Apple Reverses iPad "No Cash Purchase" Policy 377
ZipK writes "After a few days of bad publicity, Apple has reversed its no cash purchase policy, explaining that the policy was originally implemented to limit the number of iPads an individual could buy during the introductory period of short supply. Now that supply has caught up with demand — and the story has hit front pages and gained national attention — Apple has reversed its policy, and taken the opportunity to put a bow on the story by giving the formerly scorned Diane Campbell a free iPad."
Black market? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can someone explain how using a debit or credit card to purchase an iPad prevents the buyer from reselling it? And how is that considered the "black market"?
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, paper trail maybe? There isn't much of a record if its a cash transaction.
Re:Black market? (Score:5, Informative)
The idea is to limit the number of purchases that a single customer can make. It's sort of hard to sell a hundred iPads on eBay or to people in other countries when you're only able to buy two of them yourself (yes, obviously it's probably possible to use several credit cards or have your friends buy iPads but I think this should be seen as more of a way to eliminate the low hanging fruit to discourage the casual opportunists).
Re:Black market? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
Artificial scarcity is what happens when a few people buy up all the real product, artificially inflating the demand.
Telling people “no, we only have enough real products for you to buy two, sorry” is an example of real scarcity, not artificial scarcity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Telling people “no, we only have enough real products for you to buy two, sorry” is an example of real scarcity, not artificial scarcity.
Only if they are honest.
You believe everything the nice corporate retailer tells you, don't you.
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes apple isn't also checking name/address on the cards (which the meter surely isn't). Your influence over the ipad market is still basically zero. Now imagine how different things would be if you could by them in actual large quantities in order to limit supply in your one-apple store town and then sell on craigslist to locals for a profit? If you end up buying too many and haven't sold them by the time apple gets a new shipment, just go return them to the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not complicated. There is a two per person limit. They kept track of how many a person bought by their credit card. It's not illegal or against Apple policy to sell your iPad, it is against their policy to buy 200 iPads and open up a store selling them in a country where it's not yet available.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the legal status of a device is, Apple has demonstrated on plenty of occasions that it doesn't think one really "owns" something bought from them.
Re:Black market? (Score:4, Informative)
Whatever the legal status of a device is, Apple has demonstrated on plenty of occasions that it doesn't think one really "owns" something bought from them.
Do you have any real examples? Aside from services Apple offers (not purchases) what can't you do with Apple products that Apple prevents you? Once you buy it, do what you want. Take it apart, hack the software, put a different OS on it, since when has Apple stopped you? They even have legal recourse to go after jailbreakers of iPhone or people who make the tools, but they don't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
The proper term is "grey market", not "black market". Goods on the black market are either illegally obtained (stolen), illegally distributed, or just plain illegal. The term "grey market" covers goods hat are purchased legally, but are distributed into countries where they were not sold originally.
Re: (Score:2)
Since iPads have Wifi and (often) 3G transmitters in them, sale and use is subject to a particular country's version of the FCC. The term "black market" would seem to apply here. Apple has to as least appear to be controlling the destination of the units they sale in order to stay out of trouble with the governing bodies of countries they would like to sell these items in eventually.
This note is legal tender (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, that's just what I thought. It is even legal for Apple to refuse payment in cash? I can understand businesses not taking checks, credit cards, debit cards, etc. however not taking CASH? That smacks of a federal crime or something....
Airlines (Score:2)
There's a pretty notable precedent [denverpost.com].
Re:This note is legal tender (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This note is legal tender (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, I guess I was wrong:
[from the horse's mouth] [treas.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are perfectly free to come up with some other form of payment for your transactions, but nothing other than Federal Reserve notes have the backing of US law. That does not mean you are required to pay or accept cash for any transaction, it just means in certain situations (specifically debt) you cannot refuse cash.
In other words, you're free to print up some paper and trade with it, but you can't try to pass it off as a Federal Reserve note or you'll land yourself in jail for counterfeiting. It also,
Re: (Score:2)
businesses can choose who to sell to. That is no legal problem. Legal tender comes in when you owe someone a debt. Then they must to accept payment for the debt if it's offered in legal tender. But if Apple never sold you an iPad in the first place, there is no debt.
