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.
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.
I agree that the arrangement could have been more detailed to spell out in detail how early recall of the DTKs would be handled.
My understanding is that Apple stipulated up-front that the DTMs could be recalled at any time with written notification from Apple. It wasn't a month to month lease and perhaps it should have been. It wasn't a rent to own, which has different tax implications. There was also no quality of service guarantee on the DTK hardware or the quality of dev support within the program. I have no idea why Apple chose to offer a financial incentive for returning the DTK units, but since the quality level was not specified in the upfront agreement, it's simply a "goodwill gesture" that in this case has unfortunately backfired miserably.
What Apple did in the past and how much money they have in their bank account is of no bearing on this case, at least from a business perspective. But yeah, if you won the lottery this week I'd bet all your relatives would expect that you'd be sending their kids to college on your newfound winnings. That's human nature, intensified by the fact that some people put a different value on "easy money" versus "hard earned money." Apple earned their money through hard work, perseverance, and taking calculated risks that paid off. They didn't win the lottery.
The biggest issue I have in this case isn't the money. Whether Apple kicks back $200 or $500 is immaterial. What bothers me is the lack of recognition that the relationship between (Apple) developers and Apple is a symbiotic business relationship. It's not a parent-child relationship. Yes, Apple absolutely benefits from having more developers building for the Apple ecosystem, and yes, developers may benefit from building for the Apple ecosystem - if they can become a successful business. It's a mutual beneficial business arrangement that should be free of emotion.
As a developer, if you think you are doing Apple a favor by developing for their platform, whether or not you are successful, you're wrong. You are only helping Apple if you are successful. If you're not financially successful (and intend to be because it's not a hobby), you should probably not be developing for the Apple ecosystem, regardless of whether the "failure" is on your side or on Apple's side. As a developer you don't want to fail, and as a platform owner like Apple, you don't want your ecosystem partners failing. It's either both partners win or both partners lose.
However, don't expect Apple to carry you any more than you would carry them. It's a business arrangement, not a friendship. You'd better be looking out for yourself and your business at all times. It's perfectly fine to take Apple at their word, they've proven trustworthy, but don't extrapolate beyond what they are asking you to agree to upfront. Don't assume any sort of "goodwill gesture" from Apple, or any other business partner for that matter. If Apple tells you that it's recalling the DTKs earlier than you expected, but still within the scope of the prearranged agreement, it's totally up to you to figure out how to navigate your business around this change. Apple isn't obligated to help you. It sounds like Apple is in fact going above and beyond what they said they would do going in, so take advantage of their generosity and plan your next move to keep your own business on track.
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.
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.
I'm aware that Apple specified that the could demand early return of the DTK. I was merely pointing out that many leases spell out specific remedies should the lease end prematurely. Did Apple always intend to give a partial refund? Did they decide later?
Since Apple could have put additional terms regarding early return but did not, they missed their opportunity to more clearly set expectations. That is the full extent of my comment.
The biggest issue I have in this case isn't the money. Whether Apple kicks back $200 or $500 is immaterial. What bothers me is the lack of recognition that the relationship between (Apple) developers and Apple is a symbiotic business relationship. It's not a parent-child relationship. Yes, Apple absolutely benefits from having more developers building for the Apple ecosystem, and yes, developers may benefit from building for the Apple ecosystem - if they can become a successful business. It's a mutual beneficial business arrangement that should be free of emotion.
I apologize, I forgot to copy/past the following line into my original comment (#3 for developer mistakes) and didn't catch it until after I had posted. I thought I could quickly edit and add it before anyone notices, but obviously, I was too slow. Here's the line again, in case you haven't yet seen it: 3. Potential lesees that don't believe the stated cost is worth the perceived benefit should not enter into said lease.
I suspect that many of these self-identified developers are more like tinkerers than serious developers running a business. Honestly, $500 is nothing for a real business, even a small one.
Having said that, it exhibits belated goodwill on Apple’s part to show their support for the small guy/gal who may be struggling to get a foothold in the software market in these times of severe economic distress, especially when Apple just reported a ginormous quarter with record revenue and profits.
Obviously you don't appreciate the quantity of indie developers on macOS.
I don't get it. These developers LEASED it for $500, agreeing to the requirement to return the hardware. Apple shouldn't have had to give a credit to get it back. If anything, there should have been a penalty for NOT returning it.
The lease ended early. If you leased a car, and the owner took it back halfway through the lease, wouldn't you expect to be compensated?
I don't get it. These developers LEASED it for $500, agreeing to the requirement to return the hardware. Apple shouldn't have had to give a credit to get it back. If anything, there should have been a penalty for NOT returning it.
