Man sues Apple for terminating Apple ID with $24K worth of content

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 61
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    I hope he wins regardless of the reason his account was terminated and they are forced to write consumer friendly rules. 
    So a person’s personal actions mean NOTHING to you so long as you agree with the cause? Are you serious?
    jony0n2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 61
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,866member
    M68000 said:
    Why I still buy and rip CD to lossless and am exploring open source software.   Has anyone else experienced the app store in High Sierra losing it's GUI...? Is Apple working hard to get customers on to a very short leash...? 
    Yes,  I have a treasured Mac Air 11 inch from 2011 with High Sierra and have seen that the App Store no longer renders correctly on it,  very odd of course.  My 2018 Mac Air with Big Sur renders the App Store fine.
    Not odd actually. I'm surprised the AppStore works at all on an OS that out of date. It's like trying to open a safe with a skeleton key.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 61
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 1,130member
    The App Store problems might have something to do with High Sierra and a 2011 MBA not supporting Metal graphics.
    I have an old iMac that I just use as a juke box.  It's on El Capitan, stuck there because it won't support Metal.
    llamawatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 61
    That’s the Price you pay. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 61
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,912member
    The man paid good money. 

    Honor it apple. 

    Even if you must disassociate that I’d from whatever services he abused, he needs to keep his music, photos, apps, etc. 

    i know I’d be dying if Apple did that to me. 

    Many thousands spent. 

    A terms violation (even a bad one) is no excuse to steal what he paid for. 


    hattigelijahg
  • Reply 26 of 61
    acejax805acejax805 Posts: 109member
    Just another example of why app store monopolies are bad. Google and Apple need to open their app stores up and allow ALL 3rd party content to exist. I know there isn't much empathy for people on this board of Apple investors and cultists however, that doesn't change the fact Apple and Google's app stores are anti-competitive and hurt consumers overall. 
  • Reply 27 of 61
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    acejax805 said:
    Just another example of why app store monopolies are bad. Google and Apple need to open their app stores up and allow ALL 3rd party content to exist. I know there isn't much empathy for people on this board of Apple investors and cultists however, that doesn't change the fact Apple and Google's app stores are anti-competitive and hurt consumers overall. 
    Then don’t use them. 

    Buy an Android phone and stick to the fringe app stores. 

    No one is forcing you to use Apple kit.

    Oh, and loved your definition of cultist: "someone who's not in my cult."
    edited April 2021 mike1llamajony0
  • Reply 28 of 61
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Wow. It's actually easier to write in this forum using the Apple Pencil than type using the keyboard. That's how bad this forum software is.
    edited April 2021 jdb8167jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 61
    This is exactly why I download music, movies, etc that I buy in iTunes onto a personal machine, that is backed up, in the event I can no longer access my account, I will still have the content, just not the convenience.

    Also another way to help mitigate not having access to movies, he could’ve associated his account with Movies Anywhere (and subsequently other parties) to retain cloud access to the content (doesn’t work with all movies, but a lot do... here’s looking at you lionsgate).
  • Reply 30 of 61
    sbdudesbdude Posts: 277member
    Everyone that "hopes he wins" has forgotten (or doesn't know) the phrase "caveat emptor", or "buyer beware". Just because you click through the user agreement without reading it doesn't mean you're not bound to it. Ignorance is not a defense of the law ("sorry officer, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to turn left across that line").
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 61
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,033member
    sbdude said:
    Everyone that "hopes he wins" has forgotten (or doesn't know) the phrase "caveat emptor", or "buyer beware". Just because you click through the user agreement without reading it doesn't mean you're not bound to it. Ignorance is not a defense of the law ("sorry officer, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to turn left across that line").
    Caveat emptor is not legal doctrine. 

    Contracts are agreements the courts will enforce. Of course, follow the money determines what is legal or illegal, but there are limits to what contracts can require. It is the case that companies will place language in contracts they know to be unenforceable to dissuade action — this includes form contracts which most people mistakenly think are sacrosanct. 

