing it has a pre-installed version of Microsoft Windows *, you still don´t know what the terms of it´s EULA are ... and theres when the "is it more beneficila for me to accept the terms of this EULA or will I do better if I don´t?" question kicks in .. if you don´t, well ... the same EULA states that you have a legal right to get a refund for the price of the software in question.
The "knowingly and intentionally" factor only affects the features of the product ... not the terms of the EULA, which of course, you don´t know in advanced ...
Now ... go get´em tigger Edited 2011-01-26 06:53 UTC
You can perfectly clarify EULA conditions *before* you are buying anything. The problem is, that hardware vendors aren't scared to violate customer protection laws, assuming that only a small minority will have a determination to call them to court. Microsoft is only very happy with it, since it upholds their monopoly. Edited 2011-01-26 16:50 UTC