Man Sues Apple for Terminating Account with $25,000 in Purchases

zeldatp151

n00b
Joined
Aug 21, 2018
Messages
5
It shouldn't matter. They're taking away $25,000 he spent presumably legitimately. They should refund his money.
I'm sure their TOS says somewhere that they get to keep all his money if they terminate his account.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,343
You think that changes anything? You still need day1 patches for many games to even run properly. Plus I guess you missed the battery thing which revealed you can't play games even if you have the disc if the service is shut down.
PlayStation walked that back too, guess you missed that? I’m also fairly certain I’ll be able to side load the updates. I also consider the CMOS battery to be a preventive maintenance. I suspect much like with everything else someone will come along with a unlicensed check server or they’ll disable it with a final update. SNES games had batteries sometimes (for saves if my memory serves me right) and my buddy and I made a killing refurbing old console games while we were in high school, not exactly a new problem.

I think the whole video game collection thing (which I am super into) is a bigger concern for me because of lack of forethought. I don’t think Sony is malicious, just stupid.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,747
Much like right to repair, I think this is something that we can get bipartisan agreement that content that you purchase online should be persistent or should cause a refund.
The closest digital example I can think of is that somebody's game launcher got sold a couple of times, winding up owned by, I think, Gamestop? When they shut it down and all the games went away, someone requested a refund according to the original policy, and he actually got a check a few months later.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,031
I’ve got to be honest. I’ve owned a lot of phones and used several daily for a long time. If the phones are slowing down the non user serviceable battery definitely becomes a problem before the slowdown does. I generally use suction cups and a heat gun and change all phones battery once ~3 years. They generally last another 18 months to 2 years. None of my old phones lasted that long. When I had to switch from dual band to tri band I ended up throwing away a lot of old phones.
I don’t rent video games on console. I buy the disc or cart (PS5/Xbox one/switch). With PC gaming it became untenable to continue buying disc based content because it wasn’t even on the disc after a while. The trade off there is that I can get 10 games for $10-15 on a regular basis. I can’t remember the last PC game I bought at launch.
Same with movies and music. Netflix charges me $12 to give me a catalog much larger than I could put together. Same with Spotify.
I don’t think I’ve ever bought a song on iTunes or a movie through any of the many digital ‘ownership’ services. I’m from the Napster generation— if I want something hard to find I’ll source it through other means.

What caused this to happen is enough people decided it was good enough. I wasn’t present at the meeting though



I buy all my books in paper format. I buy my console games on disc. I can’t even remember the last time my Xbox was on the live service.
Teslas probably not a good example here as you still have the car— but with my new Toyota several years ago it didn’t have google/CarPlay enabled but I did with a USB update. The one example everyone points to of Tesla was corrected and fully rectified. Just like Apple if this problem was hugely widespread— you’d hear about it. I still won’t own a Tesla though.
I’d still like to know what part of the TOS this guy broke. Apple needs to get a little more bad press than I think we’ll either find out it’s like the above Tesla situation OR it’s because he did something flagrant and got banned.

Rather than ROBBLE ROBBLE ROBBLE about it I’ll await more info. One thing we can agree on though (myself and the lawyer, fairly certain most here) is that not having the App Store definitely diminishes the value of the phone for him as a user.

You still seem to miss the point that you literally are owning less and renting more. The trade off is you get access to more, at least for the time being while the services are in start-up/growth phase, I can guarantee you that will change once they switch to being mature platforms.

Once these platforms mature, the give and take with the consumer will shift from give to take, Tesla is a great example because other manufacturers have taken note and are now poised to follow suit. Give it a about a decade and everyone will be like tesla.

What caused this to happen? not the illusion of 'enough people decided it was good enough' that willful ignorance that somehow the consumer has say/power. We don't, there is no unified consumer voice, and you wouldn't follow it if there was one (neither would I). Companies realized this falsehood a long time ago. All they had to do and did was deliver services that met the convenience threshold, and the consumer 'choice' was rendered DOA. Steam, netflix, apple store, crave, disney+, cloud services, tesla, and on, the list is growing by the day.

