Apple should have offered DTK at lower price and let them keep it. Not sure what Apple will do with returned DTK unless rip off processor,memory,etc from it and use in Macbooks products because of component shortages.
The DTKs were leased equipment,...
I do realize that in the current mindset of universal entitlement, anything that goes against one’s personal wishes and desires, regardless of anything else, is viewed as an offensive move by an overlord. ...
Apple knew, going in, that they needed to get these DTKs back,...
Anything they don’t like is instantly viewed as a personal affront and categorically labeled as an offense, and of course, they’re now the victim. Business agreements and keeping your word don’t seem to matter. If I’m not happy, it must be wrong.
You make some valid points, but Apple could have done better. I'm definitely not saying Devs / commentators are completely right.
Mistakes that are 100% on Devs (and commentators) 1. Many lesees assumed this DTK program would cloely resemble the Intel DTK program, even down to getting a voucher equal to (or greater than!) the cost of the lease. 2. Many lesees are unaware of the hefty fees Apple Developers paid in 2005 in order to qualify for the ability to lease a DTK. These fees quite literally offset some DTK / voucher expense. 3. Potential lesees that don't believe the stated cost is worth the perceived benefit should not enter into said lease.
Mistakes that are 100% on Apple A. Lease should have spelled out that if Apple requested early return of DTK, a refund or voucher, say, equal to x/365 * $500 would be provided, where x = days Dev had the box. B. Credit should be available prior to return of DTK. (refund to credit card on file, once DTK returned) C. Voucher/credit should expire when the original lease would have ended.
Hindsight should be applied by all parties.
They did spell out the lease. Everyone who received the DTK agreed to the lease. Apple has no requirement to give developers that want a jump on Apple Silicon extra cash so they can buy a new Mac once the lease is revoked.
There is no lease. Why do people comment about things that they know nothing about?
Apple should have offered DTK at lower price and let them keep it. Not sure what Apple will do with returned DTK unless rip off processor,memory,etc from it and use in Macbooks products because of component shortages.
The DTKs were leased equipment,...
I do realize that in the current mindset of universal entitlement, anything that goes against one’s personal wishes and desires, regardless of anything else, is viewed as an offensive move by an overlord. ...
Apple knew, going in, that they needed to get these DTKs back,...
Anything they don’t like is instantly viewed as a personal affront and categorically labeled as an offense, and of course, they’re now the victim. Business agreements and keeping your word don’t seem to matter. If I’m not happy, it must be wrong.
You make some valid points, but Apple could have done better. I'm definitely not saying Devs / commentators are completely right.
Mistakes that are 100% on Devs (and commentators) 1. Many lesees assumed this DTK program would closely resemble the Intel DTK program, even down to getting a voucher equal to (or greater than!) the cost of the lease. 2. Many lesees are unaware of the hefty fees Apple Developers paid in 2005 in order to qualify for the ability to lease a DTK. These fees quite literally offset some DTK / voucher expense. 3. Potential lesees that don't believe the stated cost is worth the perceived benefit should not enter into said lease.
Mistakes that are 100% on Apple A. Lease should have spelled out that if Apple requested early return of DTK, a refund or voucher, say, equal to x/365 * $500 would be provided, where x = days Dev had the box. B. Credit should be available prior to return of DTK. (refund to credit card on file, once DTK returned) C. Voucher/credit should expire when the original lease would have ended.
Hindsight should be applied by all parties.
Everything you've stated is nonsense, and if you know nothing about the contract and the relationship between Apple and developers vis-a-vis this program, it's best to keep your mouth shut rather than make ridiculous assumptions.
First, I'm not aware of any developer claiming the he or she is entitled to more than $200 because "that's how it was under the Intel program." If you have a source for this ridiculous claim post it here. There certainly were people hoping it would turn out the same way, but many would be have been ok with receiving nothing since they were promised nothing other than a unit they could use for development.
