Apple Reverses iPad "No Cash Purchase" Policy

ZipK writes "After a few days of bad publicity, Apple has reversed its no cash purchase policy, explaining that the policy was originally implemented to limit the number of iPads an individual could buy during the introductory period of short supply. Now that supply has caught up with demand — and the story has hit front pages and gained national attention — Apple has reversed its policy, and taken the opportunity to put a bow on the story by giving the formerly scorned Diane Campbell a free iPad."

Comments

class act

[frnic]

class act...

Re:class act

[sopssa]

Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything. This is what she said:

"Mr. Jobs, give a sister a break," said Campbell. "I'm not going to go sell my iPad."

Not only controlling all the applications and what you can do with the device, but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too? Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people? You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

Re:class act

[aristotle-dude]

Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything. This is what she said:

"Mr. Jobs, give a sister a break," said Campbell. "I'm not going to go sell my iPad."

Not only controlling all the applications and what you can do with the device, but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too? Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people? You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

Way to spin it there pal. The policy was mean to discourage people from purchasing a lot of iPads and then reselling them for profit during the initial launch because of the high demand and supplies not being able to keep up with it.

This is really no different than efforts to deter ticket scalping where there are limits on the number of tickets each person can buy.

Re:class act

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Not only controlling all the applications and what you can do with the device, but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too?

They do not control if you can sell your iPad. They limit sales to two per customer, just like hundreds of other companies have done when they have constricted supplies. Heck, Nintendo will only sell you one Wii Fit per customer right now, but I don't see any press about how they're trying to stop you from reselling them.

Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people?

Easy, people aren't buying hundreds of them, then reselling them at a markup resulting in higher prices siphoned off by a middle man.

You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

No, but you haven't shown how this is bad for customers, either or how it abuses them. If you're an early adopter and are buying while supplies are very limited, you have to use a credit card, but no more than two, or wait a few weeks. Oh, the poor customers.

Re:class act

[sopssa]

The policy was mean to discourage people from purchasing a lot of iPads and then reselling them for profit

What's wrong with that? Shouldn't a person be allowed to sell his device at the price he wants to?

Re:class act

[Lunix Nutcase]

Of course they are and Apple wasn't stopping anyone from reselling their iPad at whatever price they wanted. They just weren't going to let people buy an unlimited amount when their supply was low.

Re:class act

[poetmatt]

you're correct. Apple doesn't want anyone reselling for profit other than themselves, and neither do the ticket sellers (and their distributors).

So really, both situations are damn straight that this was a horrible call by apple. You absolutely cannot stop people from reselling crap they buy, whether with licenses, contracts, or agreements. Linking to an ID thing just meant that you'd have to have multiple people buy the products for you.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything. This is what she said:

"Mr. Jobs, give a sister a break," said Campbell. "I'm not going to go sell my iPad."

Not only controlling all the applications and what you can do with the device, but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too? Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people? You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

Way to spin it there pal. The policy was mean to discourage people from purchasing a lot of iPads and then reselling them for profit during the initial launch because of the high demand and supplies not being able to keep up with it.

This is really no different than efforts to deter ticket scalping where there are limits on the number of tickets each person can buy.

This is clear abuse of the free market. Can you imagine the last 2 Christmas seasons without $1000 PS3s and $600 Wiis on eBay? Sometimes tyrants need to be murdered. This is a clear case of Steve Jobs using his power and greed to control other markets.

Re:class act

[commodore64_love]

>>>They limit sales to two per customer,

So I'll use multiple credit cards then. I've got 6 or 7 of them, so I could get 12 or 14 iPads. Again their reasoning makes little sense when closely examined.

Re:class act

[weirdcrashingnoises]

If you feel that way then I guess you would agree that Apple has the right to limit how many devices a person can purchase, yes? Shouldn't a company be allowed to control the product they produce and distribute?

Re:class act

[RightSaidFred99]

No, it's a part of the never-ending story of Apple's cynical marketing.

Gosh, we sure made a bad choice in not taking cash. We do regret that, here's a free iPad - see how well we're dealing with our beloved customers? By the way, don't forget that the iPad is such a hot commodity that we chose not to take cash to prevent the rampant black marketing of our awesome product. I mean, look how crazy that is - we are selling so many we can turn away customers! Again, sorry about that whole no-cash thing but don't forget our artificial scarci..I mean how well the iPad is obviously selling. Joe, your neighbor has one, don't you want to be like him?

Re:class act

[Pence128]

Do you have 5 or 6 fake identities to go with them?

Re:class act

[node 3]

The policy was mean to discourage people from purchasing a lot of iPads and then reselling them for profit

What's wrong with that? Shouldn't a person be allowed to sell his device at the price he wants to?

Reading comprehension failure. aristotle-dude said "lots of iPads", not "his device". There's a difference.

Apple wants to get the iPad into people's hands as quickly as possible. By limiting the number of purchases to two, this helps prevent people from walking in and buying out the store (remember that bitch who bought the #1 spot in line in order to buy out the entire stock so she could resell them? How is that fair to the people behind her who waited hours?).

Honest people who want an iPad, who sign up on a waiting list don't deserve to be fucked over by opportunists. What's worse, they stand to be fucked over twice. Once by not being able to buy an iPad from Apple, and once again by having to resort to an iPad "scalper" with inflated prices.

But to answer your straw man, yes, a person is allowed to sell their device at any price they can get. Apple does nothing to prevent this. You are absolutely free to buy two iPads and sell them both.

Re:class act

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Well, of course it doesn't make sense to people who lack facilities for reasoning.

Besides, it's not like credit cards are identified by unique numbers so how are they going to keep people from buying additional devices? (And what braindead user with mod points thought the above poster was informative?)

Re:class act

[immaterial]

They can track your purchases via your credit card, doofus, whereas cash is anonymous. How'd you get modded informative? (Now, if you have multiple CCs perhaps you could work around it, though they may be using the address or phone # tied to the CC account in addition to your name.)

Re:class act

[tenton]

I've got a $20,000 credit limit and could buy tons of them.

Doesn't matter. They were keeping track by CC number (I recall some anecdotal reports of this online). Sure, you could have ordered a bunch from a bunch of non-Apple stores, but it's still another hurdle to jump.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

So you buy Visa gift cards.

Re:class act

[tenton]

12-14 is one thing. You're still constrained. You can't get dozens or hundreds.

Re:class act

[quantumplacet]

Try reading what you quoted again. Does it say "they limit sales to two per credit card" or does it say "they limit sales to two per customer". Or does each of your 6 or 7 credit cards have a different name on it?

Re:class act

[TwiztidK]

It doesn't matter how big your credit limit is, it matters how many credit cards you have. Basically, they wouldn't sell more than two iPads to the same credit card while that limit was in effect.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need fake identifies if you just buy Visa gift cards.

Re:class act

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

They limit sales to two per customer,

So I'll use multiple credit cards then. I've got 6 or 7 of them, so I could get 12 or 14 iPads. Again their reasoning makes little sense when closely examined.

Okay, then you have 12 or 14 of them and you have to deal with paying 6 or 7 different bills and you've made a small profit while having driven around to a bunch of different shops or risked your credit card by loaning it to someone to make purchases on your behalf. Congrats. That's still a lot harder than sitting outside an Apple store and paying a bunch of people $20 each to go buy 2 iPads then reselling them and making an easy profit while scalping the average person.

This isn't some lock-down method or they're be requiring your SSN or driver's license number. It's just a way to make it harder and less common so it is not a big problem for normal people. This isn't even an unusual business practice, it's only getting press because anything having to do with the iPad gets readers right now. Next there will be an article about how iPads can't be modded to run radio stations or "Apple" will send the FCC to arrest you.

Re:class act

[node 3]

Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything.

Never-ending myth, you mean.

Not only controlling all the applications

Apple doesn't control "all the applications".

and what you can do with the device

Nor do they control what you can do with the device.

In both cases, they only mark certain things as "off limits". This is no more controlling than saying the government controls what you can drive and where you can go, since they outlaw certain vehicles and some roads are toll roads, closed roads, or one-way streets.

but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too?

Apple controls this in no way whatsoever. You are 100% free to sell your iPad to whomever for for whatever price you wish.

Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly

Because they are not.

but exactly how is this good for the market or people?

Since it's not true, it doesn't matter one way or the other.

You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

This is true, although irrelevant, as Apple aren't abusing their customers.

Re:class act

[node 3]

BUT their reasoning makes zero sense. Forcing me to use a credit card instead of cash won't stop me from buying multiple iPads and then selling them to other people. I've got a $20,000 credit limit and could buy tons of them.

No, you can't. Apple uses your credit card to keep track of how many iPads you've bought.

Re:class act

[postbigbang]

And how is this different from any supply and demand purchase?

Someone walking into a store and buying ONE is a lot different than someone walking into a store and buying TWENTY. If Apple creates such a huge frenzy, then what if the backlash is a secondary market, just like the original overhyped iPhone?

Apple has the ability to limit the number of resellers (in the US markets, by law and legal precedent). What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" (yes, it's in caps). That means buying an iPad, or buying a cup of coffee.

Apple can enforce certain parts of a EULA as well. But none of that's at issue. It's another privacy-robbing, credit card # surrendering demand. Limiting the number of purchases may have possible consequences in some states, too. Where I come from, ticket scalping is not only legal, but in many cases desirable. There's a monopoly on THAT, too.

Re:class act

[tophermeyer]

You absolutely cannot stop people from reselling crap they buy, whether with licenses, contracts, or agreements.

And likewise, Apple has the right to sell or to not sell to whomever they choose.

Re:class act

[Fulcrum of Evil]

What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" (yes, it's in caps). That means buying an iPad, or buying a cup of coffee.

No it doesn't. It means paying rent or a bill. If you're buying something at a retail store, they don't have to take cash at all.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" (yes, it's in caps). That means buying an iPad, or buying a cup of coffee.

WRONG. What it says is true. It doesn’t mean buying an iPad, a cup of coffee, or anything else, because a purchase is not a debt.

There is no debt unless a transaction was completed, no transaction until they decide to sell you one, no sale unless you pay for it, and cash payment is not accepted.

If they give you a financing arrangement (buy now, pay later), that is a debt and they can’t refuse to accept cash payment. A straight sale, however, does not generate debt and they can choose what form of payment they’ll accept, including choosing not to accept certain forms of legal tender.

Re:class act

[node 3]

you're correct. Apple doesn't want anyone reselling for profit other than themselves, and neither do the ticket sellers (and their distributors).

So really, both situations are damn straight that this was a horrible call by apple.

In what universe is adding more middle-men better for the consumer? Scalpers raise ticket prices without adding anything of value, except being able to buy tickets after an event has sold out. This isn't terribly bad so long as scalping is kept down to a minimum. But what if there were no rules in place to limit scalping? What's to stop someone from buying every single ticket, then selling them at double the price? How is that good for anyone?

You absolutely cannot stop people from reselling crap they buy, whether with licenses, contracts, or agreements.

That's not true, although that's also irrelevant, as Apple doesn't stop anyone from selling their iPad.

Linking to an ID thing just meant that you'd have to have multiple people buy the products for you.

Only if you're an opportunistic slime who wants to take an iPad out of the hands of honest people to later sell to them at a large mark-up. It makes your job harder (you'll get no sympathy from me), but it also limits you by your ability to gather up people to buy iPads and pay them to do so, increasing both effort and cost which will certainly diminish the amount of iPad scalping going on.

In either case, Apple's current two iPad limit overall helps the consumer.

Re:class act

[BobMcD]

Apple wants to get the iPad into people's hands as quickly as possible. By limiting the number of purchases to two, this helps prevent people from walking in and buying out the store (remember that bitch who bought the #1 spot in line in order to buy out the entire stock so she could resell them? How is that fair to the people behind her who waited hours?).

Honest people who want an iPad, who sign up on a waiting list don't deserve to be fucked over by opportunists. What's worse, they stand to be fucked over twice. Once by not being able to buy an iPad from Apple, and once again by having to resort to an iPad "scalper" with inflated prices.

But to answer your straw man, yes, a person is allowed to sell their device at any price they can get. Apple does nothing to prevent this. You are absolutely free to buy two iPads and sell them both.

This rabbit hole goes so deeply away from the light of sound logic that I almost hesistate to peer too deeply into it - but here goes nothing:

Apple wants to get the iPad into people's hands as quickly as possible.

What are the 'scalpers' going to do with the iPads, except resell them? Do they make good wall paneling or something?

How is that fair to the people behind her who waited hours?

How is two any more or less fair to the last guy in line than twenty would have been? Limited quantities are limited. Someone isn't going to get one on the first day.

Honest people who want an iPad, who sign up on a waiting list don't deserve to be fucked over by opportunists.

I'm make an Apple-early-adopter joke here, but you seem like a fanboy, so...

It seems the answer here would be to increase production, or buy from a vendor that doesn't contribute to artificial supply problems.

Likewise, the consumer could just opt to not buy one on that day, if the scalper bought too many and/or their new price is too high.

Further, this would all be the fault of the retailer, and should have nothing whatsoever to do with the manufacturer.

Apple does nothing to prevent this.

If they're not doing anything, why the restriction? Are we to assume that scalpers don't/can't hire people to stand in line with pre-paid debit cards?

As I said initially, your logic seems sound but that only lends to the danger of the psychosis hiding within...

Re:class act

[newcastlejon]

Would someone who's bought one online recently mind reading their store's privacy policy?

I don't care what reason Apple has come up with this time, they shouldn't have any right to this sort of information about buyers who shop at a third party.

I recall the same restriction was placed on iPhone sales too, and given that O2 were/are quite capable of tracking my purchases and saying "sorry, one per customer" it smelled fishy then too.

Re:class act

[BobMcD]

Is there an artificially limited supply of pre-paid debit cards? Do only the intellectual elite get to purchase such things? Or what am I missing?

Re:class act

[node 3]

>>>They limit sales to two per customer,

So I'll use multiple credit cards then. I've got 6 or 7 of them, so I could get 12 or 14 iPads.

And 6 or 7 names and addresses? And even so, it doesn't matter if a few people get around the limits. What matters is the overall effect, and there can be no doubt that this has helped keep iPad scalping down to a minimum.

Again their reasoning makes little sense when closely examined.

No, it's your reasoning which has failed you. Apple doesn't have to completely stamp out scalping to be effective.

Re:class act

[BobMcD]

Nor do they control what you can do with the device.

In both cases, they only mark certain things as "off limits". This is no more controlling than saying the government controls what you can drive and where you can go, since they outlaw certain vehicles and some roads are toll roads, closed roads, or one-way streets.

So Apple is no more controlling than the government. THIS is your well-thought-out rebuttal?

For what it's worth, we agree!

Re:class act

[gnasher719]

What's wrong with that? Shouldn't a person be allowed to sell his device at the price he wants to?

As a result, the average amount of money spent by users would be less than the average amount of money paid to Apple. In other words, Apple gets less than people are paying, and people pay more than Apple charges. It is in the interest of the scalper, but not in the interest of Apple or the user. Since Apple has no obligation to these parasites, it is best to keep them away from the business.

Re:class act

[postbigbang]

You're being silly. Of course it's legal tender. I transcribed it. It's money, as in cash, as in legal for debts, incurred at purchase, satisfied with the currency.

That's what transactions are. You have an object, of value. I submit my currency in exchange for the value of the object. It's really, really basic business transaction 101.

Re:class act

[node 3]

So Apple is no more controlling than the government. THIS is your well-thought-out rebuttal?

Droll, but doesn't address the point. Apple does not control all the apps for the iPhone, nor to they control what you can do with it.

Re:class act

[newcastlejon]

Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything.

Never-ending myth, you mean.

You can't say it's a myth any more than the parent can say otherwise; I doubt very much that private discussions between board members are made public. Might be sinister, might not be, but don't think Hanlon's razor will prove or disprove anything.

Not only controlling all the applications

Apple doesn't control "all the applications".

Don't they? If you want to use your iPhone and keep the warranty then you have to use the App Store; all the apps that are there Apple put there.

and what you can do with the device

Nor do they control what you can do with the device.

In both cases, they only mark certain things as "off limits". This is no more controlling than saying the government controls what you can drive and where you can go, since they outlaw certain vehicles and some roads are toll roads, closed roads, or one-way streets.

Semantics. Coercion is a form of control and losing my warranty is frankly disincentive enough for me not to jailbreak my phone. As for the governent deciding what cars may be legally driven on roads how could this not be a form of control? The gov't is quite capable of closing a road and preventing me from driving on if they felt the need. Please tell me what you mean by control.

but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too?

Apple controls this in no way whatsoever. You are 100% free to sell your iPad to whomever for for whatever price you wish.

With you 100% here. Even Apple aren't stupid enough to make a move in this direction.

Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly

Because they are not.

They are quite tall (vertical) but this doesn't seem like a monopoly to me either

but exactly how is this good for the market or people?

Since it's not true, it doesn't matter one way or the other.

You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

This is true, although irrelevant, as Apple aren't abusing their customers.

Both points are debateable; I fail to see why you seem so certain yourself. Still, words like abuse are far too loaded for me to even debate - there seems little point in arguing over an opinion anyway. That and I need to get to the corner shop before it closes.

Ta ta, J.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

No, actually, research it; you’ll find that I’m right.

Debt is not created during a sale. Until you pay for something, it belongs to the store, and if you decided to walk out with it without paying you wouldn’t be walking out with a debt, you’d be walking out with a stolen item.

Re:class act

[BobMcD]

Droll, but doesn't address the point. Apple does not control all the apps for the iPhone, nor to they control what you can do with it.

Except wherein they do. Or can I play Flash games on it now, for example?

