Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Apple To Developers: Fuck You

1192022242529

Posts

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    You can buy Xbox games anywhere. THAT allows market forces to have an effect on prices.

    The physical ones, yes.

    Where can I buy Xbox Arcade games anywhere other than their market place?

    Quid on
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Amazon.com

    Dehumanized on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Same for the Wii and PS3?

    Quid on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I guess I don't see this. The video game console market - a very large market - employs roughly the same dynamics that Apple enforces on their phone. In fact, the only "cellphone company" that doesn't lock down their devices that I know of is Google, and they aren't even a real cellphone company.

    You can buy Xbox games anywhere. THAT allows market forces to have an effect on prices.

    I have SERIOUS objections to the PSP Go for the same reason I have issues with Apple's app market. Were this a PSP Go software thread, I'd be discussing that.

    You can only buy XBox games that were licensed, reviewed and certified by Microsoft, and released within Microsoft's pricing structure. Same as Wii or PS3 or Ps2 or DS or PSP games.

    The fact that a variety of brick-and-mortars are selling them does nothing to create a competitive marketplace. They are sold with price restrictions set by MS and sourced from sole distributors

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    PSN yes, Wii no.

    Dehumanized on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Eh Will got my point across better.

    Quid on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2010
    Amazon.com

    aren't XBLA games download-only?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited April 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Amazon.com

    aren't XBLA games download-only?

    you buy a code that you enter into Microsoft's XBLA marketplace, then get a free download of the game through their marketplace.

    To this, I point to iTunes gift cards. Which are no different.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I guess I don't see this. The video game console market - a very large market - employs roughly the same dynamics that Apple enforces on their phone. In fact, the only "cellphone company" that doesn't lock down their devices that I know of is Google, and they aren't even a real cellphone company.

    You can buy Xbox games anywhere. THAT allows market forces to have an effect on prices.

    I have SERIOUS objections to the PSP Go for the same reason I have issues with Apple's app market. Were this a PSP Go software thread, I'd be discussing that.

    You can only buy XBox games that were licensed, reviewed and certified by Microsoft, and released within Microsoft's pricing structure. Same as Wii or PS3 or Ps2 or DS or PSP games.

    The fact that a variety of brick-and-mortars are selling them does nothing to create a competitive marketplace. They are sold with price restrictions set by MS and sourced from sole distributors

    MSRP is not the same as Apple's pricing system. Stores dip below MSRP all the time. Some stores sit above MSRP.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Amazon.com

    aren't XBLA games download-only?

    But XBLA games aren't the only thing on the system.

    I don't take issue with companies having centralized stores. I don't take issue with certain pieces of software being exclusive to those stores. What I take issue with is ALL software being exclusive to those stores.

    Options are good.

    Evander on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Amazon.com

    aren't XBLA games download-only?

    But XBLA games aren't the only thing on the system.

    I don't take issue with companies having centralized stores. I don't take issue with certain pieces of software being exclusive to those stores. What I take issue with is ALL software being exclusive to those stores.

    Options are good.

    You... do know that developers are free to port their apps to whatever smartphones they like, right? Apple doesn't block that at all. Just like Microsoft and Sony don't block porting, which is the thing that makes their practices okay for some reason.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Maybe. But again, that's not the point. The point is that the guy tried to circumvent the company's policy, got caught, and got banned.

    Frankly I don't see anything wrong with that. 2 per day is okay I guess, but trying to squeeze in one more using a separate account? I think he brought the "ban" upon himself. And I put that in quotes because, like I said, it should be fairly easy to create another account.

    Where did he circumvent the policy? Which policy? The guys in the store refused to tell him the policy, in fact (you defended this a moment ago, saying that if he didn't know the policy he couldn't find loopholes in it. That is a VERY scary angle to be thinking in.)

    Again, you didn't read the article. He had purchased ZERO units that day. He had reserved a unit previously, went in to the store to pick it up, and while he was there, put in a reservation for another unit. A reservation is NOT a purchase.

