Apple Offers Refund To Stiffed Breaking Bad Season Pass Customers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Offers Refund To Stiffed Breaking Bad Season Pass Customers

Posted by timothy on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:23AM from the we're-sorry-you-caught-us dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago, a man sued Apple after finding out that the $22.99 he paid for a season pass of Breaking Bad was only good for the final season's first 8 episodes. ... In light the mix-up, Apple late on Monday began informing folks who purchased a season pass for the 5th season of Breaking Bad that they are entitled to a refund in full in the form of a $22.99 iTunes credit." "Mix-up" seems an entirely charitable description.

134 of 215 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Netflix by SimonTheSoundMan · 2013-09-24 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Whoever pays $22.99 for half a season, or any other TV show, when it is available on Netflix is beyond me. Don't get me started on bluray box sets.
1. Re:Netflix by kthreadd · 2013-09-24 02:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Some of us are not allowed to have Netflix, or some of the content on it.
2. Re:Netflix by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 02:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The last season isn't available on Netflix.
  [insert something witty for mod points]
3. Re:Netflix by Forbo · 2013-09-24 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  The content in question won't be available on Netflix for several months after the release. The reason people buy it is because they want that content available as it is released.
4. Re:Netflix by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 02:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  People who assume certain content will always be available on Netflix or that everyone has access to it, are idiots. Don't get me started on those people.
5. Re:Netflix by Serneum · 2013-09-24 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  I buy shows that I want to own because I may not always have Netflix and/or Netflix may eventually shut down.
6. Re:Netflix by roninmagus · 2013-09-24 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  This is sensible; but the reason I don't buy on iTunes or physical media is because I really don't care if it becomes unavailable. I've watched it, no point to me in watching again. My only exception at all to this rule is Office Space. :)
7. Re:Netflix by UnknowingFool · 2013-09-24 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  People who don't want to wait to whenever Netflix gets it? Netflix doesn't always get content right away after release. Apple and Amazon offered Breaking Bad episodes the week after they aired. Also once you pay for a show, it's yours to play as many times you like. Netflix rotates their content so it may not be around next year or whenever you get around to watchin it.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
8. Re:Netflix by ccguy · 2013-09-24 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Whoever pays $22.99 for half a season, or any other TV show, when it is available on Netflix is beyond me.
  What's beyond me is why AMC, HBO, etc, insist on not taking my money. It's Euros, OK, but really - they can be exchanged to USD and then used for everything. I can write a walk through should the network exec consider my proposal interesting.
9. Re:Netflix by RivenAleem · 2013-09-24 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Here in Ireland, we get the latest Breaking Bad episodes on a Monday (I watch them during my lunch break). So this is either misinformation, or just another example of stupid geo-location-shite.
10. Re:Netflix by kbonin · 2013-09-24 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  While I won't argue about the convenience of Netflix (for movies and shows that appear there, once they do do appear), since I don't spend a great deal of time watching TV, its more practical for me to take my money that would otherwise go to Cable and/or Netflix and buy movies and TV shows on DVD or BD. That way, while the fine print does state that I'm only licensed to use the "video device" for personal non-commercial private viewing, I do have a growing library of insured high quality digital copies I may watch immediately anytime I want that cannot be revoked or disappear in an annual licensing negotiation, nor count against the steadily more constrained bandwidth available in most of the US. And someday when the courts uphold that the DMCA anti-circumvention clause may no longer invalidate the "space shifting" precedent, I'll be able to legally rip it all and have a legal mobile digital library of same content. (I know, I can dream...)
11. Re:Netflix by in10se · 2013-09-24 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Half of the last season has been on Netflix for well over a month.
  
  --
  Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
12. Re:Netflix by petermgreen · 2013-09-24 04:11 · Score: 2
  
  What's beyond me is why AMC, HBO, etc, insist on not taking my money.
  AIUI when a TV show is made it is typically made for and owned by a TV network in it's home country (or sometimes for expensive shows several TV networks in different countries). That TV network (or networks) then sells the rights to it to other TV networks arround the world. The first TV network in a given region to buy it pays a premium because it's "new and exclutive". If they sell copies directly to customers in your country then they can no longer sell it to a TV network in your country as "new and exclusive". So while there is clearly a benefit from selling to you directly there is also potentially a cost.
  Not saying I support regionisation, just that I understand why it happens.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
13. Re:Netflix by ccguy · 2013-09-24 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  AIUI when a TV show is made it is typically made for and owned by a TV network in it's home country (or sometimes for expensive shows several TV networks in different countries). That TV network (or networks) then sells the rights to it to other TV networks arround the world.
  That business model makes a lot of sense if you need the local network to distribute your product.
  However technology now allows to cut the middleman. Plus I'm quite sure the Spanish networks wouldn't even blink at allowing the content provider to distribute in internet (as long as it wasn't free). They're quite clueless.
14. Re:Netflix by Aaden42 · 2013-09-24 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Given the DRM requirement still present on iTunes video, you’re no better protected against “[company] may shut down” than you are with Netflix. If Apple goes out of business & their DRM servers go down, you won’t be able to watch your content on anything but the five machines you have authorized now. And if anything changes, upgrades, or iTunes doesn’t work on Windows version [whatever], you stand to lose even those five.
15. Re:Netflix by hahn · 2013-09-24 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  >Whoever pays $22.99 for half a season, or any other TV show, when it is available on Netflix is beyond me. Don't get me started on bluray box sets.
  
  Presumably, he purchased it last year and thought it was good for the *entire* season. Then probably became upset at the start of the second half of the season when he discovered that he had to pay another $22.99. The most recent episodes of BB aren't on Netflix until several months later.
  
  I paid for both half seasons because BB is one show I don't want to wait to watch. Unlike the whiny guy who sued Apple though, I did a little math and realized that $22.99 was only getting me 8 episodes.
  
  --
  "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
16. Re:Netflix by Lumpy · 2013-09-24 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Not all of us, just the stupid ones.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
17. Re:Netflix by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2013-09-24 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Whoever pays anything for any fraction of a season, or any other TV show, when it is available on The Pirate Bay is beyond me. Don't get me started on bluray box sets.
  