    Anyway this case might be interesting to watch. 
    CloudTalkinmrmewatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 61
    earthkid said:
    The way I see it, if you do something against the agreement then you actually reach the agreement then Apple have the right to take away anything you purchase. That’s why you don’t do anything to bridge the agreement. So now we have to find out if the guy did anything and why you Gotta be a reason. So if the true is it turn out is he fault then he deserve it. You have to pay the price for what you did.  You can’t do anything against the agreement and still get to keep everything. So yes I both agree and disagree with Apple but I still have to see more proof or evidence that if he did anything wrong or not if he did then I agree 100% that everything he did everything he owns should be returned to the original. Even if he purchased all those media but if he did something wrong then yes he don’t deserve to keep it. That is just the price that he had to pay and if you want to do something you have to think twice before you do it.
    Apple has their own lawyers; they likely don’t need us. They will have their day in court and the court will get to decide who’s allowed to do what to whom. 

    There is a very strong argument to be made that by taking away someone’s Apple ID, they are being deprived of access to their property, and therefore their property. I suspect (hope?) that Apple will recognize the weight of the consequence and reverse course. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 33 of 61
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    acejax805 said:
    Just another example of why app store monopolies are bad. Google and Apple need to open their app stores up and allow ALL 3rd party content to exist. I know there isn't much empathy for people on this board of Apple investors and cultists however, that doesn't change the fact Apple and Google's app stores are anti-competitive and hurt consumers overall. 
    Why do Google need to open anything up?
    elijahg
  • Reply 34 of 61
    hattighattig Posts: 860member
    I think that terminating an apple id without any reason given is really poor, and not on when that apple id is used for basic device functionality, never mind also being used for purchases (whether it's $25 or $25000) for the right to indefinitely access content.

    It is clear consumer protection laws around these online services are really weak and do not protect the consumer at all.

    A (possibly minor) breach in one area should not lead to a permanent ban somewhere else, and it shouldn't result in physical devices you bought operating less efficiently.

    So it's clear Apple needs to set up some firewalls around it's AppleID program, so that they can block specific aspects of functionality, but not others.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 35 of 61
    hattighattig Posts: 860member
    sbdude said:
    Everyone that "hopes he wins" has forgotten (or doesn't know) the phrase "caveat emptor", or "buyer beware". Just because you click through the user agreement without reading it doesn't mean you're not bound to it. Ignorance is not a defense of the law ("sorry officer, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to turn left across that line").
    In many places, unreasonable or unfair terms and conditions (or complex, difficult to understand, too long even) are unlawful, and will be knocked back by courts, in favour of the consumer.

    Sorry if consumers don't have that right in the USA. Maybe you should fight for them, but judging from the comments on this thread so far, I don't think many will - until it happens to them personally.
    muthuk_vanalingamelijahg
  • Reply 36 of 61
    hattig said:
    sbdude said:
    Everyone that "hopes he wins" has forgotten (or doesn't know) the phrase "caveat emptor", or "buyer beware". Just because you click through the user agreement without reading it doesn't mean you're not bound to it. Ignorance is not a defense of the law ("sorry officer, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to turn left across that line").
    In many places, unreasonable or unfair terms and conditions (or complex, difficult to understand, too long even) are unlawful, and will be knocked back by courts, in favour of the consumer.

    Sorry if consumers don't have that right in the USA. Maybe you should fight for them, but judging from the comments on this thread so far, I don't think many will - until it happens to them personally.
    Funny. There are plenty of such laws but it’s also true that things change. Scary. Buying a digital thing is not the same as buying a chunk of physical media and sellers of said digital things are allowed to have there own rules on such purchases and consumers get to decide if they want to abide by them or shop elsewhere. Amazing this personal choice thing. I hope others have that.
  • Reply 37 of 61
    crowley said:
    acejax805 said:
    Just another example of why app store monopolies are bad. Google and Apple need to open their app stores up and allow ALL 3rd party content to exist. I know there isn't much empathy for people on this board of Apple investors and cultists however, that doesn't change the fact Apple and Google's app stores are anti-competitive and hurt consumers overall. 
    Why do Google need to open anything up?
    ‘App Store monopolies’ is a meaningless term. It’s like saying Target has a Target monopoly when you shop there. I think you need to expand your thinking a bit here. Unfortunately it’s not 1890. I hope you’re never forced to buy Weezer songs from the Weezer monopoly. Do you know those guys decide what songs they put on an album!
    dewme
  • Reply 38 of 61
    boboliciousbobolicious Posts: 1,154member
    Xed said:
    Why I still buy and rip CD to lossless and am exploring open source software.   Has anyone else experienced the app store in High Sierra losing it's GUI...? Is Apple working hard to get customers on to a very short leash…? 
    Not only have I not experienced that the App Store in High Sierra losing its GUI, I haven't experience High Sierra in years. I had to look up to see how many versions of macOS have sense come out since that was the latest version.