Re: (Score:2)
It is even legal for Apple to refuse payment in cash?
Of course it is. A private business can determine what form of payment they will accept.
That smacks of a federal crime or something....
Except for that pesky fact that it isn't one. I suggest you give this page [ustreas.gov] a read:
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The local Apple store just needs to put a sign in the window:
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Traceable Payment Method, No Service.
Re:This note is legal tender (Score:5, Informative)
A purchase (exchange of money for goods) is not a debt. You can show up at your bank with $1000 in pennies to pay your mortgage and they have to take it, because that is a debt, but any vendor can decline cash for purchases. That's why it is legal for some fast-food places and such have signs that they do not accept denominations over $20 (which are more susceptible to counterfeiting and also quickly reduce their change-making ability).
Re: (Score:2)
that they do not accept denominations over $20 (which are more susceptible to counterfeiting and also quickly reduce their change-making ability).
Near as I call tell the bigger the note, the better the protection so they're not more susceptible but getting away with 90$ in cash and 10$ in goods is much more worth than getting away with 10$ in cash and 10$ in goods and you have to deduct the cost of making the forgery which will be relatively less for big notes. So more commonly used yes, but not because it's inherently easier to make a 100$ bill than a 20$ bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a counterfeiting thing (Score:3, Informative)
Part of it is making change. A larger part is drawers in the cash registers and slots in the safe. Most cash registers don't have slots in their drawers for $50 and $100 notes, so you have to store them in the bottom, which is inconvenient and could lead to them getting forgotten. Also these places often use time release safes and depending on the kind, they have intake slots for different bills, and don't always have the largest denominations.
However the largest part is risk. The big bills are of a great r
Re: (Score:2)
for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.
There is no debt until both parties enter into an agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This note is legal tender (Score:4, Informative)
A purchase is not a debt. As per the US Treasury's faq (here [ustreas.gov]):
"all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml [ustreas.gov]
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which say
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly there's a requirement for a creditor to accept payment in any form of legal tender. Your source says as much. But vendors are allowed to only sell things to people on whatever conditions they so choose*, including method of payment.
(* Discrimination on race and other grounds probably (hopefully) excepted.)
So Apple can confirm the identity of any iPad user (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple can confirm the identity of any iPad user, so long as they have not purchased the device used.
Very interesting.
Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it right (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Apple does something really dumb
2. They get bad press for it
3. A higher up at Apple goes "yeah, now that I think about it, that is really dumb"
4. Apple reverses the policy to something not dumb
It seems to me that maybe Apple should look at how they are formulating these dumb policies and see if they can get it right the first time.
Now before I get modded down by the fanbois, let me just say that I own an iMac and an iPhone and generally like Apple products. Yet I simply have to admit that it seems they've had a serious injection of dumbness of late.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that maybe Apple should look at how they are formulating these dumb policies and see if they can get it right the first time.
Why bother when you can get great PR out of doing what any other company does?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The pattern is:
1. Apple does something really dumb
2. They get bad press for it
3. An army of Apple fanboys rush to their defence
4. Apple laugh at how dumb their fanboy users are
5. Boring story gets posted to slashdot frontpage
Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (Score:4, Insightful)
This wasn't a dumb move, and this isn't bad press. They tried to make it look like the iPad was in such MONSTER demand that they wouldn't take cash. Then there was press, some moderately bad (Apple won't take cash), but mostly in their minds good (their iPad is selling like such hot cakes that they want to slow it down by not taking cash). Seriously, this late in the game who could possible be convinced people are still buying 50 iPads at a time and selling them at a markup?
It's stupid marketing done by stupid people targeting stupid people.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you didn't check out the prices on eBay.
I suspect that one of the drivers for this is the fact that the iPad is still only available in the US. Here in Canada for example they will only start shipping next Friday. Almost a month lag is pretty huge when measured in Internet time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh wow, you mean people are trying to sell shit for twice what it's worth and nobody is buying it on Ebay? Quick, call the channel 12 news!