  --
  WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
18. Re:Netflix by interval1066 · 2013-09-24 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Whoever pays $22.99 for half a season...
  They didn't, clearly Apple misled them, by accident or on purpose. Never the less, your point is cogent- 22.99 for even the entire 5th season is high when I can get it for considerably less than that otherwhere.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
19. Re:Netflix by PIBM · 2013-09-24 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  There are some places in the world where people chat together at lunch time, something you could have noticed if you had gotten out of your mother`s basement. It appears that in a lot of those discussions, people speak of things they recently did, watched, or such. Thus, there is a pressure from your peers to also watch the episode as they unfold or you will cause them grief if you don`t want them to talk too much about it, or you might dislike learning the punchline before seing your favorite serie.
  Oh well, I guess that`s way too deep for you. Have a nice day!
20. Re:Netflix by PIBM · 2013-09-24 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, middlemen being cut off can often fight it out. Just take a look at the recent setback suffered by Tesla; they should not even have to fight about being able to sell their product but I guess some middlemens fight harder than others!
21. Re:Netflix by khellendros1984 · 2013-09-24 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  There are ways to get around region blocking. You just have to find one that's appropriate for wherever you live.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
22. Re:Netflix by asmkm22 · 2013-09-24 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  The latest season probably won't show up on Netflix for another 8 to 12 month. If someone doesn't normally watch TV, and just wants to catch that show, it makes a lot of sense to just pay the 23$ for the latest season, rather than fork over several month's worth of cable bills at probably 50-100 a month, depending on the provider and location.
23. Re:Netflix by fahrbot-bot · 2013-09-24 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  ...when it is available on Netflix ...
  Many (most?) shows are (or the current season is) not immediately available on Netflix.
  
  Don't get me started on bluray box sets.
  Not all shows / movies are available indefinitely online and, especially if it's something one will watch more than once, some people like the permanent, high-quality, availability that physical media provides. I have box sets of Farscape, Firefly and Dead Like Me and equivalent media for a few other, now canceled, shows I enjoy. Sure, these may all be currently available on Netflix - at least as long as you subscribe - but I know my physical media will always be...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
24. Re:Netflix by fahrbot-bot · 2013-09-24 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  This is sensible; but the reason I don't buy on iTunes or physical media is because I really don't care if it becomes unavailable. I've watched it, no point to me in watching again.
  My only exception at all to this rule is Office Space. :)
  Of course, other people have other exceptions...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
25. Re:Netflix by Rockoon · 2013-09-24 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Its the same half that the iTunes folks got with their "season pass"
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
26. Re:Netflix by Obfuscant · 2013-09-24 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Oh well, I guess that`s way too deep for you. Have a nice day!
  No, many of us understand "peer pressure" but can suppress the urge to do stupid and wastefully expensive things just because the guy in the next cubicle does them.
  You mean, like, OMG, I can't waste time chatting about a ridiculous TV show with people who spend their lives living vicariously through the people they see on their idiot box? OMG. Did you see? Andy won BB! He's so rad. I want to be just like him. :-)
  HAND. HTH.
27. Re:Netflix by Maritz · 2013-09-24 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Plenty of ways around it, hola or mediahint plugins for example. I use 'em because the American netflix has a better movie selection.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
28. Re:Netflix by UnknowingFool · 2013-09-24 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  I can count on my hands how many times the DRM activation prevented me from watching anything: 0. However, there have been at least 6 shows that disappeared from Netflix before I had a chance to watch them.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
29. Re:Netflix by Delusion_ · 2013-09-24 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Countless hours? I think you grossly over-estimate the difficulty.
30. Re:Netflix by ahabswhale · 2013-09-24 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it's not like their products actually work!
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
31. Re:Netflix by ttucker · 2013-09-24 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  /. is my personal entertainment you insensitive clod!
  It is more than entertainment for me, more like the meaning in my life.
32. Re:Netflix by khellendros1984 · 2013-09-24 17:50 · Score: 2
  
  What I provided is a work-around while other people try to permanently solve the issue through other venues. Is it the optimal solution? No, but it's legal (for now), and it's a work-around for something that shouldn't be broken in the first place.
  