The lease ended early. If you leased a car, and the owner took it back halfway through the lease, wouldn't you expect to be compensated?
If the lease was for an experimental car at a reduced rate for the sole purpose for the lessee could get a jump start on making sure accessories for the design work until such time as the official car was on the market and this was all spelled out clearly in the lease? Then, no, I wouldn't expect to be compensated above and beyond the contract.
I don't get it. These developers LEASED it for $500, agreeing to the requirement to return the hardware. Apple shouldn't have had to give a credit to get it back. If anything, there should have been a penalty for NOT returning it.
The lease ended early. If you leased a car, and the owner took it back halfway through the lease, wouldn't you expect to be compensated?
If the lease was for an experimental car at a reduced rate for the sole purpose for the lessee could get a jump start on making sure accessories for the design work until such time as the official car was on the market and this was all spelled out clearly in the lease? Then, no, I wouldn't expect to be compensated above and beyond the contract.
Glad you brought the experimental part up. I suspect, but I don’t know for sure, that the DTK units were probably not fully compliant with all of the product certification requirements that new products of this type must meet. I’m thinking certifications like UL, CSA, CE, FCC, etc., especially if they were treated as developmental assets used in a lab or test environment rather than being intended for general consumer use.
I’ve personally worked on several new products that were made available to external beta testers as prototypes well before the products passed all of the requirements and certifications for general release. As you can imagine it wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense to incur the expense of running a prototype version of a product through the gauntlet of certification and compliance testing before it is in its final production configuration, or at least very close to the final configuration.
I think Apple just wants to get all of these units (that they own) brought back in-house so they can be processed correctly. I suspect the total cost associated with the DTKs is immaterial compared to the regulatory issues that Apple would incur if these units were considered real products. It would be nice to know.
B. Credit should be available prior to return of DTK. (refund to credit card on file, once DTK returned)
I think that's an absolutely ridiculous expectation. First, no dev had to participate in the program in the first place. Though participation could have some benefit to Apple, and there certainly was some, participation was voluntary.
There is absolutely no reason Apple should give credit in advance of the return of their kit. None. If Apple wanted to be Mr. Nice Guy, sure that would be nice PR. But that whiners expect that? No. That's like getting a deposit back on a rented item before the item is returned.
Apple could have made the lease public in advance so that anybody crying for the poor baby devs could know in advance whether or not Apple violated any terms before vilifying them.
Of course, it's just easier to make allegations without facts like a politician, solely because Apple is Apple.
B. Credit should be available prior to return of DTK. (refund to credit card on file, once DTK returned)
I think that's an absolutely ridiculous expectation. First, no dev had to participate in the program in the first place. Though participation could have some benefit to Apple, and there certainly was some, participation was voluntary.
There is absolutely no reason Apple should give credit in advance of the return of their kit. None. If Apple wanted to be Mr. Nice Guy, sure that would be nice PR. But that whiners expect that? No. That's like getting a deposit back on a rented item before the item is returned.
Apple could have made the lease public in advance so that anybody crying for the poor baby devs could know in advance whether or not Apple violated any terms before vilifying them.
Of course, it's just easier to make allegations without facts like a politician, solely because Apple is Apple.
As you and Dewme have also stated, the point of the Mac credit to get devs with the DTK to return the units. Giving the credit before they get the DTK back in no way helps guarantee that would happen. You'd think this would be obvious.
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.
I thought it was a good gesture from Apple to pay for the return of their DTK units. But I also realize the value of holding on to one of these as a rare collection 😉
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.
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.
Please enlighten us with the name of some of those apps so we can support you with some purchases /s
I didn’t other worrying about applying for a lease for a DTK M1 machine because while I’m a developer by trade for another company (currently developer support, most accurately) and do iOS/Mac development, I’ve not committed to doing it seriously enough where there’d be business sense to lease it.
That’s what I don’t get: my limited understanding is this was explicitly a “lease” for $500, and while you can justify it benefits Apple to have verified M1 native applications out of the gate, presuming the developer is serious and otherwise viable in a business sense (you need to be able to live and pay bills from sales), risk management says you pay the $500 lease to ensure you are a competitor out of the gate with M1 support for performance and compatibility without worrying about if Rosetta will do an acceptable translation (it isn’t successful in 100% of apps, it’d suck to find out yours was in that tiny fraction of a percent where it fails).