    If the Store had come forward and said "because our stock has been getting low, we're asking customers who have perviously purchased units to hold off on purchasing extras until folks who haven't purchased any yet get a chance." I would have zero problem. That is NOT what they said. What they said is this:
    “I’m sorry sir, but you have reached your lifetime limit of iPad purchases and will not be allowed to buy any more.”

    Evander, read the article.

    He was charging mark up for the iPads, no matter how small.

    In other words, HE WAS ACTING AS AN UNAUTHORIZED RESELLER.

    That is most likely what they meant by him reaching his lifetime purchases. Because there really is no legitimate person why a person would keep buying 2 iPads per day, everyday, unless he was selling them to other people (like a lot of people are doing on eBay).

    That first sale doctrine has to really chap Apple's ass, huh?

    I'd say it comes closer along the lines of scalping rather than the selling of a used good.

    On top of which, your argument is a bit in bad faith: This is no proper use of the First Sale Doctrine, this is out and out "I'm going to buy out X amount your stock and resell it at a profit for myself, claiming I'm just sending it to 'friends.' Whose payments, by the way, are a bit over the actual costs of unit and shipping."

    It screws over legitimate customers who don't want to be bent-over-knee by scalpers and really shouldn't be tolerated.

    I'd also question the veracity of the "lifetime limit" phrasing and meaning.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    The point is that you don't want it to get to that point

    Sorry, you don't get to punish companies for crimes they haven't committed. That you think the government should is rather hilarious given your Minority Report rantings in another thread just a day ago.

    Hey AH, you gonna explain how you think the government should break up monopolies that aren't monopolies?

    It's nice to see you beat that strawman senseless. I'm not saying that Apple needs to be broken up - but when they start acting in ways that can allow them to leverage their extant base to harm their competitors, why shouldn't they be monitored, at the very least?

    Oh, and Perpetual, if you're really bothered by the idea of ads that take over your device, this Apple patent should really terrify you.

    Oh god, forced ads on my appliances and computer why the hell would Apple do tha--
    In exchange for allowing ads to run on your system, you may be able to receive a free operating system, OS upgrade, a new computer program or upgrade or even hardware could be free or heavily subsidized so long as you'll agree to view or listen to commercials

    oh.

    That is why they would do that.

    Because I am giving them little to no money in exchange for the hardware and software I am using and they are using Ads to replace that lost revenue stream, because that is how ads typically work.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    I finished reading the article and I think the guy got what he deserved.

    I also agree that the lifetime limit thing is a bogus line, and probably easy to get around.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I finished reading the article and I think the guy got what he deserved.

    I also agree that the lifetime limit thing is a bogus line, and probably easy to get around.

    Pretty much. Apple likes inventing goofy new rules on the fly.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    The point is that you don't want it to get to that point

    Sorry, you don't get to punish companies for crimes they haven't committed. That you think the government should is rather hilarious given your Minority Report rantings in another thread just a day ago.

    Hey AH, you gonna explain how you think the government should break up monopolies that aren't monopolies?

    It's nice to see you beat that strawman senseless. I'm not saying that Apple needs to be broken up - but when they start acting in ways that can allow them to leverage their extant base to harm their competitors, why shouldn't they be monitored, at the very least?

    Oh, and Perpetual, if you're really bothered by the idea of ads that take over your device, this Apple patent should really terrify you.

    Oh god, forced ads on my appliances and computer why the hell would Apple do tha--
    In exchange for allowing ads to run on your system, you may be able to receive a free operating system, OS upgrade, a new computer program or upgrade or even hardware could be free or heavily subsidized so long as you'll agree to view or listen to commercials

    oh.

    That is why they would do that.

    Because I am giving them little to no money in exchange for the hardware and software I am using and they are using Ads to replace that lost revenue stream, because that is how ads typically work.

    Indeed, I think it is a great option to have in the market.

    The one thing about it that does concern me is that it would seem if you pay full price for hardware, and only use this service to recieve subsidized software, it can STILL lock down your machine until you watch an ad.