  I can't say that pirating media is "honorable", per se, but in a situation where there isn't a realistic way to legally get your hands on something, I don't have serious qualms with it.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
33. Re:Netflix by Blaskowicz · 2013-09-24 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah right, like maintaining terabytes for decades is that trivial and entirely free.
  I agree that optical media is mostly dying, especially DVD-R which are unreliable, uneconomical garbage. But pressed discs are cheaper and vastly more reliable than them (unless you read them over and over again and end up getting them scratched).
  Audio CDs can be pretty bad, they have no error correction, you may want to listen to some of them often thus they more often get damaged (don't tell me you watch a particular season of Breaking Bad weekly or monthly). They are really supplanted by flac, mp3 etc., and stereo 16bit, 44.1KHz or 48KHz can be stored more easily than bluray video. So sure, go file server and/or hard drives for music.
  But if you can afford bluray sets.. I don't think they're much wrong. If you're concerned with the physical space, there's the option of throwing the boxes away and putting the discs in binders. The box is worthless anyway. Now certainly, the price could drop by half or more.
34. Re:Netflix by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-09-25 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's $210 for all 5.5 seasons, not for just the last one. And it's more expensive than buying the boxed sets of the seasons one at a time, though that's in part because the first three now sell for reduced prices. And the boxed set gets you an extra documentary and some swag.
35. Re:Netflix by Obfuscant · 2013-09-25 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  There is no shame in finding something entertaining.
  Didn't say there was. Said there was shame in feeling you need to find something interesting just because the guy in the next office cubicle does. It's called "peer pressure". Look it up.
36. Re:Netflix by milkmage · 2013-09-26 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  but S5+ isn't on Netlfix yet.
37. Re:Netflix by milkmage · 2013-09-26 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  I was surprised that the UK gets BB just hours after it airs. It's not misinformation because I don't watch it on AMC - I watch the next day via iTunes - it's NOT available after it airs. you have to wait a day. (due to the time difference, I guess technically, the UK gets it the next day too - 2200 PST is 0600 GMT, right?)
  it's not geolocation shite either.
  there was an exclusive deal announced in July (before E1S6)
  http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/26/4559132/breaking-bad-netflix-uk-final-episodes-exclusive
  this might be a sign of things to come (near instant availability after the premiere - perhaps to stem piracy?)
38. Re:Netflix by RivenAleem · 2013-09-26 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  AC said it wasn't available on Netflix, and got modded +5 informative, yet I watch it on Netflix each week, so it is misinformation.
  If it is not misinformation, and is not available in the US, then it is geolocation shite.
39. Re:Netflix by milkmage · 2013-09-26 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  netflixUK != netflixUS
  others were able to determine what was happening before it happened.. this was published a week before the premiere.
  "This has led to high rates of piracy for hit US series like Game of Thrones, True Blood, and The Walking Dead. "Netflix has been instrumental in making Breaking Bad the success that it is," says Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan, echoing previous comments on the platform. "I am delighted that fans [in the UK] will be able to enjoy the end of Breaking Bad on Netflix so soon after it airs in the US."
  is theverge too US centric?
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/12/breaking_bad_tard_challenge/
  http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/new-breaking-bad-on-netflix-uk-before-lunchtime-today-50011961/
  https://www.facebook.com/NetflixUK
  misinformation is not the same as misinformed (or just unaware)
  let's turn the tables.
  I like the Sherlock reboot. If I go to BBC One and look for the schedule and find that it doesn't match the US schedule.. is this misinformation? No, because I'm smart enough to know that BBC1 doesn't give a shite about what Americans want to watch (and they shouldn't have to). For the US sched, I check my LOCAL PBS station.
40. Re:Netflix by RivenAleem · 2013-09-26 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  I you trolling me now? Which is it, "it's not geolocation shite either" or "netflixUK != netflix US" which one are you going to pick?
  AC said "it's not on Netflix"
  I say, "either you are wrong and spreading misinformation, or it's some form of geolocation shite" then you say, it's not misinformation, nor is it geolocation.
  The message is not coming across correctly here.
41. Re:Netflix by milkmage · 2013-09-26 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  I thought AC was a typo for AMC.. but you did it again - so not a typo.
  Now I see you meant Anonymous Coward.
  my mistake
That's not a refund. by Forbo · 2013-09-24 02:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.
1. Re:That's not a refund. by SimonTheSoundMan · 2013-09-24 02:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Meanwhile Apple can profit from the interest. It may be pennies on this single credit note, but increase that to tens or hundreds of thousand people and Apple are sure to profit handsomely.
2. Re:That's not a refund. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 02:37 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You guys realize Apple doesn't set prices or chose how seasons are offered for sale. They can't refund money they have already given to AMC. This is a good faith measure. Why are you complaining to apple when AMC is the reason this happened?
3. Re:That's not a refund. by msauve · 2013-09-24 02:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But (assuming the second half costs the same as the first), the net effect is that people get more than they bargained for - they have the choice between using the credit to pay for the second half season - getting exactly what they paid for, or they can chose to use it for something else.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
4. Re:That's not a refund. by wchin · 2013-09-24 02:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Bashing Apple has become a favorite past time for some people. Yes, AMC is at fault here. Apple did the right thing - I'm curious if AMC is going to reimburse Apple for the loss.
5. Re:That's not a refund. by Forbo · 2013-09-24 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's all a matter of presentation. How was it presented when it first went on sale? Did it explicitly say that you would only be getting half of the season due to AMC's restrictions? Or did it just have "ZOMG BREAKING BAD NEW SEASON BUY NAO"
6. Re:That's not a refund. by Thanshin · 2013-09-24 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  As always, that depends exclusively on the relative power of their law firms.
  And we're talking about Apple here.
7. Re:That's not a refund. by TheCarp · 2013-09-24 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  It is their walled garden, is it not? They exercise editorial control over what is or is not offered, do they not? AMC may have been the ones who tried to screw customers, but they did it through the Apple App store, which apple polices and staffs.
  It is pretty clearly apple's responsibility to step in here, a responsibility they gave themselves by the design of their store.
  If I go to your store, see signs claiming features of a product that are misleading, get the product home and find it doesn't do what is claimed, why shouldn't I take it back to your store? From my perspective I bought this product from you, in your store. I don't care who made it or who lied to you, that is your problem. I sympathise, but sympathy doesn't make it my problem. You sold a bad product its your responsibility to fix it with your customer.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
8. Re:That's not a refund. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 03:03 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Don't be so damned quick to exhonerate Apple, here. Apple was the "vendor", and they deliberately misrepresented the product they sold - period. It's entirely possible that AMC/Sony had some hand in it, however they were selling a "Season Pass" to Breaking Bad Season 5 - no strings attached. This is still "Season 5" regardless of what Apple iTunes insists it is - visit AMC's site, listen to interviews to Vince Gilligan. No one at AMC has *ever* represented the last 8 episodes as anything other than the second half of season 5. Apple is guilty (even if it is a matter of being complicit) of false advertising through manipulation of terms - in this case, selling a "Season Pass" when it only entitled the buyer to half of said season. "Season" is the key term in this whole mess, and Apple grossly abused it's meaning in this case. Yes, I purchased a "Season Pass" to Breaking Bad Season 5, it was the first (and will be only) iTunes "Season Pass" I have purchased. I purchased it last year so I could continue to follow the show while Dish Network was busy lying to it's customers over their blackout/dispute with AMC. To the fanbois who will quickly point out that $22.99 was "far below the value of comparable Season Pass cost", I'd say this: 1) this was the first (and ony) Season Pass I've ever purchased, I had nothing to compare it to, and 2) if you purchase and pay for an entire product months "in advance" of it completion, it's natural to expect some kind of break/discount on said product. In retrospect, at $2.99 an individual episode versus $22.99 for a (half) season in this case, that works out to be a whopping 3.9%/$0.93 savings. Big. Fucking. Deal. Yes, Apple "made good" on what they sold the original "Season Pass" customers - bravo. But not without a lot of screaming, frustration, and finally threats of litigation over the false advertising issue. They didn't do it because they wanted to - they did it because they had to.
9. Re:That's not a refund. by UnknowingFool · 2013-09-24 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  From what I know it was "Season 5" but the episode count was not specified. However, "Season 5" is 8 episodes everywhere including Amazon Instant and Microsoft stores as well as DVD and Bluray boxed sets.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
10. Re:That's not a refund. by UnknowingFool · 2013-09-24 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  If I go to your store, see signs claiming features of a product that are misleading, get the product home and find it doesn't do what is claimed, why shouldn't I take it back to your store? From my perspective I bought this product from you, in your store. I don't care who made it or who lied to you, that is your problem. I sympathise, but sympathy doesn't make it my problem. You sold a bad product its your responsibility to fix it with your customer.
  That really depends on who made the claims. For example in the VitaminWater lawsuit, Coca-Cola was sued because their ads and claims were misleading in that it conveyed that drinking VitaminWater provided health benefits when it does not. Now in the class action suit, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers were not named as defendants. Most likely it is because they have limited liability as all they did was resell the product.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
11. Re:That's not a refund. by gl4ss · 2013-09-24 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  sure they can. they can then send a bill to amc.
  SOMEONE fucked up in the chain to the customer. from the customers perspective it's irrelevant if it was amc, someone puts their stuff on itunes or if it was apples fault. customer bought the stuff from apple and the product description was decidedly fraudalent either by stupidity or malice. I'd go for malice because making that one season into two seasons while calling it one season pretty much is just that. if you do that then don't fucking sell season passes without calling them half season passes... doesn't america have any rules on what you can lie to customers about? yeah sure, but none of those rules seem to be enforced ever.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
12. Re:That's not a refund. by TheCarp · 2013-09-24 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sure but I would argue there is a difference between who a lawyer will decide is worth including in a lawsuit and how to handle a customer being wronged, which, one hopefully is able to resolve without lawsuits.
  Also, Just because you don't get included as a defendant doesn't mean that you couldn't have been either. Water drinks and many other mass market products are sold in mom and pop shops all over the place...adding distributors to the suit would have likely not resulted in enough gain to be worth it, especially if it complicates the case.
  In this case, there distributor is Apple, there may be others but, if there are, they can likely be counted on one hand, and all of them have the kind of money that nobody is going to feel bad about bringing a suit against them. Where a mom and pop shop may have little to squeeze out of them and even a small squeeze may shut them down, neither of those is true of the companies which distribute the show.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
13. Re:That's not a refund. by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-24 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.
  cmon man. the itunes page said what this dude was buying. he didn't read and clicked on the "BUY ME!!!" button. Apple is throwing him a bone.
  Also, everybody will get their full value back if they continue to buy on iTunes. Likely if they bought a $23 season pass they have committed to the iTunes ecosystem anyway. The only people who get pinched are those who are like screw you apple smell ya later! which is probably 1%. and if you feel so strongly, you can even use the money to gift media or apps to someone else.
  in short, problem goes away, let's move on with our lives.
14. Re:That's not a refund. by CastrTroy · 2013-09-24 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that's a problem with buying Season's passes in general though. Nobody knows how many episodes there's going to be. They could cancel the show (unlikely in this case), or there could be another writer's strike. In most cases they aren't even done writing all the episodes, let alone filming them, when you buy the season's pass. If you can't handle the thought that you might lose out on some money in the case where the show doesn't make as many episodes as you expected, you should either buy them one at a time, or wait until the season is over before paying for the whole thing.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
15. Re:That's not a refund. by UnknowingFool · 2013-09-24 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Sure but I would argue there is a difference between who a lawyer will decide is worth including in a lawsuit and how to handle a customer being wronged, which, one hopefully is able to resolve without lawsuits.
  I would argue that a lawyer knows the difference between legally who can be held responsible and who the customer feels is responsible. Really, you can name anyone as a defendant; those defendants that the courts recognize as not legally responsible will petition the court to have themselves removed from the suit.
  As for mom and pop, Walmart and Target could have been named as they have money and are worth suing, But in the end, their cases will likely be dismissed.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
16. Re:That's not a refund. by tlhIngan · 2013-09-24 04:21 · Score: 2
  