Now they did this brilliantly by starting with entertainment, which is a very transitional commodity, I love the Big Lebowski, but I'll only watch it so much. We don't notice the loss of one show on netflix because we watched it and moved on.

Now I don't think steam and other storefronts are going to rip the product from you, but at some point they will start charging you an access fee.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
6,239
PlayStation walked that back too, guess you missed that? I’m also fairly certain I’ll be able to side load the updates. I also consider the CMOS battery to be a preventive maintenance. I suspect much like with everything else someone will come along with a unlicensed check server or they’ll disable it with a final update. SNES games had batteries sometimes (for saves if my memory serves me right) and my buddy and I made a killing refurbing old console games while we were in high school, not exactly a new problem.

I think the whole video game collection thing (which I am super into) is a bigger concern for me because of lack of forethought. I don’t think Sony is malicious, just stupid.
The cmos is not a preventative maintenance thing. The common person doesn't know it even exists let alone willing to open up and in some cases go deep in a console to replace it. Some console even have it soldered on.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,343
It shouldn't matter. They're taking away $25,000 he spent presumably legitimately. They should refund his money.
I disagree I think it depends very much on what/if he did to break the TOS.
I work for a gig start up that’s on the App Store occasionally and we had problems that required banning some users. We warned them repeatedly— but some people just can’t or won’t listen.

If he broke serious TOS parameters or did fraudulent activities I’m not sure apples recourse.

As per the usual with these articles they’re light on actual details.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,679
Here is a case were Google terminated a developer account and his company account. It was later reinstated, he gives the reason for the terminations

LATER EDIT:
On January 15th, after a deep review of our apps, our company and personal developer history, our company account has been reinstantiated. (My personal account is kept terminated)

What we have learned is that our company account hadn’t committed any violation, it was terminated due being “associated” to my personal account. My personal account hadn’t committed any violation either, it was terminated due being “associated” to a colleague account. This colleague account was terminated due “Intellectual Property and Trademark Violation”. My colleague still thinks his account termination was wrong but he appealed and got no support as thousands of developers out there.


So you can be terminated over what an “associated” account does.
Read the full story, it is pretty chilling.

https ://medium.com/android-news/google-just-terminated-our-start-up-google-play-publisher-account-on-christmas-day-5cb69a454da0

Remove the space before the : the word 'medium' is a key word on this platform and breaks the link.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,747
If he broke serious TOS parameters or did fraudulent activities I’m not sure apples recourse.
The guy spent $25000. Let's--just for a moment--assume some of that money was stolen or something. Just how much of those $25000 of purchases would you say would have to fraudulent for Apple to keep the rest of the money?

Put it another way--there's a case in court now about a guy who had his $40,000 Lexus seized by his state for failure to pay a fine or something. The maximum financial penalty was well under $10,000. Let's assume also that the car was worth $30,000 when it was seized. Is the state justified in keeping the extra $20,000?
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,343
One wonders if Tesla changed their policy going forward, though, or if it's going to happen again.
I don't believe in "if" arguments.

What happens IF apple bans 25% of their user base.

One occurrence isn't a trend.
The guy spent $25000. Let's--just for a moment--assume some of that money was stolen or something. Just how much of those $25000 of purchases would you say would have to fraudulent for Apple to keep the rest of the money?

Put it another way--there's a case in court now about a guy who had his $40,000 Lexus seized by his state for failure to pay a fine or something. The maximum financial penalty was well under $10,000. Let's assume also that the car was worth $30,000 when it was seized. Is the state justified in keeping the extra $20,000?
First, the government has force to take things, and again without knowing what he did to break the TOS it's impossible to figure out what Apple's wiggle room was in this case.

Comparing a Lexus being civilly forfeited =/= Apple having a TOS issue with a (singular) user. Again, if this was widespread I'm pretty sure people would be talking about it.

We can pressure Apple to provide more details for transparency without condemning either side. Lebron learned this recently I think.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,343
The sentence you replied to was a question, not an argument.
You are providing a hypothetical that hasn't happened. I can't argue future events that haven't and may or may not happen.