I'm pretty certain there exists an 'approval process', a 'development SDK', etc. If you're making the case that these do not exist, please don't bother to reply. If you're making the case that they're not successful, please understand that this isn't terribly relevant. If you're making the case that they aren't necessary, and that an average user will custom build their own apps on a jailbroken device... well you get the point.

Re:class act

[blair1q]

So what Apple is doing is, instead of modulating the flow of iPads using pricing fluctuations to soak up the excess value it sees resellers as getting, it's insisting you pay with something that requires you to identify yourself to them. I.e., in addition to the money you give them, you give them personally identifying information. That's the additional value they get in the purchase, to make up for the price increase they're refusing to implement.

But by making it a "no cash" criterion instead of a "show me some ID" criterion, all they're really doing is keeping legitimate buyers from getting the goods. Legitimate buyers who can't get credit to pay with plastic. Poor people.

Which makes Apple elitist. As if we didn't already know that about them.

Re:class act

[dieth]

I wouldn't classify the Apple crowd as "the intellectual elite"

Re:class act

[Kreigaffe]

In what universe is adding more middle-men better for the consumer? Scalpers raise ticket prices without adding anything of value, except being able to buy tickets after an event has sold out. This isn't terribly bad so long as scalping is kept down to a minimum. But what if there were no rules in place to limit scalping? What's to stop someone from buying every single ticket, then selling them at double the price? How is that good for anyone?

If people wouldn't pay those prices, they'd very quickly go out of business. If people will pay those prices, the venue probably should raise some/all of the ticket prices to match what the market will support. Higher ticket prices would actually FORCE OUT scalpers -- buy a $30 ticket, resell for $100, that's a good profit margin, that's what keeps scalpers afloat. Buy a $100 ticket that will only sell on the open market for $100, MAYBE $110? I'd love to see scalpers find the profit there.

Re:class act

[Mister Whirly]

Maybe if demand was that high, Apple should have either- 1) Charged more or 2) Made more before selling them. Apple makes the same amount of profit per unit whether one or several million people buy them so why should they care at all? Now not only does Apple want to control your software and hardware choices, they also want to mess with the laws of economy as well. Oh Steve Jobs, what won't you try to control?

Re:class act

[Goaway]

Well, go do that, then, if it makes you happy.

Re:class act

[node 3]

here goes nothing

You got that right.

Apple wants to get the iPad into people's hands as quickly as possible.

What are the 'scalpers' going to do with the iPads, except resell them? Do they make good wall paneling or something?

One thing they aren't going to do is get iPads into consumers hands faster than if they bought them directly from Apple.

How is two any more or less fair to the last guy in line than twenty would have been? Limited quantities are limited. Someone isn't going to get one on the first day.

It's not, but it is unfair to the 19 before him.

It seems the answer here would be to increase production

All that takes is for Apple to turn the production dial up a notch, right? It's amazing that they didn't think of this themselves!

or buy from a vendor that doesn't contribute to artificial supply problems.

Apple has multiple suppliers for many of their parts, and other parts are only available from one source. None of which are being artificially constrained. It's absurd to believe Apple is deliberately underproducing the iPad.

Further, this would all be the fault of the retailer, and should have nothing whatsoever to do with the manufacturer.

Apple is the retailer. Or did you completely miss the fact that this story is about the Apple Store?

Apple does nothing to prevent this.

If they're not doing anything, why the restriction?

The "this" is "selling your iPad". The restriction isn't to stop you from selling your iPad, it's to stop you from buying so many iPads that others can't buy them.

Are we to assume that scalpers don't/can't hire people to stand in line with pre-paid debit cards?

Are we to assume that there's no difference in being able to just directly buy out the entire stock and having to pay people to stand in line for only two iPads apiece?

Re:class act

[aamcf]

The policy was mean to discourage people from purchasing a lot of iPads and then reselling them for profit

What's wrong with that? Shouldn't a person be allowed to sell his device at the price he wants to?

I guess that's fine, as long has he doesn't do it too quickly. If he starts trading in times of less than a second, people will complain he is a vulture.

Re:class act

[node 3]

No, I'm saying that Apple doesn't control the apps, nor what you can do with them. I thought that was fairly clear. Let me pull up a quote, just a sec...

Apple does not control all the apps for the iPhone, nor to they control what you can do with it.

Yup, looks right.

Re:class act

[tonycheese]

I think their ("zero") sense is that a credit card is attached to a name, whereas cash isn't attached to anything (except an Apple account now).

Re:class act

[Lunix Nutcase]

Apple makes the same amount of profit per unit whether one or several million people buy them so why should they care at all?

Because they wanted to make sure more people were able to get them?

Now not only does Apple want to control your software and hardware choices, they also want to mess with the laws of economy as well.

It's actually pretty common for companies to set limits on the number of products one can buy especially on items with low supply. Sony is doing it right now with people buying PS3s from them (they also have a limit of 2 per person). Places like FRYS Electronics also only let you, for example, buy 2 hard drives per purchase.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

The demand wasn’t that high. Speculators would have bought up all of the supply, using an artificial demand to create an artificial scarcity and then trying to sell them for a higher price once they were scarce.

You may then ask – well shouldn’t Apple just charge more then? – in fact, you did ask that.

No; because if every speculator were able to buy 50, they might create an artificial scarcity, but the scarcity would drive up the price, the demand would go down, and many of the speculators would be stuck with products that nobody would buy for the prices they asked, driving the price right back down to where it started – or even below it. Net result? A few speculators might make money, but most of the people who wanted an iPad would have to wait for the black-market price to come down to something more reasonable. Since Apple doesn’t want speculators profiting off of its R&D on its product, and Apple doesn’t want its customers being forced to pay high prices or wait, it’s a lose-lose for them to allow this sort of thing... so they don’t.

Apple sets the price so that they can make the highest profit. Not highest profit per sale, but overall. If they priced it higher, they wouldn’t sell as many; if they priced it lower, they’d sell more. Speculators hoarding the products screw up this system and Apple wants to prevent that.

Re:class act

[PopeRatzo]

Shouldn't a company be allowed to control the product they produce and distribute?

Controlling a product after it's sold is something altogether different than controlling it before it's sold.

Maybe they should start controlling who buys their products, too. Oh wait...

Re:class act

[Lunix Nutcase]

What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" (yes, it's in caps). That means buying an iPad, or buying a cup of coffee.

I suggest you actually read up on the statute before shouting your mouth off:

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

From here.

Re:class act

[AndersOSU]

And how is this different from any supply and demand purchase?

It isn't.

What it is is a great illustration of how unencumbered free markets can fuck the general public.

What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"

What debt were you paying off at the apple cash register? Legal tender doesn't mean that they guy at the local 7-11 can't demand to be paid in 1987 topps baseball cards. Legal tender means if you owe a debt to 7-11 for the 30 cases of chili sauce they dropped off at your command center, they have to accept payment in cash.

ticket scalping is not only legal, but in many cases desirable

Ticket scalping is never desirable.

Re:class act

[BobMcD]

The points are in there. You don't seem to be discussing any of them. Too bad.

Re:class act

[BobMcD]

So, repeating yourself for the win?

Answer the question, or go away. Either is fine.

Re:class act

[Lunix Nutcase]

How is he being silly? He's telling you what the actually statute says. This is backed up by the US Treasury Department as well. You are claiming to know what you are talking about when you are instead spewing bullshit.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

If people will pay those prices, the venue probably should raise some/all of the ticket prices to match what the market will support.

Actually, that’ll force a lot of customers out of the market (prices go up, and demand drops... that’s the demand curve).

There are two reasons why a business would want to avoid that.

First, number of customers. Repeat business is big business. Limiting the amount of people who can buy your product is necessary, by setting some price that’s profitable for you, but only to a certain extent and after that it becomes a bad thing.

Secondly, profit. Yes, profit. Making a clean profit of $90 per ticket may be less profitable than making only $20. If you get 50,000 customers when you price the tickets $30, you need to get at least 11,112 customers if you price the tickets at $100, or you’ll have only hurt your bottom line. The price is set at something which will optimize the volume of sale x profit per unit function, not just one or the other.

Re:class act

[g0bshiTe]

I think it was a good decision to protect their loyal user base. Imagine if you wanted said iPad but the store was sold out, and you paid twice what it would have cost you in the store. Now not only have you paid double the price for the device, but should something break or it need service under the warranty, you would have no warranty due to you buying from a 3rd party.

Re:class act

[Duradin]

And then screw over the people who could only afford to pay $30 per ticket.

But hey, we can't be having those evil inefficiencies now can we? Don't want to get spanked by that ol' Invisible Hand.

Re:class act

[Cramer]

remember that bitch who bought the #1 spot in line in order to buy out the entire stock so she could resell them? How is that fair to the people behind her who waited hours?

Simple. Apple should have learned how to do business by people who've been doing it long before Apple existed... Limit two (2) per person, per purchase . Grocery stores and Walmarts all across the land have been doing this for decades. You can buy as many as you want... 2 at a time. On launch day, that would equate to exactly two -- by the time you got back to the counter the second time, there wouldn't be any left.

Re:class act

[Cramer]

Which would be a PCI violation -- vendors are NOT allowed to store the CC number any longer than required to execute the transaction.

Re:class act

[postbigbang]

I sit corrected. Chagrined, too.

Re:class act

[node 3]

Semantics. Coercion is a form of control and losing my warranty is frankly disincentive enough for me not to jailbreak my phone. As for the governent deciding what cars may be legally driven on roads how could this not be a form of control? The gov't is quite capable of closing a road and preventing me from driving on if they felt the need. Please tell me what you mean by control.

It's not so much what *I* mean by control, but what the people who keep going on about Apple controlling everything mean.

You're right that it's a type of control, but no one rails on about how the government controls the roads (well, maybe some Libertarians, but that sort of makes my point). When people talk about control, they generally mean more than that.

In terms of apps, the developers are in control of what their apps do. There are limitations imposed by Apple (and sometimes the carriers, mainly AT&T), and you're right that that's a form of control, but it's mostly incidental. Apple doesn't control Skype's app (for example), they just say, "you can't do VOIP over the 3G connection". Just as the government doesn't control where I can drive, but they sometimes close roads or whatever.

Nobody rails against malls for controlling what you can wear. Nobody rails against grocery stores for controlling the products they carry. Nobody rails against restaurants for controlling what you can smoke (pre-smoking ban laws). Because these don't get into levels of control that are onerous. It's only in the tech realm where we exaggerate everything, where even a little bit of something is treated the same as the absolute maximum. Where words like "evil" and "control" and "slave", etc., get bandied about in casual conversation over the smallest of matters.

So when you say this is semantics, you are correct. Although I'm not the one playing games with the definitions to make a point. I'm pointing out that these words do not apply, outside of semantically strained applications.

Re:class act

[postbigbang]

As I mention in this thread, I've been corrected.

My understanding was incorrect.

Re:class act

[node 3]

Your questions are straw men. I'm not going to defend things I didn't say.

Re:class act

[Mister Whirly]

This makes sense. Especially the whole "third party entering the equation possibly wrenching some of the control away from Apple" part. I am sure the decision was made to maximize profits first - any benefit this has to their customers is probably a happy side effect.

Re:class act

[node 3]

That doesn't address a product that arrives sporadically in small batches. If the product is simply sold out on launch day, but then completely in stock shortly thereafter, that works just fine. But if it comes in small batches here and there, then two per person per purchase still has a deleterious effect.

Re:class act

[BobMcD]

So go ahead and defend where you said that Apple doesn't control the apps. Because they do.

Re:class act

[drachenstern]

Theoretically they would examine either the billing zip code (a fraud prevention measure to be sure) for each CC in conjunction with the name. Granted, a person with a name like John Smith is much more likely to be stopped based on this information, but the relative numbers of early adopters combined with geographic dispersal combined with manager override provides for an easy out to them being stopped. It's a business rule.

So unless you had several CCs in various zip codes, or a very common name, they would probably be able to spot that you were trying to purchase more than two... Just a guess.

Re:class act

[node 3]

They exert some control over them, but that's not what was said. What was said was that Apple controls the apps and that they control what you can do with your iPhone. Neither statement is true.

The developers are ultimately in control of their own apps, and the users are ultimately in control of what they can do with their iPhones. Apple has some controls and limits in place, and if that's all that people said there'd be no problem. But it's not, so there is.

Re:class act

[BobMcD]

Well holy hell. All this time you've been making a nit-picky semantics argument while I thought we were having a conversation. Well played, sir. Well played.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're selling out at $30 a ticket, and the scalper who buys them all and sells them for $100 a ticket can also sell them all (the situation we're discussing here), then you're not going to lose customers or profit by pricing them closer to $100 yourself, are you?

Re:class act

[Knara]

You can buy AppleCare after the fact for up to a year, IIRC.

Besides, if "Apple's loyal customers" weren't willing to pay just about any price for the iPad, the eBay sellers wouldn't have a market.

Re:class act

[Knara]

Yeah so you use mules with Visa gift cards. There's always ways around things like this.

Re:class act

[Knara]

Apple's system registration system isn't realtime (though their receipt processing to email system is). If you buy them all through the same names on different cars on one day, chances are Apple won't even know until days later.

Re:class act

[Kreigaffe]

They're already getting screwed. If a concert venue has 10,000 seats, and 10,000 people are willing to pay $100 each to get in... well, money talks. It's sad that someone who can't afford $100 to get in is not able to get in but that's a hell of a lot more fair than tickets being "$30" but some middle man siphoning out $70 a ticket, the person with only 30 bucks still not getting in, and the venue only making the profits of $30 tickets.

Re:class act

[Kreigaffe]

Uhm, it wouldn't force anyone out. These places sell out, or near enough, with a huge percentage of tickets going through a middle-man. Why should the middle man make profit in the first place? Raise the prices, and the people who buy tickets will buy them from you (since there's practically no room left for a middleman to make profit).

The concert-goers wind up paying the same amount of money per ticket, but more of that money goes towards the venue (and the act / artist(s)!).

It's not like concerts half-sell. If only 11,112 customers could afford $100 tickets, that's legit, but that would also mean scalpers would only be selling 11,112 tickets. That leaves the rest to either be purchased by customers for $30, or purchased by the middleman and eaten as a loss to support their higher ticket prices.

Re:class act

[newcastlejon]

But Apple do control (albeit indirectly) everything to do with the iPhone and the App Store. Granted, they haven't the right to redesign or block elements of a developer's app but they don't have to: they can refuse the app or just ban certain features.

Apple can take action that restricts what I can do with the device. You can say that I only have to jailbreak it but then hasn't Apple indirectly forced me to do that just to run my own apps? Don't get me wrong, they have every right to do what they want with the service and they do indeed control every aspect of the same.

Bad analogy time: you may not be able to make it drink, but you can lead a horse to water. Apple may not be able to make me buy anything or decide what apps I'm allowed to have, but it's their river and I have to either drink or break my reins. The majority of iPhone owners are either ignorant or unwilling to do this; Apple knows it and has taken action to prevent jailbreaking. They're visiting my intentions (*ugh* I feel dirty for using that one) and that's control, which can take many forms, some more subtle than others (that one had a somewhat cleansing effect).

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would be a PCI violation -- vendors are NOT allowed to store the CC number any longer than required to execute the transaction.

This is false.

PCI DSS requires that stored card numbers be protected (e.g. encrypted) and that they not be transmitted in the clear over public networks. Card numbers in the clear indefinitely. However, for the purposes under discussion, it's not necessary. A hash suffices, and storing hashed card numbers is perfectly hunky-dory under PCI DSS.

I work in the payment card industry and am in part responsible for ensuring that our storage and transmission of PCI DSS controlled data is in compliance. The requirements are complex and certainly cannot be adequately described by such a simplistic statement.

Incidentally, Apple most certainly does store CC numbers - my iTunes store purchases automatically go to the card I am required to keep on file with them.

Re:class act

[hairyfeet]

Oooookay, your examples make absolutely NO sense to me. The PS3? The shelves are full of the damned things, hell my local walmart has been throwing all kinds of little incentives to get them to move...and nothing. WTF is Sony thinking acting like they are going anywhere? Hell they should get down on their knees and thank God if somebody offered to buy a truckload. No offense Sony fanboys, just calling as I see it. And HDDs? Since when did hard drives become rare? Unless Fry's is selling below costs (kinda doubt any B&M is gonna do THAT except to lure the marks on BF) then that also makes NO sense.

Now as for TFA, it's Steve okay? We should probably have a tag line "it's just Steve" because I have NEVER seen a more anal retentive CEO than old Steve Jobs. That man has ALWAYS wanted to control every little aspect, controlling how many of his precious devices you're allowed to have? Par for the course. Again no offense Apple Fanboys, old Steve does have good taste, but you have to admit for old Steve it has always been about "the experience" and any way he can further control what the user experiences just fits into his mantra. Not my personal cup of tea, but it seems to work for him and it isn't like there aren't other choices out there.

What amazes me is the Apple fanboys aren't pushing for Steve to name a successor and get everything ready to hand over the reins if he croaks. Lets be honest folks, the guy has had some serious health issues and nobody lives forever. If Steve doesn't have the reins of power passed before he croaks their stock is gonna take a nosedive when he quits breathing, with the whole "cult of Steve" mythos built around that man. At least Gates, rightly or wrongly, passed the reins over when he started pushing it. But short of them bring Woz back as a figurehead until they get the shit straight behind the scenes having old Steve croak will seriously damage that company.

Re:class act

[node 3]

But Apple do control (albeit indirectly) everything to do with the iPhone and the App Store.