Never enter into a contract you don’t understand and/or can’t afford to honor. If the terms said Apple could demand the machines back at any given time or whatever, that’s a calculated risk. If they’ve fulfilled the terms of the contract, and there are no terms where Apple pays you back for returning the machines, well, getting back any money at all for returning it is purely good will on the part of Apple, but they’re not remotely obligated to do so unless they spelled it out in the contract, or perhaps they actually are changing the terms after the fact, in which case it may simply be cheaper to do so than to fight any cases in a legal court or the court of public opinion.
Any lease I do (I’ve only done short-term leases of small tools or rental cars, other than apartments) I have a complete expectation of returning whatever I leased, no money coming back to me, unless spelled out in the contract otherwise. That’s what mature people do.
I see the $500 lease in this case as a way to at least weed out a percentage of non-serious riffraff from just getting a prototype for whatever reason at no cost to them, but at cost to Apple. Those costs to Apple aren’t just the price of a machine. I also wouldn’t be surprised if those DTK machines weren’t certified via various country’s governmental agencies for use in various areas, like residential zoning, where regulations vary. Each outstanding prototype machine is a liability as well as an asset for Apple.
Very entertaining, watching “adults” getting upset over not getting at least a full lease refund for prototypes that if used properly, give them a business advantage. What a bunch of crybabies!
These devices were LEASED, not sold. The wining developer's logic is irrelevant. That some of you think it's okay to whine after signing on the dotted line is where the problem is, not Apple.
I'm not even defending Apple per-se. I'm defending the intent of a contract. So many entitled people here believe everything is negotiable after the fact.
B. Credit should be available prior to return of DTK. (refund to credit card on file, once DTK returned)
I think that's an absolutely ridiculous expectation. First, no dev had to participate in the program in the first place. Though participation could have some benefit to Apple, and there certainly was some, participation was voluntary.
Perhaps I stated this clumsily. My proposal above was that a developer who wished to purchase an Apple Silicon Mac before returning the DTK would pay the regular (100%) price at the time of purchase. No discount. Zero.
Only after the DTK return could the developer request a credit to the purchasing CC equal to the amount that they would have received from any voucher. Maybe the logistics would be easier if this discount/voucher happened inside Apple stores.
Why? For any developer who absolutely needed a replacement device prior to returning the DTK.
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.
It's the art of the deal.
They make an impossible demand and suffer very short term hate, then when they get reasonable, they get free "good guy" press that sticks. LOL
Wouldn't have been that way if they just did that from the beginning. Shameless.
...you pay the $500 lease to ensure you are a competitor out of the gate with M1 support
macOS isn't exactly a priority in the software industry as it is, and apparently nor is M1 support, otherwise many more popular apps would have been converted already. That, and the reality that it's not quite as easy as Apple (and non-devs here blindsided by Apple) say it is. For a lot of devs, it's not worth it, just leave the users to deal with slower Rosetta emulation if they have no way of testing M1 support themselves.
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.
Where in the letter does it say early return. The letter says soon, not now? Either way who would still want the DTK, essentially beta hardware when they can buy a GA mini to use and know there builds are legit. Send the damn things back to Apple so they can crush them. Only reason to keep it is b/c idiot thinks it will be worth something on eBay in 10 years from now.
Hope Apple is keeping a naughty list. Should be the last time some of these folks get beta anything from them going forward.
The problem with allowing developers to keep DTK is that Apple would need to support this unique hardware in future versions of the OS. Various laws might require Apple to support and repair the hardware for 5 or more years.
By insisting that this leased hardware be returned (whether or not this is enforced), Apple has no obligation to support this unusual hardware.
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.
Wrong. Per the terms of the agreement, the $500 was the fee for joining the program. There was no lease or sale of any equipment, and the fee had nothing to do with the units themselves. The units are owned by Apple and licensed to developers for use according to the terms of the agreement.
Comments
I agree that the arrangement could have been more detailed to spell out in detail how early recall of the DTKs would be handled.
My understanding is that Apple stipulated up-front that the DTMs could be recalled at any time with written notification from Apple. It wasn't a month to month lease and perhaps it should have been. It wasn't a rent to own, which has different tax implications. There was also no quality of service guarantee on the DTK hardware or the quality of dev support within the program. I have no idea why Apple chose to offer a financial incentive for returning the DTK units, but since the quality level was not specified in the upfront agreement, it's simply a "goodwill gesture" that in this case has unfortunately backfired miserably.
What Apple did in the past and how much money they have in their bank account is of no bearing on this case, at least from a business perspective. But yeah, if you won the lottery this week I'd bet all your relatives would expect that you'd be sending their kids to college on your newfound winnings. That's human nature, intensified by the fact that some people put a different value on "easy money" versus "hard earned money." Apple earned their money through hard work, perseverance, and taking calculated risks that paid off. They didn't win the lottery.