    I would hope that, if it is tied to reciept of software, it would be set ONLY to freeze out use of that particular software before watching the ad, not the entire machine.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Amazon.com

    aren't XBLA games download-only?

    But XBLA games aren't the only thing on the system.

    I don't take issue with companies having centralized stores. I don't take issue with certain pieces of software being exclusive to those stores. What I take issue with is ALL software being exclusive to those stores.

    Options are good.

    You... do know that developers are free to port their apps to whatever smartphones they like, right? Apple doesn't block that at all. Just like Microsoft and Sony don't block porting, which is the thing that makes their practices okay for some reason.

    none of this has anything to do with porting.

    although one argument being put forward is that apple is making porting more difficult (especially porting TO the iPhone) through their new restrictions.

    Evander on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Amazon.com

    aren't XBLA games download-only?

    But XBLA games aren't the only thing on the system.

    I don't take issue with companies having centralized stores. I don't take issue with certain pieces of software being exclusive to those stores. What I take issue with is ALL software being exclusive to those stores.

    Options are good.

    You... do know that developers are free to port their apps to whatever smartphones they like, right? Apple doesn't block that at all. Just like Microsoft and Sony don't block porting, which is the thing that makes their practices okay for some reason.

    none of this has anything to do with porting.

    although one argument being put forward is that apple is making porting more difficult (especially porting TO the iPhone) through their new restrictions.

    But Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo put restrictions on how games can be made as well. The guys here who made Breath of Death on Live said they'd have to rebuild it from the ground up to get it running in the PS3.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    There is a dramatic difference between natural differences between systems (hardware construction, OS design etc.) and synthetic differences (you absolutely cannot use middleware like that!)

    electricitylikesme on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I finished reading the article and I think the guy got what he deserved.

    I also agree that the lifetime limit thing is a bogus line, and probably easy to get around.

    Yeah I'm of two minds here.

    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    On the other hand, I don't believe "first sale doctrine" should enable price gouging, or tactics that could easily lead to price gouging. That the person in question supposedly did not gouge (or gouge much), he was acting as an unauthorized distributor/reseller. That doesn't really sit well with me either. I think the producer of a product should have rights to distribute as suits them.

    I mean, there's obviously a conflict of freedoms here:

    - The freedom of a producer (Apple) to control sales and distribution to any degree.
    - The freedom of a consumer to buy whatever stock is available if he or she chooses.
    - The freedom of a consumer to resell whatever they buy in whatever manner or at whatever price or in whatever region they choose.

    These three things cannot entirely coexist, so some kind of arbitrary (read: fair?) line has to be drawn somewhere. In this particular case I'm willing to side with the producer (Apple), but I'm not keen on this lifetime blacklisting bullshit either. I don't think blacklists are ALWAYS necessarily wrong, but not in this scenario.

    Drez on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    gearn on
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    taeric on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    gearn on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If you don't like it, don't buy from them


    And spread the word to fellow like-minded consumers so your decision will significantly hinder their profits


    Soon enough, either two things will happen:


    1. you weren't mainstream enough, and the corporation chugs on knocking you aside

    2. your tactics have stealthily affected their bottom line, and even if they don't claim it, their loss of income will infect their whole business schema with mediocrity due to a lack of funds, and they will collapse under their own weight with a loss of their foundation.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Amazon.com

    aren't XBLA games download-only?

    But XBLA games aren't the only thing on the system.

    I don't take issue with companies having centralized stores. I don't take issue with certain pieces of software being exclusive to those stores. What I take issue with is ALL software being exclusive to those stores.

    Options are good.

    You... do know that developers are free to port their apps to whatever smartphones they like, right? Apple doesn't block that at all. Just like Microsoft and Sony don't block porting, which is the thing that makes their practices okay for some reason.

    none of this has anything to do with porting.

    although one argument being put forward is that apple is making porting more difficult (especially porting TO the iPhone) through their new restrictions.

