1) Thanks for sharing your 'belief' without any verifiable facts included...
2) The records are clearly more then matching a model to a serial number. Apple matched a consumers name, date of purchase, and model to a serial number. That's the minimum that we know.
3) It's a sad day when fact is regarded as trolling while beliefs are passed off as truth.
There is no mystery or ill intent on Apple's part in regard to why they have the data they do on individual products. The simple truth is that when any consumer purchases an Apple product, iPods in this case, if they connect them to a computer and iTunes, then they're automatically registering them with Apple, associated with whatever iTunes account the person has.
And for those questioning why they would keep that info for so long, I would question why would they ever delete data as long as the iTunes account remains active?
iTunes has been such a game changer for Apple, connecting their customers to a system that no other manufacturer has been able to duplicate. It's that connection of both digital and hard products that makes Apple able to pull data like this. They don't need to monetize the data by selling it and they would be foolish to share or sell that data to anyone else as it's what they have that no one else does.
1) Thanks for sharing your 'belief' without any verifiable facts included...
2) The records are clearly more then matching a model to a serial number. Apple matched a consumers name, date of purchase, and model to a serial number. That's the minimum that we know.
3) It's a sad day when fact is regarded as trolling while beliefs are passed off as truth.
You seem to be criticizing for posting "beliefs", while you seem to feel you have more knowledge that Apple does, when you say records should be kept as long as the law requires, and not a day longer. That statement is purely subjective, only your belief, and has no basis in the real world. Storing data today is not a major financial burden in any way on Apple. You sound, and no offense, like my grandpa who had to keep records of the major corp he was treasurer for, by hand. Sorry, not the way it works.
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
Uh, they have digital records for all their current operations, what's a few more hard drives for data storage? As mentioned by another poster, they would be required to keep relevant information during legal action anyway.
IT is a big cost for their corporate infrastructure anyway, so can you shed some relevant information on why Apple, storing digital records for a long time, would constitute "significant cost" compared to their regular data storage operations for their day to day operations? They are spending millions and millions anyway on IT.
"Virtually no cost" is a very good description of the financial impact for them to store data in the grand scheme of things I would say.
1) Thanks for sharing your 'belief' without any verifiable facts included...
2) The records are clearly more then matching a model to a serial number. Apple matched a consumers name, date of purchase, and model to a serial number. That's the minimum that we know.
3) It's a sad day when fact is regarded as trolling while beliefs are passed off as truth.
That's because Apple keeps a record of when any of their products that comes with a warranty are sold. In CA, one does not have to fill out and send in a registration card in order to get the warranty. They just need to keep a copy of the receipt. And even then, if they lose the receipt, they can still verify with Apple as to when they purchased the item. Therefore, Apple must keep a record of the date it was sold to know if it's still under warranty when it needs repair.
The person name only appears with the sold product if the buyer registered it under his/her name or paid with a credit card. If the buyer paid cash and never registered it, Apple would not know who bought the product, just when and where it was originally sold. Plus Apple might only know the name of the original purchaser. If the original buyer gave it as a gift and the new owner registered it under his/her name. Apple will have no record of that person actually buying the product. But Apple will still know at the minium, when and where it was sold, by using the serial number, and will honor any warranty.
Apple is not doing anything more than what any other company that must keep records of sales for warranty purpose. Some warranties are more than 1 year and may have a lifetime warranty on certain parts. Some warranties only apply to the original buyer and are not transferable. So companies must keep records to protect themselves from consumers who may try to get repairs under warranty when it no longer applies. Not all companies operate like Google.
That's pretty funny. It's normally not a great idea to keep 9+ years of specific customer data like that, but I guess in this case it may pay off.
These suits have been going on for years so Apple has to keep all data from the appropriate time period or face huge penalties. Also in California mandatory service laws are for seven years so the 2009 items have to be on file to prove or disprove that detail. Since the data doesn't really take up that much space it's easy for them to keep it all.
Fortune has a great article today about this. What makes it so great is that this firm (Robbins Geller) leading the charge against Apple seems to be the class action type of ambulance chaser. The article calls out another case where they didn't have a plaintiff.
This one linked gives some good insight as to what is going on here and why the attorneys are doing it. This Robbins Geller firm just happened to be involved in this one as well although not the focus of the story. It is as bad as we all think it is.
That's pretty funny. It's normally not a great idea to keep 9+ years of specific customer data like that, but I guess in this case it may pay off.
