Avoidable chain of events with cloud payments & unreturned trade-in led to disabled Apple ...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 27
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,012member
    sdw2001 said:
    brassens said:
    “Clear TOS is in the mind of the lawyers who write them. Does anybody read them? With hundreds of things that have TOS statements, can anybody read them? 

    I blame Apple and the rest of the business community. But more, I blame the government for failing to regulate properly. Before an essential service is discontinued a provider SHOULD be required not only to notify, but to confirm that the notification has been received and understood. Otherwise you have situations like this one: where a person has no intent to default but was nonetheless penalized for an oversight of which he was not even aware. 

    You blame the government?  This attitude is exactly why we have the kind of nanny-state, bloated and tyrannical government we do.  The government has nothing to do with this, nor should it.  An essential service?  It's his iCloud and Apple ID, not his power or water bill.  They were disabled on his MacBook because he didn't pay for said MacBook.  He also missed an Apple card payment, changed his bank account without telling them and didn't send his old MacBook back as required.  He violated the agreement 6 ways from Sunday.  Apple did exactly what it should have done.  How would they confirm a notification is received and understood?  My mortgage company doesn't even have to do that.  

    "No intent to default."  Wow, it just keeps getting better.  Do you understand how anything works?  I honestly don't mean to be offensive, but defaulting has nothing to do with intent.  You either pay, or you don't.  In this case, he failed to pay.  OK, that can happen....an oversight.  But he also changed his bank account.  And didn't return his trade-in.  That's a lot of "oversight."   To top it off, he has the cojones to go on Twitter and claim that if you "miss" a payment, they "hold your iCloud hostage."   That is not at all what happened.  

    Sorry, but the job of government is to protect and support its people.  Period.  You can call that anything you want -- including perjoratives like "nanny state".   But, that does not change the essential and necessary role of government.

    In this case, it probably is not a good fit for government intervention.  But to deride all government rules and regulations as a "Nanny state" or "tyrannical" is equally misguided.

    I'm not really sure why you believe I derided all government rules and regulations.  I stated that we have a bloated, tyrannical, nanny-state government, which I think many people agree with, on both sides of the aisle.  I also said the government should have nothing to do with this.  You appear to agree with that, stating "it is probably not a good fit for government intervention."    

    Now, it is true that I tend to disfavor government regulation and intervention in general.  But that's a whole other discussion.  As is your claim that the government's job is to "support" and "protect" its (emphasis added) people.  This isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion, but suffice it to say I doubt we'd have much common ground on that statement.  
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 27
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,012member

    chadbag said:
    sdw2001 said:
    brassens said:
    “Clear TOS is in the mind of the lawyers who write them. Does anybody read them? With hundreds of things that have TOS statements, can anybody read them? 

    I blame Apple and the rest of the business community. But more, I blame the government for failing to regulate properly. Before an essential service is discontinued a provider SHOULD be required not only to notify, but to confirm that the notification has been received and understood. Otherwise you have situations like this one: where a person has no intent to default but was nonetheless penalized for an oversight of which he was not even aware. 

    You blame the government?  This attitude is exactly why we have the kind of nanny-state, bloated and tyrannical government we do.  The government has nothing to do with this, nor should it.  An essential service?  It's his iCloud and Apple ID, not his power or water bill.  They were disabled on his MacBook because he didn't pay for said MacBook.  He also missed an Apple card payment, changed his bank account without telling them and didn't send his old MacBook back as required.  He violated the agreement 6 ways from Sunday.  Apple did exactly what it should have done.  How would they confirm a notification is received and understood?  My mortgage company doesn't even have to do that.  

    "No intent to default."  Wow, it just keeps getting better.  Do you understand how anything works?  I honestly don't mean to be offensive, but defaulting has nothing to do with intent.  You either pay, or you don't.  In this case, he failed to pay.  OK, that can happen....an oversight.  But he also changed his bank account.  And didn't return his trade-in.  That's a lot of "oversight."   To top it off, he has the cojones to go on Twitter and claim that if you "miss" a payment, they "hold your iCloud hostage."   That is not at all what happened.  

    Sorry, but the job of government is to protect and support its people.  Period.  You can call that anything you want -- including perjoratives like "nanny state".   But, that does not change the essential and necessary role of government.