  Bashing Apple has become a favorite past time for some people. Yes, AMC is at fault here. Apple did the right thing - I'm curious if AMC is going to reimburse Apple for the loss.
  Probably not. But Apple did it because you don't save much - it's what, $3 per episode? And the full "season" (as defined by AMC) is $24? So you're saving a whopping... $1?
  I think in light of that, Apple decided it was stupid and let them have the full season for $23 (saving $25) versus charging it twice for a full whopping savings of $1 each.
  AMC gets 70% of those values given general Apple standard contracts... and I think Apple can eat the "loss" of that money from AMC.
  It's iTunes credit, after all. $23 means Apple pays out 70% of that to someone.
17. Re:That's not a refund. by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-24 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  In the EU the vendor is responsible, so even if Apple can't get the money back from AMC they still have to refund the customer and take the hit. If AMC refuses to refund Apple they should refuse to take any more AMC products or risk being burned in the same way again. Basically, EU laws looks out for the customer.
  Is US law different?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
18. Re:That's not a refund. by tlhIngan · 2013-09-24 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  It is their walled garden, is it not? They exercise editorial control over what is or is not offered, do they not? AMC may have been the ones who tried to screw customers, but they did it through the Apple App store, which apple polices and staffs.
  Only on the App Store, not to be confused with the iBookstore, Music Store, and Movie & TV store.
  Apple exercises less control on the latter stores as the publishers are the ones who do it and it makes very little sense for Apple to go about reviewing every new music track, movie, and TV show for content purposes as you expect it to be the same as what Amazon and everyone else has.
  From time to time Apple may ban a whole category, but that's generally the whole category and not individual shows. For the iBookstore, Apple does also exercise some control for self-published works, less so from content from other publishers.
  It's a horrendous mishmash, but in general, only App Store apps are subject to editorial control because only those are walled gardens. Music, TV shows, books, movies, they're all "sideloadable" and generally users expect them to be the same as what you get in the store.
  I don't think Apple even does a Wal-Mart and actually force artists to remaster explicit tracks to not be explicit.
19. Re:That's not a refund. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · 2013-09-24 04:56 · Score: 2
  
  It was only TFA that called it a refund. What Apple actually said was "we're giving you the 'The Final Season' for free. Here is a credit to buy that season with, or if you'd like, buy anything else for that amount."
  
  --
  -- Don't Tase me, bro!
20. Re:That's not a refund. by asmkm22 · 2013-09-24 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  That's like saying Walmat can't offer a refund on a product that breaks since they've already paid the manufacturer. The whole point of a refund, from a business perspective, is to keep the customer happy and retain their long-term business, at the business's short-term expense. Sometimes it's a transparent process where the manufacturer steps in and honors it, resulting in nothing more than labor expenses for the company. Other times, they just eat the cost and move on knowing they may get some word of mouth support out of it.
  Apple could have offered actual refunds. It would have even cost them money to do so, through charge-back fee's and such. But that's their own fault, because they apparently decided not to mention that a "season pass" doesn't include the whole season.
  I'll be surprised if someone doesn't decide to reject their offer and start a class-action suite over this.
21. Re:That's not a refund. by TheCarp · 2013-09-24 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  > I would argue that a lawyer knows the difference between legally who can be held responsible
  > and who the customer feels is responsible
  But I would argue there is another category of potentially responsible but not worth it due to what evidence would be needed or the likelyhood of winning anything substantial vs the risk of doing the work and then having them removed as a defendant.
  An example of this, I had a pretty solid case, and could have gotten gobs of evidence against a former roomate of mine who skipped town owing me a few grand. I wasn't even the only one, someone he screwed even worst than me (well for more money anyway, they were a landlord with multiple units and took almost a year to even notice he was bouncing checks every month... I was just scraping by in an entry level job, so judge how you will on that) told me she talked to a lawyer about it (as did I actually) and was told the same thing I was: Yes he can be sued, yes we would be likely to win, no, we would be unlikely to show that he had any assets and no we would be unlikely to ever see a dime.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
22. Re:That's not a refund. by ObiWanKenblowme · 2013-09-24 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  If there were rules on how many episodes constituted a "season", you might have had a valid point. Unfortunately for you and the validity of your rant, it varies from show to show, and even season to season.
  