    But Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo put restrictions on how games can be made as well. The guys here who made Breath of Death on Live said they'd have to rebuild it from the ground up to get it running in the PS3.

    so tell that to the guys who are making that argument.

    Evander on
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    The guy who wrote that article said it himself that he's not angry or even annoyed.

    So yeah. You guys are definitely making too big a deal about this.

    Perpetual on
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    The Supreme Court's interpretation of the commerce clause wishes to have words with you.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    The Supreme Court's interpretation of the commerce clause wishes to have words with you.

    The thing is that it's very, very difficult to prove that the discrimination has happened because of race, gender, religion, etc.

    So the Supreme Court's interpretation of the commerce clause almost never comes into play.

    Perpetual on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    The Supreme Court's interpretation of the commerce clause wishes to have words with you.

    The thing is that it's very, very difficult to prove that the discrimination has happened because of race, gender, religion, etc.

    So the Supreme Court's interpretation of the commerce clause almost never comes into play.

    If they actually said, out loud, "because you are black", then yeah, that is pretty easy to prove.

    Generally the guy who is going to go that far isn't working otherwise to cover his tracks.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    The guy who wrote that article said it himself that he's not angry or even annoyed.

    So yeah. You guys are definitely making too big a deal about this.

    The fact that Apple has a lifetime ban policy that they refuse to inform customers about is a serious thing. So what if the guy doesn't care?

    Evander on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    The guy who wrote that article said it himself that he's not angry or even annoyed.

    So yeah. You guys are definitely making too big a deal about this.

    The fact that Apple has a lifetime ban policy that they refuse to inform customers about is a serious thing. So what if the guy doesn't care?

    It's unprofessional, but so is retail.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    The company is also free to tell that consumer to fuck off, and if necessary, eject him from their private properties.

    Could be worse. Imagine every Apple store having facial recognition cameras and every time you walked into an Apple store anywhere you'd be escorted out by security if you were banned forever.

    gearn on
  • PerpetualPerpetual Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    The guy who wrote that article said it himself that he's not angry or even annoyed.

    So yeah. You guys are definitely making too big a deal about this.

    The fact that Apple has a lifetime ban policy that they refuse to inform customers about is a serious thing. So what if the guy doesn't care?

    I don't see what's so serious about it. Like I said, many companies have blacklist policies for people who try to circumvent terms of service and similar rules. And they don't go around advertising those blacklist policies either.

    Perpetual on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    The guy who wrote that article said it himself that he's not angry or even annoyed.

    So yeah. You guys are definitely making too big a deal about this.

    The fact that Apple has a lifetime ban policy that they refuse to inform customers about is a serious thing. So what if the guy doesn't care?

    I don't see what's so serious about it. Like I said, many companies have blacklist policies for people who try to circumvent terms of service and similar rules. And they don't go around advertising those blacklist policies either.

    They had no proof of him reselling, so there was nothing at all wrong that he was doing, as per their posted rules.

    I know that people tend to treat suppliers as though they are in charge of all transactions, but that is not true. It is a transaction involving equal partners. What Apple is doing by refusing to inform consumers of their policy is showing a GREAT disrespect, and as a consumer, I take issue with that.

    Go walk in to a store, start a transaction, and then walk out at the last minute, right before you were supposed to pay, not giving any reason. Technically, that is within your right, but can you imagine how those actions on your part would be taken? Why is it any different the other way around?

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    The company is also free to tell that consumer to fuck off, and if necessary, eject him from their private properties.

    Could be worse. Imagine every Apple store having facial recognition cameras and every time you walked into an Apple store anywhere you'd be escorted out by security if you were banned forever.

    Yes, they are free to.

    A company that behaves in this manner is going to lose business when word gets around that they have zero respect for their customers.

    The way to get businesses to show some respect is to spread the word.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Paladin wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    The guy who wrote that article said it himself that he's not angry or even annoyed.

    So yeah. You guys are definitely making too big a deal about this.

    The fact that Apple has a lifetime ban policy that they refuse to inform customers about is a serious thing. So what if the guy doesn't care?