    In this case, it probably is not a good fit for government intervention.  But to deride all government rules and regulations as a "Nanny state" or "tyrannical" is equally misguided.
    Uhm. No.  The job of government is to safeguard a system whereby people can live and transact business with one another and have a method for resolving disputes.  It is not for regulating and protecting  people from their own failings or failing to live up to the agreements they have signed. 

    Additionally the job is to provide physical protection from external enemies/harm and to combat and prosecute criminal behavior (interestingly the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no duty to protect or prevent criminal action to or against any individual, but just society in general).  

    Yeh, and part of it is to protect the nation and its people from the banksters who crashed our economy in 2008 -- and that's done with rules and regulations.  The stock market is the same:  it is only trusted because of the rules and regulations that protect investors from fraud and chicanery.

    So, yes, the job of government is to protect and support its people.  Otherwise it serves no purpose.

    OK, maybe this is is the appropriate forum. :)  

    I don't agree that it was the government's job to protect us from the "banksters" who crashed our economy.  In fact, government had a lot to do with facilitating the crash.  Those same investment banks calculated risks on moral hazard.  In other words, their behavior was influenced by believing (correctly) they would be bailed out, that the government wouldn't let the market crash, etc.  It was also facilitated by the government's own encouragement of predatory lending.  The government was pushing home ownership to less qualified borrowers since the Carter administration.  Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II all continued the policies through the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie/Freddie.  

    I don't know what "trusting" the stock market means.  The government has created bubble after bubble there, too.  That's not an argument for no regulation, but it is one against the notion that the government is "protecting" us from evil rich bankers.  The dirty secret is the government and the evil rich bankers are the same people.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 27
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,012member

    crowley said:
    chadbag said:

    Sorry, but the job of government is to protect and support its people.  
    Uhm. No.  The job of government is to safeguard a system whereby people can live and transact business with one another and have a method for resolving disputes. 
    Cool argument guys.  Something as variable and abstract as government does not have a singly defined "job".  If a democratically elected government determines it has a role to fill, if it is not constitutionally or otherwise legally prohibited from doing so, and the people tolerate the imposition by not removing their representatives, then it's doing its job.

    Well said.
    He was coming from the Libertarian philosophy of limited government.  I understand it.   In fact I was taught economics from a department run by one who was, at that time, one of the formost experts on Libertarian economics.   And, to me as a 20 year old it made sense.   These days though I take a broader perspective and I see its limitations along with its benefits.

    Do you see the limitations and downside of regulation and market intervention, too?  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 27
    kestralkestral Posts: 308member
    Let's face it, there's fault on both sides. But the difference is, Apple has the power. Never let something outside yourself have power over you.
  • Reply 25 of 27
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,268member
    This guy is a total bullshitter who created a bad situation on his own through his own inaction, laziness, ineptitude, or whatever deflection he created, and then tried to fabricate a narrative that placed himself in the role as a "victim." I'm not buying anything he's trying to sell. Apple is clearly the only adult involved in this little fantasy. When did we become a nation of big babies encased in adult sized bodies? This guy's a major embarrassment to himself. 


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sdw2001 said:

    chadbag said:
    sdw2001 said:
    brassens said:
    “Clear TOS is in the mind of the lawyers who write them. Does anybody read them? With hundreds of things that have TOS statements, can anybody read them? 

    I blame Apple and the rest of the business community. But more, I blame the government for failing to regulate properly. Before an essential service is discontinued a provider SHOULD be required not only to notify, but to confirm that the notification has been received and understood. Otherwise you have situations like this one: where a person has no intent to default but was nonetheless penalized for an oversight of which he was not even aware. 

    You blame the government?  This attitude is exactly why we have the kind of nanny-state, bloated and tyrannical government we do.  The government has nothing to do with this, nor should it.  An essential service?  It's his iCloud and Apple ID, not his power or water bill.  They were disabled on his MacBook because he didn't pay for said MacBook.  He also missed an Apple card payment, changed his bank account without telling them and didn't send his old MacBook back as required.  He violated the agreement 6 ways from Sunday.  Apple did exactly what it should have done.  How would they confirm a notification is received and understood?  My mortgage company doesn't even have to do that.  

