4 ms·

They never recieved the trade-in kit. When asked, Apple never replied. And no, it doesn’t make sense for Apple to disable most of the services in case a credit

They never recieved the trade-in kit. When asked, Apple never replied. And no, it doesn’t make sense for Apple to disable most of the services in case a credit card is past due for a few days.

bastawhiz 1y ago
I'm not sure I believe they never replied. The author missed an email saying their payment wasn't accepted and that all of their services would be disabled, that's pretty serious. I'm supposed to believe Apple just lost the ticket? I'm also not sure why the author didn't follow up: not following up has the direct consequence of being charged a substantial amount of money.
- notpushkin 1y ago
  Yeah, I mean, I understand them being charged for the failed trade-in. Their credit card was charged, so Apple supposedly got the money (from Goldman Sachs). Why did they still block his account (owned by Apple) when he failed to pay his credit card bill (owed to Goldman Sachs)?
  - bastawhiz 1y ago
    He didn't pay for the device. The linkage between the card and the account doesn't actually seem important here. They locked the account that the unpaid iPhone was set up with. Why would Apple continue to provide service to an account that was being used by a device that was effectively partially stolen from them?
    - pqtyw 1y ago
      Presumably same would apply to all other devices that user might have had? Disabling those seems quite unreasonable..
      - bastawhiz 1y ago
        They didn't disable the devices, they disabled the connected services.
    - josephcsible 1y ago
      If you buy a Corolla, pay it off, then a few years later buy a Camry too, and you default on its loan, should they be allowed to remotely disable both of your cars?
      - bastawhiz 1y ago
        They didn't disable his phone, they disabled the services that ran on their servers. Should you still get updates and navigation in both of your cars if you effectively steal the car? I can't think of a case where that would be reasonable. Moreover, cars are much more easily repossessed than phones and laptops.
        josephcsible 1y ago
        > They didn't disable his phone, they disabled the services that ran on their servers. Should you still get updates and navigation in both of your cars if you effectively steal the car? I can't think of a case where that would be reasonable. Society has decided that defaulting on a car loan is not equivalent to stealing a car. This is why you can still go to jail for the latter even though debtor's prisons were abolished. > Moreover, cars are much more easily repossessed than phones and laptops. Sure, let's go that route instead. Should they be able to repossess your paid-off Corolla because you defaulted on payments for your Camry?
        bastawhiz 1y ago
        [flagged]
        josephcsible 1y ago
        > services he expects Apple to provide after he doesn't pay them for their hardware The problem is that Apple didn't just disable these services on the device he didn't pay for. They disabled them even on the devices he did pay for. > Should your Corolla's cloud based gps routing stop working when you break your contract with Toyota over your Camry? Arguably yes. The car didn't default on the loan, you did. You broke your contract, why would you expect the other party to continue allowing you to be their customer? Because the contract says what happens if you default, and that isn't one of the things it says.
- gopher_space 1y ago
  The department that handles these problems is unreachable by phone instead of very interested in edge cases and false positives. That's an intentional choice.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  The weakest link in Apple’s chain is the return and tradein fulfillment side. They use distinctive boxes for trades and the clown car of couriers — FedEx. Many of the couriers doing pickups at FedEx are private contractors or subcontractors, and their loss rates are high between pilferage and incompetence. I’ve personally experienced two occasions where iPhones have been stolen in transit by FedEx personnel — one vanished and one, bound for an Apple repair facility in Pennsylvania, was delivered to a residential address a few miles from my city. In neither case was Apple aware, which was surprising to me as they typically have their shit together. I only realized there was an issue on the one occasion where they were going to charge me for a replacement device, and checking the tracking indicated the phone was delivered to a stay at home mom. The whole process must be outsourced to a meh contractor, and insurance cleans up the mess.

They never recieved the trade-in kit. When asked, Apple never replied. And no, it doesn’t make sense for Apple to disable most of the services in case a credit card is past due for a few days.

bastawhiz 1y ago

I'm not sure I believe they never replied. The author missed an email saying their payment wasn't accepted and that all of their services would be disabled, that's pretty serious. I'm supposed to believe Apple just lost the ticket? I'm also not sure why the author didn't follow up: not following up has the direct consequence of being charged a substantial amount of money.

notpushkin 1y ago
Yeah, I mean, I understand them being charged for the failed trade-in. Their credit card was charged, so Apple supposedly got the money (from Goldman Sachs). Why did they still block his account (owned by Apple) when he failed to pay his credit card bill (owed to Goldman Sachs)?
- bastawhiz 1y ago
  He didn't pay for the device. The linkage between the card and the account doesn't actually seem important here. They locked the account that the unpaid iPhone was set up with. Why would Apple continue to provide service to an account that was being used by a device that was effectively partially stolen from them?
  - pqtyw 1y ago
    Presumably same would apply to all other devices that user might have had? Disabling those seems quite unreasonable..
    - bastawhiz 1y ago
      They didn't disable the devices, they disabled the connected services.
  - josephcsible 1y ago
    If you buy a Corolla, pay it off, then a few years later buy a Camry too, and you default on its loan, should they be allowed to remotely disable both of your cars?
    - bastawhiz 1y ago
      They didn't disable his phone, they disabled the services that ran on their servers. Should you still get updates and navigation in both of your cars if you effectively steal the car? I can't think of a case where that would be reasonable. Moreover, cars are much more easily repossessed than phones and laptops.
      - josephcsible 1y ago
        > They didn't disable his phone, they disabled the services that ran on their servers. Should you still get updates and navigation in both of your cars if you effectively steal the car? I can't think of a case where that would be reasonable. Society has decided that defaulting on a car loan is not equivalent to stealing a car. This is why you can still go to jail for the latter even though debtor's prisons were abolished. > Moreover, cars are much more easily repossessed than phones and laptops. Sure, let's go that route instead. Should they be able to repossess your paid-off Corolla because you defaulted on payments for your Camry?
        bastawhiz 1y ago
        [flagged]
        josephcsible 1y ago
        > services he expects Apple to provide after he doesn't pay them for their hardware The problem is that Apple didn't just disable these services on the device he didn't pay for. They disabled them even on the devices he did pay for. > Should your Corolla's cloud based gps routing stop working when you break your contract with Toyota over your Camry? Arguably yes. The car didn't default on the loan, you did. You broke your contract, why would you expect the other party to continue allowing you to be their customer? Because the contract says what happens if you default, and that isn't one of the things it says.
gopher_space 1y ago
The department that handles these problems is unreachable by phone instead of very interested in edge cases and false positives. That's an intentional choice.
Spooky23 1y ago
The weakest link in Apple’s chain is the return and tradein fulfillment side. They use distinctive boxes for trades and the clown car of couriers — FedEx. Many of the couriers doing pickups at FedEx are private contractors or subcontractors, and their loss rates are high between pilferage and incompetence. I’ve personally experienced two occasions where iPhones have been stolen in transit by FedEx personnel — one vanished and one, bound for an Apple repair facility in Pennsylvania, was delivered to a residential address a few miles from my city. In neither case was Apple aware, which was surprising to me as they typically have their shit together. I only realized there was an issue on the one occasion where they were going to charge me for a replacement device, and checking the tracking indicated the phone was delivered to a stay at home mom. The whole process must be outsourced to a meh contractor, and insurance cleans up the mess.