Nobody's buying an iPad for $1100. It's a joke, just idiots fishing. There are iPads on there for only slightly more than you could buy them for at the Apple store.
Whilst stupider people whine on slashdot.
ZaZing!
Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how it's done in the real world: Make a policy that seems reasonable at the time, have something unforeseen pop up to show that maybe it's not as reasonable as you originally thought, re-think and change that policy to something that is.
While Apple's policy was not a good idea, at least they were able to see that and be flexible enough to change it. It's just too bad for them that they had to get a black eye in order to recognize it was bad policy to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, no one gets excited about firmware updates. However, if Apple can add in a blindingly obvious feature they can generate hype and money. Anyone could have told Apple they needed an SDK to be successful and that web apps sucked. However, because they didn't do it, they could get lots of hype when releasing the iPhone SDK and 2.0 firmware update. Same thing with copy/paste/search in iPhone OS 3.0 an
no, this is how things work. (Score:2)
you make a general rule, people break it, you make a more specific rule, it causes a problem, you make an exception, people exploit it... etc.etc.etc.
pick a system, any system.
here's a reasonably good generalization of how law systems [plaidder.com] work and fail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid stuff like this is why I will never buy any Apple products.
Ever.
It took too many years to get rid of one abusive corporate monopolist, and I'm not about to surrender my hard-earned freedom to another corporate monopolist wannabe.
Free publicity (Score:2)
Interesting marketing policy. Good for Apple if it doesn't upset people, free publicity when you revoke the policy if it does.
Now that's what I call a win/win scenario.
--
Toro
Wait a second, I'm confused... (Score:2)
Apple, like any other company, gets your name, address, and zip code when you buy something at one of their stores, right?
And they need to correlate by your credit card number to ensure that you don’t buy more than two iPads?
Why not link them to your account, with your name, and require a government-issued photo ID to verify your identity before they make a sale? Makes a hell of a lot more sense than limiting it by credit card... not everyone has a credit card, and many people have several.
In other words: (Score:2)
Sales are as underwhelming as expected. And yesterday, Apple HQ fell form the distortion bubble into reality, when looking at the hard numbers. (Don’t worry. They’re right back in it again, or else they would gasp for air like fish on land. ^^)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You think this is bad publicity? This is exactly what Apple planned. Now they've got the message out that their iPad is so hawt they have to restrict how many a person can buy. Oh, they mad a bad decision in the no-cash idea, but wow look how well that iPad is selling and how badly people want it!
This was a cheap way for Apple to get unorthodox marketing. Since Apple was so nice in fixing the no-cash policy, all that's left in the rabble's mind is how many iPads Apple is selling since they need to restr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a part of the never-ending story of Apple's cynical marketing.
Gosh, we sure made a bad choice in not taking cash. We do regret that, here's a free iPad - see how well we're dealing with our beloved customers? By the way, don't forget that the iPad is such a hot commodity that we chose not to take cash to prevent the rampant black marketing of our awesome product. I mean, look how crazy that is - we are selling so many we can turn away customers! Again, sorry about that whole no-cash thing but don't forget our artificial scarci..I mean how well the iPad is obviously selling. Joe, your neighbor has one, don't you want to be like him?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The policy was mean to discourage people from purchasing a lot of iPads and then reselling them for profit
What's wrong with that? Shouldn't a person be allowed to sell his device at the price he wants to?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course they are and Apple wasn't stopping anyone from reselling their iPad at whatever price they wanted. They just weren't going to let people buy an unlimited amount when their supply was low.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple makes the same amount of profit per unit whether one or several million people buy them so why should they care at all?
Because they wanted to make sure more people were able to get them?
Now not only does Apple want to control your software and hardware choices, they also want to mess with the laws of economy as well.