    "No intent to default."  Wow, it just keeps getting better.  Do you understand how anything works?  I honestly don't mean to be offensive, but defaulting has nothing to do with intent.  You either pay, or you don't.  In this case, he failed to pay.  OK, that can happen....an oversight.  But he also changed his bank account.  And didn't return his trade-in.  That's a lot of "oversight."   To top it off, he has the cojones to go on Twitter and claim that if you "miss" a payment, they "hold your iCloud hostage."   That is not at all what happened.  

    Sorry, but the job of government is to protect and support its people.  Period.  You can call that anything you want -- including perjoratives like "nanny state".   But, that does not change the essential and necessary role of government.

    In this case, it probably is not a good fit for government intervention.  But to deride all government rules and regulations as a "Nanny state" or "tyrannical" is equally misguided.
    Uhm. No.  The job of government is to safeguard a system whereby people can live and transact business with one another and have a method for resolving disputes.  It is not for regulating and protecting  people from their own failings or failing to live up to the agreements they have signed. 

    Additionally the job is to provide physical protection from external enemies/harm and to combat and prosecute criminal behavior (interestingly the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no duty to protect or prevent criminal action to or against any individual, but just society in general).  

    Yeh, and part of it is to protect the nation and its people from the banksters who crashed our economy in 2008 -- and that's done with rules and regulations.  The stock market is the same:  it is only trusted because of the rules and regulations that protect investors from fraud and chicanery.

    So, yes, the job of government is to protect and support its people.  Otherwise it serves no purpose.

    OK, maybe this is is the appropriate forum. :)  

    I don't agree that it was the government's job to protect us from the "banksters" who crashed our economy.  In fact, government had a lot to do with facilitating the crash.  Those same investment banks calculated risks on moral hazard.  In other words, their behavior was influenced by believing (correctly) they would be bailed out, that the government wouldn't let the market crash, etc.  It was also facilitated by the government's own encouragement of predatory lending.  The government was pushing home ownership to less qualified borrowers since the Carter administration.  Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II all continued the policies through the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie/Freddie.  

    I don't know what "trusting" the stock market means.  The government has created bubble after bubble there, too.  That's not an argument for no regulation, but it is one against the notion that the government is "protecting" us from evil rich bankers.  The dirty secret is the government and the evil rich bankers are the same people.  

    The problem that triggered the 2008 crash wasn't that the banksters took on too much risk, nor that they took it on believing that the government would bail them out.   Rather:   they wrote bad loans, paid ratings agencies to rate them AAA then securitized them and sold them to others who thought they were buying AAA investments.  But, it didn't stop there:  They leveraged that out to over 75 times and parked the liabilities off-balance sheet in off shore accounts -- all while auditors and regulators looked the other way.   Then the scam blew up in their faces.

    What enabled that to happen was that, in his unwavering belief that Free Market economies were self-correcting and could not fail, Bush gutted the regulations and the regulatory agencies that would otherwise have raised flags to stop it.

    And you ask what trusting the stock market means:   Trusting the stock market means, for one thing, people know what they are buying.   A good example are the supposedly AAA rated securities the banksters were pawning off on unsuspecting investors that eventually took them and everybody else down with it when it turned out it was all a scam.

    Do regulations limit growth?  They may or may not limit real growth.  It depends on the regulations and how intelligently they are enforced.  But what they tend to do is limit the wild, unsustainable cancer like growth that ends in a crash -- such as what we experienced from about 2003 - 2008 when Bush gutted the regulations and regulatory agencies overseeing the banksters.
  • Reply 27 of 27
    brassens said:
    “Clear TOS is in the mind of the lawyers who write them. Does anybody read them? With hundreds of things that have TOS statements, can anybody read them? 

    I blame Apple and the rest of the business community. But more, I blame the government for failing to regulate properly. Before an essential service is discontinued a provider SHOULD be required not only to notify, but to confirm that the notification has been received and understood. Otherwise you have situations like this one: where a person has no intent to default but was nonetheless penalized for an oversight of which he was not even aware. 
    Wow ... you really need to get your head on straight.

    You shouldn't need to read any TOS to know that you have to pay your bills and if you promise to trade in a computer, you do have to send it back to fulfill your agreement.

    None of this is fine print stuff ... it's just common sense.

    Remind me never to do business with you.
Sign In or Register to comment.