I said in other comments that I certainly can't see this working. If it did work, why not just make a policy that says We'll keep a badge on your profile every day that we don't have an order that affects your records, but should we ever get such an order, of course we would take your badge away? I think Apple is just rightfully pissed, and maybe wants to be pushed into clearly lying to shareholders, or even put themselves in a position to be granted immunity for such an action.
On the one hand it sounds like it was legitimate enforcement of their policies. On the other hand, it might be stupid for Apple to do it because it highlights that they are running a walled garden and any fortune 500 could - rightly or wrongly - find their line of business application shut down arbitrarily by Apple on any given day. Who wants to be in that position?
That would make it harder for Apple to apply their double standards at will. Tech companies like it when the most specific they have to get is "you violated the guidelines".
I agree with your point that Apple should not be able to yank/revoke access and treat your account differently than anyone else’s other than by court order. This is worrisome.
My initial question was tangential and more thinking out loud how they deal with lower sales velocities.
I mean you could get away with it for a while but if Apple think you are only circumventing then they’ll have you thrown out. Which I think is fine. You can’t have rigid rules, you need a human to interpret.
I know what you mean - this scenario sounds quite backwards, but I'm really having quite a lot of trouble understanding why Apple has decided to go ahead with this.
If they honestly think they can get away with it, I think this might be a signal that they're losing touch with their community.
It would also be nearly impossible to enforce. How would Apple be able to verify that a company is complying with these terms? I don't think many companies would be happy to let Apple poke around in their backend, just as I don't think Apple wants to spend the resources to do that.
Why would it? Seriously a large proportion even of the users bitten by this will still run to buy the next shiny apple device they release and then there is the other part of the users who are not affected and will blame the affected users for doing something wrong, because apple can't be in the wrong. I never understood the personal attachment and identification that some brands elicit it people (but credit to Apple to achieving this, and I don't mean this ironically. They must be doing something right to gather such a following).
Considering APPLE goes so far to make you confirm DUNS numbers for a company acct. It seems like this would have been a good mitigating practice and already has precedence. While it’s a PITA it makes sense.
reply