It's actually pretty common for companies to set limits on the number of products one can buy especially on items with low supply. Sony is doing it right now with people buying PS3s from them (they also have a limit of 2 per person). Places like FRYS Electronics also only let you, for example, buy 2 hard drives per purchase.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Again no offense Apple Fanboys, old Steve does have good taste, but you have to admit for old Steve it has always been
While I'm a happy user of Apple products, I don't think of myself as a fanboy. But some folks here on /. do classify me as such, so I'll respond in kind for purposes of this post:
Your comments about SJ's need for control are absolutely on the mark and correct, and don't seem to be insulting or judgemental at all. You correctly cite that it's just how he does things in order to create the products he wants to create. And he's got legions of fans because the appreciate his work.
Apple products aren't f
Re:class act (Score:5, Insightful)
The demand wasn’t that high. Speculators would have bought up all of the supply, using an artificial demand to create an artificial scarcity and then trying to sell them for a higher price once they were scarce.
You may then ask – well shouldn’t Apple just charge more then? – in fact, you did ask that.
No; because if every speculator were able to buy 50, they might create an artificial scarcity, but the scarcity would drive up the price, the demand would go down, and many of the speculators would be stuck with products that nobody would buy for the prices they asked, driving the price right back down to where it started – or even below it. Net result? A few speculators might make money, but most of the people who wanted an iPad would have to wait for the black-market price to come down to something more reasonable. Since Apple doesn’t want speculators profiting off of its R&D on its product, and Apple doesn’t want its customers being forced to pay high prices or wait, it’s a lose-lose for them to allow this sort of thing... so they don’t.
Apple sets the price so that they can make the highest profit. Not highest profit per sale, but overall. If they priced it higher, they wouldn’t sell as many; if they priced it lower, they’d sell more. Speculators hoarding the products screw up this system and Apple wants to prevent that.
Re:class act (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you feel that way then I guess you would agree that Apple has the right to limit how many devices a person can purchase, yes? Shouldn't a company be allowed to control the product they produce and distribute?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Controlling a product after it's sold is something altogether different than controlling it before it's sold.
Maybe they should start controlling who buys their products, too. Oh wait...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The policy was mean to discourage people from purchasing a lot of iPads and then reselling them for profit
What's wrong with that? Shouldn't a person be allowed to sell his device at the price he wants to?
Reading comprehension failure. aristotle-dude said "lots of iPads", not "his device". There's a difference.
Apple wants to get the iPad into people's hands as quickly as possible. By limiting the number of purchases to two, this helps prevent people from walking in and buying out the store (remember that bitch who bought the #1 spot in line in order to buy out the entire stock so she could resell them? How is that fair to the people behind her who waited hours?).
Honest people who want an iPad, who sign up on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple wants to get the iPad into people's hands as quickly as possible. By limiting the number of purchases to two, this helps prevent people from walking in and buying out the store (remember that bitch who bought the #1 spot in line in order to buy out the entire stock so she could resell them? How is that fair to the people behind her who waited hours?).
Honest people who want an iPad, who sign up on a waiting list don't deserve to be fucked over by opportunists. What's worse, they stand to be fucked over twice. Once by not being able to buy an iPad from Apple, and once again by having to resort to an iPad "scalper" with inflated prices.
But to answer your straw man, yes, a person is allowed to sell their device at any price they can get. Apple does nothing to prevent this. You are absolutely free to buy two iPads and sell them both.
This rabbit hole goes so deeply away from the light of sound logic that I almost hesistate to peer too deeply into it - but here goes nothing:
Apple wants to get the iPad into people's hands as quickly as possible.
What are the 'scalpers' going to do with the iPads, except resell them? Do they make good wall paneling or something?
How is that fair to the people behind her who waited hours?
How is two any more or less fair to the last guy in line than twenty would have been? Limited quantities are limited. Someone isn't going to get one on the first day.
Honest people who want an iPad, who sign up on a waiting list don't deserve to be fucked over by opportunists.
I'm make an Apple-early-adopter joke here, but you seem like a fanboy, so...
It seems
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we to assume that scalpers don't/can't hire people to stand in line with pre-paid debit cards?
You're absolutely right. As such, this story could be summed up as: Breaking news! Apple does something mildly inconvenient to a handful of people and people who hate Apple anyway freak out and use it as an excuse to post vitriolic diatribe throughout the Internets!