Well others have said it but this lawsuit has been going on for years. Plus I'm sure Apple records this information in case of recalls, warranties, etc.
Down to one plaintiff and scrambling looking to prove the other is qualified. That is awesome!
TWO PLAINTIFFS. TWO. FOR A FRIVOLOUS CASE THAT HAS LASTED A DECADE. It’s not even a class action. That’s no class; that’s detention at a non-urban school.
TWO PLAINTIFFS. TWO. FOR A FRIVOLOUS CASE THAT HAS LASTED A DECADE. It’s not even a class action. That’s no class; that’s detention at a non-urban school.
TWO PLAINTIFFS. TWO. FOR A FRIVOLOUS CASE THAT HAS LASTED A DECADE. It’s not even a class action. That’s no class; that’s detention at a non-urban school.
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion in this thread as to why a company should not just store every piece of data they can. I'll try my best to explain below.
Record management is not a new idea. I believe someone likened me to a grandpa earlier for suggesting that it's still relevant. Just because information has gone digital, record management has not gone away, it's just had to adapt to new technology. To the poster who feels that my comment on record management is "purely subjective, only [my] belief, and has no basis in the real world", I would l suggest you read up a bit on the subject. Google has a plethora of results on it. RIM is a very real thing in the corporate world and that hasn't changed with the invention of the computer. One could argue that it's more important then ever now that things have gone digital. The physical space required to store massive amounts of data has shrunk significantly and so it's easier to keep things longer then you should.
There are others who had asked the question, 'Why not keep records indefinitely?' That's a fair question and there are multiple reasons.
First, let's say you're the CEO of a major corporation and you're engaging in the price fixing of e-book prices thru email. You don't want those emails to end up in a court room. You want to get rid of them as soon as possible. On the flip side, let's say you're the CEO of a major corporation and you're NOT engaging in the price fixing of e-book prices thru email. You still want all emails on the subject deleted as soon as possible. You never know when a legal hold may get placed on your email and you don't want lawyers making mountains out of molehills or taking things out of context.
Many companies are also facing the repercussions of data breaches these days. Unless you are required to store personal data, you don't want that stuff on your servers if you don't need to have it there. The last thing any company needs is a data breach where their customers data gets out. Hackers can't steal what doesn't exist.
Another reason is cost. It costs money to store records, backups of those records, test disaster recovery plans, pay people to maintain those records, PCI DSS compliance, HIPAA compliance, etc.. The cost of the disk drives is the least of the expenditures so the logic of 'storage is cheap' is not looking at the full picture. In fact, it's only look at a small fraction of the picture. Ironically, the least relevant one at that.
Yet another factor is relevance of the data. The idea that data should be stored indefinitely is at its core, flawed. If Apple were to keep 30 years worth of data, what good would it do for them to know what device a 48 yr old person purchased when they were 18. What good is it to know what 18 yr olds were buying 30 years ago? People change, their habits change, and their incomes change. While the data may be of interest from a historical perspective, there's not nearly as much benefit from a business perspective.
With that out of the way, let's look at why Apple is storing the data. Quite a few pointed out, correctly, that a 'legal hold' may have been placed on the data. That's very possible as the lawsuit has been going on for many years. One person mentioned warranties dictating record retention and while that's a valid point, it's hardly relevant to the topic at hand. There's also the fact that iTunes needs to track your digital purchases so that you don't lose them. Once that infrastructure is in place, it's not that much extra cost to track your hardware purchases at the same time. This likely formed the basis of the database that is now being used for iAds. A profile has been built on every Apple customer and those profiles can now be bought and sold in an open marketplace, making it easier for advertisers to buy audiences.
Hopefully this clears up some confusion for the posters above who aren't as familiar with record management and record retention.
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion in this thread as to why a company should not just store every piece of data they can. I'll try my best to explain below.
Record management is not a new idea. I believe someone likened me to a grandpa earlier for suggesting that it's still relevant. Just because information has gone digital, record management has not gone away, it's just had to adapt to new technology. To the poster who feels that my comment on record management is "purely subjective, only [my] belief, and has no basis in the real world", I would l suggest you read up a bit on the subject. Google has a plethora of results on it. RIM is a very real thing in the corporate world and that hasn't changed with the invention of the computer. One could argue that it's more important then ever now that things have gone digital. The physical space required to store massive amounts of data has shrunk significantly and so it's easier to keep things longer then you should.