But they don't. Once an app makes it through the approval process (which is not even remotely as bad as people make it out to be), Apple has no control whatsoever what I do with that app, with the sole exception of having the ability to remotely kill the app (something they've never done to my knowledge, and is reserved for truly malicious software).

They control what apps they allow on their store, but they don't control the apps themselves. It's like saying the US government controls its citizens because it controls who can be a citizen.

Re:class act

[node 3]

No, playing semantics is when you abuse the meanings of words to make a point that they don't make. That's what the people who claim that Apple controls the apps or what you can do with the iPhone are doing.

If others are playing loose with language to make false claims, it's not playing semantics when you correct them.

Re:class act

[DocHoncho]

But they could store a hash of your CC number and it would work just as well

Re:class act

[newcastlejon]

Arguing over semantics may appear petty, but if one can't clearly say what one means then winning any debate is going to be hard.

N.B. this isn't a dig at Mr. node, I'm merely exercising my pedant muscles. Ironic really, considering the parent's sig - I just noticed that.

Re:class act

[node 3]

That still doesn't change the fact that their limits help keep iPads in stock for legitimate customers. If someone can game the system for a day or two (or even a week or two), they still hit a point where they must stop, whereas otherwise they could just keep on going.

It also doesn't change the fact that even before the cards are all tied together, that you had to go from store to store, only buying two at a time, which also limits the number of iPads you can buy, even if the cards are never connected to each other.

Re:class act

[Cramer]

You put that number on file with them; you know it's on file with them. That is a very different situation from storing the number at the point-of-sale without permission. Swiping my card at the register is not permission -- and the PCI rules are very clear on this point. Do you really think Apple is one-way hashing your CC number? I seriously doubt it.

Ah, how quickly people forget the TJ Max fuckup. They were storing every CC number from every transaction as well.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think Apple is one-way hashing your CC number?

If they're concerned about passing a PCI audit, yep.

Re:class act

[cowscows]

Where's the entitlement that you're complaining about? A woman went to buy something that she had the cash in hand to afford, she got denied on a silly technicality, and the press decided to make a big deal about it because they're too lazy to dig up real news.

The grammatical impossibility of her response to an entirely ridiculous question by the interviewer indicates that she was surprised that he said something so stupid. She wasn't tooting her own horn, she was just trying to figure out a polite response to a really dumb reporter.

Re:class act

[cowscows]

What your missing is a dose of common sense. The goal wasn't to make absolutely sure that nobody anywhere got their hands on more than two iPads. The goal was to make it a little harder for someone to do so, to discourage resellers from buying a whole store's supply out.

Re:class act

[pregister]

But what if there were no rules in place to limit scalping?

Minnesota repealed scalping laws about 3 years ago. I haven't noticed much disturbance.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

You put that number on file with them; you know it's on file with them. That is a very different situation from storing the number at the point-of-sale without permission.

[citation needed]

The payment card PAN (i.e. CC number) is allowed to be stored in encrypted format, provided that the vendor has a business reason to do so (as defined and documented by the vendor) and a data retention policy. Section 3.1.

Section 3.2 covers cardholder data that cannot be stored (even encrypted) after the sale is complete. The card PAN is not one of them.

I can find no mention of requiring that the cardholder consent to storing the PAN.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

What you don't have is 6 or 7 names registered to 6 or 7 addresses. They can use your CC to determine the billing address. This effectively limits you to only being able to buy 2 rather easily. However, if you accept cash, the same guy can walk in over and over and get 2 from every store since there isn't an effective way to limit it if you are paying with cash. I suppose they could have done it by asking for a SSN card, or a driver's license, but they didn't. Not that big of a deal.

Re:class act

[Knara]

I'm not sure what the phrase "legitimate customer" means.

Nah, you can just give mules Visa gift cards and give them a little money out of your profit margin to buy them for you.

Sure, it makes it harder, but that only stops the small fries from doing it. Anyone with any eye for systematic eBay markups will get around it.

Re:class act

[dissy]

Protip: You will get more meaningful replies if you stop taking two separate and different things, and claiming they are the same.

iPhone is not iTunes Store
iTunes Store is not iPhone

All of your points are true when applied to the iTunes Store, which is their right.

Not a single of your points applies to the iPhone however, the thing you actually purchase.

Wording your post so every last one of your points is applied to both the iPhone and iTunes store, while sneaky, effectively makes each of your points false as-is, because none can be true with the iPhone qualifier.

Once you admit there is a difference between the hardware device called the iPhone which you purchase and own, and the itunes store which is a service apple provides and Should have full control over. I want full control over my own computers too, I cant claim apple doesn't deserve that same right.

Apple has NO control over my iphone, and it is jailbroken, running a full unix environment. and running many free software packages made by others whom also do not want to use the itunes store.
We don't have to care what apple does with their store. Well all mostly avoid it.

The jailbroken community has many software repositories, some even sell software and centrally manage your purchase, just like the itunes store, but with more open rules. Apple has not and can not prevent that.

I must admit to buying a few apps, both through the rock repo, and itunes store. But I ran for the longest time on 100% free software, and it was excellent. Even a few of the paid apps were worth it, most on rock but some from itunes, but that was just like sprinkle candies on the excellent.

There is no excuse of 'its too hard' either, because its running one app on your computer (different ones for mac, linux, and windows), a phone reboot, and a few clicks later and you have full access to all the open source community repos, open software store repos, AND get to keep apples itunes store. Its up to which installer you run, to whos rules you play by.

Re:class act

[Hijacked Public]

Or they didn't charge more because they learned their lesson with the iphone that you piss off early adopters if you drop your price, and you end up having to give them free apple store gift cards or the like to slow the stream of negative blogging being reported as a national emergency on TV news.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with how many iPads a person can buy but is all about the ability of the government to track who's buying them if they need to do so.

Think about it, it's easier to restrict how many a person can buy by ACTUALLY USING CASH. Everybody knows you can buy more with your credit card than with actual cash.

Re:class act

[geekoid]

They are a monopoly. They are the only place you can use to purchase apps.

Re:class act

[newcastlejon]

They control what apps they allow on their store, but they don't control the apps themselves. It's like saying the US government controls its citizens because it controls who can be a citizen.

They also control which citizens can drive, own a firearm, get a job with children, practice medicine, pay tax... need I go on?

Stop this government analogy. The government is there to control the populace, that is their main function. Law exists to stop people killing, maiming, raping and pillaging (and drink-driving).

However, Apple isn't the government. They do still control what I can do with my device because they control the apps I put on it. If Steve decides I can't have an app that enables real OBEX over BT then there won't be one - no dev will bother submitting one. Apple has the last word on what an app can do and while they (apparently) can't ^W don't decide what you do with an app*, they still set limits on what the app was designed to do. If you don't accept that deciding whether an app even exists as far as the customers are concerned counts as control then I've no more to say bar this: re-read the OP and note "what you can do with the device". The Steve has decreed no OBEX love for me and by Jove I can't have it.

*Like, say producing crudely drawn cocks (magenta, of course) in a paint app.

Re:class act

[node 3]

I'm not sure what the phrase "legitimate customer" means.

Yes you do. They are people who are buying an iPad because they want one, or because they are buying one for someone who does. Not people who are buying them to resell for profit.

Nah, you can just give mules Visa gift cards and give them a little money out of your profit margin to buy them for you.

Sure, it makes it harder, but that only stops the small fries from doing it. Anyone with any eye for systematic eBay markups will get around it.

That doesn't matter, it still limits the amount of effect they'll have on legitimate customers. It's like speed bumps. People can still speed, but there can be no doubt that speed bumps will likely decrease the amount of speeding being done in most circumstances.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if demand was that high, Apple should have either- 1) Charged more or 2) Made more before selling them.

So let's sum up your thoughts on the iPad:
1) It costs too much - so Apple should make it more expensive.
2) It will never be a success - so Apple should build much more of them.
I guess you forgot 3) You can't install all apps on it - so Apple should be more restrictive in their acceptance process.

Re:class act

[bennomatic]

Again no offense Apple Fanboys, old Steve does have good taste, but you have to admit for old Steve it has always been

While I'm a happy user of Apple products, I don't think of myself as a fanboy. But some folks here on /. do classify me as such, so I'll respond in kind for purposes of this post:

Your comments about SJ's need for control are absolutely on the mark and correct, and don't seem to be insulting or judgemental at all. You correctly cite that it's just how he does things in order to create the products he wants to create. And he's got legions of fans because the appreciate his work.

Apple products aren't for everyone, and that's fine. I wish more people who didn't like them took your view: "not my cuppa tea, I'm not going to buy them", rather than "Steve Jobs is a Nazi Hitler Obama!" or some such.

What amazes me is the Apple fanboys aren't pushing for Steve to name a successor

This is probably because they (we?) know that there's nobody who quite shares his vision. If one could graft Tim Cook's head with Jonny Ive's soul, you'd get something close. But to name anybody (publicly) today would cause rioting in the streets.

And don't forget, we're all one screech of the brakes away from pushing daisies. Jobs could name anyone tomorrow, and then end up outliving him or her by a decade. But just because such a declaration hasn't been made publicly, don't think that there isn't a flash drive somewhere with SJ's wishes stored securely. Succession planning is key to any company's longevity, and I'll bet that Jobs already knows, and has already communicated to at least a couple of core members of the board, who he feels is best suited for the Job.

Re:class act

[v1]

What's wrong with that? Shouldn't a person be allowed to sell his device at the price he wants to?

It's like ticket scalping. When you have greater demand than supply and are being a benevolent supplier and not jacking up your prices to agree with demand, scalpers move in and attempt to buy you out. Then they turn around and start selling your goods at or above their true market price, much above what they paid for them. Your customers that you are trying to be benevolent to are now unable to buy from you because you're out of stock, and are forced to pay in blood to the scalpers. In the end the consumers receive no benefit, the suppliers take a loss they were expecting but without the benefit of customer good-will they were intending on buying with it, and the scalpers walk away with money for nothing.

The only two ways to discourage this is to (1) not discount your goods or use a mail-in-rebate strategy so there's no market for the scalpers, or (2) take some sort of technological method of either making the scalping impossible or impractical. (such as by limiting the number of units sold to a given credit card number) #2 has been done for the last several years for sports game tickets, and while it's not entirely effective, it does a pretty good job. It does require the purchaser have a credit card, and for a (usually very small) percentage of customers that is a problem, but when you consider the huge percentage of customers that would otherwise have been shafted, it's a very reasonable tradeoff.

Re:class act

[node 3]

They also control which citizens can drive, own a firearm, get a job with children, practice medicine, pay tax... need I go on?

That they control who can do these things (some to more of a degree than others), does not mean that they control these things themselves. The government can say you can't drive a car, but they don't tell you when to drive, or to where. They don't control your car or where you go, except for some reasonable things (like you can't drive the wrong direction or into private property without permission).

Stop this government analogy. The government is there to control the populace, that is their main function.

Off topic, but you're wrong, they do much more than that (and sometimes, much less).

However, Apple isn't the government. They do still control what I can do with my device because they control the apps I put on it.

No, they don't control what you can do with your device. They define the device and its capabilities, but you fully control what you do with your own device.

they (apparently) can't ^W don't decide what you do with an app*, they still set limits on what the app was designed to do.

Exactly. They don't decide what you do with an app. Nor do they decide which apps you run, or even which apps you write. They only chose which apps they'll carry on their App Store. To turn that into "they control what you can do with your device" is nothing but nerd hyperbole.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with that? Shouldn't a person be allowed to sell his device at the price he wants to?

I guess that's fine, as long has he doesn't do it too quickly. If he starts trading in times of less than a second, people will complain he is a vulture.

But once he sells thousands before he even has them, he becomes a Wall Street celeb.

Re:class act

[Knara]

I'm not sure what the phrase "legitimate customer" means.

Yes you do. They are people who are buying an iPad because they want one, or because they are buying one for someone who does. Not people who are buying them to resell for profit.

How does that make them not "legitimate". It makes no sense.

Nah, you can just give mules Visa gift cards and give them a little money out of your profit margin to buy them for you.

Sure, it makes it harder, but that only stops the small fries from doing it. Anyone with any eye for systematic eBay markups will get around it.

That doesn't matter, it still limits the amount of effect they'll have on legitimate customers. It's like speed bumps. People can still speed, but there can be no doubt that speed bumps will likely decrease the amount of speeding being done in most circumstances.

I still disagree. The folks who do the most reselling are gonna be the folks with the time and resources to get around this sort of thing, not the small operation folks.

Re:class act

[bennomatic]

Are we to assume that scalpers don't/can't hire people to stand in line with pre-paid debit cards?

You're absolutely right. As such, this story could be summed up as: Breaking news! Apple does something mildly inconvenient to a handful of people and people who hate Apple anyway freak out and use it as an excuse to post vitriolic diatribe throughout the Internets!

I mean, really, who carries $500 in cash anymore? Could they have done a better job with this to avoid PR flack? Yes. Is it silly and annoying to refuse cash? Yes. Why did they do it? They probably found that there were scenarios where one person sent out dozens of people with a given card (i.e. copies of their personal card, or a business card) and had them buy out stock.

It's certainly possible that this was just a pure and simple bone-headed maneuver, but it's equally likely, in my book, that it was a decision based on one or more experiences that they wished to avoid repeating.

Re:class act

[ImNotAtWork]

There's a certain community that has never trusted banks and never will. This was before the recent collapse, before the savings and loan in the 80s too.

There are still people who take a physical check from work, get it cashed and hold on to the bills in a safe spot instead of an account at a bank.

Re:class act

[geekoid]

No one can replace Steve, ever. I think that was shown very clear when he left, and came back.

Well, I could, and I am sure other actually could. But the aren't going to grab some non entrenched anal self starter to replace him. They will want to replace him with a traditional CEO because me, and people like me, would make them nervous.

Maybe Google should buy them~

Re:class act

[ImNotAtWork]

There is more than one john jingleheimer schmidt, his name is my name too.

Re:class act

[geekoid]

But they do. Please let me know if I can go buy an iPhone and then choose to get an app from any website without having to do any hacking for voiding my warranty.

Oh wait, you can only get them through Apples app store.

You are wrong.

Re:class act

[geekoid]

Please show me where I can get an App for an iPhone that isn't controlled by Apple.

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but unless you void your warranty you can only get Apps from the App store.

Apple also determine what can be in the App store.

Re:class act

[geekoid]

Wow, way to pedantic your way out of the corner you painted yourself into.

The control, the apps in that they determine what is allowed. They also have been know to kill apps that get through their process.

No, they don't push the buttons on your app when you are suing that App. no one meant that at all, and you know it.

Re:class act

[newcastlejon]

You'll note the word iTunes never passed my fingertips. I'm arguing that for the majority of people the iPhone is inseperable from the App Store, hence the word on vertical integration earlier. Music is different: Apple don't pick and choose their iTunes catalogue with the same exactitude as app submissions.

Apple can and are putting restrictions on what apps in their store can do. While the store enjoys a significant portion of the market Apple will in effect be exerting a measure of control on the functionality of apps that people have access to. I'm not going to debate the merits of freeing one's phone - frankly the reason I haven't done so is because the thing has broken so many times already I'm keeping the warranty and ditching it for something droidy - because for the forseeable future Apple still decides what additional functionality is available the majority of iPhones in the field.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

If only 11,112 customers could afford $100 tickets, that's legit, but that would also mean scalpers would only be selling 11,112 tickets. That leaves the rest to either be purchased by customers for $30, or purchased by the middleman and eaten as a loss to support their higher ticket prices.

Concerts can have graduated tiers of pricing like that, and usually do. Better position = more expensive ticket. The analogy somewhat breaks down on that point.

Windows tried it (Student, Home, Pro, etc.) and people didn’t like it much (intentionally crippling software and then selling it for cheaper?). There’s not much feature variation on the iPad (none, basically, and that’s by design), so they can’t as easily get away with selling it to some people for higher than others. About the only justification they can have for charging some people more is the fact that they’re early buyers, and even that goes only so far (e.g. the unhappy iPhone buyers after Apple drastically reduced the price).

Re:class act

[clone53421]

If the scalper buys all of them and then sells all of them for the higher price, then yes, you should’ve priced them higher.

If they were priced well in the first place, though, then scalpers who buy all of the tickets, then want to sell all of them for a higher price will be stuck with tickets that simply won’t sell at that price, and they’d have to drop the price back down to get rid of those tickets. You can’t very well do that, because people don’t appreciate having to pay more than someone else for exactly the same product, and Apple has to care what people think unlike some opportunistic scalper who’s just out for a quick buck.

Re:class act

[beav007]

But that's all I side issue anyway. The question is this: what were Apple tracking to enforce this limit? The name on the card? I doubt it - how many John Smiths are there, after all?

What is concerning is that they may have been using the CC number to enforce the limit. Yes, a non-bank entity, recording and storing your credit card details, in an online, searchable database.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes you think he's not already picked and grooming his sucessor. it would be very 'jobs' like for him to go and announce it to the world, it'll be the 'one more thing' he announces on his deathbed

Re:class act

[Wovel]

Maybe Apple actually cares about their customers(the ones who will actually use the device). Kind of hard to get word of mouth if no one is actually able to by one to use..

It is also a little rough on Developers. There is no upside to unauthorized resellers from Apples perspective or the perspective of people living in the market where the device was released.

Re:class act

[node 3]

How does that make them not "legitimate". It makes no sense.

Sure it does, they are opportunistic swine who game the system, insinuating themselves in front of the customer in order to make money. They are parasites who's profit comes from making things worse for everyone else.

I still disagree. The folks who do the most reselling are gonna be the folks with the time and resources to get around this sort of thing, not the small operation folks.

You don't seem to grasp, it doesn't matter if some people get around it, what matters is if there's a positive overall effect.

