Apple to ban iPhone screen films?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Mark on 18 Mar 2010 07:32 From TUAW: <http://bit.ly/dgmuxI> Why? I understand why they suggest that it might "imply that Apple's device's screens scratch easily", but there must be another reason? Cheers ... Mark
From: Woody on 18 Mar 2010 07:59 Mark <captain.black(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From TUAW: > > <http://bit.ly/dgmuxI> > > Why? I understand why they suggest that it might "imply that Apple's device's > screens scratch easily", but there must be another reason? Because they make screens work badly without really adding much protection. Apple are obviously concerned people will see iPhones with the screen protectors on and think that the screen performance and feel is normal. And it is their shop so they can do what they want! -- Woody
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 18 Mar 2010 08:07 On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:59:49 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: >Mark <captain.black(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> From TUAW: >> >> <http://bit.ly/dgmuxI> >> >> Why? I understand why they suggest that it might "imply that Apple's device's >> screens scratch easily", but there must be another reason? > >Because they make screens work badly without really adding much >protection. Apple are obviously concerned people will see iPhones with >the screen protectors on and think that the screen performance and feel >is normal. > >And it is their shop so they can do what they want! I was in my local non-Apple Apple Authorised Dealer/Service Centre a while ago (the 3G was new), and thought to look at the iPhone cases and covers. There weren't any. I asked an assistant, who told me that Apple said they couldn't stock any, because they couldn't stock iPhones. Might have been a nonsense, might be an Apple practice. They are control freaks, after all. Which is *usually* a good thing. Cheers - Jaimie -- IEFGOD70248E Illegal cross-universe communication attempt. IEFGOD99475T Universe terminated. IEFGOD99883I Invalid restart definition, universe contents lost. -- Marten Kemp, rasfw
From: Peter Ceresole on 18 Mar 2010 08:09 Mark <captain.black(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Why? I understand why they suggest that it might "imply that Apple's device's > screens scratch easily", but there must be another reason? The clue might lie in the last lines... 'With the introduction of the iPhone 3GS Apple introduced an oleophobic screen coating to help keep finger oils from smudging the display.' [1] Maybe that coating *is* slightly more delicate, and they don't want to admit it by selling protection, which might be construed in a Californian court as admission of a fault. Or it might just be another Stevoid directive, which meant I couldn't buy a stylus for my iTouch at the Applestore, despite it being the only thing that made typing on it possible for me... [1] And in relation to another thread not a million miles away, that was copied and pasted (Cmd-C Cmd-V) from Firefox 3.5.8 in OS 10.4.11. Never fails here. -- Peter
From: Gwynne Harper on 18 Mar 2010 17:27
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Because they make screens work badly without really adding much > protection. Apple are obviously concerned people will see iPhones with > the screen protectors on and think that the screen performance and feel > is normal. I am so sure that a screen film saved my phone I left a product review on the Apple store (26 Feb); something I never normally do. <http://store.apple.com/uk/reviews/TS504LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA0NA&mco=MTcwND gyMjA> I also prefer the matte finish when in sunlight (ironically, given I chose the opposite on my MacBook Pro). Gwynne -- My real email is net, not line. |