  --
  Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
23. Re:That's not a refund. by HiThere · 2013-09-24 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is the vendor, so Apple is responsible. That said, I think that "mixup" is a reasonable term from Apple's point of view.
  OTOH, if I'd forked over $30, and then been left at a cliff-hanger, I don't think I'd be remotely satisfied with "OK, we'll let you try this again with a different show".
  IOW, I don't think that Apple is being malicious here, rather the producer (AMC?). But I also don't feel that the proposed restitution is sufficient. And I don't feel that Apple is living up to their responsibilities as a vendor.
  Fortunately, I'm a bystander. After I read the EULA that they attached to a security upgrade a bit over a decade ago I stopped buying or using Apple products. (I'd stopped buying or using MS a few years earlier over the instalation EULA.)
  The terms I'll put up with on entertainment are quite different from the terms that I'll put up with on tools.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
24. Re:That's not a refund. by nine-times · 2013-09-24 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Call it what you will, but it's a sensible solution.
  In case you don't quite get the backstory, AMC created season 5 part 1 and sold it through Apple under the name 'Season 5'. Then they released season 5 part 2, and started selling that independently. A bunch of people who bought the item labelled 'Season 5', said, "Whoa, I already bought season 5. Why do I have to buy the second half of season 5 when I already bought the whole thing?"
  So essentially Apple is providing enough in-store credit so that, if you bought the first half, you can now get the second half for free. Giving an actual refund is problematic. Beyond the fact that businesses would rather provide store credit than a refund, it's a pain to deal with all the different possible cases. You have people who bought both the first half of the season and the second half, and you could give them a refund. But then what about people who have bought the first half of the season, but hadn't bought the second half. It doesn't really make sense to provide *them* with a refund, because they thought they already got the first half. If they didn't buy the second half of the season, then you're just giving them the first half for free. What would make sense is to buy them the second half of the season, and attach it to their account.
  But then, what if someone got fed up and bough the second half on Amazon or some other service? What if they decided they don't like the show, and they don't want the second half? What if there's some other scenario that I'm not thinking of?
  So the best thing to do is to give store credit. If they want to buy the second half, then they can buy it with the credit. If they have already bought it, or if they don't want to buy the second half for some reason, they get an equivalent credit to do with as they please, but they aren't permitted a refund on the purchase of the first half of the series.
25. Re:That's not a refund. by Blaskowicz · 2013-09-24 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Worse : it's modded "overrated" as the only mod, meaning it's unjustified by admission of the moderator and it is clearly abusive. Now let's hope someone who reads at -1 and has mod points will clean this up or that it will be meta-modded accordingly.
26. Re:That's not a refund. by fuzznutz · 2013-09-25 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's nice to see that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that your position is wrong, you still cling to it and stand alone. Even recalcitrant Apple wised up under the treat of a lawsuit.
27. Re:That's not a refund. by pagley · 2013-09-25 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  This may be asking for too much, but I'll try to use smaller words here so that you might actually be able to comprehend the issue at hand.
  It matters not what the price is, or what the product is called. The issue is with false/misleading representation of what the offered product consisted of.
  Apple iTunes initially offered for sale a "Season Pass" of Breaking Bad Season 5. No disclaimer was made within the iTunes Store at the time of purchase stating that it included only episodes 1 through 8, or that it was a "half season", or that the other half of the season was going to be offered up separately as "Season 6" or "The Final Season". Further, no indication of that information was present on the receipt from iTunes.
  So it comes down to being a false/misleading advertising through the manipulation of terms - specifically the term "season".
  From laws-dot-com, we have "Advertising law also recognizes the manipulation of standards as a deception under consumer law. This means that a company will begin to change something, such as a unit of measurement, to mean something different from how it is normally understood. This will allow companies to charge more for their services, but is a violation of rights according to consumer law." In this specific case, the "unit of measurement" being manipulated is the length of a TV season.
  Based on both of those commonly held interpretations, the issue is with what exactly comprises a television "season". And, fortunately that much is an immutable fact - by AMC's own publicized information, Breaking Bad Season 5 consists of 16 episodes.
  As to who's responsible for resolving the debacle, that too is clear. The customer purchases the content from Apple iTunes, not from AMC or Sony Entertainment. The money goes to Apple first, who takes their cut and then disburses the remainder. There is no legal recourse or remedy to be had from any other party than Apple here, contrary to what all of the fanboi shills want to proclaim at the top of their lungs.
  iTunes is Apple's content "walled garden", so by design they accept responsibility for the good and the bad that comes of it. If AMC/Sony chose or directed iTunes to represent the first eight episodes as "season 5", and the last eight episodes as something else - that's Apple's problem to resolve with both the content provider, and their customers. How Apple resolves it with AMC/Sony is a separate matter completely.
  This was a case of false/deceptive advertising, plain and simple. And, that is also exactly why Apple did what it did.
  Fanboi? Unclear. Obtuse? Apparently.
28. Re:That's not a refund. by pagley · 2013-09-25 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, a cogent argument seems to be the antithesis of your rebuttal(s).
  In an attempt to coax you into offering up a meaningful, cogent counter-argument of your own, I would ask you one simple question:
  Why did Apple offer up a $22.99 "refund" to all Breaking Bad Season 5 HD "Season Pass" customers when you, in your own incredibly educated opinion, loudly proclaim to have had absolutely no reason to do so?
  Normally, I'd be glad to debate your chemical-free toilet paper example with you. But, I'm afraid I currently have no faith that you're capable of discussing it intelligently, and your counter would reek more than your example product once used.
  When you finish high school and are hopefully able to use several multi-syllable words together to form a coherent counter argument, please reply. Until then, please go back to Facebook and playing Candy Crush Saga on your Android phone.
29. Re:That's not a refund. by UnknowingFool · 2013-09-27 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  True but in the Coca-Cola case Walmart and Targets have huge assets. However my point is that they can't control what the manufacturer claims. Coca-Cola can say VitaminWater cures cancer today on their website and if a consumer buys one from Walmart yesterday, can they win anything? At most Walmart might remove the product from their store shelves if they feel Coca-Cola is being dishonest.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
30. Re:That's not a refund. by UnknowingFool · 2013-10-01 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously all you have to do is use this thing called the Google that proves you wrong. Breaking Bad Season 5 is 8 episodes everywhere from Best Buy to Walmart to Amazon. What's it like to deny facts in your world?
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
31. Re:That's not a refund. by fuzznutz · 2013-10-02 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, I could give a shit what Best Buy, Amazon and Walmart say. They are all third parties and irrelevant to the issue at hand. The ONLY parties that matter are AMC and Apple. AMC and the Breaking Bad producers agree that season 5 has 16 episodes. A simple visit to the AMC website confirms this. Or you can Google numerous articles interviewing the producers.
  
  You seem to be operating under the delusion that because others sell in a particular format, Apple is legally or honor bound to follow suit. This is not the case. Apple sold an iTunes SEASON pass, not a Amazon collection nor a Best Buy boxed set. And as I noted, Apple's backpedaling demonstrates that they realize that they did not deliver what they sold. Your attempts to muddy the water with what other retailers do is meaningless.
32. Re:That's not a refund. by UnknowingFool · 2013-10-02 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, I could give a shit what Best Buy, Amazon and Walmart say. They are all third parties and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
  And Apple isn't? What world do you live in? Apple has no stake or ownership in AMC. They don't make the boxed sets or distribute it digitally to Amazon, Walmart, or Microsoft. Apple is a reseller just like everyone else. Please look up what that means.
  