There are others who had asked the question, 'Why not keep records indefinitely?' That's a fair question and there are multiple reasons.
First, let's say you're the CEO of a major corporation and you're engaging in the price fixing of e-book prices thru email. You don't want those emails to end up in a court room. You want to get rid of them as soon as possible. On the flip side, let's say you're the CEO of a major corporation and you're NOT engaging in the price fixing of e-book prices thru email. You still want all emails on the subject deleted as soon as possible. You never know when a legal hold may get placed on your email and you don't want lawyers making mountains out of molehills or taking things out of context.
Many companies are also facing the repercussions of data breaches these days. Unless you are required to store personal data, you don't want that stuff on your servers if you don't need to have it there. The last thing any company needs is a data breach where their customers data gets out. Hackers can't steal what doesn't exist.
Another reason is cost. It costs money to store records, backups of those records, test disaster recovery plans, pay people to maintain those records, PCI DSS compliance, HIPAA compliance, etc.. The cost of the disk drives is the least of the expenditures so the logic of 'storage is cheap' is not looking at the full picture. In fact, it's only look at a small fraction of the picture. Ironically, the least relevant one at that.
Yet another factor is relevance of the data. The idea that data should be stored indefinitely is at its core, flawed. If Apple were to keep 30 years worth of data, what good would it do for them to know what device a 48 yr old person purchased when they were 18. What good is it to know what 18 yr olds were buying 30 years ago? People change, their habits change, and their incomes change. While the data may be of interest from a historical perspective, there's not nearly as much benefit from a business perspective.
With that out of the way, let's look at why Apple is storing the data. Quite a few pointed out, correctly, that a 'legal hold' may have been placed on the data. That's very possible as the lawsuit has been going on for many years. One person mentioned warranties dictating record retention and while that's a valid point, it's hardly relevant to the topic at hand. There's also the fact that iTunes needs to track your digital purchases so that you don't lose them. Once that infrastructure is in place, it's not that much extra cost to track your hardware purchases at the same time. This likely formed the basis of the database that is now being used for iAds. A profile has been built on every Apple customer and those profiles can now be bought and sold in an open marketplace, making it easier for advertisers to buy audiences.
Hopefully this clears up some confusion for the posters above who aren't as familiar with record management and record retention.
If Apple had a data base of all their customers that bought their products, Apple could have found out what iPod these plaintiffs bought years ago, without a serial number. But they couldn't. That's becasue such a data base do not exist. Apple could only find out who bought the iPod when they got the serial number. And the only reason they knew one of the pantiff was the actual purchaser was because she either paid with a CC (or other payment that requires an ID.) and the name appears on the receipt. With the other plainiff, they only knew when and where the iPod was sold base on the serial number they got during the trial.
Apple do keep a data base of iTunes accounts, that may or may not contain the real name of the actual users. This is what they use to track iTunes purchases, not a customers name. If the iTunes account is linked to a CC then may have access the name. But if it is linked to just a gift card, then Apple may not know the real name of the iTunes account holder becasue a real name is not required to open an iTunes account, just a valid eMail address.
I assume Apple knows the real name of every iTunes account that was used to activate an iPhone, as an iPhone activation requires a CC. Other than that, Apple has no idea if the person registering (or using on their itunes account) any of their products, are the actual purchaser when it was new or that it's their real name. It could have been a gift, bought with a friends CC because they don't have one, bought used or resistered with a fake name.
I have bought many items from Apple and given it away as gifts. Whether the people I gave them to registered it under their name, a fake name or at all, I don't know. I have also purchased items for friend on my CC because they don't have one or didn't want the purchase to show on their CC statement becasue they are giving it as a gift to a spouse (who may have access to the CC statement). (They give me the cash and I get the bonus bucks added to my CC.). And I have bought many used Macs and iPods and used them with my iTunes account. Apple may know I use these products but there's no way to know if I bought them new. Unless they go through the trouble of getting the serial numbers to see if they have a record of the original purchaser. And the only way to know that is if the name of the buyer appears on the original receipt at the time of purchase. Any other way would not be an accurate way know whether the person using the product is the original purchaser.
Data is useless to advertisers usless it's accurate. The user of Apple products are more valuable to advertisers than the person who actually bought an Apple product new. Many people buy and use used Apple products and many people buy Apple products new but will not be the user of them.