You provided an "if" statement and as Roger Whitaker famously said, I don't believe in if anymore.
 

Dk975

Gawd
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
854
I'm sure their TOS says somewhere that they get to keep all his money if they terminate his account.
Apple will probably claim it as an administration fee.
Apple needs all the money they can get because they are building an east coast campus in the Raleigh, NC area.

Remember, convenience = loss of freedom, especially when it comes to big tech companies.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,343
You still seem to miss the point that you literally are owning less and renting more. The trade off is you get access to more, at least for the time being while the services are in start-up/growth phase, I can guarantee you that will change once they switch to being mature platforms.

Once these platforms mature, the give and take with the consumer will shift from give to take, Tesla is a great example because other manufacturers have taken note and are now poised to follow suit. Give it a about a decade and everyone will be like tesla.

What caused this to happen? not the illusion of 'enough people decided it was good enough' that willful ignorance that somehow the consumer has say/power. We don't, there is no unified consumer voice, and you wouldn't follow it if there was one (neither would I). Companies realized this falsehood a long time ago. All they had to do and did was deliver services that met the convenience threshold, and the consumer 'choice' was rendered DOA. Steam, netflix, apple store, crave, disney+, cloud services, tesla, and on, the list is growing by the day.

Now they did this brilliantly by starting with entertainment, which is a very transitional commodity, I love the Big Lebowski, but I'll only watch it so much. We don't notice the loss of one show on netflix because we watched it and moved on.

Now I don't think steam and other storefronts are going to rip the product from you, but at some point they will start charging you an access fee.
I own just as much as I did in the 90s. I have access to way more though for a similar price.

You keep using that Tesla example, but again, it was rectified. Don't like Tesla's model? Don't buy one. As was said above, Tesla doing something once isn't a trend.

We voted with our wallets. When enough Americans decided that Netflix/Redbox/Hulu/HBO/whatever streaming services you prefer provided enough value both Blockbuster closed down and Best Buy began to remove their movie selection. Same with music bought in the store, RIP Tower Records. If you're unhappy with that, you are still free to buy movies and TV shows in the disc format from Amazon and probably others.

If you don't miss it, did you lose anything? If you love the Big Lewbowski (I do) you can buy it for less than the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks and own it forever. I have 3 copies of that movie, in fact that might be the last time I watched a disc based movie. Plus I just really fucking hate the eagles man.

Conjecture isn't helpful, that what is being brought to the table here. What we need is transparency both from the "victim" and from Apple. His lawsuit could literally have no merit and without hearing what the infraction was it would be hard to know if he deserved to be banned from the service. I'm open to Apple being wrong, but I also doubt Apple just chose to victimize this person because they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,343
Apple will probably claim it as an administration fee.
Apple needs all the money they can get because they are building an east coast campus in the Raleigh, NC area.

Remember, convenience = loss of freedom, especially when it comes to big tech companies.
Yeah I'm sure Apple doesn't get that campus built without this guys $25k lol

They probably couldn't even pay the employees without his money.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,031
I own just as much as I did in the 90s. I have access to way more though for a similar price.

You keep using that Tesla example, but again, it was rectified. Don't like Tesla's model? Don't buy one. As was said above, Tesla doing something once isn't a trend.

We voted with our wallets. When enough Americans decided that Netflix/Redbox/Hulu/HBO/whatever streaming services you prefer provided enough value both Blockbuster closed down and Best Buy began to remove their movie selection. Same with music bought in the store, RIP Tower Records. If you're unhappy with that, you are still free to buy movies and TV shows in the disc format from Amazon and probably others.

If you don't miss it, did you lose anything? If you love the Big Lewbowski (I do) you can buy it for less than the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks and own it forever. I have 3 copies of that movie, in fact that might be the last time I watched a disc based movie. Plus I just really fucking hate the eagles man.