The biggest issue I have in this case isn't the money. Whether Apple kicks back $200 or $500 is immaterial. What bothers me is the lack of recognition that the relationship between (Apple) developers and Apple is a symbiotic business relationship. It's not a parent-child relationship. Yes, Apple absolutely benefits from having more developers building for the Apple ecosystem, and yes, developers may benefit from building for the Apple ecosystem - if they can become a successful business. It's a mutual beneficial business arrangement that should be free of emotion.
As a developer, if you think you are doing Apple a favor by developing for their platform, whether or not you are successful, you're wrong. You are only helping Apple if you are successful. If you're not financially successful (and intend to be because it's not a hobby), you should probably not be developing for the Apple ecosystem, regardless of whether the "failure" is on your side or on Apple's side. As a developer you don't want to fail, and as a platform owner like Apple, you don't want your ecosystem partners failing. It's either both partners win or both partners lose.
However, don't expect Apple to carry you any more than you would carry them. It's a business arrangement, not a friendship. You'd better be looking out for yourself and your business at all times. It's perfectly fine to take Apple at their word, they've proven trustworthy, but don't extrapolate beyond what they are asking you to agree to upfront. Don't assume any sort of "goodwill gesture" from Apple, or any other business partner for that matter. If Apple tells you that it's recalling the DTKs earlier than you expected, but still within the scope of the prearranged agreement, it's totally up to you to figure out how to navigate your business around this change. Apple isn't obligated to help you. It sounds like Apple is in fact going above and beyond what they said they would do going in, so take advantage of their generosity and plan your next move to keep your own business on track.
Since Apple could have put additional terms regarding early return but did not, they missed their opportunity to more clearly set expectations. That is the full extent of my comment.
3. Potential lesees that don't believe the stated cost is worth the perceived benefit should not enter into said lease.
So yes, I'd agree with your sentiments.
There is absolutely no reason Apple should give credit in advance of the return of their kit. None. If Apple wanted to be Mr. Nice Guy, sure that would be nice PR. But that whiners expect that? No. That's like getting a deposit back on a rented item before the item is returned.
Apple could have made the lease public in advance so that anybody crying for the poor baby devs could know in advance whether or not Apple violated any terms before vilifying them.
Of course, it's just easier to make allegations without facts like a politician, solely because Apple is Apple.
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.
That’s what I don’t get: my limited understanding is this was explicitly a “lease” for $500, and while you can justify it benefits Apple to have verified M1 native applications out of the gate, presuming the developer is serious and otherwise viable in a business sense (you need to be able to live and pay bills from sales), risk management says you pay the $500 lease to ensure you are a competitor out of the gate with M1 support for performance and compatibility without worrying about if Rosetta will do an acceptable translation (it isn’t successful in 100% of apps, it’d suck to find out yours was in that tiny fraction of a percent where it fails).
Never enter into a contract you don’t understand and/or can’t afford to honor. If the terms said Apple could demand the machines back at any given time or whatever, that’s a calculated risk. If they’ve fulfilled the terms of the contract, and there are no terms where Apple pays you back for returning the machines, well, getting back any money at all for returning it is purely good will on the part of Apple, but they’re not remotely obligated to do so unless they spelled it out in the contract, or perhaps they actually are changing the terms after the fact, in which case it may simply be cheaper to do so than to fight any cases in a legal court or the court of public opinion.
Any lease I do (I’ve only done short-term leases of small tools or rental cars, other than apartments) I have a complete expectation of returning whatever I leased, no money coming back to me, unless spelled out in the contract otherwise. That’s what mature people do.
I see the $500 lease in this case as a way to at least weed out a percentage of non-serious riffraff from just getting a prototype for whatever reason at no cost to them, but at cost to Apple. Those costs to Apple aren’t just the price of a machine. I also wouldn’t be surprised if those DTK machines weren’t certified via various country’s governmental agencies for use in various areas, like residential zoning, where regulations vary. Each outstanding prototype machine is a liability as well as an asset for Apple.
Very entertaining, watching “adults” getting upset over not getting at least a full lease refund for prototypes that if used properly, give them a business advantage. What a bunch of crybabies!
They make an impossible demand and suffer very short term hate, then when they get reasonable, they get free "good guy" press that sticks. LOL
Wouldn't have been that way if they just did that from the beginning. Shameless.
Hope Apple is keeping a naughty list. Should be the last time some of these folks get beta anything from them going forward.