I mean, really, who carries $500 in cash anymore? Could they have done a better job with this to avoid PR flack? Yes. Is it silly and annoying to refuse cash? Yes. Why did they do it? They probably found that there were scenarios where
Re:class act (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple. Apple should have learned how to do business by people who've been doing it long before Apple existed... Limit two (2) per person, per purchase . Grocery stores and Walmarts all across the land have been doing this for decades. You can buy as many as you want... 2 at a time. On launch day, that would equate to exactly two -- by the time you got back to the counter the second time, there wouldn't be any left.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" (yes, it's in caps). That means buying an iPad, or buying a cup of coffee.
No it doesn't. It means paying rent or a bill. If you're buying something at a retail store, they don't have to take cash at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" (yes, it's in caps). That means buying an iPad, or buying a cup of coffee.
WRONG. What it says is true. It doesn’t mean buying an iPad, a cup of coffee, or anything else, because a purchase is not a debt.
There is no debt unless a transaction was completed, no transaction until they decide to sell you one, no sale unless you pay for it, and cash payment is not accepted.
If they give you a financing arrangement (buy now, pay later), that is a debt and they can’t refuse to accept cash payment. A straight sale, however, does not generate debt and they can choose what form o
Re:class act (Score:4, Insightful)
No, actually, research it; you’ll find that I’m right.
Debt is not created during a sale. Until you pay for something, it belongs to the store, and if you decided to walk out with it without paying you wouldn’t be walking out with a debt, you’d be walking out with a stolen item.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I mention in this thread, I've been corrected.
My understanding was incorrect.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" (yes, it's in caps). That means buying an iPad, or buying a cup of coffee.
I suggest you actually read up on the statute before shouting your mouth off:
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
From here [ustreas.gov].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with that? Shouldn't a person be allowed to sell his device at the price he wants to?
It's like ticket scalping. When you have greater demand than supply and are being a benevolent supplier and not jacking up your prices to agree with demand, scalpers move in and attempt to buy you out. Then they turn around and start selling your goods at or above their true market price, much above what they paid for them. Your customers that you are trying to be benevolent to are now unable to buy from you
Re: (Score:2)
you're correct. Apple doesn't want anyone reselling for profit other than themselves, and neither do the ticket sellers (and their distributors).
So really, both situations are damn straight that this was a horrible call by apple. You absolutely cannot stop people from reselling crap they buy, whether with licenses, contracts, or agreements. Linking to an ID thing just meant that you'd have to have multiple people buy the products for you.
Re: (Score:2)
You absolutely cannot stop people from reselling crap they buy, whether with licenses, contracts, or agreements.
And likewise, Apple has the right to sell or to not sell to whomever they choose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you're correct. Apple doesn't want anyone reselling for profit other than themselves, and neither do the ticket sellers (and their distributors).
So really, both situations are damn straight that this was a horrible call by apple.
In what universe is adding more middle-men better for the consumer? Scalpers raise ticket prices without adding anything of value, except being able to buy tickets after an event has sold out. This isn't terribly bad so long as scalping is kept down to a minimum. But what if there were no rules in place to limit scalping? What's to stop someone from buying every single ticket, then selling them at double the price? How is that good for anyone?
You absolutely cannot stop people from reselling crap they buy, whether with licenses, contracts, or agreements.
That's not true, although that's also irrelevant, as Apple doesn'
Re:class act (Score:5, Insightful)
In what universe is adding more middle-men better for the consumer? Scalpers raise ticket prices without adding anything of value, except being able to buy tickets after an event has sold out. This isn't terribly bad so long as scalping is kept down to a minimum. But what if there were no rules in place to limit scalping? What's to stop someone from buying every single ticket, then selling them at double the price? How is that good for anyone?