Conjecture isn't helpful, that what is being brought to the table here. What we need is transparency both from the "victim" and from Apple. His lawsuit could literally have no merit and without hearing what the infraction was it would be hard to know if he deserved to be banned from the service. I'm open to Apple being wrong, but I also doubt Apple just chose to victimize this person because they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Well I'm on a side tangent, the apple Vs. guy case just highlights the fact you don't own things.

You say you own the same number of things as you did in the 90s so I say your not a consumer, which isn't a bad thing (I don't consumer that much as a choice, but doesn't mean I don't have an interest in the trend of ownership v. service liscensing). Voting with wallets is the illusion of control (because consumers are not organized, we are individuals and corporations exploit that daily), you gave that control up to have Netflix and other services, I am not sure how you don't understand that.

The trend is what you are missing, and yes other car companies are coping Tesla as posted in this very thread Toyota is locking safety features behind a paywall. Why do you think companies will leave money on the table when its proven they can get away with taking it? If the consumer was so powerful, why do we have appliances that fail shortly after buying them, and we willfully suck it up and buy a new one, or pay a stupid cost to fix it knowing the next part is about to go? Almost all consumers buy appliances, their basically a need, and we haven't demanded better and continually accept worse.
 
Last edited:

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,343
Well I'm on a side tangent, the apple Vs. guy case just highlights the fact you don't own things.

You say you own the same number of things as you did in the 90s so I say your not a consumer, which isn't a bad thing. Voting with wallets is the illusion of control, you gave that control up to have Netflix and other services, I am not sure how you don't understand that.

The trend is what you are missing, and yes other car companies are coping Tesla as posted in this very thread Toyota is locking safety features behind a paywall. Why do you think companies will leave money on the table when its proven they can get away with taking it?
I was never going to collect movies anyways. The medium just doesn't really entertain me the same way that more interactive media does. If it did, I would buy disc-based formats so that I actually owned them.

I have voted with my wallet every step of the way. I wouldn't have bought a new Xbox One after that first announcement that I had to purchase my games digitally. I don't prefer that, and consoles are our last hope to actually own games, unlike you know Steam.

Voting with your wallet is not the illusion of control, it is control. If people don't come, then others won't continue to build it. Look at how many streaming services have failed. CBS all access was my favorite, that just screamed cash grab.

What Toyota safety features are locked behind a paywall? You mean appleplay and android auto? I could have had the dealership do it for free, but I prefer control and convenience over the maintenance of my vehicles. Plus I hate going to the dealership. Cadillac didn't ever update their old head units which created a buggy mess.

If I ever want to take control of legacy media like movies and tv shows I can simply begin to build a collection either on my NAS (torrents, like I used to) or I can buy the discs and have a display (like my console games).

It's not leaving money on the table if it generates significant blow back, see your original Tesla example from several years ago that people still like to bring up even though it was handled and was a one off. That is bad PR, and that does cost the company money.

It's not some big conspiracy, people decided to do what is easy and provides the maximum amount of benefit to the least amount of cost. If the costs begin to rise (see Netflix) then users level off or even begin to drop (like Netflix).
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,190
We do need to revisit the concept of ownership in the digital era, and that Apple should have let him access content even if he couldn't buy more... but at the same time, I don't think this man has much of a chance in court. Agreeing to and then violating terms is a good way to irritate a judge.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,470
We do need to revisit the concept of ownership in the digital era, and that Apple should have let him access content even if he couldn't buy more... but at the same time, I don't think this man has much of a chance in court. Agreeing to and then violating terms is a good way to irritate a judge.
Nobody knows what he violated if anything. It's gotten to the point where companies can boot you off their platform without any reason. It's getting to the point where it seems like a great way to make money by forcing people to buy the stuff they own again. Someone who spent $25k on Apple crap is probably a whale which is a prime reason to boot him off to see him spend the same money again.
 

Martin the Kiteboy

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
71
Where this gets stickiest for me is not the digital media front, but the services. Sure, losing access to streaming media is a bitch, and I do think they should provide a downloadable copy, the real rub is for third party services accessed through Apple.