Besides, if Apple did keep a data base of their customers, they would not be selling that info on the open market. That is info that you wouldn't want any of your competitors to have. You think for a second that Apple wants Best Buy or Dell to have access to their customers that bought Mac laptops? Or let Samsung know the names and eMail addresses of every iPhone users? Or let Google have access to it? If anything, Apple will only use that data in-house to maybe announce upcoming sales or new products. Which means they won't be making a lot of money from it because that data is not made available on any open market. Apple business model is in no way dependent upon selling their customers personal data in order to make money. Unlike how Google generates over 80% of their revenue.
I was with you until that last paragraph. When a corporation like Apple or Google collects your data, they don't just sell that data to advertisers. Apple and Google are the middle man between the advertisers and the consumer. If they sold the data as is, they would be cutting themselves out of the deal. Instead, they aggregate the data and sell connections to the consumers.
Example: Are you an advertiser working in an arts and crafts industry? Apple/Google know thousands of consumers who are interested in arts and crafts. Apple/Google will be happy to display your arts and crafts advertising to this group of people for a nominal fee.
Neither just sells the customer's data to the advertiser. That would be a terrible business model which would not be very profitable in the long run.
I was with you until that last paragraph. When a corporation like Apple or Google collects your data, they don't just sell that data to advertisers. Apple and Google are the middle man between the advertisers and the consumer. If they sold the data as is, they would be cutting themselves out of the deal. Instead, they aggregate the data and sell connections to the consumers.
Example: Are you an advertiser working in an arts and crafts industry? Apple/Google know thousands of consumers who are interested in arts and crafts. Apple/Google will be happy to display your arts and crafts advertising to this group of people for a nominal fee.
Neither just sells the customer's data to the advertiser. That would be a terrible business model which would not be very profitable in the long run.
The difference is that Google will sell advertising of their users to anyone that is willing to pay. But Apple will not. No way Apple is going to be the middleman for BestBuy to let their Apple Store customers know that BestBuy will be having a sale on HP laptops. Or be the middleman for Samsung to send all their iPhone customers an ad about the new Galaxy phone. I can see a band paying Apple to send an ad, for their new album, to iTunes Store music customers that bought previous albums by that band or similar music. Thats a win/win for Apple as their customers will most likely buy the new album from the iTunes Store. But Apple will never place an ad for Amazon, announcing a sale on the lastest bestseller eBook, to their iBook customers.
The difference is that Google will sell advertising of their users to anyone that is willing to pay. But Apple will not. No way Apple is going to be the middleman for BestBuy to let their Apple Store customers know that BestBuy will be having a sale on HP laptops. Or be the middleman for Samsung to send all their iPhone customers an ad about the new Galaxy phone. I can see a band paying Apple to send an ad, for their new album, to iTunes Store music customers that bought previous albums by that band or similar music. Thats a win/win for Apple as their customers will most likely buy the new album from the iTunes Store. But Apple will never place an ad for Amazon, announcing a sale on the lastest bestseller eBook, to their iBook customers.
That's an interesting point as I also wouldn't expect Apple to allow advertising of competing products on their platform. That doesn't seem like their style at all. However, it's one that I've never seen in writing. Do you know where in the iAd documentation it says that Apple competitors aren't allowed to bid in the auction process? What are the criteria for who is and who isn't allowed to bid in the auction process. I'm sure things like adult content advertising would be restricted as well. There's got to be rules written out somewhere.
What are the criteria for who is and who isn't allowed to bid in the auction process?
Found it. They've given themselves the right to do whatever they want in the iAd Workbench Terms of Service.
i. Right to Reject Ad Content. Apple reserves the right to reject or cancel any Ad Content or Campaign, at any time, for any reason whatsoever (including belief by Apple that placement of Ad Content may subject Apple to criminal or civil liability or is adverse to Apple's business interests).
1) Thanks for sharing your 'belief' without any verifiable facts included...
2) The records are clearly more then matching a model to a serial number. Apple matched a consumers name, date of purchase, and model to a serial number. That's the minimum that we know.
3) It's a sad day when fact is regarded as trolling while beliefs are passed off as truth.
Since I lack verifiable facts, I stated it as a belief. How difficult is it to parse that? Did I say it was a fact?
It still doesn't change the fact that were trolling as usual.