The only expectation that developers had was that Apple provide what it promised: (a) a working unit to develop universal apps ,and (b) support to help develop those apps, which was supposed to consist of a private forum and a couple of tech support incidents. But most of us received neither of these things. The units turned into non-working garbage upon trying to update to the latest beta, and Apple provided no support to fix them (or with issues relating with universal app develpment). The special private forum Apple set up is full of threads with no response of any kind from any Apple engineers, and most developers were not succesful in getting replacement units. The entire program was a farce, and Apple should have been sued. Most of us are used to this kind of developer support from Apple, and simply chalked it up as another bad experience.
The least Apple could have done is refunded the $500, but instead it offered $200 to spend on a new Mac within barely 60 days. Given the circumstances, it was a big F U.
Apple should have offered DTK at lower price and let them keep it. Not sure what Apple will do with returned DTK unless rip off processor,memory,etc from it and use in Macbooks products because of component shortages.
The DTKs were leased equipment,...
I do realize that in the current mindset of universal entitlement, anything that goes against one’s personal wishes and desires, regardless of anything else, is viewed as an offensive move by an overlord. ...
Apple knew, going in, that they needed to get these DTKs back,...
Anything they don’t like is instantly viewed as a personal affront and categorically labeled as an offense, and of course, they’re now the victim. Business agreements and keeping your word don’t seem to matter. If I’m not happy, it must be wrong.
You make some valid points, but Apple could have done better. I'm definitely not saying Devs / commentators are completely right.
Mistakes that are 100% on Devs (and commentators) 1. Many lesees assumed this DTK program would cloely resemble the Intel DTK program, even down to getting a voucher equal to (or greater than!) the cost of the lease. 2. Many lesees are unaware of the hefty fees Apple Developers paid in 2005 in order to qualify for the ability to lease a DTK. These fees quite literally offset some DTK / voucher expense. 3. Potential lesees that don't believe the stated cost is worth the perceived benefit should not enter into said lease.
Mistakes that are 100% on Apple A. Lease should have spelled out that if Apple requested early return of DTK, a refund or voucher, say, equal to x/365 * $500 would be provided, where x = days Dev had the box. B. Credit should be available prior to return of DTK. (refund to credit card on file, once DTK returned) C. Voucher/credit should expire when the original lease would have ended.
Hindsight should be applied by all parties.
They did spell out the lease. Everyone who received the DTK agreed to the lease. Apple has no requirement to give developers that want a jump on Apple Silicon extra cash so they can buy a new Mac once the lease is revoked.
There is no lease. Why do people comment about things that they know nothing about?
Slow your roll. This absolutely was a lease on the DTK. If you still believe that you own the HW then you'll need to explain why Apple is asking for it back and why Apple stated this in the contract agreement for the program. Saying that the $500 is the for program in no way negates the fact the the HW usage is leased, not owned, and was always to be returned to Apple.
And now Apple has to deal with back pedaling, and all the bad press from initially making a poor decision to give back $200 instead of $500. They deserve it IMHO. This was a stupid decision. What, they were “low on funds?” So you know, just couldn’t get the $500 together to give back? Ridiculous!
Mistakes that are 100% on Devs (and commentators) 1. Many lesees assumed this DTK program would closely resemble the Intel DTK program, even down to getting a voucher equal to (or greater than!) the cost of the lease.
Everything you've stated is nonsense, and if you know nothing about the contract and the relationship between Apple and developers vis-a-vis this program, it's best to keep your mouth shut rather than make ridiculous assumptions.
First, I'm not aware of any developer claiming the he or she is entitled to more than $200 because "that's how it was under the Intel program." If you have a source for this ridiculous claim post it here.
The only expectation that developers had was that Apple provide what it promised: (a) a working unit to develop universal apps ,and (b) support to help develop those
Here's one prominent Dev/blogger discussing it in detail. And a tweet from another. See also: replies to his tweet, replies to those tweets, etc.