Think along these lines: You purchase a subscription to a service, say Adobe CC or VPN or hell, even physical style shit like MyPanera+. The issue is that your access to that third party service is gatekeeper’d by Apple. They say you violate TOS for any reason, you lose that access. Try going to your third party providers. I bet you most will shrug you off and laugh at you. Many of these services are moving towards yearly subscription models, so you can be out a significant chunk of your third party service merely because your middleman (Apple, Google, MS) boots you out of their garden.

Refund or delivery of digital goods has to be the way.
 

t1337duder

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
161
I think there should be good-faith consumer protections here. These lengthy TOS contracts that everyone is forced to read and agree to are simply nebulous and are rarely in favor of the consumer. These tech companies should be bleeding through the nose at the consumers expense - not the other way around. These companies already utilize slave labor in third world countries to make their ends meet. If these are the ethical loop-holes these corporations have to jump through to operate, then we need to draw a moral line and dismantle these tech companies. These are not ethically superior entities. These are entities that are incentivized to lower every aspect of your quality of life in favor of their profit margin. There should have been a stand taken against this a long time ago. People who continue to defend our current power structure in the USA, which is more or less a tech oligarchy at this point, should have to defend all of the ills that go with it. The occasional customer getting fucked over in the Apple store is really just a small fine print of how these companies are literally fucking our societies over.
 

LurkerLito

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,324
Companies love this because they can literally steal from you. Steam did it to me a few years back so I can sympathize with the guy. Ever since then I no longer buy directly from steam unless I have money in the wallet from a steam card I bought locally, because when their CC payment processor screws up, it was somehow my fault. It caused an auto suspension for "a chargeback" that locked me from buying (fair) but also from playing/installing already owned games (completely unfair and should be illegal). It was probably a fluke due to it being a winter sale and the traffic being super high, but I was not happy it took like 2-3 weeks to fix via support. Not to mention when they finally got to fixing it the sale was over, I was forced to buy the game full price, and the support person basically threatened to perma-ban my account if I didn't or the problem happened again. Like I can control when their payment processor fucks up due to volume. If I want a game on steam I get it at either CDKeys, Humble, Fanatical, GMG or Indie Gala but never direct because of my past experience. It also highly motivated me to always buy on GoG if it's available there even if it is 25% more expensive (and usually is with new releases).
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,439
Try spending all that in 3 years

"Price opened his Apple account in January 2018"

edit: That was from the article the lawsuit says this

"At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Price has owned an iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Pro. Since January 8, 2015, he has purchased $24,590.05 in Services and Content through Apple, using a single Apple ID, for use on his Apple devices"

With that much spent on Apple devices and services, I'd be curious to see his annual Starbucks latte budget.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,190
Nobody knows what he violated if anything. It's gotten to the point where companies can boot you off their platform without any reason. It's getting to the point where it seems like a great way to make money by forcing people to buy the stuff they own again. Someone who spent $25k on Apple crap is probably a whale which is a prime reason to boot him off to see him spend the same money again.
We don't, but the likelihood that Apple terminated his account "just because" is rather slim. $25K, even multiplied by hundreds or thousands of users, would be a drop in the revenue bucket as far as Apple is concerned. Besides, Apple couldn't reliably count on someone who just lost their account to sign up and buy everything again... that's probably a lost customer.
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
5,829
Try spending all that in 3 years

"Price opened his Apple account in January 2018"

edit: That was from the article the lawsuit says this

"At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Price has owned an iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Pro. Since January 8, 2015, he has purchased $24,590.05 in Services and Content through Apple, using a single Apple ID, for use on his Apple devices"
So, about $80/wk or $11/day since 2015. Not unreasonable, but more than I would spend.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,343
We don't, but the likelihood that Apple terminated his account "just because" is rather slim. $25K, even multiplied by hundreds or thousands of users, would be a drop in the revenue bucket as far as Apple is concerned. Besides, Apple couldn't reliably count on someone who just lost their account to sign up and buy everything again... that's probably a lost customer.
Can you say that a little louder for those in the back?
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,092
Nobody knows what he violated if anything. It's gotten to the point where companies can boot you off their platform without any reason. It's getting to the point where it seems like a great way to make money by forcing people to buy the stuff they own again. Someone who spent $25k on Apple crap is probably a whale which is a prime reason to boot him off to see him spend the same money again.
I imagine you are not serious or do you really believe that person will buy again from the itunes store ?