Comments
There is no mystery or ill intent on Apple's part in regard to why they have the data they do on individual products. The simple truth is that when any consumer purchases an Apple product, iPods in this case, if they connect them to a computer and iTunes, then they're automatically registering them with Apple, associated with whatever iTunes account the person has.
And for those questioning why they would keep that info for so long, I would question why would they ever delete data as long as the iTunes account remains active?
iTunes has been such a game changer for Apple, connecting their customers to a system that no other manufacturer has been able to duplicate. It's that connection of both digital and hard products that makes Apple able to pull data like this. They don't need to monetize the data by selling it and they would be foolish to share or sell that data to anyone else as it's what they have that no one else does.
1) Thanks for sharing your 'belief' without any verifiable facts included...
2) The records are clearly more then matching a model to a serial number. Apple matched a consumers name, date of purchase, and model to a serial number. That's the minimum that we know.
3) It's a sad day when fact is regarded as trolling while beliefs are passed off as truth.
You seem to be criticizing for posting "beliefs", while you seem to feel you have more knowledge that Apple does, when you say records should be kept as long as the law requires, and not a day longer. That statement is purely subjective, only your belief, and has no basis in the real world. Storing data today is not a major financial burden in any way on Apple. You sound, and no offense, like my grandpa who had to keep records of the major corp he was treasurer for, by hand. Sorry, not the way it works.
Storing 9+ years of in depth information (as opposed to general sales figures) is far from "virtually no cost" as there's quite a significant cost to a company the size of Apple in keeping that close of tabs on their customers. That is, unless they plan on selling that data in which case that becomes an asset.
As far as how long should a company hold onto records? While there are always exceptions, the general rule is as long as required by law and not a day longer.
Uh, they have digital records for all their current operations, what's a few more hard drives for data storage? As mentioned by another poster, they would be required to keep relevant information during legal action anyway.
IT is a big cost for their corporate infrastructure anyway, so can you shed some relevant information on why Apple, storing digital records for a long time, would constitute "significant cost" compared to their regular data storage operations for their day to day operations? They are spending millions and millions anyway on IT.
"Virtually no cost" is a very good description of the financial impact for them to store data in the grand scheme of things I would say.
1) Thanks for sharing your 'belief' without any verifiable facts included...
2) The records are clearly more then matching a model to a serial number. Apple matched a consumers name, date of purchase, and model to a serial number. That's the minimum that we know.
3) It's a sad day when fact is regarded as trolling while beliefs are passed off as truth.
That's because Apple keeps a record of when any of their products that comes with a warranty are sold. In CA, one does not have to fill out and send in a registration card in order to get the warranty. They just need to keep a copy of the receipt. And even then, if they lose the receipt, they can still verify with Apple as to when they purchased the item. Therefore, Apple must keep a record of the date it was sold to know if it's still under warranty when it needs repair.
The person name only appears with the sold product if the buyer registered it under his/her name or paid with a credit card. If the buyer paid cash and never registered it, Apple would not know who bought the product, just when and where it was originally sold. Plus Apple might only know the name of the original purchaser. If the original buyer gave it as a gift and the new owner registered it under his/her name. Apple will have no record of that person actually buying the product. But Apple will still know at the minium, when and where it was sold, by using the serial number, and will honor any warranty.
Apple is not doing anything more than what any other company that must keep records of sales for warranty purpose. Some warranties are more than 1 year and may have a lifetime warranty on certain parts. Some warranties only apply to the original buyer and are not transferable. So companies must keep records to protect themselves from consumers who may try to get repairs under warranty when it no longer applies. Not all companies operate like Google.
These suits have been going on for years so Apple has to keep all data from the appropriate time period or face huge penalties. Also in California mandatory service laws are for seven years so the 2009 items have to be on file to prove or disprove that detail. Since the data doesn't really take up that much space it's easy for them to keep it all.
Fortune has a great article today about this. What makes it so great is that this firm (Robbins Geller) leading the charge against Apple seems to be the class action type of ambulance chaser. The article calls out another case where they didn't have a plaintiff.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/12/05/whoops-no-plaintiff-as-apple-tells-court-ipod-owner-isnt-in-class-she-represents/?partner=yahootix
This one linked gives some good insight as to what is going on here and why the attorneys are doing it. This Robbins Geller firm just happened to be involved in this one as well although not the focus of the story. It is as bad as we all think it is.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/02/04/plaintiff-is-that-really-necessary-in-a-class-action/
Well others have said it but this lawsuit has been going on for years. Plus I'm sure Apple records this information in case of recalls, warranties, etc.