Re:class act

[Achromatic1978]

You can't, however, purchase AppleCare on an item you bought used ...

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

sucessful TROLLZS is successfull !!11~1!!

Re:class act

[node 3]

But they do. Please let me know if I can go buy an iPhone and then choose to get an app from any website without having to do any hacking for voiding my warranty.

That's not controlling the apps, or controlling what you can do with your phone. It's controlling what you *can't* do. It takes an extremely warped view of reality to define things you *can't* do as controlling the things you *can* do, unless the list of thing you can't do are disproportionately large (in which case it's the other way around, and saying it *isn't* control is the absurd notion).

No one (outside of oddball Libertarians) claim that the government is controlling you because it outlaws murder and theft, etc. On the other hand, if the government outlaws pretty much everything, forcing you basically into a small set of things you *can* do (conjure up images of the USSR if it helps), *then* they are controlling you.

With over 200,000 apps, and far, far fewer outright rejections, it's a stretch of the imagination to claim that Apple is controlling the apps, the phones, or the users.

Oh wait, you can only get them through Apples app store.

I never said otherwise, although I don't think it's fair to completely ignore the jailbreaking option either. When you talk about control, but people can freely and easily bypass your prime example, that doesn't really help your case.

You are wrong.

In what way does Apple control my apps or my phone, for definitions of "control" that are commensurate with the cries of despair so common here on Slashdot?

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest people who want an iPad, who sign up on a waiting list don't deserve to be fucked over by opportunists. What's worse, they stand to be fucked over twice. Once by not being able to buy an iPad from Apple, and once again by having to resort to an iPad "scalper" with inflated prices.

But to answer your straw man, yes, a person is allowed to sell their device at any price they can get. Apple does nothing to prevent this. You are absolutely free to buy two iPads and sell them both.

No, fucked over three times. Once by not being able to buy an iPad from Apple, once again by buying it from a scalper, and yet again by taking it home and discovering it's just a laptop with all the important pieces missing.

Re:class act

[fredmosby]

Increasing prices for early adopters is how Apple handeled the release of the first iPhone. When demand went down two months later Apple reduced the price by $200. They got so much bad press they had to give everyone who bought before the price decrease a $100 credit. Now Apple deals with scalpers by having the two purchase limit instead.

Re:class act

[adolf]

Forget about all of that for a minute -- you folks are making things way too complicated.

If the intent is to resell 8 (or some other smallish number) of iPads:

Go to Wal-Mart. Buy 4 pre-paid Visa cards, at $3 each. Load each of them with enough money to procure 2 iPads (including taxes).

Then, just buy your iPads.

There's no ID, no address verification, no nothing. They, quite literally, anonymous and unique Visa cards. When you're finished with them, just throw them away.

The end.

Re:class act

[adolf]

They don't need to store the card number. Something like an SHA-1 hash would be more than sufficient to keep track of how many items have been purchased with a given card, without ever keeping any details of the card itself on file or transferring them to an outside party.

(Come on, Slashdot: I expect more from you.)

Re:class act

[H0D_G]

For those playing along, the economic concept here is price elasticity of demand.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

In what universe is adding more middle-men better for the consumer? Scalpers raise ticket prices without adding anything of value, except being able to buy tickets after an event has sold out. This isn't terribly bad so long as scalping is kept down to a minimum. But what if there were no rules in place to limit scalping? What's to stop someone from buying every single ticket, then selling them at double the price? How is that good for anyone?

Without scalpers, tickets for a popular show go to people who are willing to wait in line, or re-dial the phone or re-fresh the web page right around sale time. Someone who's willing to pay more, but can't invest time, is frozen out.

With scalpers, there's a mix: people who can afford to pay more do so, and people who can't still have a chance at tickets. People who've bought tickets and aren't *that* excited have a stronger incentive to sell them to people who want to go. Basically, scalpers are market makers. The move goods to people who really want them ("want" in the economic sense of "willing to pay more.")

And, they do so by taking a risk. They only "add value", as you say, if an event has sold out. But they also only cause harm if an event has sold out. Who pays more than face value for a ticket when you can just buy at the box office?

Re:class act

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I was going to moderate, but this warranted a reply.

Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people? You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

That's true, but you need customers to abuse customers. The idea is that if customers feel abused, they can jump ship when they feel like it. But this only works when there is another ship, hence the monopoly restrictions.

If you don't like Apple and their iPad restrictions, then you are perfectly welcome to buy another tablet PC, hopefully from someone who doesn't abuse you. Sure, you may not get Apple's chic shininess, but you will get a comparable product (doubly so with the inevitable flood of copycats on the way).

Re:class act

[hairyfeet]

The reason I made sure to say there was no offense is to give the man his props. I have always been a believer in a true free market and believe that Steve should be allowed to run his company any way he wants, just as I believe MSFT should be allowed to bundle whatever they want into their OS and if someone doesn't like it there are always choices.

While there are some here that believe Steve is TOO strict (I like the Nazi Hitler Obama bit) it is HIS company, HE built it, and if the strictness works for him and his customers (which you point out it does quite well) then I say you go Steve. While I have always been the type to tweak, twiddle, and pisslefart around with my machines and so don't fit into the Apple lifestyle, I'm the first to admit the man does have taste, and from my buds that have gone all Apple they say the integration and user experience is top notch.

What worries me is there seems to be no clear line of succession like there was with Gates>Ballmer. while it is VERY good that he has seemed to tone down the "cult of Steve" mythos that was building around him, as you admit Steve Jobs IS Apple Inc. I personally think he should be obviously grooming a successor, even if he has no intention of stepping down, just so that if anything DOES happen to him the company he took so long to build won't be harmed badly by his passing.

One final note: After watching the Ballmer monkey flail around from one half baked idea to another-Vista, playsforsure (except it doesn't) X360 RRoD, ignoring business users and games for PC while he gets into a pissing contest with Sony, I have a question. Is this what it felt like when the Pepsi guy was running Apple into the ground? If so I'm really sorry for all the jokes I made about Apple back then. Bring back Darth Gates dammit!

Re:class act

[Corbets]

remember that bitch who bought the #1 spot in line in order to buy out the entire stock so she could resell them? How is that fair to the people behind her who waited hours?

Simple. Apple should have learned how to do business by people who've been doing it long before Apple existed... Limit two (2) per person, per purchase . Grocery stores and Walmarts all across the land have been doing this for decades. You can buy as many as you want... 2 at a time. On launch day, that would equate to exactly two -- by the time you got back to the counter the second time, there wouldn't be any left.

Help me out here - why is "per purchase" any more/less right/wrong than "at all"?

Re:class act

[Corbets]

Okay, then you have 12 or 14 of them and you have to deal with paying 6 or 7 different bills and you've made a small profit while having driven around to a bunch of different shops or risked your credit card by loaning it to someone to make purchases on your behalf. Congrats. That's still a lot harder than sitting outside an Apple store and paying a bunch of people $20 each to go buy 2 iPads then reselling them and making an easy profit while scalping the average person.

Oh, I'd like to be one of those people you offered the twenty bucks to. Yes, please give me twenty bucks to go in and buy that iPad, along with the 600 bucks I need to pay for it... nice knowing you, sucker. ;)

Re:class act

[flyneye]

This note is LEGAL tender for ALL debts, public and private.

So Jobs can pucker up and suck a **** outa my *** just like the ticket agencies.

Re:class act

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple wants to get the iPad into people's hands as quickly as possible.

What are the 'scalpers' going to do with the iPads, except resell them? Do they make good wall paneling or something?

They want to get the iPad into their CUSTOMERS hands quickly and for the advertised price. If the price of the iPad is higher due to scum-sucking pig-dogs buying up the entire stock, then apple's customers will
A) Have to wait until more units become available at MSRP
B) Pay more

Both of these things will taint the iPad 'experience'. It's the same reason scalping tickets is generally not allowed.

Re:class act

[mgblst]

Are you retarded? I mean are you actually retarded?

Just because something only stops most people, and not all people, then we shouldn't do it.

Every comment from you lately has been complete and utter stupidity.

Re:class act

[cowscows]

They don't do this because people are irrational, and will bitch like crazy when you raise your prices. For whatever reason they'd rather get screwed over by a sleazy scalper than have a big company raise its prices.

Re:class act

[hmar]

Remember when the PS3 came out, people were lining up to buy 5 and 6 at a time and selling them on ebay. Sony took all the heat, PR wise, for that, and now when Apple tries to avoid that heat, we spin that as negative too. Can you say "no win"?

Re:class act

[poetmatt]

Yes, correct.

Re:class act

[poetmatt]

what are you talking about?

There are plenty of universes where middle-men are needed. Ever heard of backbone internet service? Yeah. Let's just take out the middle man! There are lots of arguments for having middle-men for services. Meanwhile, if it wasn't for the people who are "Scalping" lots of places wouldn't be able to get the device (early or otherwise). Again, what's the problem with this? It's apple's fault it's not available in said places.

Think about what you are saying with that.

Also, apple cannot stop anyone from selling. It's a US made product and right of first sale does apply.

Lastly, where do you come up with that garbage? People can buy things to give it to others. What if I want to buy 4 Ipads, say to give to my family. What, I can't, because of the 2 limit? Get a fucking grip.

Apple's limit helps nobody. It's a crock of bullshit.

Re:class act

[aristotle-dude]

This note is LEGAL tender for ALL debts, public and private.

So Jobs can pucker up and suck a **** outa my *** just like the ticket agencies.

Are you a ticket scalper? Are you one of those cockroaches that prey on people desperate enough to pay double or triple the original asking price?

There is no debt with purchase unless if you buy it on store credit which again would involve something other than cash. You cash is good for paying your bill but stores can refuse cash for purchases.

Re:class act

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Oh, I'd like to be one of those people you offered the twenty bucks to. Yes, please give me twenty bucks to go in and buy that iPad, along with the 600 bucks I need to pay for it... nice knowing you, sucker. ;)

That sounds like a good way to get your kneecaps busted. You know those Apple stores only have the one way in and out for normal customers. It's especially bad for you if you're one of the many homeless of illegal immigrant community I'm probably picking, since you can't really go to the cops and 90% of the time if I call a cop over and say you grabbed $600 from my hand, they're going to frisk you, find the cash, hand it over, and haul your ass to jail for the night. But maybe you live in a different world than I do.

Re:class act

[sabt-pestnu]

That's not controlling the apps, or controlling what you can do with your phone. It's controlling what you *can't* do. It takes an extremely warped view of reality to define things you *can't* do as controlling the things you *can* do, unless the list of thing you can't do are disproportionately large (in which case it's the other way around, and saying it *isn't* control is the absurd notion).

Might brush up on your set theory. According to you, Apple is making a "set of things you can't do on the iPhone". By definition, what is left is the "set of things apple does not prohibit you to do on the iPhone".

You are wrong in how you constructed that set, though. It specifically approval, not denial that is going on here. The App approval process is specifically "Apple allowing you to do X with the iPhone". If they don't approve the app, they don't list it, you can't buy it.

That is, anything not expressly approved is prohibited.

It does not matter that the number of rejections are small. The number of rejections does not change the nature of the set. Only the process by with the set is formed matters.

As for the absolute number of rejections... They've listed some things categorically as "we won't approve applications of this type". Is it surprising that authors have self-selected for apps that are not pre-prohibited? And, where do you get your information on the absolute number of rejected apps, anyway? Is there a ticker somewhere showing the Apple approval process, "this many approved, that many rejected"? Or are you relying on media stories?

When you talk about control, but people can freely and easily bypass your prime example, that doesn't really help your case.

Freely and easily? ... and nobody has ever had problems with their jailbroken phone bricking up, for example?

Re:class act

[Cramer]

One person cannot buy out the entire inventory in one purchase. They get to purchase two then go to the back of the line. Other people will get to purchase one (or two) before you get back to the register to buy another pair.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

Apple doesn't control the apps, nor what you can do with them.

So where’s the app that I can use to view Flash animations?

What’s that? It doesn’t exist? Why on earth not?

Wait, I think I’ve got it...

Apple does control the apps, and what you can do with them.

Yep, that sounds right.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

That's not controlling the apps, or controlling what you can do with your phone. It's controlling what you *can't* do. It takes an extremely warped view of reality to define things you *can't* do as controlling the things you *can* do, unless the list of thing you can't do are disproportionately large (in which case it's the other way around, and saying it *isn't* control is the absurd notion).

List of things that you *can* do: Apple store
List of things that you *can’t* do: Everything else

What’s that you were saying about the other way around, and saying it isn’t control is absurd?

Re:class act

[node 3]

List of things that you *can* do: Apple store
List of things that you *can’t* do: Everything else

No, because there's nothing stopping those "everything elses" from getting onto the App Store, except for a few limitations. Apple controls my iPhone no more than a restaurant controls me by having a dress code, and a handful of other rules.

Re:class act

[node 3]

Might brush up on your set theory. According to you, Apple is making a "set of things you can't do on the iPhone". By definition, what is left is the "set of things apple does not prohibit you to do on the iPhone".

Except that the former set is infinitesimal compared with the latter set. Additionally, Apple doesn't have a whitelist of allowed activities, it has a blacklist of banned activities. They don't say, "here are the things you can do, and that's it", they say, "here are the things you can't do".

That's why it's absurd to focus on the former, unless there's something particularly egregious about it, and there isn't.

Freely and easily? ... and nobody has ever had problems with their jailbroken phone bricking up, for example?

No, you can't brick an iPhone by jailbreaking it. Although I don't see your point, unless bricked iPhones are a reasonably common enough occurrence to warrant caution.

The fact of the matter is that the iPhone isn't even a tenth as closed or locked down as folks here seem to think.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

So you freely admit that Apple is controlling your iPhone.

QED

Re:class act

[node 3]

Only if you so loosely define "control" as to become meaningless. Or are you saying restaurants control you?

By your reasoning, Google controls Android, only a little bit less. Bravo.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

Only if you so loosely define "control" as to become meaningless. Or are you saying restaurants control you?

Yes, restaurants control you. In many ways. But only for one meal.

Apple wants to control you for the rest of your life-owning-of-their-product, which is why I wouldn’t buy it.

By your reasoning, Google controls Android, only a little bit less. Bravo.

Just how much control are you happy with giving away?

Re:class act

[flyneye]

I am not a scalper. I am not against free enterprise, either. If I buy a tangible commodity, I can sell it to you for whatever I can get for it above cost. My time and effort are valuable, I have human needs. Screw the music industry, they are the cockroaches calling the kettle black.

      Intent to aquire ownership of salable goods incurs debt. Register 8 is open where we accept Federal Currency notes as LEGAL tender for ALL debts incurring in your hot little shopping cart there. Thank you for shopping at SEX MART.

Re:class act

[node 3]

Yes, restaurants control you. In many ways. But only for one meal.

I promise you that when I'm in a restaurant, I'm still in control of myself. They may limit some of my choices (such as in what I can wear (or not wear)), but that isn't tantamount to simply saying the restaurant controls me. They do exert some control over some of my potential choices. No big deal.

Apple wants to control you for the rest of your life-owning-of-their-product, which is why I wouldn’t buy it.

Apple has absolutely zero interest in controlling me. They do want to exert some control over the iPhone. I am not my iPhone. No big deal.

This "Apple wants to control you" nonsense tossed around here on Slashdot is really absurd.

Just how much control are you happy with giving away?

Depends on the situation. Of the two, I actually prefer the control Apple wishes to exert (because it's focused on making a superior product) to the control Google wishes to exert (because of the privacy implications). But neither is strong enough for me to specifically not want to use Android or iPhone.

If Apple were even 1% as controlling as people here claim, I'd switch to Android instantly. Fortunately, hyperbolic control is no threat to me.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

Let me know when you can play a flash game on your iPhone.

Re:class act

[node 3]

Let me know when you can play a flash game on your iPhone.

Why would I want to? The iPhone has no shortage of games, all of which run natively, without any of the problems Flash brings to portable devices.

Maybe now that there's a beta version of Flash out for Android, we can finally see how enticing a feature it really is. Even if I were rabidly anti-Apple, I'd be happy with their anti-Flash stance and be a little ticked that it's coming to Android.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

Sorry! Must’ve forgotten that Master Jobs already said you didn’t need it.

Re:class act

[node 3]

Sorry! Must’ve forgotten that Master Jobs already said you didn’t need it.

That's your argument for Flash? That if someone doesn't like it, they're mindless drones?

The iPhone is better off without Flash. That's my opinion, and while I don't care if you agree with it, if you're not going to respect that it's my opinion, you can just fuck off.

Re:class act

[clone53421]

If that’s all it is – your opinion – then I respect it. And respectfully disagree, because I see Apple’s tactics as too controlling for them to make something that I’d ever want to own.

Re:class act

[node 3]

Fair enough.

Re:class act

[weirdcrashingnoises]

well, it's not like they are coming up to you after you buy 10 iPads and taking 9 of them away from you. The block to control their product happens before you buy 10 of them.

Black market?

[Dan East]

Can someone explain how using a debit or credit card to purchase an iPad prevents the buyer from reselling it? And how is that considered the "black market"?

Re:Black market?

[Monkeedude1212]

I dunno, paper trail maybe? There isn't much of a record if its a cash transaction.

Re:Black market?

[mikael_j]

The idea is to limit the number of purchases that a single customer can make. It's sort of hard to sell a hundred iPads on eBay or to people in other countries when you're only able to buy two of them yourself (yes, obviously it's probably possible to use several credit cards or have your friends buy iPads but I think this should be seen as more of a way to eliminate the low hanging fruit to discourage the casual opportunists).

Re:Black market?