It would be a terrible way to make money and would destroy the brand and I doubt the selling of media instead of the monthly payment models is trending up.

If is account was hacked to buy gift card with or anything like that, I imagine he would have a strong case to gain either is money or content back.

Has for the other conversation about ownership it is in practicality less black and white I think, I virtually "loss" all the floppy drive games I ever bought and many of the CD one (physically of the cd key info) while I am not sure I lost one of the steam game I ever bought and can easily access, all my VHS movie if they work or not loss are about too stop to work, while most of the itunes movie I would have bought if I ever did that would still be there, same for music some would have disappeared but I doubt the survival rate would be historically low.

Ownership is almost certainly an important variable for everything that require work to be maintained or augmented, cars-housing-land-crops-heard, for digital music, video game and movie content the parallel world into one that people own them and the other one when they have right to use according to a term of service is probably almost the same.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,470
I imagine you are not serious or do you really believe that person will buy again from the itunes store ?
His accounts termination was probably automated and no human thought was put into it. A flag was triggered and his account was banned. If this was a teenager or a soccer mom they probably would just make another account and continue as before. What are you going to do with your expensive Apple products now? I'm honestly surprised this person took the time to count $25k of his purchases. There are probably other people who have spent that amount but don't take the time to sit down and count how much they actually spent on their Apple products. This guy was the exception.
It would be a terrible way to make money and would destroy the brand and I doubt the selling of media instead of the monthly payment models is trending up.
You serious? This is Apple we're talking about here. Apple is constantly on the news for workers in China committing suicide, to workers in India upset of not getting paid and destroying millions of dollars of equipment, to Apple actually collecting telemetry data even though you said no. The amount of crap Apple does is forgiven easily by their consumers, even when the crap they buy from Apple has a design flaw that Apple refuses to fix. Apple is practically immune from any wrong doing they do. Apple could kill you right now and they would still make record profits.
Has for the other conversation about ownership it is in practicality less black and white I think, I virtually "loss" all the floppy drive games I ever bought and many of the CD one (physically of the cd key info) while I am not sure I lost one of the steam game I ever bought and can easily access, all my VHS movie if they work or not loss are about too stop to work, while most of the itunes movie I would have bought if I ever did that would still be there, same for music some would have disappeared but I doubt the survival rate would be historically low.
I still have my Doom II floppy discs and my FF7 discs in a folder that it came in. Just cause you lose your stuff doesn't justify what Apple does, or any cloud service for that matter. Foamy warned people about this years ago, and nobody listened.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,092
You serious? This is Apple we're talking about here. Apple is constantly on the news for workers in China committing suicide, to workers in India upset of not getting paid and destroying millions of dollars of equipment, to Apple actually collecting telemetry data even though you said no. The amount of crap Apple does is forgiven easily by their consumers, even when the crap they buy from Apple has a design flaw that Apple refuses to fix. Apple is practically immune from any wrong doing they do. Apple could kill you right now and they would still make record profits.
People do not mind any of that, having their account destroyed from no wrong doing from them based on the strategy that they would rebuy already bought content on a new account seem a terrible strategy.

His accounts termination was probably automated and no human thought was put into it. A flag was triggered and his account was banned. If this was a teenager or a soccer mom they probably would just make another account and continue as before. What are you going to do with your expensive Apple products now? I'm honestly surprised this person took the time to count $25k of his purchases. There are probably other people who have spent that amount but don't take the time to sit down and count how much they actually spent on their Apple products. This guy was the exception.
They will use streamed content (from apple and others) instead of buying again content would be my guess if they do change brand, say getting a spotify and a netflix account instead of listening to bought ITunes store music and movies-tv series. And if they just continue has before what would be the point of that strategy ?
I still have my Doom II floppy discs and my FF7 discs in a folder that it came in. Just cause you lose your stuff doesn't justify what Apple does, or any cloud service for that matter. Foamy wanted people about this years ago, and nobody listened.