It is getting better!
Down to one plaintiff and scrambling looking to prove the other is qualified. That is awesome!
Down to one plaintiff and scrambling looking to prove the other is qualified. That is awesome!
TWO PLAINTIFFS. TWO. FOR A FRIVOLOUS CASE THAT HAS LASTED A DECADE. It’s not even a class action. That’s no class; that’s detention at a non-urban school.
Down to just one now.
[VIDEO]
There is but you have to get the embed link from YouTube's full site and then paste it in between the video designation that you type out.
There is but you have to get the embed link from YouTube's full site and then paste it in between the video designation that you type out.
And the problem with that is my Safari continually throws me into the YouTube app, which I hate.
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion in this thread as to why a company should not just store every piece of data they can. I'll try my best to explain below.
Record management is not a new idea. I believe someone likened me to a grandpa earlier for suggesting that it's still relevant. Just because information has gone digital, record management has not gone away, it's just had to adapt to new technology. To the poster who feels that my comment on record management is "purely subjective, only [my] belief, and has no basis in the real world", I would l suggest you read up a bit on the subject. Google has a plethora of results on it. RIM is a very real thing in the corporate world and that hasn't changed with the invention of the computer. One could argue that it's more important then ever now that things have gone digital. The physical space required to store massive amounts of data has shrunk significantly and so it's easier to keep things longer then you should.
There are others who had asked the question, 'Why not keep records indefinitely?' That's a fair question and there are multiple reasons.
First, let's say you're the CEO of a major corporation and you're engaging in the price fixing of e-book prices thru email. You don't want those emails to end up in a court room. You want to get rid of them as soon as possible. On the flip side, let's say you're the CEO of a major corporation and you're NOT engaging in the price fixing of e-book prices thru email. You still want all emails on the subject deleted as soon as possible. You never know when a legal hold may get placed on your email and you don't want lawyers making mountains out of molehills or taking things out of context.
Many companies are also facing the repercussions of data breaches these days. Unless you are required to store personal data, you don't want that stuff on your servers if you don't need to have it there. The last thing any company needs is a data breach where their customers data gets out. Hackers can't steal what doesn't exist.
Another reason is cost. It costs money to store records, backups of those records, test disaster recovery plans, pay people to maintain those records, PCI DSS compliance, HIPAA compliance, etc.. The cost of the disk drives is the least of the expenditures so the logic of 'storage is cheap' is not looking at the full picture. In fact, it's only look at a small fraction of the picture. Ironically, the least relevant one at that.
Yet another factor is relevance of the data. The idea that data should be stored indefinitely is at its core, flawed. If Apple were to keep 30 years worth of data, what good would it do for them to know what device a 48 yr old person purchased when they were 18. What good is it to know what 18 yr olds were buying 30 years ago? People change, their habits change, and their incomes change. While the data may be of interest from a historical perspective, there's not nearly as much benefit from a business perspective.
With that out of the way, let's look at why Apple is storing the data. Quite a few pointed out, correctly, that a 'legal hold' may have been placed on the data. That's very possible as the lawsuit has been going on for many years. One person mentioned warranties dictating record retention and while that's a valid point, it's hardly relevant to the topic at hand. There's also the fact that iTunes needs to track your digital purchases so that you don't lose them. Once that infrastructure is in place, it's not that much extra cost to track your hardware purchases at the same time. This likely formed the basis of the database that is now being used for iAds. A profile has been built on every Apple customer and those profiles can now be bought and sold in an open marketplace, making it easier for advertisers to buy audiences.
Hopefully this clears up some confusion for the posters above who aren't as familiar with record management and record retention.
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion in this thread as to why a company should not just store every piece of data they can. I'll try my best to explain below.
Record management is not a new idea. I believe someone likened me to a grandpa earlier for suggesting that it's still relevant. Just because information has gone digital, record management has not gone away, it's just had to adapt to new technology. To the poster who feels that my comment on record management is "purely subjective, only [my] belief, and has no basis in the real world", I would l suggest you read up a bit on the subject. Google has a plethora of results on it. RIM is a very real thing in the corporate world and that hasn't changed with the invention of the computer. One could argue that it's more important then ever now that things have gone digital. The physical space required to store massive amounts of data has shrunk significantly and so it's easier to keep things longer then you should.