[quantumplacet]

It's not complicated. There is a two per person limit. They kept track of how many a person bought by their credit card. It's not illegal or against Apple policy to sell your iPad, it is against their policy to buy 200 iPads and open up a store selling them in a country where it's not yet available.

Re:Black market?

[bcmm]

And how is that considered the "black market"?

Whatever the legal status of a device is, Apple has demonstrated on plenty of occasions that it doesn't think one really "owns" something bought from them.

Re:Black market?

[dgatwood]

The proper term is "grey market", not "black market". Goods on the black market are either illegally obtained (stolen), illegally distributed, or just plain illegal. The term "grey market" covers goods hat are purchased legally, but are distributed into countries where they were not sold originally.

Re:Black market?

[Ethanol-fueled]

The idea is to limit the number of purchases that a single customer can make...yes, obviously it's probably possible to use several credit cards...

...And that's a good point. Anecdote: I paid for public parking, in a congested downtown area, with my debit card. The meter rejected my debit card for the above reason when I went to add an extra hour, so I whipped out the credit card and it worked even though the names on both cards are identical.

I love to talk trash about Apple, but their buyers are being very idiotic crying about it when(as TFA says) they could simply walk down the street to Best Buy if they wanted to buy more. Furthermore, the people who can't get more than 1 debit/credit transaction card are the people who have no business dropping that kind of dough on an iPad.

Re:Black market?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Whatever the legal status of a device is, Apple has demonstrated on plenty of occasions that it doesn't think one really "owns" something bought from them.

Do you have any real examples? Aside from services Apple offers (not purchases) what can't you do with Apple products that Apple prevents you? Once you buy it, do what you want. Take it apart, hack the software, put a different OS on it, since when has Apple stopped you? They even have legal recourse to go after jailbreakers of iPhone or people who make the tools, but they don't bother.

Re:Black market?

[RightSaidFred99]

False. Nobody's doing that, and if they are it doesn't hurt Apple. This was a marketing move to try to propagate the artificial scarcity ploy Apple is using with the iPad. Nothing more. I'm surprised so many rubes don't see that, it's very obvious.

Re:Black market?

[Mononoke]

Goods on the black market are either illegally obtained (stolen), illegally distributed, or just plain illegal.

Since iPads have Wifi and (often) 3G transmitters in them, sale and use is subject to a particular country's version of the FCC. The term "black market" would seem to apply here. Apple has to as least appear to be controlling the destination of the units they sale in order to stay out of trouble with the governing bodies of countries they would like to sell these items in eventually.

Re:Black market?

[immaterial]

Not letting people buy 50 at a time somehow increases scarcity?

Stores were selling out on launch day. I would have been pissed if I was the twentieth guy in a 60-person line and was told "Sorry, the first three guys bought 25 each, we're out. (For the record I didn't wait in line for one and I don't even own one.)

Re:Black market?

[ottothecow]

Ok, great. Now you can buy 4 ipads.

That assumes apple isn't also checking name/address on the cards (which the meter surely isn't). Your influence over the ipad market is still basically zero. Now imagine how different things would be if you could by them in actual large quantities in order to limit supply in your one-apple store town and then sell on craigslist to locals for a profit? If you end up buying too many and haven't sold them by the time apple gets a new shipment, just go return them to the store for cash.

But hey...I accidentally sold my apple share in the market dip (stop order got triggered at 220...grr) but I had no interest in buying back in like I did when I bought the shares at 95--instead I took my profits and bought google.

Re:Black market?

[BobMcD]

Not letting people buy 50 at a time somehow increases scarcity?

It wouldn't increase real scarcity, but if you'll read what you're replying to you'll see he was addressing artificial scarcity.

Stores were selling out on launch day. I would have been pissed if I was the twentieth guy in a 60-person line and was told "Sorry, the first three guys bought 25 each, we're out. (For the record I didn't wait in line for one and I don't even own one.)

Stores sold out of PlayStations, Xboxes, Wii's, you name it. Doesn't mean any of these items are 'scarce' today. Stores sold out of Twilight on it's first day out, too. Doesn't speak for the quality of THAT product either.

Artificial scarcity is common, and apparently you're falling for it.

Re:Black market?

[node 3]

False. Nobody's doing that

Because they can't. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of false.

and if they are it doesn't hurt Apple.

Yes, it does. It keeps the iPad out of the hands of consumers, and keeps consumers out of Apple's stores.

This was a marketing move to try to propagate the artificial scarcity ploy Apple is using with the iPad.

How does this propagate scarcity? It does the opposite, it helps alleviate it! And the iPad's scarcity is not artificial. You can only build things so fast. One million in less than a month is by no means Apple deliberately under-producing. There are only so many factories, and they are already building other things. If Apple were to attempt to increase supply, they'd have to pay to have more factories built (or pay to have other factories break their current commitments and retool) and have more employees trained. They'd also have to be able to acquire the components faster.

The notion that Apple is deliberately keeping supply low is utterly moronic. People already very much want the iPad, and Apple loses much more by having a limited supply than they gain by any increase in perceived demand.

Re:Black market?

[clone53421]

No.

Artificial scarcity is what happens when a few people buy up all the real product, artificially inflating the demand.

Telling people “no, we only have enough real products for you to buy two, sorry” is an example of real scarcity, not artificial scarcity.

Re:Black market?

[narcc]

The goal was to create the impression of scarcity, not actual scarcity. What do you think the OP meant by 'artificial'? Try to keep up here.

Re:Black market?

[BobMcD]

That is one source, but there are many.

Another possibility is only shipping a third of what you have produced, holding the rest in a warehouse and telling everyone you've 'sold out'.

There are many possibilities, and it does not defy logic that Apple is practicing one or many of them.

Re:Black market?

[slushdork]

They kept track of how many a person bought by their credit card.

How do they do that? I thought a retailer cannot store your credit card number past a reasonable processing period.

Re:Black market?

[drerwk]

I don't think it is a ploy when people coming in to the store have to wait a week to get their iPad. I am pretty sure Apple would rather sell it to me when I show up than take the risk I won't come back.

Re:Black market?

[clone53421]

Another possibility is only shipping a third of what you have produced, holding the rest in a warehouse and telling everyone you've 'sold out'.

That’s not necessarily artificial. There are many real logistical reasons to prevent you from having all of your products in-store on the release date.

Not least of which is, “if we can prevent people from hoarding these (artificial demand), this store should really only need about 50 to satisfy the real demand in the area.”

Re:Black market?

[BobMcD]

Another possibility is only shipping a third of what you have produced, holding the rest in a warehouse and telling everyone you've 'sold out'.

That’s not necessarily artificial. There are many real logistical reasons to prevent you from having all of your products in-store on the release date.

Not least of which is, “if we can prevent people from hoarding these (artificial demand), this store should really only need about 50 to satisfy the real demand in the area.”

As I said it isn't necessarily artificial, but certainly could be so. The original author and my self seem to be inclined to believe that it is, while you aren't. Not a thing wrong with that in the world as none of us are likely to know.

Re:Black market?

[__aasqbs9791]

You must have missed the all the articles about credit card info being stolen (just the first one I can think of) or never received one of the many notices going around saying, "You've been issued a new card number because of a data breached that may have affected your account" yet. Also, PCI compliance (which is what you are think of) doesn't require all information to be removed. Here's the actual overview if you want to know.

Re:Black market?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would artificial scarcity without a free market price benefit Apple? Would people suddenly wanting something they couldn't get give more money to Apple? Artificial scarcity does exist, it's called the diamond and oil market. Except those companies charge more for their products based on demand. Apple sells you an iPad for 499 if there are is 10 available or if there is 1 million.

Re:Black market?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this does exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. It helps ensure that supplies remain available for purchase.

In fact, it is a common policy for all sorts of suppliers when supplies are constrained at a product launch. Policies like this limit the number any one person can purchase so that more *people* can buy the goods rather than having a few speculators buy large quantities and put them up on ebay for an absurd profit. (See the 360 and PS3 launches for examples of this behavior on the part of speculators.)

Re:Black market?

[Cramer]

It's prohibited, but that doesn't mean they can't. Just like the locks on your house won't stop a burgler from breaking in.

(Apple should lose their rights to process credit cards (Visa and MasterCard, esp.) But we know nobody will even say anything bad about Apple, much less to them.)

Re:Black market?

[drachenstern]

emphasis added to yours.

Do you have any real examples? Aside from services Apple offers (not purchases) what can't you do with Apple products that Apple prevents you? Once you buy it, do what you want. Take it apart, hack the software, put a different OS on it, since when has Apple stopped you? They even have legal recourse to go after jailbreakers of iPhone or people who make the tools, but they don't bother.

Jason Chen would likely argue some of your points.

</lame-joke>

.

.

.

yeah yeah, I know, you meant "legally purchase".

Re:Black market?

[gront]

Apple.com and the Apple retail stores are sales to end users only. That means no buying for resale. Buying for resale means you have to open a reseller account, which they may or may not approve, and providing information and a picture of your retail establishment.

http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/salespolicies.html#topic-3

Re:Black market?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason they could be illegal is import taxes, which often aren't paid on grey market goods.

Re:Black market?

[Knara]

Eh, if you're coming in to buy an iPad the first week, you'll be back. Apple knows the early adopter personality pretty well at this point. They know you'll wait and you'll want it even more by then, too.

Re:Black market?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple.com and the Apple retail stores are sales to end users only. That means no buying for resale.

So what if that is Apple's sales policy? They can't stop you from buying and reselling and to knowledge they have never tried. I asked for evidence of them trying to control what you do with something after you've bought it to support the assertion previously made. Where are these "plenty of occasions" mentioned?

Re:Black market?

[jmorris42]

> Apple should lose their rights to process credit cards...

It wouldn't stop with them, they all do it. Even brick and morter stores like Walmart. I returned an item purchased months earlier and all they did was scan the barcode at the bottom of the receipt and the item's UPC code and that was it, the refund went back onto the same card used to make the purchase. So that means the mothership in Bentonville has a database that can cross the transaction ID on that receipt back to the payment information and they keep it for months if not forever.

Aren't you quivering in anticipation for what will be possible when every single pack of M&Ms has an RFID embedded into it?

Re:Black market?

[Cramer]

Actually, that's the entire reason for the txn number. The charge can be fully or partially reversed without knowing the CC number. And it's not necessarily Walmart that kept the txn record; your CC company keeps them for a very long time.

Re:Black market?

[clone53421]

The original author and my self seem to be inclined to believe that it is, while you aren't. Not a thing wrong with that in the world as none of us are likely to know.

Well, I don’t know about that; RightSaidFred99 seemed to think that anybody’d be an idiot to think anything different:

This was a marketing move to try to propagate the artificial scarcity ploy Apple is using with the iPad. Nothing more. I'm surprised so many rubes don't see that, it's very obvious.

Re:Black market?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple might not go after individual users (which only proves they are not as stupid as RIAA) but they do go after people attempting to disseminate information about how to use something other than iTunes to load music onto an iPod (BluWiki), they recently won a case against Pystar who were buying OS-X and loading it onto non-Apple hardware in contravention of the EULA, you can't get flash on your iP(o|a)d, etc. With Apple, as with other proprietary software companies, it's not yours once you buy it you are tied up with any number of technical and legal measures. Sure you can jailbreak the device, you can run it over with a truck if you want, but when it comes to attempting to use it for or slightly beyond it's purpose you hit limits and they are strictly controlled by Apple.

Re:Black market?

[drerwk]

Ok, I'll just agree with you because you are right. But, do you think that Apple has some artificial scarcity ploy going? Do they have a few hundred thousand iPad they are holding onto so all their stores stay sold out?

Re:Black market?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

but they do go after people attempting to disseminate information about how to use something other than iTunes to load music onto an iPod (BluWiki)

A valid point, although, again, not them trying to control what people do with their hardware, per se. It was with regard to the copy control mechanisms for their software service. There already exists public domain code for the non-copy-protected parts needed to interface with the iPod.

...they recently won a case against Pystar who were buying OS-X and loading it onto non-Apple hardware in contravention of the EULA

True, but that's just defending their copyright and trademark and again, not regarding them stopping you from doing what you want with products they sold you.

...you can't get flash on your iP(o|a)d, etc.

Sure you can. Jailbreak it or install Android OS on it. Apple just doesn't offer Flash via the software service they provide.

but when it comes to attempting to use it for or slightly beyond it's purpose you hit limits and they are strictly controlled by Apple.

You can use it however you like and Apple can't stop you. They just aren't obligated to help you either, especially by altering the software or services they provide.

Re:Black market?

[kent_eh]

Telling people “no, we only have enough real products for you to buy two, sorry” is an example of real scarcity, not artificial scarcity.

Only if they are honest.
You believe everything the nice corporate retailer tells you, don't you.

Re:Black market?

[Anonymous Coward]

> what can't you do with Apple products that Apple prevents you?

Install self-made software on an iPhone without paying Apple merely for the privilege.

(Yeah, you can jailbreak it, but I think having to do that qualifies as Apple "preventing" me or at least attempting to.)

Disclaimer: I do not in fact own an iPhone, precisely because of this kind of BS. (I also don't own similar smartphones from their competitors, some of whom aren't much better.)

Re:Black market?

[youngone]

Really? I wonder what there're doing about a company called Parallel Importers who are selling ipads here in New Zealand before they're available from Apple.

Re:Black market?

[Anonymous Coward]

Against their "policy"? Bad news. If you buy it, you can sell it.

Re:Black market?

[MichaelSmith]

They kept track of how many a person bought by their credit card.

How do they do that? I thought a retailer cannot store your credit card number past a reasonable processing period.

Say apple retains an sha1 hash of your credit card information...

Re:Black market?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I believe random post on the internet...

Re:Black market?

[MikeFM]

Yeah I hate when those bastards store my information and make it so I can easily return things, reprint receipts, and all those dastardly things. Personally I love when businesses do a good job of tracking my information for me. Go to customer service and swipe my card and bam they can print out the receipt that got cola spilled on it so that I can return my stereo that is bugging out but still under warranty. Personally I never delete any information customers give me. It's pretty damn secure but I sure as hell don't delete it. How are you going to improve the customer experience if you don't know anything about the customer. People are so paranoid. Complain about crap security not data storage.

Re:Black market?

[khchung]

False. Nobody's doing that, and if they are it doesn't hurt Apple.

Wrong, it would hurt Apple if most iPad was sold to people putting them in ebay.

Apple spend $$$ to coordinate ad campaigns to make people go and buy iPads. If most iPad were bought by people who resell them in ebay, it makes most people unable to buy them, and that effectively wasted Apple's ad $$$. Some people may buy from ebay, some may wait, but some may decide to buy something else instead. That means less sales for Apple.

Also, people wanting the iPad cannot get one means that they also don't get to brag or show-off the iPad to friends, and that means less word-of-mouth spreading for Apple, and also less sales.

Re:Black market?

[corbettw]

Telling people “no, we only have enough real products for you to buy two, sorry” is an example of real scarcity, not artificial scarcity.

Not if they have crates stacked like the last scene from Raiders in a hidden warehouse, chock full of the things. Pretending not to have enough is also artificial scarcity.

Re:Black market?

[Dragoness Eclectic]

Black market, gray market, who cares? It's all the same. The laws of economics dictate that an underground economy ("the black market") will exist wherever and whenever the "official" economy cannot or will not supply the market in accordance with the Laws of Supply and Demand. If the demand is high and the price set is too low, someone WILL buy low and re-sell high, no matter what the original producer thinks of the matter.

Re:Black market?

[snowwrestler]

Another possibility is only shipping a third of what you have produced, holding the rest in a warehouse and telling everyone you've 'sold out'.

I don't know if you've ever managed a retail business. I have and I can think of absolutely no advantage to doing that. It is always in a business's best interest to sell their inventory through as quickly as possible. No store in the world purposely sells less than they can.

You might think "well they might do it to build buzz." But the point of buzz is simply to sell more product. If there is already enough demand for all the product, you don't need buzz. You just sell the product. Buzz is what is needed to create demand. You don't sacrifice actual demand to create buzz.

Cash flow is king in retail. One dollar today is better than two dollars next week, because you can use the dollar today to buy more inventory to sell next week. That is why stores put poorly-selling things on sale...to create buzz to drive up demand. But not many stores will lower the price on products that they are already selling through. Why would they? It's just throwing money away for no reason.

The same principle applies to holding back inventory that otherwise would sell through. A huge part of being successful at retail is reducing the time between receiving the product from the manufacturer, and selling it to a customer. If you can do it even a little faster than your competitor, you will beat them.

Re:Black market?

[scipiodog]

They even have legal recourse to go after jailbreakers of iPhone or people who make the tools, but they don't bother.

That's how they have demonstrated they don't think one really "owns" it - by having such a system in place, whether they bother to use it or not.

Re:Black market?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jailbreaking is a LEGAL exemption as specified in the DMCA. However...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/159532/apple_files_opposition_to_dmca_exemption_for_jailbreaking.html

So right now, they have no legal course of action to go against jailbreakers. They've proven repeatedly that they'll do anything to retain control of their products since it makes them the most profit (i.e. specific chips in headsets so no others can have a in-line controller, Bluetooth headsets can't rewind or FF)

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221901168&subSection=News

Trust me, if it was illegal, Apple would be going nuts with the lawsuits right now, typically taking out the source. I would like you to explain how Apple's power adapters are unique? If you say the shape is the same, then you should be supporting the Chinese company that came out with a similarly looking device as the iPad 3 months before it came out. They're going to be suing Apple if they try to sell the iPad in China.

http://thenextweb.com/asia/2010/01/28/chinese-ipad-clone-released-months-apples/

it works!