How well does those floppy disk work now (my old floppy had a terrible time working in the late 90s early 2000s) ? I am not talking about justification of anything, I am trying to saying that factually in practical world outside books, bought physical medium track record overs say 30 years do not feel particularly better than what I would expect of the biggest digital service, specially if ease of use is taken into account, you can disagree or not, but I doubt the survival rate of VHS bought in the 80s or beta videos is higher than the survival rate of movie bought on itunes and by 2050 playing 90s DVD could easily have become some form of challenge with some of them dying. And saying people that prefer buyed that way have probably good reason including higher chance of keeping their content overtime in average, it is not like much if anything in that 25K was apple exclusive I would not imagine, he could have bought it elsewhere if he wanted.

Good licensing would have a list of advantages (say it give access to the new remaster from your license has they come out and so on) over physical medium.
 
Last edited:

viscountalpha

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
2,570
This will never get to judgment, Apple will settle long before that. Last thing Apple (and all big tech) wants is to get a definitive ruling on the legality of their TOS.

This is incredibly plausible. I'm not a lawyer but I know enough to see this being a very critical point to all of this.

Every day I see this world slip deeper and deeper into just pure madness. When are we going to put our foot down and say "I've had enough of this garbage!"
 

Teenk9

Gawd
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Messages
1,020
This is incredibly plausible. I'm not a lawyer but I know enough to see this being a very critical point to all of this.

Every day I see this world slip deeper and deeper into just pure madness. When are we going to put our foot down and say "I've had enough of this garbage!"
We could only hope this guy doesn't accept a settlement and take it all the way but we all know that won't happen. That would need deep pockets and nobody has deeper pockets than Apple.
 

sleepeeg3

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
5,015
This is why you should only accept digital copies of the media. MP3s, FLAC, AAC, PDF, etc. If it's not in your possession - you don't own it.

These app stores are nothing more than subscriptions. My dad lost hundreds of dollars in Nook Books when his credit card number changed.
The closest brick-and-mortar analogy I can come up with is your son gets caught shoplifting from Best Buy, so they come in and take back the refrigerator, washer, dryer, and cell phones you bought there.

If Apple, Steam, whoever bans you, they should refund all the money they've taken from you.
Bad analogy. No one signs a contract saying that they can. For some reason it's different when it's in digital form.

Buying stuff from the Apple store doesn't mean you own it, you are just renting it. All of this streaming of video and music, IoT devices and appliances, and software as a service is prepping us for The Great Reset when according to their own video, "You will own nothing and be happy". In the coming years leading up to 2030, this will expand to property, cars, appliances and whatever else. I am still trying to wrap my head around how you will rent / subscribe to your clothes. Will they confiscate if you don't pay the rental fee, or will the clothes be smart and self dissolve if you don't pay?
Exactly. Who can afford a home anymore? Inflation is making everything unaffordable and the Communists are deceiving everyone with their "free everything" handouts.
 
Last edited:

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,449
I'm surprised how many people still think that TOS agreements are the end all/be all when it comes to law, they almost always contain terms that are unenforceable because they violate basic legal rights. The gotcha is that you have to hire a lawyer that's competent enough to not lose a winnable case against a team of corporate hyenas(lawyers) and that usually costs more the issue is worth, unfortunately like someone mentioned if it looks like they're going to lose they settle to prevent precedent being set even if it costs more than losing the case would have.

The bottom line is that you can't sign away any legal rights without proper recompense and you can't sign away most legal rights regardless of the level of compensation. Couple this with about a century of court precedents involving fair use rights on licensed copies of media and I think Apple has little chance of winning this case outright. The real question is if the lawyer(s) filing the case are any good and whether they're willing to litigate through to a verdict, this is where class action suits can do some good because it creates more incentive to not settle(hopefully they get class action status).

