flydog

Wesley Hilliard said:

Panner_Nudding said:

Why should anyone decline a refund for a service they paid for is being shut down? This developer is a great person but Apollo isn't a charity although at times he gives IAPs to charity nothing indicates that declining a refund would go to a charitable cause. He's made a lot of money, I mean a lot of money over the years and knew the risk building a business off another business and that risk finally materialized like it always does. 

Because the annual subscription was something like $25. Anyone who paid it doesn't miss that money, but owing Apple $250,000 in prorated refunds will certainly hurt. He's done ok, but don't overestimate what a developer makes just because they run a popular app. These people aren't millionaires.

It's your choice to not get refunded of course. But we all agree that declining the refund is the respectable thing to do.

He's done "ok" ????    He collected millions of dollars a year.  

JP234 said:

mikethemartian said:

netrox said:

That is so ridiculous. As long as shareholders are making money, what's the problem???? 

So it is OK to put out materially false information as long as that misinformation successfully increases the stock price?

It wasn't misinformation. It was an informed opinion, which turned out to be correct. Don't see the problem, except for a few short sellers, who got kicked in the nuts when they didn't believe it.

Framing something as an "opinion" doesn't transforom if from false to truthful. The question is whether person who stated the "opinion" knew that it was false or was negligent in forming that opinion. Moreover, according to the ruling, Apple knew that it was facing economic headwinds in China in November 2018, and not only failed to disclose it until early 2019, but told investors that he would not put China in the "category" of other regions where there was sales pressure.  This was not merely an "opinion," it was a statement of fact made to investors.

netrox said:

That is so ridiculous. As long as shareholders are making money, what's the problem???? 

Thanks for that absurdly illogical and generic comment. 

First, the stock dropped 30% during the period in question. Whether Apple stock went up 3 years later is irrelevant to those who sold at a loss.

Second, to the extent that someone was able to mitigate that loss by "making money" over the long term, that would a question of damages, not whether any misleading statements were made. 

Third, even if the shareholders at issue were "making money," the question is whether they would have made more money. 

ApplePoor said:

Apple can well afford paying their employees. They could cut Cook's wages to 5 million and pay the folks that actually do all of the work. 

Zero relevance of this nonsense to the article.  Zero. 

The API charge noted in this article is incorrect. Reddit charges $0.24 per 1,000 API calls, not "$0.02 per user." 

https://www.reddit.com/r/redditdev/comments/13wsiks/api_update_enterprise_level_tier_for_large_scale/