[Anonymous Coward]

And they've taken the opportunity to put a bow on the story by giving the formerly scorned Diane Campbell a free iPad.

Awwww, how nice of Apple. See, they really are a good company.




</sarcasm>

Re:it works!

[CannonballHead]

The moral is: if you cause enough bad publicity for a company, you get free stuff.

Re:it works!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Gizmodo.

Re:it works!

[Darkness404]

Gizmodo was creating positive publicity though. I mean, what could be more positive than spamming viewers with basic iPhone Generation 4 ads. A bit like someone playing a site full of movie trailers, it only generates good publicity.

Re:it works!

[CannonballHead]

They got free lawsuits!

Re:it works!

[RightSaidFred99]

You think this is bad publicity? This is exactly what Apple planned. Now they've got the message out that their iPad is so hawt they have to restrict how many a person can buy. Oh, they mad a bad decision in the no-cash idea, but wow look how well that iPad is selling and how badly people want it!

This was a cheap way for Apple to get unorthodox marketing. Since Apple was so nice in fixing the no-cash policy, all that's left in the rabble's mind is how many iPads Apple is selling since they need to restrict purchase! Wow, I gotta get me one of those, look how many they're selling! Ahahaha. Ridiculous. We live in an age of idiocy.

Re:it works!

[Anonymous Coward]

And Apple still learns the identity of the person who didn't use a credit card to get the iPad.

This note is legal tender

[54mc]

for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.

Re:This note is legal tender

[zelbinion]

Right, that's just what I thought. It is even legal for Apple to refuse payment in cash? I can understand businesses not taking checks, credit cards, debit cards, etc. however not taking CASH? That smacks of a federal crime or something....

Re:This note is legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

for all debts, public and private.

Oh, except debts to apple.

It isn't a debt if a person has not yet made the purchase.

If she owed Apple money she certainly could have paid in cash. Apple has every right (no matter how stupid) to refuse sale for any reason.

Re:This note is legal tender

[NotQuiteReal]

But you don't owe them a debt, if they won't sell it to you.

The local Apple store just needs to put a sign in the window:

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Traceable Payment Method, No Service.

Re:This note is legal tender

[langedb]

While cash is legal tender for private debts; there is no requirement on the creditor to accept it. source

Re:This note is legal tender

[davidbrit2]

It's not a debt if the store refuses to complete the sale. If a customer attempts to buy something with cash, and the store refuses, is there any outstanding debt on behalf of the (potential) customer? Nope, not if they haven't actually bought anything yet.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Burdell]

A purchase (exchange of money for goods) is not a debt. You can show up at your bank with $1000 in pennies to pay your mortgage and they have to take it, because that is a debt, but any vendor can decline cash for purchases. That's why it is legal for some fast-food places and such have signs that they do not accept denominations over $20 (which are more susceptible to counterfeiting and also quickly reduce their change-making ability).

Re:This note is legal tender

[zelbinion]

Okay, I guess I was wrong:

[from the horse's mouth]

Re:This note is legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

You said it yourself: DEBTS. However much Apple would like to believe it, you do not OWE them the money. As with e.g. bars and restaurants, they reserve the right to refuse service.

Re:This note is legal tender

[aristotle-dude]

for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.

There is no debt until both parties enter into an agreement.

Re:This note is legal tender

[BasilBrush]

businesses can choose who to sell to. That is no legal problem. Legal tender comes in when you owe someone a debt. Then they must to accept payment for the debt if it's offered in legal tender. But if Apple never sold you an iPad in the first place, there is no debt.

Re:This note is legal tender

[vxice]

At that point it was not debt. Only if they had given her and ipad on payment plan then they refused to take U.S. dollars would it have been debt and had caused problems.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Lunix Nutcase]

It is even legal for Apple to refuse payment in cash?

Of course it is. A private business can determine what form of payment they will accept.

That smacks of a federal crime or something....

Except for that pesky fact that it isn't one. I suggest you give this page a read:

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Translation Error]

for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.

A purchase is not a debt. As per the US Treasury's faq (here):

"all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."

Re:This note is legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, that's just what I thought. It is even legal for Apple to refuse payment in cash? I can understand businesses not taking checks, credit cards, debit cards, etc. however not taking CASH? That smacks of a federal crime or something....

From: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

So, no, they don't have to take cash. (Unless a State law says otherwise.)

Re:This note is legal tender

[Demonantis]

The issue is that the debtor can refuse creation of the debt. I have the right to refuse sale. That is how most places get past the issue of not accepting $100 bills.

Re:This note is legal tender

[BasilBrush]

Certainly there's a requirement for a creditor to accept payment in any form of legal tender. Your source says as much. But vendors are allowed to only sell things to people on whatever conditions they so choose*, including method of payment.

(* Discrimination on race and other grounds probably (hopefully) excepted.)

Re:This note is legal tender

[Kjella]

that they do not accept denominations over $20 (which are more susceptible to counterfeiting and also quickly reduce their change-making ability).

Near as I call tell the bigger the note, the better the protection so they're not more susceptible but getting away with 90$ in cash and 10$ in goods is much more worth than getting away with 10$ in cash and 10$ in goods and you have to deduct the cost of making the forgery which will be relatively less for big notes. So more commonly used yes, but not because it's inherently easier to make a 100$ bill than a 20$ bill.

Re:This note is legal tender

[UnknowingFool]

Also some forms of public transportation do not accept cash directly; you first must convert your cash to a token, pass, card, etc.

Re:This note is legal tender

[DMUTPeregrine]

IIRC the most commonly counterfeited bills are $20s anyway. Fewer protections, more common to see (ATMs give out $20s), easier to spend.

Re:This note is legal tender

[dissy]

for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Apple does not run a credit business so it isn't really possible for you to ever have a debt to apple. Thus there is no law forcing them to accept your legal tender that is for debts to a creditor only.

Last I looked, Apple did partner with MBNA bank for credit applications, however going that route your debt would still not be with Apple but with MBNA. And MBNA does accept cash, as required by law.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you pump the gas before you pay, you have established a debt. :)

Re:This note is legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone admit that on Slashdot.

Re:This note is legal tender

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Okay, I guess I was wrong:

Very classy, dude. Thank you.

Re:This note is legal tender

[clone53421]

Filling stations around where I live require you to pre-pay for cash transactions.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

A purchase (exchange of money for goods) is not a debt. You can show up at your bank with $1000 in pennies to pay your mortgage and they have to take it, because that is a debt, but any vendor can decline cash for purchases. That's why it is legal for some fast-food places and such have signs that they do not accept denominations over $20 (which are more susceptible to counterfeiting and also quickly reduce their change-making ability).

Not entirely true. Only paper currency explicity states "[...]legal tender[...]" on it. No bank is required to accept non-paper currency...I'm pretty sure that's been in place since the Great Depression because of farmers showing up with "wheel barrels" full of change.

Re:This note is legal tender

[UncleFluffy]

If you want to screw with someone who has a "no cash" policy, put the item on the counter and say "how much do I owe you for that?" before opening your wallet. Take witnesses. Be amused.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Cramer]

Actually, in typical gov form, they didn't answer the question. Find a lawyer and visit your local law library. At the end of the day, anyone doing business in the USA must accept US currency; you cannot create your own or use any other foreign currency. Limiting denomiations is different from not accepting any at all.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

so get a retail box, somehow damage the box, without damaging what will hopefully be your ipad. if apple demands you pay for the damaged goods then you are in a debt to them, they have to take the cash

Re:This note is legal tender

[Qzukk]

you cannot create your own

Better tell that to all these people. On a smaller scale, some arcade games only take tokens.

Here's what you can't do:
1) let someone ring up a bill then tell them you only take "bananabux". Once they owe you money, "cash" has to be an option.

Here's what you can do:
1) Whatever else the fuck you want. Just remember you'll have to convert to USD to pay taxes.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I guess I was wrong:

[from the horse's mouth]

When the URL ends in .gov "the horse's mouth" generally refers to the wrong end...

Re:This note is legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it is legal for some fast-food places and such have signs that they do not accept denominations over $20 (which are more susceptible to counterfeiting and also quickly reduce their change-making ability).

That doesn't work in Michigan. Eating the food has incurred a debt. Now, certainly, offering a suitably large denomination may mean you cannot get correct change in return, but the restaurant can either accept the cash offered or relieve you of your debt -- it has no other options.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Bigjeff5]

It sure is legal.

The law could also say that small round rocks are legal tender for all debts in the U.S., but that would not mean anybody is required to actually accept small round rocks as payment.

At the same time, even though a bag of pistachios is not legal tender, a private party is perfectly free to accept it as payment for goods or services at whatever rate they deem acceptable. Hopefully they don't though, unless they're only trading with pistachio growers and really, really love pistachios. Not too many others are going to be willing to pay in pistachios.

All the legal tender means is that the US Government is certifying that that little piece of paper is good for the dollar amount printed on it. This is absolutely necessary, because that piece of paper has exactly zero intrinsic value for use as currency without such backing. That doesn't mean you have to accept it as payment for goods or services if you do not wish to.

Re:This note is legal tender

[UnknowingFool]

I thought it was pretty clear on the 2nd paragraph:

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise

Re:This note is legal tender

[istartedi]

No. They won't do that. IANAL, but they'll probably hold you civily liable for damaging their goods. You'll pay a settlement and/or legal fees in cash. You won't get an iPad. You'll just get a black mark on your record, and maybe even a court order to never visit the Apple store again. It really depends on how much hardball they want to play. They certainly won't reward that behavior. It would bring on copycats if they did.

BTW, ditto for paying your parking fines in pennies. People have tried, and the courts have sided with parking enforcement.

Re:This note is legal tender

[SleazyRidr]

You mean, be disappointed when nobody cares?

Re:This note is legal tender

[izomiac]

Anonymous Coward does have a good point though. If you've incurred a debt by pumping the gas then I don't see how the station could refuse to settle that debt using legal tender. Maybe they are able to siphon off the gas and therefore claim that you aren't in possession of it yet. But, if they can't stop the transaction then it sounds like a debt. Ditto for eating a meal and paying afterwards.

OTOH, gas stations are notorious for having prices ending in 9/10ths of a cent, so it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't exactly adhering to the law regarding currency. Perhaps someone with infinite time and nothing to lose could test this in court. Of course, you can most certainly pay legal settlements in cash, so I suppose it wouldn't matter much if they won or lost.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Bigjeff5]

You are perfectly free to come up with some other form of payment for your transactions, but nothing other than Federal Reserve notes have the backing of US law. That does not mean you are required to pay or accept cash for any transaction, it just means in certain situations (specifically debt) you cannot refuse cash.

In other words, you're free to print up some paper and trade with it, but you can't try to pass it off as a Federal Reserve note or you'll land yourself in jail for counterfeiting. It also, obviously, won't be legal tender and can be refused by anyone on either side of the transaction for any reason.

At the end of the day, anyone doing business in the USA must accept US currency; you cannot create your own or use any other foreign currency.

Which is completely false. You are not required to accept US currency for trade, nor are you disallowed from accepting any other form of payment. If that were the case, then checks, bank transfers, credit, and debit cards would all be illegal. None of those are certified by the US government as legal tender. Federal Reserve notes are the only form of currency that has such a designation.

What the law essentially says is, if you owe someone a debt, they cannot refuse the Federal Reserve note as payment for that debt. Also, if the person owed the debt refuses other forms of payment, the debtor must pay in cash, as no other form of currency has legal tender status. A prior agreement to use some other form of payment (even none-equivalent equivalent forms, like small round rocks) is perfectly acceptable. Also, you can refuse to complete a transaction for any reason, including refusing to accept or give Federal Reserve notes. In this case, there is no debt, so the cash rule does not apply. That's what Apple did, they simply refused all cash transactions, which is perfectly legal. Had they been handing them out on payment plans, however, they could not legally refuse cash as payment.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Tacvek]

Please see 31 USC section 5103, which defines all United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes) as legal tender for "all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

So for a debt like a mortgage, the bank must take United States coins. But for deposit, the bank could refuse anything you offer, since it is not required for the bank to accept your money for deposit. (But it would be rather stupid not to accept it).

Re:This note is legal tender

[geekoid]

IF I steal one, they will say I owe them money, Then they will have to take cash~

Re:This note is legal tender

[Bigjeff5]

That's because the places you'd want to unload counterfeit bills are small shops with high volume low-dollar items. Places like fast food restaurants and gas stations and other establishments with similar characteristics.

These shops figured this out and stopped accepting $50+ denominations. Since it's not possible for a counterfeiter to unload denominations of $50 or more, they switched to the highest they could get away with - $20 bills.

Thus, the $20 bill is by far the most commonly counterfeited bill. The denomination is low enough that it isn't practical to refuse it, as too many legitimate customers will be turned away. It's the best counterfeiters can do, but they'd much rather do a whole lot more.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Bigjeff5]

And cash is always accepted.

Re:This note is legal tender

[clone53421]

Anonymous Coward does have a good point though. If you've incurred a debt by pumping the gas then I don't see how the station could refuse to settle that debt using legal tender.

Well, if the pump says that cash customers pre-pay, and you pump your gas without paying for it first, they could justifiably claim that you stole the gas. However, most pumps now are electronic anyway and won’t pump any gas until you’ve either swiped your plastic or put some cash down at the register, so that situation wouldn’t even be possible at most filling stations.

gas stations are notorious for having prices ending in 9/10ths of a cent, so it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't exactly adhering to the law regarding currency

I’m not aware of anything that says that prices have to be rounded to whole cents. That would also make it difficult to price things 3/$1, would it not?

It only has to be rounded to the nearest cent when you’re paying... and they could in fact round all transactions to the nearest 10c instead of to the nearest penny and as long as you both agreed on the goods and the price it’d be perfectly legal to do that.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Darinbob]

There is no creation of debt unless the seller offers to let you have the item without payment for a period of time. Paying at a store with a credit card, debit card, cash, etc, does not make the store a creditor even for a fraction of a second. That's because you never "owed" any money. They could refuse to take even one dollar bills, though it would be silly to do so. If you pay after the fact, say at a restaurant, then you owe money and they will have to accept the dollars.

Re:This note is legal tender

[adolf]

It only has to be rounded to the nearest cent when you're paying... and they could in fact round all transactions to the nearest 10c instead of to the nearest penny and as long as you both agreed on the goods and the price it'd be perfectly legal to do that.

That reminds me of a completely off-topic story from NPR about a office supply store in Berkeley that eliminated pennies. They simply round down to the nearest nickel.

From the article, they sound like they're pretty pleased with it, even though they stand to "lose" as much as 4 cents per transaction.

Re:This note is legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean I could legally pay my mortage in buckets of pennies?

Re:This note is legal tender

[Sique]

No, those tokens are just a proof of payment.

Re:This note is legal tender

[flibuste]

There are countries where this would be qualified as "refusal of selling", which is punishable by law. The usual outcome is that the vendor gets slapped in the face and the customer gets a freebie...

So Apple can confirm the identity of any iPad user

[SlashSim]

Apple can confirm the identity of any iPad user, so long as they have not purchased the device used.

Very interesting.

Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Steve Jobs just has a howard hughesian mental disorder, like he hates anything ending in "ash."

"Damn you Flash, and all this cash! And fuck Johnny Cash and the movie Slash!"

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

"Screw this rash, and screw that trash and I doubly hate hash..."

NO! NO! NAiPS

[ColdWetDog]

(Not Another iPad Story)

A story about some poor lady who saved up her pennies to by an iPad only to be thwarted by the Evil Jobsion Empire of Credit and Security.

Come on folks. The Two Minute Hate is only supposed to last .... two minutes.

Can't we just gang up on BP this week and leave Apple alone for a bit? Or perhaps Scientology? We haven't had a Xenu themed thread in ages.

Re:NO! NO! NAiPS

[Some.Net(Guy)]

no, i'm afraid that apple hatred and disgust is always going to be relevant.

by "afraid" i mean "overjoyed"

Re:iFirst

[Anonymous Coward]

iFAIL

Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it right

[ravenspear]

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this pattern in the last few months/years, especially as it relates to the iPhone OS devices.

1. Apple does something really dumb
2. They get bad press for it
3. A higher up at Apple goes "yeah, now that I think about it, that is really dumb"
4. Apple reverses the policy to something not dumb

It seems to me that maybe Apple should look at how they are formulating these dumb policies and see if they can get it right the first time.

Now before I get modded down by the fanbois, let me just say that I own an iMac and an iPhone and generally like Apple products. Yet I simply have to admit that it seems they've had a serious injection of dumbness of late.

Confused...

[Syberz]

Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?

On a related note, where is this "black market"? Seems like has lots of awesome stuff for sale there.

Re:Confused...

[Culture20]

Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?

Because Apple's keeping a database of CC numbers (and who belongs to them) and making sure only two iPads can be purchased per consumer. You don't get to buy ten. If you pay for one in cash, you can pay for one in cash 500 times (probably in different stores), and get 500 iPads.

On a related note, where is this "black market"? Seems like has lots of awesome stuff for sale there.

Anywhere Apple doesn't sell an iPad yet where people want one. There's not really any awesome stuff for sale, only iPads.

Re:Confused...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?

Umm, because Apple won't sell you 10 fully loaded iPads with your gold Amex, just two. That doesn't stop you from buying two and reselling them, but it makes it a lot less worth your while.

Re:Confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?

Because Apple would cut you off at two fully loaded iPads on that one gold Amex. Which, indeed, means you still get to hock TWO iPads, just not the ten you were looking to sell. So the question boils down to whether or not you're savvy enough to turn enough of a profit on two iPads to make it worth your while on the black market.

