Quote:

---

One thing to consider is that buying a single sample of one product does not guarantee a problem with all samples of said product despite the similar cicumstances of production.
It's actually fairly obvious, because such broken products would not be able to sell well at all. Since that's not the case there are clearly satisfied users out there. Further more we're talking about sufficient numbers in this group of users to validate that most circumstances like these are matters of either bad luck or isolated cases of faults in production. Both issues would not validate a generalisation regarding the entire amount of samples of the product in question. Rather somewhat isolated local areas of which tangents of this product line goes through.
Yet somehow arguments like those are analogous to arguments of final points of evolutions. Invalid because the model is of a system in everchanging flux and that is important to note. An example is only proper and shows the naive idea of a free market currently active is nothing but an illusion. The example I have decided to go for is called planned aging in products. It all began a century ago. The companies became better and better at creating high quality merchandise. But much like the medicine industry, when you cure something in stead of treating it, you lose an income. The same happened for the people who made well made products which would last for an incredible amount of time. An often used example is the light bulb. You'll find light bulbs from companies which went out of production before our great grandparents were born. These bulbs still works properly. Compare that to your own light bulb you have to change monthly. But is this planned aging not of opposite effect? Would the companies with the best products not win? The thing is, which is why I said it was analogous to evolution, time matters and there's no so called final point in time. You can make anything work better than something else if you invest enough money behind for sufficient time. You can sell your milk and lose money on it to prize so low that no one can compete with you. When everyone else is out of business because you had by far the most money behind you, you decide the prize on milk. As such many items, even modern equipment, may be built with intended inherent faults, which makes the consumer need to change equipment earlier, meaning the companies will sell earlier as well. This is something a truely free marked should not allow, despite it not being very obvious, selling more products for more income is only a short term gain, when in reality you have not increased the amount of needed work. After all that's all what money is, a change of work, a way for society to function. Money have no value except for what we decide and I think money is not the optimal system for a society because it has created gradients of pollution and limited freedom. Now this in itself might not be bad, because it could be a trade off, no the real problem is that money is a gradient for more money, which is the definite proof of problem with this system. Why? Because work capability is still the same as before. For a marked which is truely free, where the everchanging flux, the no "final time" problem is solved you'll need many changes. Limitations must be removed, technology must be freely advanced and the entire system must recylce its components all the time. Only then I'd say bad luck. As it is now, I can only say I am sorry. I am sorry for your "friends" loss baklava. Because it was indeed a loss.
In total we can conclude that baklava's "friend", which of course is baklava him/herself, would have had his/her penis adapted to the XXL condoms had he/she not cowarded out of it.

---

Quote:

---

One thing to consider is that buying a single sample of one product does not guarantee a problem with all samples of said product despite the similar cicumstances of production.
It's actually fairly obvious, because such broken products would not be able to sell well at all. Since that's not the case there are clearly satisfied users out there.

---

Quote:

---

I think that any of apple products fall into the worst tech purchases. overpriced crap imo.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

One thing to consider is that buying a single sample of one product does not guarantee a problem with all samples of said product despite the similar cicumstances of production.
It's actually fairly obvious, because such broken products would not be able to sell well at all. Since that's not the case there are clearly satisfied users out there.

---

Well, I'll see that soon, since, they game me a new one of the same product, saying refund or changin with another product is not possible :/ It's working now. Hope it remains like that cause it's really a good keyboard.

---

Quote:

---

unpleasent.

---

Quote:

---

them. I have always ued my phone to play music while on trains or whatever..

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

them. I have always ued my phone to play music while on trains or whatever..

---

Phones have abysmal sound quality. Any mp3 player tramples them in that matter. Guess you either don't care about that, or the exterior is too loud for you to notice (in that case try earbuds)

---

Quote:

---

Phones have abysmal sound quality. Any mp3 player tramples them in that matter. Guess you either don't care about that, or the exterior is too loud for you to notice (in that case try earbuds)

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

them. I have always ued my phone to play music while on trains or whatever..

---

Phones have abysmal sound quality. Any mp3 player tramples them in that matter. Guess you either don't care about that, or the exterior is too loud for you to notice (in that case try earbuds)

---

Well, that's how it's supposed to be but if I compare Iphone 3G's sound quality to Ipod 6G Classic's sound quality, iPhone just dominates. It's strange. iPod's basses start to blow on high volume.

---

Quote:

---

Most quality is determined by the quality of headphones you're using in any case.

---