If people wouldn't pay those prices, they'd very quickly go out of business. If people will pay those prices, the venue probably should raise some/all of the ticket prices to match what the market will support. Higher ticket prices would actually FORCE OUT scalpers -- buy a $30 ticket, resell for $100, that's a good profit margin, that's what keeps scalpers afloat. Buy a $100 ticket that will only sell on the open market for $100, MAYBE $110? I'd love to see scalpers find the profit there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're already getting screwed. If a concert venue has 10,000 seats, and 10,000 people are willing to pay $100 each to get in... well, money talks. It's sad that someone who can't afford $100 to get in is not able to get in but that's a hell of a lot more fair than tickets being "$30" but some middle man siphoning out $70 a ticket, the person with only 30 bucks still not getting in, and the venue only making the profits of $30 tickets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm, it wouldn't force anyone out. These places sell out, or near enough, with a huge percentage of tickets going through a middle-man. Why should the middle man make profit in the first place? Raise the prices, and the people who buy tickets will buy them from you (since there's practically no room left for a middleman to make profit).
The concert-goers wind up paying the same amount of money per ticket, but more of that money goes towards the venue (and the act / artist(s)!).
It's not like concerts half-
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For those playing along, the economic concept here is price elasticity of demand.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, of course it doesn't make sense to people who lack facilities for reasoning.
Besides, it's not like credit cards are identified by unique numbers so how are they going to keep people from buying additional devices? (And what braindead user with mod points thought the above poster was informative?)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there an artificially limited supply of pre-paid debit cards? Do only the intellectual elite get to purchase such things? Or what am I missing?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've got a $20,000 credit limit and could buy tons of them.
Doesn't matter. They were keeping track by CC number (I recall some anecdotal reports of this online). Sure, you could have ordered a bunch from a bunch of non-Apple stores, but it's still another hurdle to jump.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BUT their reasoning makes zero sense. Forcing me to use a credit card instead of cash won't stop me from buying multiple iPads and then selling them to other people. I've got a $20,000 credit limit and could buy tons of them.
No, you can't. Apple uses your credit card to keep track of how many iPads you've bought.
Re: (Score:2)
Would someone who's bought one online recently mind reading their store's privacy policy?
I don't care what reason Apple has come up with this time, they shouldn't have any right to this sort of information about buyers who shop at a third party.
I recall the same restriction was placed on iPhone sales too, and given that O2 were/are quite capable of tracking my purchases and saying "sorry, one per customer" it smelled fishy then too.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>>>They limit sales to two per customer,
So I'll use multiple credit cards then. I've got 6 or 7 of them, so I could get 12 or 14 iPads. Again their reasoning makes little sense when closely examined.
Re: (Score:2)
12-14 is one thing. You're still constrained. You can't get dozens or hundreds.
Re:class act (Score:4, Insightful)
They limit sales to two per customer,
So I'll use multiple credit cards then. I've got 6 or 7 of them, so I could get 12 or 14 iPads. Again their reasoning makes little sense when closely examined.
Okay, then you have 12 or 14 of them and you have to deal with paying 6 or 7 different bills and you've made a small profit while having driven around to a bunch of different shops or risked your credit card by loaning it to someone to make purchases on your behalf. Congrats. That's still a lot harder than sitting outside an Apple store and paying a bunch of people $20 each to go buy 2 iPads then reselling them and making an easy profit while scalping the average person.
This isn't some lock-down method or they're be requiring your SSN or driver's license number. It's just a way to make it harder and less common so it is not a big problem for normal people. This isn't even an unusual business practice, it's only getting press because anything having to do with the iPad gets readers right now. Next there will be an article about how iPads can't be modded to run radio stations or "Apple" will send the FCC to arrest you.
Re:class act (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>They limit sales to two per customer,
So I'll use multiple credit cards then. I've got 6 or 7 of them, so I could get 12 or 14 iPads.
And 6 or 7 names and addresses? And even so, it doesn't matter if a few people get around the limits. What matters is the overall effect, and there can be no doubt that this has helped keep iPad scalping down to a minimum.
Again their reasoning makes little sense when closely examined.
No, it's your reasoning which has failed you. Apple doesn't have to completely stamp out scalping to be effective.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nor do they control what you can do with the device.