  The ONLY parties that matter are AMC and Apple. AMC and the Breaking Bad producers agree that season 5 has 16 episodes.
  So AMC can never lie to the consumer? What is more logical here: Everywhere in the world in physical and digital media: BB Season 5 is 8 episodes. So then only Apple is being deceptive and changing everyone's store. Or is AMC being deceptive. Please use some common sense and logic.
  
  A simple visit to the AMC website confirms this. Or you can Google numerous articles interviewing the producers.
  Premise: AMC is being entirely truthful always yet Apple violated their copyright by chopping a season in half and AMC didn't sue. Contradiction: Everywhere they sell it as 8 episodes in digital and physical formats. Everyone is lying and AMC the copyright owner is powerless to stop it . OR AMC is lying. You seem unwilling to accept that AMC has lied.
  
  You seem to be operating under the delusion that because others sell in a particular format, Apple is legally or honor bound to follow suit.
  You seem not to understand basic copyright law. AMC holds all the copyrights and therefore controls distribution and things like DRM. AMC is selling it as 8 episodes to everyone and lying about. They could have sold it as 4 seasons of 4 episodes each. Apple (nor anyone) can tell AMC what to do with their shows.
  
  This is not the case. Apple sold an iTunes SEASON pass,
  
  And Apple delivered a season as AMC defined it. Again you seem unwilling that AMC is telling fans one thing then doing the opposite. There is abundant evidence everywhere that this is the case.
  
  And as I noted, Apple's backpedaling demonstrates that they realize that they did not deliver what they sold.
  Or that want to keep a customer happy. Maybe Apple would rather just eat the cost rather than deal with the headache. I've had to go to the Apple store multiple times for my parents. Many times they've replaced out-of-warranty items for free even I told them it was out of warranty.
  
  Your attempts to muddy the water with what other retailers do is meaningless.
  Your attempts to deny basic facts and logic shows your bias. You're just a denier.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
credit by schneidafunk · 2013-09-24 02:29 · Score: 1

I don't really count a credit as a full refund. They still keep my money. But I guess you can use your credit to buy the second half of the season, so they delivered the promised goods.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Stupid by Thanshin · 2013-09-24 02:30 · Score: 1

I really thought by this time they'd have hired someone whose only task was to stop everybody else in the corporation to piss off large sections of the customers.
Taking into account we are paying because we believe we should, while having the alternative to simply stop paying and watch everything on torrents.
They're a beggar spitting to the people who give him money.
Should not be a refund by Russ1642 · 2013-09-24 02:30 · Score: 1

Instead, give them what they paid for.
Re:Well done by Threni · 2013-09-24 02:40 · Score: 1

Yes, the bitter, bitter price of keeping everyone's money, and yet calling it a `refund` for someone else's mistake.
Re:Well done by kthreadd · 2013-09-24 02:41 · Score: 1

Not that impressed anymore after reading TFA. I guess it's at least better than doing nothing.
Re:Well done by kthreadd · 2013-09-24 02:42 · Score: 1

Mmm, agree. It looked better at first glance.
Re:Logical by Thanshin · 2013-09-24 02:42 · Score: 2

Do you think Apple signs contracts for "one season" without specifying exactly how many chapters of how many minutes?
Working in IT, I always assume every other corporation does things at least not worse than us. Not the opposite.
Season 5 versus Series 5. by goombah99 · 2013-09-24 02:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.
Well, on the other hand, the viewer already watched half the season. It's not like the season was a stale donut to be sent back. What the viewer got was good. Just half of what he expected.
I find the whole proposition dubious, and therefore apple is being quite generous. Not only that they aren't putting up much of a fight which is what makes it even more sincere. The customer is always right is an ideal that, when you can pull it off, makes for a good premium bussiness model. Discounters can't pull that off. So it distinguishes apple.
Personally, if it were my decision I'd fight with this customer. A season is a 1/4 trip around the sun. He got all the episodes available in that season. What he thought he was buying was Series 5 not season 5. Like how the british TV is named. If AMC had simply named them properly, Season 5 and seasons 6 or series 5 and series 6, rather than calling both season 5 there would be no ambiguity at all.
Apple is caving here not because they have to but because thats how they roll. Apples knows it's customers are loyal and they know that Apple limits their risks (which is a good reason to buy apple if your time has any value). So they look for ways to set themselves apart in that niche
If they are lucky this will turn up the heat on Amazon. Amazon probably has a lot more financial exposure to this. Will people make the demand to amazon now?

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. by msauve · 2013-09-24 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  "What he thought he was buying was Series 5 not season 5."
  
  Nope. The source, AMC, refers to them as "seasons." A "series" is all the seasons. Your attempt to be pedantic fails.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
2. Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. by Missing.Matter · 2013-09-24 02:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A season is a 1/4 trip around the sun. He got all the episodes available in that season. What he thought he was buying was Series 5 not season 5. Like how the british TV is named. If AMC had simply named them properly, Season 5 and seasons 6 or series 5 and series 6, rather than calling both season 5 there would be no ambiguity at all.
  And if I were your customer and you said this to me, I wouldn't be your customer any longer. AMC has broken seasons in half before. With the Walking Dead seasons 2 and 3, they broke the season in two, with the first half airing Oct - Nov, and the second half airing Feb - March. If you bought the "season" pass in Oct, you got the episodes airing in March without having to pay again. Thus, anyone buying a season pass to Breaking Bad season 5 had every expectation that they would get the first half and second half, since the are all part of the same season. From the start, it was announced that Season 5 would be the last. Now all of a sudden they want to charge for a Season "6" or "5.5" to capitalize on the popularity of the show? Sorry, but customers see this bullshit money grab for what it is from a mile away. I for one bought season passes to Walking Dead and Breaking Bad for 8 total seasons. I won't be buying any more.
3. Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. by xerandin · 2013-09-24 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and we're not in the British market. We're in the US market. In the context of TV shows in the US, a season is a season. A whole season, jackass. Why you are vouching for Apple is beyond me, they pay asshole lawyers for that.
4. Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-24 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.
  Well, on the other hand, the viewer already watched half the season. It's not like the season was a stale donut to be sent back. What the viewer got was good. Just half of what he expected.
  that's a fun idea. imagine the offer that you could get your cash back if you returned your memories of the episodes and did something negative to negate the enjoyment you got out of them. more realistically, you could cash in only on episodes that were unwatched. unrealistic, but fun to think about.
5. Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. by Antipater · 2013-09-24 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, not really. GGP was trying to redefine things into British terminology, which AMC does not do and (to my knowledge) has never done. A season, in TV terminology, has nothing to do with 1/4 of Earth's orbit. It was an attempt to be pedantic and GP was justified in calling it out.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
6. Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2013-09-24 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Let's not also forget that Season 6 will no doubt cost something similar, from iTunes. Apple has essentially given him the full two seasons, plus extra flexibility. So what if it doesn't cost Apple anything except opportunity costs? Apple's just delivering more than what the guy originally wanted.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
7. Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-24 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, on the other hand, the viewer already watched half the season. It's not like the season was a stale donut to be sent back. What the viewer got was good. Just half of what he expected.
  The season pass isn't a product, it's a service. You buy a contract to deliver the episodes in digital format, with DRM to enforce Apple's terms and conditions. Read the EULA, it's right there. Therefore your comparison is flawed.
  This is more like breech of contract, and the legal remedy is usually whatever it costs to make things as if the contract had been fulfilled. If someone builds you half a house you can sue them for the cost of finishing the house. If someone delivers you half a season you can sue them for the cost of the remaining episodes.
  