    It's unprofessional, but so is retail.

    A minimum wage clerk being a jerk is unfortunate, but expected.

    A hugely profitable and successful corporation having a policy which states that they cannot tell customers the details of the policies that they are currently in breach of is not acceptable.

    Evander on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    The guy who wrote that article said it himself that he's not angry or even annoyed.

    So yeah. You guys are definitely making too big a deal about this.

    The fact that Apple has a lifetime ban policy that they refuse to inform customers about is a serious thing. So what if the guy doesn't care?

    I don't see what's so serious about it. Like I said, many companies have blacklist policies for people who try to circumvent terms of service and similar rules. And they don't go around advertising those blacklist policies either.

    They had no proof of him reselling, so there was nothing at all wrong that he was doing, as per their posted rules.

    I know that people tend to treat suppliers as though they are in charge of all transactions, but that is not true. It is a transaction involving equal partners. What Apple is doing by refusing to inform consumers of their policy is showing a GREAT disrespect, and as a consumer, I take issue with that.

    Go walk in to a store, start a transaction, and then walk out at the last minute, right before you were supposed to pay, not giving any reason. Technically, that is within your right, but can you imagine how those actions on your part would be taken? Why is it any different the other way around?



    If you have a problem with it, you can just decide not to buy anything from them anymore. Stop buying stuff from people who don't respect you. It's that simple.

    gearn on
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Yes, they are free to.

    A company that behaves in this manner is going to lose business when word gets around that they have zero respect for their customers.

    The way to get businesses to show some respect is to spread the word.


    You're right.

    Apple is going to lose so much business now.

    No one has ever been respected by an Apple employee. Fuck. The curtain has fallen.

    gearn on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Perpetual wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    taeric wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Corporate Soup Nazi tactics don't sit well with me. I don't think corporations should even be legally entitled to blacklist certain customers, at least not for something as silly as this.

    Corporations are not governments.

    You should not be forced to conduct business with anyone if you don't want to, for any reason. The reason could be because of something complex such as "We don't want to sell to you because you take our product and resell it in an unauthorized store." or even as simple and asinine as "We don't want to sell to you because you're black."

    This is just how business works. You do not have a right to buy any (legal) product you can afford.

    Seriously? You... really think this is how it should be?

    I don't give my opinion, this is just how it is.

    The real world is full of waitlists, blacklists, and whitelists.

    absolutely true

    but the story doesn't end right there.

    When a company refuses a sale to a consumer, that consumer has a right to inform others about this, and to try to pressure that company in to making the sale threw other means.

    There is no point where one side gets to say "and now the whole thing is over, I win". It is a constant struggle. A company is free to refuse a sale, and a consumer is free to attempt to pressure them back in to it.

    The guy who wrote that article said it himself that he's not angry or even annoyed.

    So yeah. You guys are definitely making too big a deal about this.

    The fact that Apple has a lifetime ban policy that they refuse to inform customers about is a serious thing. So what if the guy doesn't care?

    I don't see what's so serious about it. Like I said, many companies have blacklist policies for people who try to circumvent terms of service and similar rules. And they don't go around advertising those blacklist policies either.

    They had no proof of him reselling, so there was nothing at all wrong that he was doing, as per their posted rules.

    I know that people tend to treat suppliers as though they are in charge of all transactions, but that is not true. It is a transaction involving equal partners. What Apple is doing by refusing to inform consumers of their policy is showing a GREAT disrespect, and as a consumer, I take issue with that.

    Go walk in to a store, start a transaction, and then walk out at the last minute, right before you were supposed to pay, not giving any reason. Technically, that is within your right, but can you imagine how those actions on your part would be taken? Why is it any different the other way around?



    If you have a problem with it, you can just decide not to buy anything from them anymore. Stop buying stuff from people who don't respect you. It's that simple.

    You must be really pissed off that the consumerist webpage exists, aren't you.

    I mean, why don't all of those people just not buy things, instead of informing each other.

    Evander on
Sign In or Register to comment.