In both cases, they only mark certain things as "off limits". This is no more controlling than saying the government controls what you can drive and where you can go, since they outlaw certain vehicles and some roads are toll roads, closed roads, or one-way streets.
So Apple is no more controlling than the government. THIS is your well-thought-out rebuttal?
For what it's worth, we agree!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Droll, but doesn't address the point. Apple does not control all the apps for the iPhone, nor to they control what you can do with it.
Except wherein they do. Or can I play Flash games on it now, for example?
I'm pretty certain there exists an 'approval process', a 'development SDK', etc. If you're making the case that these do not exist, please don't bother to reply. If you're making the case that they're not successful, please understand that this isn't terribly relevant. If you're making the case that they aren't necessary, and that an average user will custom build their own apps on a jailbroken device... well you get the point.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, I'm saying that Apple doesn't control the apps, nor what you can do with them. I thought that was fairly clear. Let me pull up a quote, just a sec...
Apple does not control all the apps for the iPhone, nor to they control what you can do with it.
Yup, looks right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything.
Never-ending myth, you mean.
You can't say it's a myth any more than the parent can say otherwise; I doubt very much that private discussions between board members are made public. Might be sinister, might not be, but don't think Hanlon's razor will prove or disprove anything.
Not only controlling all the applications
Apple doesn't control "all the applications".
Don't they? If you want to use your iPhone and keep the warranty then you have to use the App Store; all the apps that are there Apple put there.
and what you can do with the device
Nor do they control what you can do with the device.
In both cases, they only mark certain things as "off limits". This is no more controlling than saying the government controls what you can drive and where you can go, since they outlaw certain vehicles and some roads are toll roads, closed roads, or one-way streets.
Semantics. Coercion is a form of control and losing my warranty is frankly disincentive enough for me not to jailbreak
Re: (Score:2)
Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?
Because Apple's keeping a database of CC numbers (and who belongs to them) and making sure only two iPads can be purchased per consumer. You don't get to buy ten. If you pay for one in cash, you can pay for one in cash 500 times (probably in different stores), and get 500 iPads.
On a related note, where is this "black market"? Seems like has lots of awesome stuff for sale there.
Anywhere Apple doesn't sell an iPad yet where people want one. There's not really any awesome stuff for sale, only iPads.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?
Umm, because Apple won't sell you 10 fully loaded iPads with your gold Amex, just two. That doesn't stop you from buying two and reselling them, but it makes it a lot less worth your while.
Re: (Score:2)
Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?
On a related note, where is this "black market"? Seems like has lots of awesome stuff for sale there.
You've missed the point: the refusal of cash for a purchase has nothing to do with limiting the number of iPads you can purchase (seriously, it's about as Orwellian as it gets when ideas are used to mean their exact opposite). The amount of cash you have on hand is far more limited, in practical terms, than the amount of money you have at your finger tips on a credit card. It is *easier* to buy ten iPads on a credit card; it is much harder and riskier to cart around the amount of cash necessary to do the
Re: (Score:2)
We already have a way to uniquely and unquestionably identify a person. It’s called picture ID.
Re: (Score:2)
Can somebody explain to me why buying 10 fully loaded iPads with my gold Amex prevents me from selling them on the black market afterwards but paying for one in cash doesn't?
Easy: Apple Stores don't accept American Express. "Visa--it's everywhere you want to be."
Disclaimer: I have no idea whether Apple Stores accept AmEx or not. It was just a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
The fantasy is: They implemented the cash-only policy once their fake scarcity ploy wore out. First they pretended they couldn't make enough to meet the monster demand. Then they resorted to "our gadget is so cool we wyon't take cash!".
The realisy is: iPads were credit card only from day one. And the prices on eBay attest to the fact that people can make money from buying retail and reselling.
Re: (Score:2)
Break out the tin foil hats, RightSaidFred99 has broken Apple's code! Ohz Noez.
Or, this was a new device that they really didn't know how many were going to sell and they limited the production. A lot of companies do this. Im sure they did some market research and came across all your post and thought to themselves, "Gee, maybe we shouldn't produce 10 million of these things, because RightSaidFred99 says he's not going to by one."