  The customer is always right is an ideal that, when you can pull it off, makes for a good premium bussiness model. Discounters can't pull that off. So it distinguishes apple.
  Lots of Chinese discounters do it. If there is a problem they give you a full refund, no need to return the broken item. eBay forced them to, but still, clearly they can make a profit without charging a premium for service.
  
  A season is a 1/4 trip around the sun.
  Any judge would laugh that argument out of court.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. by ahabswhale · 2013-09-24 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's AMC's decision as to how their offerings are packaged and priced on iTunes. Apple really has nothing to do with it and they are going way beyond what they need to do to try and make up for AMC's fuck-up.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
9. Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. by unicorn · 2013-09-25 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  A season is a 1/4 trip around the sun. He got all the episodes available in that season. What he thought he was buying was Series 5 not season 5. Like how the british TV is named.
  When they started "season 5" they said it was going to be in 2 halves, they've always referred to the last 8 episodes as being part of Season 5. So if someone bought a "season pass" for 5, they should have expected to get ALL of season 5.
  At least people that bought the DVD/BluRay from Amazon could see exactly what they were getting, when they ordered the "season 5" disc. It clearly didn't have the second half of season 5 included.
  
  --
  "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Not only that by justthinkit · 2013-09-24 02:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

Not only that. Apple is still breaking their contract. They agreed to provide a full season for a fixed price. That should be in their new offer -- everyone who signed up gets the full season for $22.99.
.
The way this is being "resolved" is they jack up the price to everyone. No different than the original offer.
The class action lawsuit should continue...

--
I come here for the love
1. Re:Not only that by noh8rz10 · 2013-09-24 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  actually, this could have been a reasonable plan as well. everybody who bought season 5.1 gets 5.2 for free. I wonder how much that would have cost?
2. Re:Not only that by justthinkit · 2013-09-24 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Enough that Apple didn't volunteer to do it. They are trying to double up -- "pay us $22.99 + 22.99 for something you and we agreed you only had to pay $22.99 for." Classic lawsuit stuff.
  
  --
  I come here for the love
Great going apple. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 02:43 · Score: 1

For the people even complaining now:
It's not a refund, it's something else.
Apple gives you enough credit to buy the remaining 8 episodes while you get to keep the first 8, so in the end you get what was advertised for $22.99.
People should read the darn article.
Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the costs by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2013-09-24 02:43 · Score: 5, Informative

Apple wasn't responsible for this clusterfuck. It was Sony Pictures TV and AMC.
AMC decided to split Season 5 into 2 halves, to extend Emmy eligibility for another year. But Sony insisted on referring to the 2 years as Season 5A and Season 5B, because that would allow them to get around having to give the actors and production staff the contractually mandated pay increase for each new season.
So we have 2 separate definitions for what constitutes a "season", depending on what provides the corporate interests the maximum benefit. They figured that they will make more money separating the DVD sets into 2 releases, so that's what they did.
Somebody really needs to go all Heisenberg on their asses....

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Breaking Bad by paxprobellum · 2013-09-24 02:44 · Score: 1

This is basically Breaking Bad's fault for sucking at numbering their series.
Because it's worth it so have it now by goombah99 · 2013-09-24 02:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Whoever pays $22.99 for half a season, or any other TV show, when it is available on Netflix is beyond me. Don't get me started on bluray box sets.
With most movies I have no problem waiting for them to come out on DVD. But somethings are just so good you want to see them now. One of the things about a series is that it's immersive and lasts a long time. You enjoy talking to your friends about it while the thoughts are fresh and the possibilities in the next show have your mind alive. You want to talk about it now not in hindsight. that's the thrill. Look at all the discussion sites for breaking bad.
Since it's currently the best and most engaging drama on TV, this of all examples is a case where you should understand why anyone would want to pay $22.
Also Dumbledor dies at the end of harry potter. The cake is a lie. Walter poisons Todd's Tea with ricin.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:Because it's worth it so have it now by Enry · 2013-09-24 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Lydia's tea.
2. Re:Because it's worth it so have it now by Stele · 2013-09-24 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  His own tea.
3. Re:Because it's worth it so have it now by fahrbot-bot · 2013-09-24 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Also Dumbledor dies at the end of harry potter. The cake is a lie. Walter poisons Todd's Tea with ricin.
  Dr. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) has been dead throughout the whole movie and Soylent Green is people.
  [ Too soon for these spoilers? :-) ]
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
4. Re:Because it's worth it so have it now by bennomatic · 2013-09-24 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  And Darth Vader is Luke's father.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
5. Re:Because it's worth it so have it now by Noughmad · 2013-09-24 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  He spent the last few years building up an immunity to ricin.
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
6. Re:Because it's worth it so have it now by Noughmad · 2013-09-24 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ender's game isn't.
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
7. Re:Because it's worth it so have it now by Wintermute__ · 2013-09-24 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Inconceivable!
8. Re:Because it's worth it so have it now by bemymonkey · 2013-09-24 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  His meth and all the tea. Like Aaron Paul says: "Everybody dies."
It's better than a refund by goombah99 · 2013-09-24 02:56 · Score: 1

That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.
Dude, they can use the refund to buy the rest of the season. That's all they wanted in the first place. So the refund is actually a better deal than they originally thought they were buying. They DID want to buy the whole season.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:It's better than a refund by Charliemopps · 2013-09-24 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but perhaps not from Apple any longer.
2. Re:It's better than a refund by kommakazi · 2013-09-24 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  This x1000000 Speaking of M$, same as Amazon and Google Play, if you bought the season pass on your Xbox guess what the same thing happened. Except you're still SOL.
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2013-09-24 02:57 · Score: 1

AMC just announced that they are pulling this same crap with Mad Men next year, as well....