"The only expectation that developers had..." ??? No.
Who makes these decisions at Apple? What idiot thought offering $200 for the return of those $500 kits would not create outrage and controversy? Did that same idiot actually think developers, Apple’s life blood, would take it up the wazoo and be glad about it? In my opinion Apple should have offered those kits to legitimate developers free of charge. And Apple’s backdown after the controversy isn’t good optics either. Stupidity on display.
I’m impressed at your comment. It’s possibly the only time I’ve ever seen you be critical of Apple. 100% in agreement!! 👍🏽😊
Apple should have offered DTK at lower price and let them keep it. Not sure what Apple will do with returned DTK unless rip off processor,memory,etc from it and use in Macbooks products because of component shortages.
The DTKs were leased equipment, not purchases. In all likelihood, the lease payments are fully tax deductible business expenses for companies who run their development as a business and not a hobby.
I do realize that in the current mindset of universal entitlement, anything that goes against one’s personal wishes and desires, regardless of anything else, is viewed as an offensive move by an overlord. This lease program was setup by Apple under the expectation of it being adults dealing with other adults at a business level.
Apple knew, going in, that they needed to get these DTKs back, for whatever reason, and structured the terms and conditions of the business arrangement to increase the likelihood that lessees would return Apple’s property to them under the terms that were stipulated in the agreement. Apple has not deviated in the slightest amount from following through on their part of the agreement. They are trying to be adults.
Hey, I like extra cheddar as much as the next guy, but it does bother me that a great number of people in our society, all the way up to the highest levels of power, are basically children stuffed into adult sized bodies. Anything they don’t like is instantly viewed as a personal affront and categorically labeled as an offense, and of course, they’re now the victim. Business agreements and keeping your word don’t seem to matter. If I’m not happy, it must be wrong.
I guess I’ll blame it all on us, the Baby Boomer generation, who have never quite gotten past the “Baby” part of our generational contribution. Now we’re sadly passing it along to subsequent generations who know how to weaponize “whining at scale” across the social media mobosphere until they get their way. It’s nice that Apple, as an indulgent parent, is letting junior have extra cookies just to shut him up, but it’s also a sad commentary on where we are as dysfunctional semi-adults.
It’s grotesque that this pile of infantilizing, blame-throwing, generational/age bigotry, and elitism got so many up-votes. Maybe consider that the self-entitlement culture you rail against is mostly just a myth; just another bit of bootstrap propaganda designed to indemnify corporations and “small business owners” from any accountability for anything and everything.
“Blame the user” is a popular tech industry mantra, so it fits right in here perfectly with the “blame the customer” laissez-faire religion... EXCEPT that this is a *developer program*; you’re not talking about end users. Because it’s not a problem for huge corporations like Adobe to write off such expenses, you’re really just attacking the same “small business owners” that libertarians are always claiming to defend with their anti-customer rhetoric.
Again, it’s a developer program. Apple wants people to develop for this new platform. It is in their best interests to make it as easy and as rewarding as possible for developers. A fee makes perfect sense, if they definitely want the hardware back (for what purpose?), and to keep the likely small number of devices in the hands of developers, rather than merely curious tech geeks. But if the hardware was never meant to be kept by developers, then the fee should be fully refundable, including the shipping, upon return of the device to Apple. That’s how you INVEST in a platform that you want to succeed. What you don’t do is treat these people like pissant customers to exploit.
I wonder how man devs here with DTK are actually complaining. My guess is that these are people who not only don't have the DTK but likely aren't even devs with apps on the App Store.
You would be astonished how many apps I have in the App Store. Several of my most popular apps have been in the App Store >10 years. Also, I am incredibly cheap, so Apple ending a lease early and only offering a very time-limited $200 coupon was upsetting.
Why do you say you’re “incredibly cheap”?
Someone suggested $500 is nothing to “a serious small business”. That’s a privileged and douchey garbage take. $500 is a lot of money even a “serious small business”. It’s a month of meals for a family of three or four, at the very least.
