4 ms·

What's special about paying users? You could just refund them when you ban them.

by prvit 4y ago

viraptor 4y ago
A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". Accepting payment makes some obligations more real. As a free user you accept whatever tos apple throws at you and that's it. As a paying customer you buy a service, with many protections that includes. (depending on your country)
- prvit 4y ago
  >A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". A faulty product that simply doesn't work can totally be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".
  - viraptor 4y ago
    Technically true, but missing the context. What happens is regulated by applicable local law: if both sides are happy with that solution and it's legal to do so, the issue may be resolved with a refund. For example in Australia ACCC says that sure, you're entitled to a refund as one of the options when a product/service fails. But that doesn't stop you from being able to claim damages or losses even if you're fully refunded. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/compensation-for-damages-loss https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees... Actually I'd love to see the result of involving ACCC in this situation if someone in Oz gets terminated. They can be very detailed in their analysis if they're interested.
    - prvit 4y ago
      I don't know how things work in Australia, but I'd be really surprised if someone signing up to sell apps on the app store would be treated as a consumer. Also, paying for the right to develop on Apple platforms is hardly a service.
      - viraptor 4y ago
        ACCC rules apply to products and services. The first sentence in the paid apps agreement is: > You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries (collectively “Apple”) as: (i) Your agent for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users Apple is providing devs a service.
        prvit 4y ago
        There are services which Apple provides to developers as a part of the agreement, but to be an Apple Developer involves much more than that. >ACCC rules apply to products and services. Over here in Europe consumer protection laws generally do not apply to contracts between businesses. i.e. A photographer buying a camera for their business use would not necessarily be covered.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Right. That would make as much sense as letting someone walk on burglary charges because they brought all of the stolen goods back and arranged them as they were before.
    - prvit 4y ago
      Not sure I follow, burglary usually refers to entering a building without permission for the purpose of committing another crime e.g. theft. Bringing stolen goods back and arranging them as they were before would often be a sufficient defense against a theft charge, as an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the item is often a necessary element of the crime. This would presumably also reduce your burglary charge to trespass. https://vistacriminallaw.com/borrowing-theft/ https://vistacriminallaw.com/borrowing-theft/ https://www.floridacriminaljustice.com/blog/2017/08/theft-is-more-than-borrowing-items-without-permission/ https://www.floridacriminaljustice.com/blog/2017/08/theft-is...
lapcat 4y ago
There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales. In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing).
- prvit 4y ago
  >There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales. I'm not really sure how that's relevant here, we're discussing hypothetical regulation that scarface74 is proposing. >In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing). This is likely unavoidable as Apple is subject to a number of AML regulations.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks, PayPal and I’m sure the various places like UpWork. You routinely hear that Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account out because of “suspicious activity”
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks, Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity". > Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account Amex doesn't pay you; you pay Amex. I'm talking about companies refusing to pay what they already owe you. App Store payments to developers are for app sales that are already long completed, and Apple has already taken the money from App Store customers.
    - prvit 4y ago
      >Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity". Either your bank is particularly lenient or your transactions are particularly boring. Most paychecks definitely fall into the "particularly boring" category. OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money laundering risk, you are receiving payments from large amounts of different people.
scarface74 4y ago
Because if you don’t pay for a product, you shouldn’t expect much. It’s why it amazes me that people tie so much of their lives to Google - an ad company.

What's special about paying users? You could just refund them when you ban them.

by prvit 4y ago

What's special about paying users? You could just refund them when you ban them.

A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". Accepting payment makes some obligations more real. As a free user you accept whatever tos apple throws at you and that's it. As a paying customer you buy a service, with many protections that includes. (depending on your country)

prvit 4y ago
>A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". A faulty product that simply doesn't work can totally be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".
- viraptor 4y ago
  Technically true, but missing the context. What happens is regulated by applicable local law: if both sides are happy with that solution and it's legal to do so, the issue may be resolved with a refund. For example in Australia ACCC says that sure, you're entitled to a refund as one of the options when a product/service fails. But that doesn't stop you from being able to claim damages or losses even if you're fully refunded. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/compensation-for-damages-loss https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees... Actually I'd love to see the result of involving ACCC in this situation if someone in Oz gets terminated. They can be very detailed in their analysis if they're interested.
  - prvit 4y ago
    I don't know how things work in Australia, but I'd be really surprised if someone signing up to sell apps on the app store would be treated as a consumer. Also, paying for the right to develop on Apple platforms is hardly a service.
    - viraptor 4y ago
      ACCC rules apply to products and services. The first sentence in the paid apps agreement is: > You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries (collectively “Apple”) as: (i) Your agent for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users Apple is providing devs a service.
      - prvit 4y ago
        There are services which Apple provides to developers as a part of the agreement, but to be an Apple Developer involves much more than that. >ACCC rules apply to products and services. Over here in Europe consumer protection laws generally do not apply to contracts between businesses. i.e. A photographer buying a camera for their business use would not necessarily be covered.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Right. That would make as much sense as letting someone walk on burglary charges because they brought all of the stolen goods back and arranged them as they were before.
  - prvit 4y ago
    Not sure I follow, burglary usually refers to entering a building without permission for the purpose of committing another crime e.g. theft. Bringing stolen goods back and arranging them as they were before would often be a sufficient defense against a theft charge, as an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the item is often a necessary element of the crime. This would presumably also reduce your burglary charge to trespass. https://vistacriminallaw.com/borrowing-theft/ https://vistacriminallaw.com/borrowing-theft/ https://www.floridacriminaljustice.com/blog/2017/08/theft-is-more-than-borrowing-items-without-permission/ https://www.floridacriminaljustice.com/blog/2017/08/theft-is...

lapcat 4y ago

There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales. In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing).

prvit 4y ago
>There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales. I'm not really sure how that's relevant here, we're discussing hypothetical regulation that scarface74 is proposing. >In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing). This is likely unavoidable as Apple is subject to a number of AML regulations.
scarface74 4y ago
Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks, PayPal and I’m sure the various places like UpWork. You routinely hear that Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account out because of “suspicious activity”
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks, Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity". > Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account Amex doesn't pay you; you pay Amex. I'm talking about companies refusing to pay what they already owe you. App Store payments to developers are for app sales that are already long completed, and Apple has already taken the money from App Store customers.
  - prvit 4y ago
    >Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity". Either your bank is particularly lenient or your transactions are particularly boring. Most paychecks definitely fall into the "particularly boring" category. OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money laundering risk, you are receiving payments from large amounts of different people.

scarface74 4y ago

Because if you don’t pay for a product, you shouldn’t expect much. It’s why it amazes me that people tie so much of their lives to Google - an ad company.