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by UnknowingFool · 2013-09-24 02:58 · Score: 1

AMC decided to split Season 5 into 2 halves, to extend Emmy eligibility for another year. But Sony insisted on referring to the 2 years as Season 5A and Season 5B, because that would allow them to get around having to give the actors and production staff the contractually mandated pay increase for each new season.
Also another reason was probably sales/rentals of the discs. Had they waited until the end of the 16 episodes, the DVD and Blu-ray discs would have been delayed more than 18 months after Episode 1 aired. That would be a lot of sales that they missed.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by Hatta · 2013-09-24 02:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Somebody really needs to go all Heisenberg on their asses....
I'm uncertain what you mean by that.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Doctor Who by UnknowingFool · 2013-09-24 03:00 · Score: 1

For season 7, didn't BBC label the split season, Parts 1 and 2. Their is less confusion there on what the customer thought they were getting.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by l0ungeb0y · 2013-09-24 03:09 · Score: 1

If you ever watched Breaking Bad you'd know "Going Heisenberg" involves copious amounts of corrosive liquid and a special type of plastic container.
Lesson learned by mybecq · 2013-09-24 03:11 · Score: 2

Don't be surprised if, over the next year, Apple makes them start including the number of episodes or the length of the season for these passes. They don't get burned twice.
1. Re:Lesson learned by rhsanborn · 2013-09-24 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the producers actually have an interface to upload this content. So, this is really a publisher/producer issue. I strongly suspect Apple didn't do this alone, or with all their own money. AMC was looking at a class action, and I think they would have lost. Now, we'll see if Amazon follows suit.
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2013-09-24 03:13 · Score: 2

They are adding one additional episode to split the season into 2 runs of 7 episodes each. But unlike Breaking Bad, all the episodes will be filmed in one run, with AMC sitting on the last 7 for a year before airing them.
Breaking Bad originally was slated for 13 episodes in the final season, but was granted 3 additional episodes at the time the split was decided on. They were filmed over 2 years, though.

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-24 03:14 · Score: 1

With all the corporate bullshit that Futurama had to go through since it started, I'm just glad it's still here.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2013-09-24 03:15 · Score: 1

If you paid attention in physics class, you would get the connection between "Heisenberg" and uncertainty...

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Re:Doctor Who by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-24 03:17 · Score: 1

Oh, they will raise a stink alright, but only in three years. The problem is that the events happened twenty two years ago when iTunes didn't even exist. The court threw the whole case away. That's the kind of mess you have to endure when you're a fan of Time Lords.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by MatthiasF · 2013-09-24 03:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Somebody really needs to go all Heisenberg on their asses....
What does that mean? Do I kick their asses or don't I? Have I kicked their ass already? I have no idea.

Oh, screw it. I'm going Oppenheimer on their asses instead.
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by omnichad · 2013-09-24 03:28 · Score: 1

If by still here, you mean until 20 days ago, then sure. The (probably) final finale aired on September 4. Well - and there will also be a crossover episodes in The Simpsons season 25.
Much ado about... by Jawnn · 2013-09-24 03:41 · Score: 1

...nothing of importance. Yes, a big corporation forced to give lots of $23 refunds is "news" (sort of), but that a teevee show generates this much buzz of any kind is, well, sad. Then again, this whole thing is dwarfed weekly by "Dancing With the Stars" and similar fake reality shows...
This is stupid by kb7oeb · 2013-09-24 03:57 · Score: 1

I'm surprised Apple caved on this one, I don't think they were in the wrong. $22.99 / 8 is about $2.87 per episode. That is pretty much the going rate. On Amazon a season pass just buys each episode as they are released. The price is the same as everywhere else but I think its more clear. The plus to amazon is if the season you subscribed to starts to suck you can just cancel the season pass and cut your losses.
Have you actually watched thuis show? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2013-09-24 04:05 · Score: 1

It is one of the exceedingly rare things on TV that actually deserves the hype that it generates.
Equal parts riveting drama, tense action, and Shakespearean tragedy, with just enough black comedy to keep viewers sane. Quite possibly the greatest show in the history of the medium. No exaggeration.
Will be really hard to see it gone after this Sunday's finale, but kudos to the writers and actors for going out at the top of their game, rather than milking a great show into mediocrity ala M*A*S*H*.

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Preemptive Credit by Rabbitt · 2013-09-24 04:19 · Score: 1

Apparently Apple knew that I was /planning/ to get the current season of Breaking Bad (I hadn't yet purchased the season pass) and so gave me a credit for the season anyway. Did anyone else get a preemptive credit ?

--
Carl P. Corliss
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by Lumpy · 2013-09-24 04:45 · Score: 1

It's all greed.
It's why I have no qualms in having my MythTV box at a friends house recording it for me and I get the files sent ot me via dropbox automatically.
Screw them. I give my buddy $10 a month for the box to sit there on his CATV and power.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by Blue+Stone · 2013-09-24 05:36 · Score: 1

Nope. Season 5 wasn't going to be the last seasion. They didn't give you an extra 3 episodes, they robbed you of 10 episodes of the blue stuff. They royally screwed up the negotiations with Gilligan.
You can really tell in the last few episodes just how much they're having to pack in, with little breathing room.
AMC are pissing in your pocket and telling you it's raining.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2013-09-24 05:48 · Score: 1

Vince Gilligan himself thought that 4 seasons would be enough to tell the story he wanted to tell, as late as 2010:
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/interview-breaking-bad-creator-vince-gilligan-post-mortems-season-three
Every interview I have seen with him since the show started said that the show by its very nature (terminal cancer) was going to be kind of self-limiting as far as length of run. Do you have a source where he says that there were ever plans for a full-length season 6?

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Blame AMC by Fieryphoenix · 2013-09-24 07:01 · Score: 1

It was their decision to redefine "season" that led to the confusion. In reality, they tried to get advertising spread over two years by offering shorter seasons.
This isn't news, by kommakazi · 2013-09-24 08:54 · Score: 1

Apple didn't set up the season like that. End of story. AMC / Sony did. End of Story. Apple is being the good guy here and refunding people to maintain customer loyalty in a situation where the content publisher made them look bad. I'll bet any money Apple will make content publishers have to provide more clear definitions of what is being purchased with season passes in the future.
Hate to defend Apple and point out the obvious... by Delusion_ · 2013-09-24 11:05 · Score: 1

...but Breaking Bad's "season break" was 11 months. I don't see how it was at all unreasonable for Apple to be given the benefit of the doubt for treating this like a new season. Because, effectively, it was. It's not like Apple reset the toll between two episodes a couple of weeks apart or anything.
This was a lack of attention on Apple's part, but let's be honest here and call this a stupid marketing stunt on behalf of AMC, too.
Meet the Anonymous Ignoramus by kommakazi · 2013-09-24 11:24 · Score: 1

Except that Apple didn't decide to charge for the second half of the season separately, that was entirely on AMC. Guess what, if you bought season 5 of B.B. on Google Play, Amazon, or your Xbox, you only got the first half as well. Because AMC decides what is sold. Only difference is if you bought it via any of these other sources, you're still shit out of luck and will have to pay out of pocket to get the second half. Apple is trying to be the good guy here, giving its customers what they originally thought they were purchasing despite AMC's alternative motives to milk as much money out of the final B.B. Season as possible. I know that's hard for you to wrap your Feeble Apple-Hating Mind® around, but it's the simple truth of this specific matter. Now fuck off.