Assuming you didn't want one for yourself, that is. Then you'd be down to turning a profit on ONE iPad.

Re:Confused...

[SilverJets]

Of course you could just use your other credit card and buy two more.

Re:Confused...

[Pence128]

The black in black market means illegal. Pawning iPads is perfectly legal. Grey market is probably what you're looking for. It means: "there's no reason why it should be illegal, but we really want it to be".

Re:Confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

They use the credit card number to limit it to 2 per person.

Re:Confused...

[pz]

Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?

On a related note, where is this "black market"? Seems like has lots of awesome stuff for sale there.

You've missed the point: the refusal of cash for a purchase has nothing to do with limiting the number of iPads you can purchase (seriously, it's about as Orwellian as it gets when ideas are used to mean their exact opposite). The amount of cash you have on hand is far more limited, in practical terms, than the amount of money you have at your finger tips on a credit card. It is *easier* to buy ten iPads on a credit card; it is much harder and riskier to cart around the amount of cash necessary to do the same thing.

The difference, and that which Apple wants to avoid at all costs, is that when you use cash, you are effectively anonymous. You can return and buy again. And again. And again. With a credit card, there is an unquestionable and unique identification of the transaction. They know who owns the iPad you just bought, to the point that there is likely an association between the serial number of the device (I'm talking only partly out of my posterior here) and the payment method. The payment method, assuming it's yours, uniquely identifies you. Your ownership is no longer anonymous. Not only can they prevent you from purchasing another iPad (with that same credit card, or one with the same name), they know who owns that particular iPad.

Re:Confused...

[gyrogeerloose]

Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?

Easy: Apple Stores don't accept American Express. "Visa--it's everywhere you want to be."

Disclaimer: I have no idea whether Apple Stores accept AmEx or not. It was just a joke.

Re:Confused...

[clone53421]

We already have a way to uniquely and unquestionably identify a person. It’s called picture ID.

Re:Confused...

[pz]

We already have a way to uniquely and unquestionably identify a person. It’s called picture ID.

When was the last time you were required to show a picture ID when purchasing electronics?

Re:Confused...

[clone53421]

When was the last time you were unable to pay with cash when purchasing electronics?

Last time I was required to show a picture ID when purchasing something, in general... well, I think that would be the last time I purchased something and they wanted to make sure I was who I said I was. Granted, they weren’t trying to limit what people bought because I was only allowed to buy two... they were trying to limit what people bought because federal law says you had to be 21 to buy it.

Re:Confused...

[Lunix Nutcase]

They most likely were also tracking people by name and address.

Re:Confused...

[Knara]

Apple's system isn't real-time like that for registrations (assuming you even got applecare, if not there's no reason to even know your address). This is plausible for purchases on different days, though. CC clearance is likely real-time through their merchant account, but actual charge processing is still, AFAIK, batched.

Re:Confused...

[Bigjeff5]

Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?

Sure, I'll 'splain it to you.

You can't buy 10 fully loaded iPads with your gold Amex, you can only buy 2.

Does that help? Or do I need to explain it further. I could explain to you how 2 is not 10, and how any attempt to turn 2 into 10 would leave you with 2 broken into 5 pieces.

Re:Confused...

[ClosedSource]

They might be able to prevent you from buying 2 iPads with the same credit card but I doubt they can handle the case where you use multiple credit cards. After all, unless you have a very obscure name there's probably a dozen people who share that name in the US - so they can't reasonably limit your purchase by name (e.g. out of thousands of "John Smith"s only two iPads could be sold).

Re:Confused...

[ClosedSource]

"The payment method, assuming it's yours, uniquely identifies you"

No. It uniquely identifies the account number. Your name doesn't uniquely identify you. You share your name with a lot of other people.

Re:Confused...

[Syberz]

So I'd just buy the 2 then, smart ass.

Cash or credit, I could still make a pretty decent profit by reselling them, which is what Apple is *trying* to prevent with this stupid policy in the first place.

Re:Confused...

[mark-t]

The theory, I think, is that selling only 2 will not be as worthwhile as selling a much larger number, and so the incentive to do so will be proportionally less. One could not viably, for instance, use a stock of only 2 iPads to run a business of selling them in countries where iPads are not yet available.

Re:Confused...

[Fnord666]

Your ownership is no longer anonymous. Not only can they prevent you from purchasing another iPad (with that same credit card, or one with the same name), they know who owns that particular iPad.

But I can go down to the local megamart here and, using cash, buy as many anonymous Visa stored value gift cards as I want. How am I not anonymous now and how does Apple's policy limit me now?

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[Applekid]

It seems to me that maybe Apple should look at how they are formulating these dumb policies and see if they can get it right the first time.

Why bother when you can get great PR out of doing what any other company does?

More accurately...

[RightSaidFred99]

They implemented the cash-only policy once their fake scarcity ploy wore out. First they pretended they couldn't make enough to meet the monster demand. Then they resorted to "our gadget is so cool we won't take cash!".

Artificial scarcity is a pretty boring ploy these days - does anyone actually believe that nonsense?

Re:More accurately...

[BasilBrush]

The fantasy is: They implemented the cash-only policy once their fake scarcity ploy wore out. First they pretended they couldn't make enough to meet the monster demand. Then they resorted to "our gadget is so cool we wyon't take cash!".

The realisy is: iPads were credit card only from day one. And the prices on eBay attest to the fact that people can make money from buying retail and reselling.

Re:More accurately...

[thestudio_bob]

Break out the tin foil hats, RightSaidFred99 has broken Apple's code! Ohz Noez.

They implemented the cash-only policy once their fake scarcity ploy wore out.

Or, this was a new device that they really didn't know how many were going to sell and they limited the production. A lot of companies do this. Im sure they did some market research and came across all your post and thought to themselves, "Gee, maybe we shouldn't produce 10 million of these things, because RightSaidFred99 says he's not going to by one."

First they pretended they couldn't make enough to meet the monster demand.

I don't think they're pretending. But maybe you know more than me... Apple's iPad believed to be outselling Macs in the US: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/05/20/apples_ipad_believed_to_be_outselling_macs_in_the_us.html, Huge Wave of Apple iPad Demand: http://www.changewave.com/freecontent/viewalliance.html?source=/freecontent/2010/03/huge-wave-of-apple-ipad-demnd-03-05-10.html

Then they resorted to "our gadget is so cool we won't take cash!".

Based on some of the stats, it looks like a bunch of people think it's cool... except RightSaidFree99.

Artificial scarcity is a pretty boring ploy these days - does anyone actually believe that nonsense?

Gee, I don't know. I kind of believe the reports I've been reading, but apparently you're some kind of genius on the matter. Please show me some stats on where you're getting your information from? I would love to see it. My guess, and this is just a guess, you're a windoze/flashboy/anti-apple zealot with some serious jealousy issues, a marketing shill or just oblivious to what's happening that you've decided to encase yourself in your own personal reality distortion field. Very sad.

Re:More accurately...

[RightSaidFred99]

Your sarcasm foo has vastly overwhelmed me. It was so subtle I read the first sentence and was sure you were totally going to agree with me, but then I read further on and I was all "Uh Oh, I think this guy disagrees with me!". So I went back and reread the first sentence and realized you had deftly handled me with your pithy sarcasm.

Let's see how well this device holds up over time. I'd say the sales figures from maybe Q3 will be the most useful to see how well it's really selling long term.

Who knows, maybe then I'll post some more posts mocking Apple and you can pull out your finely honed sarcasm skills again!

Airlines

[rwade]

There's a pretty notable precedent.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[sakdoctor]

The pattern is:

1. Apple does something really dumb
2. They get bad press for it
3. An army of Apple fanboys rush to their defence
4. Apple laugh at how dumb their fanboy users are
5. Boring story gets posted to slashdot frontpage

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[RightSaidFred99]

This wasn't a dumb move, and this isn't bad press. They tried to make it look like the iPad was in such MONSTER demand that they wouldn't take cash. Then there was press, some moderately bad (Apple won't take cash), but mostly in their minds good (their iPad is selling like such hot cakes that they want to slow it down by not taking cash). Seriously, this late in the game who could possible be convinced people are still buying 50 iPads at a time and selling them at a markup?

It's stupid marketing done by stupid people targeting stupid people.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[gyrogeerloose]

That's how it's done in the real world: Make a policy that seems reasonable at the time, have something unforeseen pop up to show that maybe it's not as reasonable as you originally thought, re-think and change that policy to something that is.

While Apple's policy was not a good idea, at least they were able to see that and be flexible enough to change it. It's just too bad for them that they had to get a black eye in order to recognize it was bad policy to begin with.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[Darkness404]

Because it is a strategy to make people want to buy their new generation of devices and software.

In general, no one gets excited about firmware updates. However, if Apple can add in a blindingly obvious feature they can generate hype and money. Anyone could have told Apple they needed an SDK to be successful and that web apps sucked. However, because they didn't do it, they could get lots of hype when releasing the iPhone SDK and 2.0 firmware update. Same thing with copy/paste/search in iPhone OS 3.0 and multitasking in iPhone OS 4.0.

Same thing with hardware. Anyone could have told Apple they needed to have hardware volume up/down buttons on the iPod Touch, but they ignored it and made it be a "feature" of the 2nd generation, anyone could have told Apple a smartphone released in 2006 needed 3G (especially considering my samsung dumb phone I bought half a year before had it) but then they made it be a "feature"

If Apple did everything right the first time, they would fail to have lots of press coverage when they finally fixed things.

no, this is how things work.

[circusboy]

you make a general rule, people break it, you make a more specific rule, it causes a problem, you make an exception, people exploit it... etc.etc.etc.

pick a system, any system.

here's a reasonably good generalization of how law systems work and fail.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple did not allow to pay cash for the iPOD OS upgrade, either.
Not even allowed to use funds on a gift card... just credit card on iTunes account.

It's time that someone should force them to accept legal tender.

Re:Bullshit

[Lunix Nutcase]

He look! Another idiot who knows nothing about what he speaks!

From here:

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[BasilBrush]

Seriously, this late in the game who could possible be convinced people are still buying 50 iPads at a time and selling them at a markup?

I take it you didn't check out the prices on eBay.

It's stupid marketing done by stupid people targeting stupid people.

Whilst stupider people whine on slashdot.

Free publicity

[Torodung]

Interesting marketing policy. Good for Apple if it doesn't upset people, free publicity when you revoke the policy if it does.

Now that's what I call a win/win scenario.

--
Toro

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[H0p313ss]

Seriously, this late in the game who could possible be convinced people are still buying 50 iPads at a time and selling them at a markup?

I take it you didn't check out the prices on eBay.

I suspect that one of the drivers for this is the fact that the iPad is still only available in the US. Here in Canada for example they will only start shipping next Friday. Almost a month lag is pretty huge when measured in Internet time.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[RightSaidFred99]

Oh wow, you mean people are trying to sell shit for twice what it's worth and nobody is buying it on Ebay? Quick, call the channel 12 news!

Nobody's buying an iPad for $1100. It's a joke, just idiots fishing. There are iPads on there for only slightly more than you could buy them for at the Apple store.

Whilst stupider people whine on slashdot.

ZaZing!

Wait a second, I'm confused...

[clone53421]

Apple, like any other company, gets your name, address, and zip code when you buy something at one of their stores, right?

And they need to correlate by your credit card number to ensure that you don’t buy more than two iPads?

Why not link them to your account, with your name, and require a government-issued photo ID to verify your identity before they make a sale? Makes a hell of a lot more sense than limiting it by credit card... not everyone has a credit card, and many people have several.

Re:Wait a second, I'm confused...

[pandrijeczko]

In that case, first person who raises their hand can have my iPad share allocation!

Re:Wait a second, I'm confused...

[clone53421]

And looks just like you?

Re:Wait a second, I'm confused...

[dwightk]

Apple, like any other company, gets your name, address, and zip code when you buy something at one of their stores, right?

woah, what stores are you shopping at?

Re:Wait a second, I'm confused...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Apple, like any other company, gets your name, address, and zip code when you buy something at one of their stores, right?

Apple, like any other company, does not get any of that. At least not when I pay by cash. And otherwise they just get my credit card number, which is technically tied to my name and address, but I do not believe the stores get that information.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[plurgid]

at least they learn from their mistakes and correct them in a timely manner.
unlike ... well almost every other mega-corporation.

even when apple screws up, they do it right.
LOL.

damn. guess I'm a fanboy now.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[BasilBrush]

Nobody's buying an iPad for $1100. It's a joke, just idiots fishing. There are iPads on there for only slightly more than you could buy them for at the Apple store.

Plenty of sold iPads on eBay in the US for far more then retail. But that's as nothing compared with if you look on international sites for eBay.

But you keep whining like an idiot that the truth must be what goes on in your imagination, entirely unsupported by any evidence.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[StormReaver]

Stupid stuff like this is why I will never buy any Apple products.

Ever.

It took too many years to get rid of one abusive corporate monopolist, and I'm not about to surrender my hard-earned freedom to another corporate monopolist wannabe.

Hey, I have tried to buy one with cash too...

[marcobat]

When should i expect my delivery?

Re:Hey, I have tried to buy one with cash too...

[Bigjeff5]

Sorry, only the squeaky wheel gets the grease. You're SOL, and it's too late to squeak.

In other words:

[Hurricane78]

Sales are as underwhelming as expected. And yesterday, Apple HQ fell form the distortion bubble into reality, when looking at the hard numbers. (Don’t worry. They’re right back in it again, or else they would gasp for air like fish on land. ^^)

Re:In other words:

[Bigjeff5]

The article linked by a slashdot story a few days ago which was based on first-hand experience of Jobs's Reality Distortion Field was a real eye-opener.

The bubble need never reflect reality. When the disparity between reality and fantasy becomes too great, the fantasy simply changes. It includes a back-history in the fantasy that makes it seem like the fantasy never changed at all.

It's not a counterfeiting thing

[Sycraft-fu]

Part of it is making change. A larger part is drawers in the cash registers and slots in the safe. Most cash registers don't have slots in their drawers for $50 and $100 notes, so you have to store them in the bottom, which is inconvenient and could lead to them getting forgotten. Also these places often use time release safes and depending on the kind, they have intake slots for different bills, and don't always have the largest denominations.

However the largest part is risk. The big bills are of a great risk when it comes to being stolen. For one, it means more money in a small place when it comes to a hold up, but there's also a bigger risk of an employee taking it. After all, a single hundred is real easy to stuff in your pocket and sneak off with, and it is worth a lot which makes it attractive.

You are correct though in terms of accepting cash. For purchase, a place can choose whatever terms they like in how you have to pay. For debts, teh government requires that you take treasury notes as payment, like it or not.

Re:It's not a counterfeiting thing

[Tacvek]

For debts, teh government requires that you take treasury notes as payment, like it or not.

Not true. You can refuse legal tender. That is legal. But if you refuse legal tender the debt is no longer valid, so refusing it effectively cancels the debt.

Any creditor has the right to cancel a debt rather than accept repayment.

Re:It's not a counterfeiting thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you work that you developed these ideas? I managed a fast food restaurant (long ago) and the franchise owner eventually mandated that no $100 bills would be accepted specifically because of the chance of counterfeit notes (store manager could override the rule if needed). Change-making can also be a problem, but it's pretty rare. I do recall one occasion where a woman in a minivan ordered a regular diet coke ($0.95 + tax at the time) and paid with a $100 bill (before the policy went into effect), which was annoying. As a practical matter, if we were running out of change, one of the AMs would be sent to the bank for change; after (or before) banking hours, we could get change from one of the other restaurants (including the competition), but that was extremely rare as there just isn't enough business done during those hours to run out the change.

The big bills aren't more of a risk during a robbery. If someone holds you up, they're taking all you've got (except coins other than rolled quarters), regardless of denominations. You don't have any more money in the drawers/safe if someone buys a kids meal with a $100 or a $5 - they're getting the change back and all you have is the $3.98 + tax (or whatever).

In any cash drawer I've seen, it's obvious whether there are any $50s or $100s under the tray when you remove it. After only a brief time leading shifts, sweeping the bottom of the cash drawer becomes habit. Even if we had stopped taking $50s, we'd still have to check under the tray for checks and gift certificates. In the rare cases something did get missed, it was corrected by going back up front and checking under the replaced cash tray (if any).

As for sneaking off with a $100, anyone who's drawer (or safe count) came up that short would be fired immediately, which mitigates the risk significantly. A cashier with several drawers coming up more than a few dollars short gets fired, too. Cash drawers were *never* shared, so finger-pointing wasn't an option. It's irrelevant if the cause was giving too much change or leaving an open drawer unattended, you'd be fired regardless. Safe counts were almost never off by more than $1, and never off enough to rouse suspicion.

- T

Thats ok.......

[Anonymous Coward]

I've better things to spend money on than to give it to Apple.

But talk about screwing the customer. Apple sell the Canon G11 compact digital camera through their store. At the full MRP. Of course thats what they do with their own goods. I suppose they're just instituting a "level playing field". (Yes I know thats the UK Apple site, but have a look at prices for Apple kit to see the markup over US prices that obtain here).

Never mind, I suppose sales to the expense account and business invoice crowd jogs along quite well.....

Bullshit.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but this fits the standard pattern of Apple doing exactly as much as they can get away with, and of large corporations in general suddenly growing a conscience when they get some bad PR (and letting said conscience atrophy when the press leaves them alone).

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd login to bump the scoring of this post, but what do I really care (and I forgot the password a long time ago anyway).

I can't believe your drivel is getting marked as informative, that's all. So you hate Apple. Big deal. Grow up.

Ah, wait a minute. I forgot the first rule: don't feed the troll...