There are others who had asked the question, 'Why not keep records indefinitely?' That's a fair question and there are multiple reasons.
First, let's say you're the CEO of a major corporation and you're engaging in the price fixing of e-book prices thru email. You don't want those emails to end up in a court room. You want to get rid of them as soon as possible. On the flip side, let's say you're the CEO of a major corporation and you're NOT engaging in the price fixing of e-book prices thru email. You still want all emails on the subject deleted as soon as possible. You never know when a legal hold may get placed on your email and you don't want lawyers making mountains out of molehills or taking things out of context.
Many companies are also facing the repercussions of data breaches these days. Unless you are required to store personal data, you don't want that stuff on your servers if you don't need to have it there. The last thing any company needs is a data breach where their customers data gets out. Hackers can't steal what doesn't exist.
Another reason is cost. It costs money to store records, backups of those records, test disaster recovery plans, pay people to maintain those records, PCI DSS compliance, HIPAA compliance, etc.. The cost of the disk drives is the least of the expenditures so the logic of 'storage is cheap' is not looking at the full picture. In fact, it's only look at a small fraction of the picture. Ironically, the least relevant one at that.
Yet another factor is relevance of the data. The idea that data should be stored indefinitely is at its core, flawed. If Apple were to keep 30 years worth of data, what good would it do for them to know what device a 48 yr old person purchased when they were 18. What good is it to know what 18 yr olds were buying 30 years ago? People change, their habits change, and their incomes change. While the data may be of interest from a historical perspective, there's not nearly as much benefit from a business perspective.
With that out of the way, let's look at why Apple is storing the data. Quite a few pointed out, correctly, that a 'legal hold' may have been placed on the data. That's very possible as the lawsuit has been going on for many years. One person mentioned warranties dictating record retention and while that's a valid point, it's hardly relevant to the topic at hand. There's also the fact that iTunes needs to track your digital purchases so that you don't lose them. Once that infrastructure is in place, it's not that much extra cost to track your hardware purchases at the same time. This likely formed the basis of the database that is now being used for iAds. A profile has been built on every Apple customer and those profiles can now be bought and sold in an open marketplace, making it easier for advertisers to buy audiences.
Hopefully this clears up some confusion for the posters above who aren't as familiar with record management and record retention.
If Apple had a data base of all their customers that bought their products, Apple could have found out what iPod these plaintiffs bought years ago, without a serial number. But they couldn't. That's becasue such a data base do not exist. Apple could only find out who bought the iPod when they got the serial number. And the only reason they knew one of the pantiff was the actual purchaser was because she either paid with a CC (or other payment that requires an ID.) and the name appears on the receipt. With the other plainiff, they only knew when and where the iPod was sold base on the serial number they got during the trial.
Apple do keep a data base of iTunes accounts, that may or may not contain the real name of the actual users. This is what they use to track iTunes purchases, not a customers name. If the iTunes account is linked to a CC then may have access the name. But if it is linked to just a gift card, then Apple may not know the real name of the iTunes account holder becasue a real name is not required to open an iTunes account, just a valid eMail address.
I assume Apple knows the real name of every iTunes account that was used to activate an iPhone, as an iPhone activation requires a CC. Other than that, Apple has no idea if the person registering (or using on their itunes account) any of their products, are the actual purchaser when it was new or that it's their real name. It could have been a gift, bought with a friends CC because they don't have one, bought used or resistered with a fake name.
I have bought many items from Apple and given it away as gifts. Whether the people I gave them to registered it under their name, a fake name or at all, I don't know. I have also purchased items for friend on my CC because they don't have one or didn't want the purchase to show on their CC statement becasue they are giving it as a gift to a spouse (who may have access to the CC statement). (They give me the cash and I get the bonus bucks added to my CC.). And I have bought many used Macs and iPods and used them with my iTunes account. Apple may know I use these products but there's no way to know if I bought them new. Unless they go through the trouble of getting the serial numbers to see if they have a record of the original purchaser. And the only way to know that is if the name of the buyer appears on the original receipt at the time of purchase. Any other way would not be an accurate way know whether the person using the product is the original purchaser.
Data is useless to advertisers usless it's accurate. The user of Apple products are more valuable to advertisers than the person who actually bought an Apple product new. Many people buy and use used Apple products and many people buy Apple products new but will not be the user of them.