In an economy designed to benefit mo[b/n]nster corporations, while screwing small businesses and non-business-owning citizens, it’s a requirement to be “cheap” (depending on the use of the word).
Most people can’t afford to even try to run their own business in the first place, and fewer people are comfortable with, or capable of, managing all the responsibilities. I know I’d never do it, and that’s not cowardice; it’s wisdom.
I respect people who do it, but I despise the elitism and corporate bootlicking of the ones who think their status as business owner makes them somehow better than everyone else and entitles them to be some kind of judge of, or benchmark for, everyone else’s lives.
If you think $500 is nothing, you need to check your privilege. If you think you’re “cheap” because you’re careful with money, you need to stop letting the people with privilege smack you down with their douchebaggery.
Comments
There is no lease. Why do people comment about things that they know nothing about?
First, I'm not aware of any developer claiming the he or she is entitled to more than $200 because "that's how it was under the Intel program." If you have a source for this ridiculous claim post it here. There certainly were people hoping it would turn out the same way, but many would be have been ok with receiving nothing since they were promised nothing other than a unit they could use for development.
The only expectation that developers had was that Apple provide what it promised: (a) a working unit to develop universal apps ,and (b) support to help develop those apps, which was supposed to consist of a private forum and a couple of tech support incidents. But most of us received neither of these things. The units turned into non-working garbage upon trying to update to the latest beta, and Apple provided no support to fix them (or with issues relating with universal app develpment). The special private forum Apple set up is full of threads with no response of any kind from any Apple engineers, and most developers were not succesful in getting replacement units. The entire program was a farce, and Apple should have been sued. Most of us are used to this kind of developer support from Apple, and simply chalked it up as another bad experience.
The least Apple could have done is refunded the $500, but instead it offered $200 to spend on a new Mac within barely 60 days. Given the circumstances, it was a big F U.
Here's one prominent Dev/blogger discussing it in detail.
And a tweet from another. See also: replies to his tweet, replies to those tweets, etc.
"The only expectation that developers had..." ??? No.
“Blame the user” is a popular tech industry mantra, so it fits right in here perfectly with the “blame the customer” laissez-faire religion... EXCEPT that this is a *developer program*; you’re not talking about end users. Because it’s not a problem for huge corporations like Adobe to write off such expenses, you’re really just attacking the same “small business owners” that libertarians are always claiming to defend with their anti-customer rhetoric.
Again, it’s a developer program. Apple wants people to develop for this new platform. It is in their best interests to make it as easy and as rewarding as possible for developers. A fee makes perfect sense, if they definitely want the hardware back (for what purpose?), and to keep the likely small number of devices in the hands of developers, rather than merely curious tech geeks. But if the hardware was never meant to be kept by developers, then the fee should be fully refundable, including the shipping, upon return of the device to Apple. That’s how you INVEST in a platform that you want to succeed. What you don’t do is treat these people like pissant customers to exploit.
Someone suggested $500 is nothing to “a serious small business”. That’s a privileged and douchey garbage take. $500 is a lot of money even a “serious small business”. It’s a month of meals for a family of three or four, at the very least.
In an economy designed to benefit mo[b/n]nster corporations, while screwing small businesses and non-business-owning citizens, it’s a requirement to be “cheap” (depending on the use of the word).
Most people can’t afford to even try to run their own business in the first place, and fewer people are comfortable with, or capable of, managing all the responsibilities. I know I’d never do it, and that’s not cowardice; it’s wisdom.
I respect people who do it, but I despise the elitism and corporate bootlicking of the ones who think their status as business owner makes them somehow better than everyone else and entitles them to be some kind of judge of, or benchmark for, everyone else’s lives.
If you think $500 is nothing, you need to check your privilege. If you think you’re “cheap” because you’re careful with money, you need to stop letting the people with privilege smack you down with their douchebaggery.