    Is it not possible for you to update your OS? I do see that it's now unsupported by Apple since it's so old so I doubt any problems you're experiencing are going to be resolved unless you can resolve them yourself.
    Unfortunately no. I have a number of perfectly functional multi core i7 macs that were orphaned 'by design' for macOS... One of the nice things about orphaning is they mostly 'just work' in and of themselves, including the original install DVDs.  

    One in particular is a mac pro with Vega 56 graphics that is faster than the base current mac pro in some areas. It allows me to run metal as well as legacy software, including many 32 bit apps. One can also swap any number of drives or upgrade RAM in minutes. No T2 to fiddle with.  This works with long project cycles and clients returning after a decade or more for additional work, with a reasonable expectation to be able to access substantial sweat and financial equity in existing digital project files.

    The dosdude hack may be an option with caveats, however I am fine working with an older, stable and resolved macOS, and not having to reinvent basic workflows every year, with the inevitable bugs.  I still use Snow Leopard on occasion, and have yet to find a compelling upgrade in ease of use to replace iWeb, for example.  Unfortunately Parallels hasn't proven foolproof for legacy access, especially when engaging large format imaging on older unsupported peripherals that are less 'chipped' for ink, offer replaceable wear items such as individual print heads and are arguably more efficient and sustainable to keep using until physical rather than software end of life...
    edited April 2021 elijahg
  • Reply 39 of 61
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,925member
    I see some problems on both sides of this issue.

    On the Apple side, "suspicion" seems like not only an unreasonably fuzzy standard that ignores due process, but one potentially open to abuse.

    On the plaintiff's side, the problem of making this a class action is that no two cases are likely identical, and many of them may not even be similar. This isn't like a situation involving a defective product, or a misleading claim about a product, where basically the "injury" to all involved parties is the same. The "class" of people affected would likely involve people with a wide range of money invested, as well as varying levels of proof of violations of terms and conditions at various levels of egregiousness.  This doesn't seem like a well defined "class" to me.

    I suspect the plaintiff (and/or his lawyers) desires making this a class action to draw attention away for the particulars of the plaintiff's case and to argue in generalities about the policy and violations leading to its invocation. Notice that there is no indication that the plaintiff's Apple ID was terminated merely on "suspicion".
  • Reply 40 of 61
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,901member
    earthkid said:
    The way I see it, if you do something against the agreement then you actually reach the agreement then Apple have the right to take away anything you purchase. That’s why you don’t do anything to bridge the agreement. So now we have to find out if the guy did anything and why you Gotta be a reason. So if the true is it turn out is he fault then he deserve it. You have to pay the price for what you did.  You can’t do anything against the agreement and still get to keep everything. So yes I both agree and disagree with Apple but I still have to see more proof or evidence that if he did anything wrong or not if he did then I agree 100% that everything he did everything he owns should be returned to the original. Even if he purchased all those media but if he did something wrong then yes he don’t deserve to keep it. That is just the price that he had to pay and if you want to do something you have to think twice before you do it.
    The mere presence of a clause in a contract you have signed doesn't automatically make the clause legal.

    There are still many issues to be debated on how digital rights should be managed and protected.

    Death was probably the first issue that popped up and caught a lot of people by surprise.

    Independently of licence agreements,  clear measures of control, appeal, independence and transparency need to be codified into law.

    IMO, as long as this guy is alive, he should not lose access - for any reason - to products and services he has purchased previously.

    The same applies to companies like Facebook and Oculus where getting banned by Facebook effectively nukes your Oculus experience.

    It goes without saying that these are issues that fall into the realm of consumer protection too. 
    muthuk_vanalingammrmeelijahgMplsP
Sign In or Register to comment.