Besides, if Apple did keep a data base of their customers, they would not be selling that info on the open market. That is info that you wouldn't want any of your competitors to have. You think for a second that Apple wants Best Buy or Dell to have access to their customers that bought Mac laptops? Or let Samsung know the names and eMail addresses of every iPhone users? Or let Google have access to it? If anything, Apple will only use that data in-house to maybe announce upcoming sales or new products. Which means they won't be making a lot of money from it because that data is not made available on any open market. Apple business model is in no way dependent upon selling their customers personal data in order to make money. Unlike how Google generates over 80% of their revenue.
<post>
I was with you until that last paragraph. When a corporation like Apple or Google collects your data, they don't just sell that data to advertisers. Apple and Google are the middle man between the advertisers and the consumer. If they sold the data as is, they would be cutting themselves out of the deal. Instead, they aggregate the data and sell connections to the consumers.
Example: Are you an advertiser working in an arts and crafts industry? Apple/Google know thousands of consumers who are interested in arts and crafts. Apple/Google will be happy to display your arts and crafts advertising to this group of people for a nominal fee.
Neither just sells the customer's data to the advertiser. That would be a terrible business model which would not be very profitable in the long run.
I was with you until that last paragraph. When a corporation like Apple or Google collects your data, they don't just sell that data to advertisers. Apple and Google are the middle man between the advertisers and the consumer. If they sold the data as is, they would be cutting themselves out of the deal. Instead, they aggregate the data and sell connections to the consumers.
Example: Are you an advertiser working in an arts and crafts industry? Apple/Google know thousands of consumers who are interested in arts and crafts. Apple/Google will be happy to display your arts and crafts advertising to this group of people for a nominal fee.
Neither just sells the customer's data to the advertiser. That would be a terrible business model which would not be very profitable in the long run.
The difference is that Google will sell advertising of their users to anyone that is willing to pay. But Apple will not. No way Apple is going to be the middleman for BestBuy to let their Apple Store customers know that BestBuy will be having a sale on HP laptops. Or be the middleman for Samsung to send all their iPhone customers an ad about the new Galaxy phone. I can see a band paying Apple to send an ad, for their new album, to iTunes Store music customers that bought previous albums by that band or similar music. Thats a win/win for Apple as their customers will most likely buy the new album from the iTunes Store. But Apple will never place an ad for Amazon, announcing a sale on the lastest bestseller eBook, to their iBook customers.
The difference is that Google will sell advertising of their users to anyone that is willing to pay. But Apple will not. No way Apple is going to be the middleman for BestBuy to let their Apple Store customers know that BestBuy will be having a sale on HP laptops. Or be the middleman for Samsung to send all their iPhone customers an ad about the new Galaxy phone. I can see a band paying Apple to send an ad, for their new album, to iTunes Store music customers that bought previous albums by that band or similar music. Thats a win/win for Apple as their customers will most likely buy the new album from the iTunes Store. But Apple will never place an ad for Amazon, announcing a sale on the lastest bestseller eBook, to their iBook customers.
That's an interesting point as I also wouldn't expect Apple to allow advertising of competing products on their platform. That doesn't seem like their style at all. However, it's one that I've never seen in writing. Do you know where in the iAd documentation it says that Apple competitors aren't allowed to bid in the auction process? What are the criteria for who is and who isn't allowed to bid in the auction process. I'm sure things like adult content advertising would be restricted as well. There's got to be rules written out somewhere.
What are the criteria for who is and who isn't allowed to bid in the auction process?
Found it. They've given themselves the right to do whatever they want in the iAd Workbench Terms of Service.
i. Right to Reject Ad Content. Apple reserves the right to reject or cancel any Ad Content or Campaign, at any time, for any reason whatsoever (including belief by Apple that placement of Ad Content may subject Apple to criminal or civil liability or is adverse to Apple's business interests).
1) Thanks for sharing your 'belief' without any verifiable facts included...
2) The records are clearly more then matching a model to a serial number. Apple matched a consumers name, date of purchase, and model to a serial number. That's the minimum that we know.
3) It's a sad day when fact is regarded as trolling while beliefs are passed off as truth.
Since I lack verifiable facts, I stated it as a belief. How difficult is it to parse that? Did I say it was a fact?
It still doesn't change the fact that were trolling as usual.