(seriously mods, take a look at his posts -- and he has several in this story alone -- before concluding that he has anything insightful, as opposed to inciteful, to say)

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[OnTheEdge]

Don't we all do this? Maybe not on the same level, but everyone makes mistakes. All I ask is that you correct your mistake and learn from it. How many projects, business decisions, or other collaborative efforts "get it entirely right the first time"? Failing is the better part of success.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[Webz]

But it's genius marketing. Look how much time we're all spending talking about Apple and the iPad. Plus, the whole history doesn't matter. Only what people remember matters, top of the stack so to speak. "Now we can buy unlimited iPads! We're so fortunate!" Look how they turned a negative into a positive. Like it's not so much the absolute value of the marketing that matters as it is the delta or positive slope.

It's just like that Chris Rock joke. "I take of my kids." That's what you're supposed to be doing, you idiot!

That's also bullshit

[justinlee37]

Unfortunately, you can't force them to accept legal tender. They are only forced to accept legal tender for an outstanding debt; before you buy the phone, you don't owe them anything, and they can demand payment in whatever form they like. If they wanted to they could charge 3 gold bars and 2 goats for every iPad, and that would be legal (and ridiculous).

Do you propose that we force everyone using the craigslist.org barter section to accept legal tender? Do you propose that we force people who want to trade to cars to accept legal tender? Do you propose that we force little kids trading Pokemon cards to accept legal tender?

It sucks, but Apple is in full compliance with the law by refusing cash. Forcing them to accept cash could have unintended legal consequences for people who refuse to accept cash in other situations.

Shit Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Get the fuck off my lawn.

Black Market My Ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs is just a dick! He wanted to keep the credit info and bill micro-payments to it. The greedy bastard!

Re:Black Market My Ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

let's just hope that he doesn't misplace a decimal.

WHat you all missed in that soundbite

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple was so happy to give her the iPad, they decided to throw in
Adobe Flash Player (though some suspect Apple was being a sore
loser in the deal overall and threw that in)
 

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no. The pattern is

1. Apple does something really dumb
2. They get bad press for it.
3. ???
4. profit

legal tender

[Khashishi]

If you owe someone money, e.g. you ordered something from a merchant and received it, but didn't pay for it yet, then they are obligated to accept cash to settle the debt because it is legal tender. But if you haven't bought something yet, then you don't owe them anything yet, and the merchant is NOT obligated to take your money for it. See the difference?

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[porky_pig_jr]

> 1. Apple does something really dumb
> 2. They get bad press for it
> 3. A higher up at Apple goes "yeah, now that I >think about it, that is really dumb"
> 4. Apple reverses the policy to something not dumb

5. Profit! 1 through 4 gives Apple a free publicity. "Gee whiz those bad boyz did that again!"

Not bad

[kuzb]

I'm not very happy with a lot of things Apple is doing these days, but it's nice to see that they took this seriously, and moved to make things right with the lady in question.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[Anonymous Coward]

Has the possibility occurred to anyone that this entire 'fiasco' could be a deliberate exercise in getting people to accept the phasing out of cash in favor of electronic payment methods that can, will be, and already are being tracked by governments and businesses alike? Perhaps the reason Apple appears boneheaded is because people are drawing conclusions based on false premises.

hm

[negrace]

Apparently nobody at Apple ever heard of prepaid credit cards that you can get anywhere.

That's non sense

[geekoid]

"explaining that the policy was originally implemented to limit the number of iPads an individual could buy during the introductory period of short supply. "

Ho is laying down cash any different then using a card?

! purchase it 1 purchase.

This is because Apple was getting some warning about not taking cash. Something seriously frowned upon in the US.
This is about there precious process.

After using a real tablet, the iPad sucks:
wetab.mobi

Can't wait for them to be available for purchase.

Re:That's non sense

[Jerry Rivers]

How much will you be selling them for?

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[geekoid]

It was never a reasonable policy.

Shrug, Apple is just being American

[SmallFurryCreature]

You would be amazed how much Americans assume the entire world has a credit card or indeed is dying to get one. There are countless services and shop operating from US that only take credit cards, despite there being countless payment providers who have made it their business to offer the locally prefered solution around the world.

I seriously doubt this had anything to do with the 2 iPads per person limit. There have been a large number of European stores that sold the iPad for a huge profit or as a gimmick. Since it was also done by a reputable large store in Holland, I doubt this was done by someone going in with a dozen credit cards.

No, I just think this is just the arrogance of Apple execs who can't imagine someone not having or wanting a credit card.

Apple would hardly be alone in this.

Re:Shrug, Apple is just being American

[jacob1984]

They also take debit/check cards as well. This has nothing to do with a credit card only purchase.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[Bigjeff5]

Do you think that might have anything to do with the fact that the iPad isn't international yet?

Of course selling it to someplace that can't get it yet is going jack prices up. Those situations don't really count.

In places where it is being sold, the "No Cash" policy was nothing but a marketing ploy, which is evidenced by a quick look at eBay.

Reverse?

[Okonomiyaki]

They didn't 'reverse' the policy, they ended it. A reversal would result in a new policy in which you may only pay with cash.

Re:Reverse?

[jvkjvk]

They didn't 'reverse' the policy, they ended it. A reversal would result in a new policy in which you may only pay with cash.

English is a funny language, isn't it?

If the policy was 'do not take cash'. Then the reversal would be "take cash" not only take cash.

It just so happens that the reverse policy fits nicely in with normal everyday transactions and so doesn't need to be called out.

Regards.

Re:Reverse?

[Jerry Rivers]

On the other hand, if the policy is to only accept plastic, then a reversal would be to accept cash as well as plastic, no?

Re:Reverse?

[jvkjvk]

Hmm. Perhaps. It depends on where you place the mirror and you you angle the cut.

Even given the policy example that you did, there are a few interpretations of this.

I.e. - the "reverse" could also be to accept anything BUT plastic (including goats!), or only accept cash (as the OP said), OR to accept cash as well as credit.

Your interpretation could be argued as "correct", but then so could either of the other two. And probably more, as well, if one is willing to twist meanings and intentions a bit.

As I said, English is a funny language.

crApple - par for the courese

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs is an egocentric tyrant. crApple and their crap can just fuck off. Fanboi's too, please just FUCK OFF.

 

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[BasilBrush]

Do you think that might have anything to do with the fact that the iPad isn't international yet?
Of course selling it to someplace that can't get it yet is going jack prices up. Those situations don't really count.

Of course it counts!!! Duh! Where the fuck do you imagine the iPads listed as sold on those international ebay sites are coming from? How many more would go that way if Apple hadn't put a limit of 2 per customer on sales?

Re:So Apple can confirm the identity of any iPad u

[Just Some Guy]

Apple can confirm the identity of any iPad user, so long as they have not purchased the device used.

A $3 pre-paid Visa says you're wrong.

Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

By law, you must accept cash money as payment. happened way back when money transitioned to be the medium of exchange; it has to be force or some would require other forms of payment and undermine the value of the currency. Others are fine, but you must allow the national currency.... Although now we have credit which is still in the currency and just moves numbers around computers... so maybe it doesn't matter anymore? (its more odd that the credit/debt is for the currency which itself IS debt and has no real backing since nixon moved us off gold and then it was representative of something real; now it only represents relative debts.)

Re:Illegal

[clone53421]

No... by law you must accept cash money as payment of a debt.

Unless the store is giving credit, no debt is generated in the transaction. Before you pay for the product, it belongs to them; after you pay, it belongs to you. There is no point during the transaction at which you could legitimately claim “this is mine now, but I still owe you the amount it cost”.

Legal tender

[Anonymous Coward]

It is well time that the government cracked down on firms which will not accept legal tender (ie, cash). Including the "handling fees" when legal tender is offered, and agents which will not allow a debt to be settled (eg, a lot of firms' shopfronts).

Re:So Apple can confirm the identity of any iPad u

[Subacultcha]

No surprise there. Since you need an iTunes account to do anything but mail and web on the iPad, they have your identity anyways. Let's not forget there's far more iPhones out there. Chances are, if you bought an iPad, Apple already knew who you were.

Apple Corporate Policy vs. Local / State Law

[lionchild]

Some states and / or cities require you to accept legal tender (cash) in order to get a business license in the city. Usually that's glossed over when you get a business license, because who wouldn't accept cash? I mean, seriously?

So, what happens when a company violates local / state law by not accepting legal tender?

funny how apple does things

[Anonymous Coward]

if apple truly had an innovative product, there would be no need to lock out foreign markets or have a per person quota on how many devices you can buy.

they know how to advertise their gear to the morons out there that don't read reviews and just take the apple cool-aid on "American Idol" iPad adds at face value.

It's sad that the American People are getting so dumb and buying into all the popular rubbish.

Crappy rehashed movies in 3D (didn't 3D rise and then fall in the 60's?),

Rehashed movies that were brilliant when first released, that now totally suck...

I don't even watch TV anymore, and see a movie 1 or two times a year if it is really good.

I read books in my spare time. So much more fulfilling than being a couch potato Steve jobs a$$ liver

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[MichaelSmith]

No. 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 are all Profit!

What's wrong with scalping?

[Pfhorrest]

Honestly, I've never seen what the problem with scalping was. I'm not a huge concert/event-goer and so never suffer the downsides of it, so maybe I'm biased (or perhaps unbiased?), but it seems like a perfectly legitimate economic practice to me.

There is a certain price point at which exactly enough people will be willing to purchase a ticket that you will just fill all the seats at the event; nobody who have would be willing to pay will go without a seat, and no seats go unfilled because not enough people are willing to pay. That is the market price, pretty much by definition: it is the equilibrium point between supply and demand, with no unfulfilled demand and no unconsumed supply. If they were to raise the price, then demand would go down, and some seats would go unfilled; which might not be a bad thing for the seller if they made enough off the extra charged to compensate for the lost sales, but the odds of that go down quickly as the charged price goes up. If they were to lower the price, then demand would increase beyond supply and some demand would go unfulfilled: some people who wanted in to the event and were willing to pay the price would not be able to purchase a ticket.

In that latter case, of tickets priced below market, a scalper can step in and buy out the supply, but then he has to sell the tickets for it to be worth it to him. So how much does he sell the tickets for? Well, if he prices them too high (specifically, above market price), then he won't sell all of them, so he doesn't want to do that. If he prices them too low (specifically, below market price), then people who otherwise would be willing to pay more to get in might not be able to get a ticket, and he will be losing potential profit, so he won't want to do that. Basically, he will be in the exact same circumstances as the original seller, and is best off selling the tickets at market price.

Understandably, the under-pricing original sellers would be upset that this guy is taking their customers' money and they're not seeing a dime of it, and I'll agree they're certainly within their rights to refuse to sell to someone (e.g. the scalper) if they want, though the scalper is completely within his rights to buy and resell whatever they will sell him at whatever prices. But the more straightforward solution is to either:

- Increase their own price to market price, at which point there is no profit for the scalper to get in on: if he buys them out and tries to resell at a higher price, he won't sell all the tickets, because the demand isn't there at that price, and so he will have useless leftovers. Or better yet,

- Increase their supply (host more or bigger events), so that they can keep their prices low and still meet the higher demand at that lower price, which will also push the scalper out of the market, by the increased supply lowering the market price to the sales price, so that once again there is no profit to be made by scalping tickets.

In Apple's case, to get back on topic, their whole problem is their own supply is restricted so they can't just 'make more' and take option #2. Option #1 got them some bad press but honestly I think that's the best approach to take. Yeah, having higher prices at launch will get fewer people jumping to buy your products right at launch, either just because of the sticker shock or because they're anticipating a price drop and don't want to get burned. But that's the point: supply is restricted, so you raise prices until demand goes down to match it. Then as supply increases, you can lower prices and let in the higher demand that you can now satisfy.

Re:What's wrong with scalping?

[penguinchris]

You make legitimate points about scalping, but read the parent's post again - the point is, the concert venue and the artist are trying to be benevolent and they want their fans to be able to go to their show. They realize charging hundreds - or thousands - of dollars as the scalpers do means that a lot of people won't be able to go, only rich people will.

From the artist's perspective, would you rather have your show packed with your greatest fans, or packed full of rich people who heard you were popular but don't really know much of the music?

Here are two anecdotes:

I grew up in Buffalo, NY and went to university in Rochester. These are more or less dying cities that not many big-name acts play in. Actually, I might say that *only* big name acts play in them, because smaller bands can't guarantee an audience. Of the big name acts, though, only a small percentage stop in Buffalo compared to those who stop in bigger cities. If you like concerts and live there, you're basically stuck driving two hours to Toronto for most things.

Imagine my surprise then when Neil Young - who I'm a huge fan of - announces a concert in Buffalo, not in the arena but in a famous small-ish theater. Ticket prices are higher than usual, but reasonable considering the more intimate venue. I'd seen him in Toronto previously in an arena and, well, arenas suck for concerts. So I'm at my computer shortly before tickets go on sale, knowing it will be tight. I'm refreshing every couple of seconds as time counts down... and then yes! Tickets are on sale! I click, click, click... nothing happens. I keep trying for ten minutes or so, never getting through, and then the tickets are all sold out.

OK, so did I just get beat by people with faster internet connections? I doubted it, I was on the university network which was usually blazing fast. Well, fuck. Check the ticket resale sites a few hours later, and there are *hundreds* of tickets (originally priced $50-100) on sale for $1000-3000. I later heard that one person I knew went, presumably by buying a $1000 ticket because he's sort of a rich douchebag.

Now, compare to another performer, Donovan. He's quite popular (though not as much as Neil Young) but apparently not a target for scalpers. I've seen him three times, once in a large-ish venue in Albany, once in a small-ish one in Buffalo, and once in a tiny cafe in NYC. Each time, the place was packed full of almost exclusively big fans (it's easy to tell this is the case in smaller venues). Perhaps this just means the demand isn't high outside of people who aren't big fans. In many ways, you're right. But the artists want as many people as possible to come, and they want people who actually like their music. The only way to achieve this is to have reasonably priced tickets, and the scalpers ruin the equation and make huge profits off of the artists while ripping off the fans - they contribute nothing and are scummy. I don't think it should be illegal - it's a legitimate free market practice - but anything artists and venues can do to limit their impact I highly welcome.

That all said, scalping electronic goods is ridiculously stupid (on the buyer's part, I mean). I definitely know the feeling of "having to have it" right away, but it will never harm you to wait a bit. Paying a slight premium (maybe 10% or less) is maybe not that outrageous if you can afford it and really want it right away, but how stupid are you going to feel if you pay twice as much as it costs at the store only to find out that the following week they're back in stock? As far as I know, ipad shortages didn't last very long and it shouldn't have been difficult to get one within the first couple of weeks. I guess something like the Wii is a little different, since it was nearly impossible to get one for a year or more after release, but even then it's not like it's anywhere near necessary to have one.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[beelsebob]

Nobody's buying an iPad for $1100. It's a joke, just idiots fishing. There are iPads on there for only slightly more than you could buy them for at the Apple store.

Actually, they are. Any developer, or just early adopter not living in the US is *desperate* to get their hands on an actual device. Many are willing to pay $1100 to do so.

Black markets hurt customers.

[MikeFM]

It might not hurt Apple but it'd hurt Apple's customers. Again the geeks don't understand a company that actually bothers to try to offer it's customers a good experience. Customers aren't going to be well served by being unable to have a fair chance to buy the product at the same price everybody else does and instead have to buy it at three times the retail price on ebay. Given that the US lacks any decent consumer protection laws it's nice that at least the manufacturer is looking out for it's customers. And what a bunch of a-holes to give the lady a free iPad to boot - how dare they make a gesture of kindness knowing full well it'd be reported in the press.

Re:So Apple can confirm the identity of any iPad u

[MikeFM]

Some retailers don't accept pre-paid cards. I haven't tried with Apple so I can't tell you if they do or not. You'll probably run into other issues if trying to buy many pre-paid Visa cards. That'd seem to be a pretty good money laundering scheme. Sounds as if they aren't controlled yet they very well may be soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored-value_card

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[noidentity]

I think of it like changes to software; if their current policies aren't generating evidence of problems, why screw around with them? The changes might make them worse and cause more problems.

Brilliant policy!

[antdah]

..which obviously worked just fine since countless people were able to go to the US and come home to Europe with dozens of these things and sell them here.

Oprah effect

[ThatsNotPudding]

Most of the time I pay little attention to Apple, so of this story, all I saw was a picture of the vindicated woman with her iPad. She was African-American. That's why they changed their policy; the head of Legal woke up drenched in a cold sweat from a nightmare of her appearing on Oprah with her sad story of implied racism, resulting in the Big O turning to the camera and saying "I'm never buying another Apple product again".

No cash WHAT?

[flibuste]

Where I come from, bank notes are emitted by the government. As such, they are what is called "legal tender" and every single merchant MUST accept payment made with legaly approved means, starting with....bank notes....

I don't even understand how it can be possible for a merchant to allow credit cards but not cash...and how this practice can be allowed...

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[Anonymous Coward]

there's no such thing as bad press

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this pattern in the last few months/years, especially as it relates to the iPhone OS devices.

1. Apple does something really dumb

2. They get bad press for it

3. A higher up at Apple goes "yeah, now that I think about it, that is really dumb"

4. Apple reverses the policy to something not dumb

It seems to me that maybe Apple should look at how they are formulating these dumb policies and see if they can get it right the first time.

Now before I get modded down by the fanbois, let me just say that I own an iMac and an iPhone and generally like Apple products. Yet I simply have to admit that it seems they've had a serious injection of dumbness of late.

You forgot #5: Upon reversing the policy, they are lauded for being "forward thinking" and "listening to their customers".