The only real argument Apple has here that doesn't go against precedent is if ALL of the content was fraudulently obtained, for instance if stolen credit card #s were used to buy the content then he never legally owned the licensed copies.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,470
People do not mind any of that, having their account destroyed from no wrong doing from them based on the strategy that they would rebuy already bought content on a new account seem a terrible strategy.
It sounds terrible but how many people went and re-bought the same game they were banned from? Quick Google shows people getting banned on Apple for all sorts of things and nobody said anything about not continuing to use Apple products. They didn't care if they lost all their app purchases and media. They went and made new accounts and forgot the whole thing.
They will use streamed content (from apple and others) instead of buying again content would be my guess if they do change brand, say getting a spotify and a netflix account instead of listening to bought ITunes store music and movies-tv series.
That sounds like being a smart consumer. That's not an Apple consumer.
And if they just continue has before what would be the point of that strategy ?
Money? They'll buy the same apps as before along with the same media as before. Obviously not all of it at once but they'll get their credit cards out fast enough.
How well does those floppy disk work now (my old floppy had a terrible time working in the late 90s early 2000s) ?
I have an old ProStar laptop with a Pentium 4 and I was shocked to see the data I was able to get from old Floppy's. It still works and I was able to get old wallpapers and Doom maps I made when I was a teenager.
I am not talking about justification of anything, I am trying to saying that factually in practical world outside books, bought physical medium track record overs say 30 years do not feel particularly better than what I would expect of the biggest digital service, specially if ease of use is taken into account, you can disagree or not, but I doubt the survival rate of VHS bought in the 80s or beta videos is higher than the survival rate of movie bought on itunes and by 2050 playing 90s DVD could easily have become some form of challenge with some of them dying. And saying people that prefer buyed that way have probably good reason including higher chance of keeping their content overtime in average, it is not like much if anything in that 25K was apple exclusive I would not imagine, he could have bought it elsewhere if he wanted.
You do what most people do, and that's get a Plex server going. Or in my case you get Jellyfin going. It's much easier to just buy the stuff you already own, like on the Apple store but it's also easy for Apple to just take it away.
Good licensing would have a list of advantages (say it give access to the new remaster from your license has they come out and so on) over physical medium.
When has anyone ever done that for free?
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,470
This will never get to judgment, Apple will settle long before that. Last thing Apple (and all big tech) wants is to get a definitive ruling on the legality of their TOS.
If I was the man suing Apple I would easily settle for $25k or more. I don't have the funds to fight Apple, but not only does Apple have the funds to fight my small time ass, but other tech companies were throw money at Apple just to make sure there's no legal ruling on ownership of downloaded media. They would like to keep digital downloads in the grey for as long as possible. Do you own the digital purchases you bought online? Is milk good or bad for you? I rest my case.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,257
I agree but no way I would buy a modern appliance let alone from Best Buy
LG = Like Garbage Samsung = SamSucks etc modern appliances are CRAP and actually use more electricity the the older "Inefficient" older ones.
I still have a 12K BTU window rattler from 1984 (it is 2 months older then me!) it blows ICE cubes and when the compressor shuts off (and you knew it did as it shook the entire USA when it does) it still put out cool air for like 3-5 minutes as the evaporator is huge for a 12K unit a modern POS blows out room temp air like 1 second after the compressor shuts off
It uses less then a new one as it runs less due to more thermal inertia due to the thick heavy metal it is made with same with refrigerators the older ones run less as they are better insulated, the new ones are touted as efficent yes efficent at using more electricity as this is the point of the electricity supplier to sell more electricity their whole hidden motive LoL!
I am due for a new window unit and was looking at a 15k BTU one that Home Depot is now selling. Still runs off a 15A circuit (the largest you used to be able to get was 12k BTU) and is a dual stage compressor from what it looked like the box was saying. Box claims it is 25% more efficient than other units.

Last window units I bought were LG and while they worked a lot better than the dying ones I had before that, they have all started having issues after about 3 years... Bleh.

I bet your old unit uses R-12 doesn't it? The absolute best of the best refrigerant in regards to cooling efficiency. Be very, very sad if it ever dies.
 
Top