78 ms·

Reminded of this from "The Second Coming of Steve Jobs": "Just fuck 'em" became one of Steve's favorite lines. When he had taken over, he had inhe

by kmfrk 9y ago

Reminded of this from "The Second Coming of Steve Jobs": "Just fuck 'em" became one of Steve's favorite lines. When he had taken over, he had inherited a program called SOS Apple, which let people sign a contract for unlimited customer support over the telephone for a lifetime. It was a bad financial move for Apple. Steve said to shut it down. What about the customers who have a contractual obligation? Jeff asked. "Just fuck 'em," Steve said. The Federal Trade Commission sued Apple over the issue. Apple lost.

delhanty 9y ago
It was probably still worth it for Apple though to be able to dump the unlimited commitments ... ? Facebook, LinkedIn etc. have the same playbook when they play fast and loose with the privacy rules with respect to spamming contact lists. Any penalty is tiny compared with the gain. I'm sure that's FastMail's current management's thinking in my case.
- jhall1468 9y ago
  > Facebook, LinkedIn etc. have the same playbook when they play fast and loose with the privacy rules with respect to spamming contact lists. Any penalty is tiny compared with the gain. Not even close to the same thing. Apple agreed to a contract to provide unlimited support. Facebook/LinkedIn privacy policies explicitly state they can change them with notice, and they do.
  - delhanty 9y ago
    This is do with the violation of EXISTING policies. LinkedIn in particular paid $13 million in 2015 to settle a class action lawsuit about their slightly misleading "Add Connections" feature. http://fortune.com/2015/10/05/linkedin-class-action/ http://fortune.com/2015/10/05/linkedin-class-action/ IMO $13 million was a small price to pay compared with the $26.2 billion Microsoft paid to acquire LinkedIn: https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-to-acquire-linkedin-in-deal-valued-at-26-2-billion-1465821523 https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-to-acquire-linkedin-i...
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > Facebook, LinkedIn etc. have the same playbook when they play fast and loose with the privacy rules with respect to spamming contact lists. Any penalty is tiny compared with the gain. Honestly, that a serious and depressing situation. Fines aren't license fees for unlawful behavior.
  - delhanty 9y ago
    It's they way the world is unfortunately. For example, the fines in the UK for violating spending rules with respect to elections are small enough to be considered just another expense: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/17/dark-money-democracy-billionaires-funding https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/17/dark-m...
antisthenes 9y ago
Like in most of these cases, it was likely cheaper to pay the fine than endure this endless money sink as a company.
fancy_pantser 9y ago
It was called Apple Assurance and the phone number was 800-SOS-APPL. After the case was settled, you could write in for a refund. I helped write one such claim for $70 that took 6 months to arrive. http://www.eschoolnews.com/1999/03/01/apple-ordered-to-refund-tech-support-fees-schools-may-be-entitled-to-refunds-for-35-support-calls-that-were-supposed-to-be-free/ http://www.eschoolnews.com/1999/03/01/apple-ordered-to-refun...

by kmfrk 9y ago

delhanty 9y ago

It was probably still worth it for Apple though to be able to dump the unlimited commitments ... ? Facebook, LinkedIn etc. have the same playbook when they play fast and loose with the privacy rules with respect to spamming contact lists. Any penalty is tiny compared with the gain. I'm sure that's FastMail's current management's thinking in my case.

jhall1468 9y ago
> Facebook, LinkedIn etc. have the same playbook when they play fast and loose with the privacy rules with respect to spamming contact lists. Any penalty is tiny compared with the gain. Not even close to the same thing. Apple agreed to a contract to provide unlimited support. Facebook/LinkedIn privacy policies explicitly state they can change them with notice, and they do.
- delhanty 9y ago
  This is do with the violation of EXISTING policies. LinkedIn in particular paid $13 million in 2015 to settle a class action lawsuit about their slightly misleading "Add Connections" feature. http://fortune.com/2015/10/05/linkedin-class-action/ http://fortune.com/2015/10/05/linkedin-class-action/ IMO $13 million was a small price to pay compared with the $26.2 billion Microsoft paid to acquire LinkedIn: https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-to-acquire-linkedin-in-deal-valued-at-26-2-billion-1465821523 https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-to-acquire-linkedin-i...
Chaebixi 9y ago
> Facebook, LinkedIn etc. have the same playbook when they play fast and loose with the privacy rules with respect to spamming contact lists. Any penalty is tiny compared with the gain. Honestly, that a serious and depressing situation. Fines aren't license fees for unlawful behavior.
- delhanty 9y ago
  It's they way the world is unfortunately. For example, the fines in the UK for violating spending rules with respect to elections are small enough to be considered just another expense: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/17/dark-money-democracy-billionaires-funding https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/17/dark-m...

antisthenes 9y ago

Like in most of these cases, it was likely cheaper to pay the fine than endure this endless money sink as a company.

fancy_pantser 9y ago

It was called Apple Assurance and the phone number was 800-SOS-APPL. After the case was settled, you could write in for a refund. I helped write one such claim for $70 that took 6 months to arrive. http://www.eschoolnews.com/1999/03/01/apple-ordered-to-refund-tech-support-fees-schools-may-be-entitled-to-refunds-for-35-support-calls-that-were-supposed-to-be-free/ http://www.eschoolnews.com/1999/03/01/apple-ordered-to-refun...