Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Reverses iPad "No Cash Purchase" Policy

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the so-it's-free-now dept.

Handhelds 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."

cancel ×

377 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

class act (1, Insightful)

frnic (98517) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283710)

class act...

Re:class act (0, Flamebait)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283760)

Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything. This is what she said:

"Mr. Jobs, give a sister a break," said Campbell. "I'm not going to go sell my iPad."

Not only controlling all the applications and what you can do with the device, but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too? Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people? You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

Re:class act (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283904)

Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything. This is what she said:

"Mr. Jobs, give a sister a break," said Campbell. "I'm not going to go sell my iPad."

Not only controlling all the applications and what you can do with the device, but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too? Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people? You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

Way to spin it there pal. The policy was mean to discourage people from purchasing a lot of iPads and then reselling them for profit during the initial launch because of the high demand and supplies not being able to keep up with it.

This is really no different than efforts to deter ticket scalping where there are limits on the number of tickets each person can buy.

Re:class act (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284006)

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:class act (2, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284050)

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:class act (2, Interesting)

weirdcrashingnoises (1151951) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284090)

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:class act (2, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284256)

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 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.

Re:class act (0)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284432)

And how is this different from any supply and demand purchase?

Someone walking into a store and buying ONE is a lot different than someone walking into a store and buying TWENTY. If Apple creates such a huge frenzy, then what if the backlash is a secondary market, just like the original overhyped iPhone?

Apple has the ability to limit the number of resellers (in the US markets, by law and legal precedent). 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.

Apple can enforce certain parts of a EULA as well. But none of that's at issue. It's another privacy-robbing, credit card # surrendering demand. Limiting the number of purchases may have possible consequences in some states, too. Where I come from, ticket scalping is not only legal, but in many cases desirable. There's a monopoly on THAT, too.

Re:class act (2, Informative)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284564)

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:class act (-1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284032)

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.

Re:class act (2, Informative)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284264)

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:class act (2, Informative)

immaterial (1520413) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284266)

They can track your purchases via your credit card, doofus, whereas cash is anonymous. How'd you get modded informative? (Now, if you have multiple CCs perhaps you could work around it, though they may be using the address or phone # tied to the CC account in addition to your name.)

Re:class act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32284310)

So you buy Visa gift cards.

Re:class act (2, Informative)

tenton (181778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284294)

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:class act (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32284296)

God you are the dumbest person on slashdot, and every time you post it makes me angry. Do you honestly believe that the reason they made people use a credit card was because they assumed no one had high enough of a credit limit to buy more than two? How the fuck did this get +3 Informative. If you're really still too dumb to get this, obviously your credit card company won't stop you from buying more than two BUT APPLE WILL. And they know how many you bought because YOU USED YOUR FUCKING CREDIT CARD.

Re:class act (2, Informative)

TwiztidK (1723954) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284334)

It doesn't matter how big your credit limit is, it matters how many credit cards you have. Basically, they wouldn't sell more than two iPads to the same credit card while that limit was in effect.

Re:class act (2, Informative)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284394)

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:class act (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284064)

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:class act (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284472)

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:class act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32284070)

Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything. This is what she said:

"Mr. Jobs, give a sister a break," said Campbell. "I'm not going to go sell my iPad."

Not only controlling all the applications and what you can do with the device, but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too? Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people? You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

Way to spin it there pal. The policy was mean to discourage people from purchasing a lot of iPads and then reselling them for profit during the initial launch because of the high demand and supplies not being able to keep up with it.

This is really no different than efforts to deter ticket scalping where there are limits on the number of tickets each person can buy.

This is clear abuse of the free market. Can you imagine the last 2 Christmas seasons without $1000 PS3s and $600 Wiis on eBay? Sometimes tyrants need to be murdered. This is a clear case of Steve Jobs using his power and greed to control other markets.

Re:class act (0)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283906)

Not only controlling all the applications and what you can do with the device, but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too?

They do not control if you can sell your iPad. They limit sales to two per customer, just like hundreds of other companies have done when they have constricted supplies. Heck, Nintendo will only sell you one Wii Fit per customer right now, but I don't see any press about how they're trying to stop you from reselling them.

Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly, but exactly how is this good for the market or people?

Easy, people aren't buying hundreds of them, then reselling them at a markup resulting in higher prices siphoned off by a middle man.

You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

No, but you haven't shown how this is bad for customers, either or how it abuses them. If you're an early adopter and are buying while supplies are very limited, you have to use a credit card, but no more than two, or wait a few weeks. Oh, the poor customers.

Re:class act (1, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284074)

>>>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:class act (1)

Pence128 (1389345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284252)

Do you have 5 or 6 fake identities to go with them?

Re:class act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32284346)

You don't need fake identifies if you just buy Visa gift cards.

Re:class act (1)

tenton (181778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284314)

12-14 is one thing. You're still constrained. You can't get dozens or hundreds.

Re:class act (0, Offtopic)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284322)

Try reading what you quoted again. Does it say "they limit sales to two per credit card" or does it say "they limit sales to two per customer". Or does each of your 6 or 7 credit cards have a different name on it?

Re:class act (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284366)

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 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32283918)

Another stupid comment from Ballmer's cock jockey. Apple isn't telling anyone they can't sell their device you stupid fuck. Way to take the quote completely out of context to make another one of your dumbassed rants.

Re:class act (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284060)

Err, quite. Also:

Finney: You just changed a little piece of the world.
Campbell: Did I really?
Finney: Absolutely. How does that feel?
Campbell: For no one who's traveled the world, it feels worldly. That's pretty exciting.

Aside from the last sentence being completely and utterly unparseable, the first sentence is completely and utterly incorrect. She changed an Apple policy on selling high-volume consumer electronics. That's not exactly a cure for cancer, now is it?

This whole thing is blown up out of all proportion. Nobody needs something so badly that they can't wait a couple of weeks. Not even someone with a disability. Talk about entitlement...

Re:class act (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284140)

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:class act (0, Troll)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284378)

Well, it's just the never-ending story of Apple wanting to control everything.

Never-ending myth, you mean.

Not only controlling all the applications

Apple doesn't control "all the applications".

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.

but controlling if you are allowed sell your device too?

Apple controls this in no way whatsoever. You are 100% free to sell your iPad to whomever for for whatever price you wish.

Everyone always says Apple is not a monopoly

Because they are not.

but exactly how is this good for the market or people?

Since it's not true, it doesn't matter one way or the other.

You don't need to be a monopoly to abuse customers.

This is true, although irrelevant, as Apple aren't abusing their customers.

iFirst (-1, Redundant)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283712)

Fist Prose

Re:iFirst (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32283802)

iFAIL

Black market? (2, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283732)

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:Black market? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283768)

I dunno, paper trail maybe? There isn't much of a record if its a cash transaction.

Re:Black market? (5, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283794)

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? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283972)

The idea is to limit the number of purchases that a single customer can make...yes, obviously it's probably possible to use several credit cards...

...And that's a good point. Anecdote: I paid for public parking, in a congested downtown area, with my debit card. The meter rejected my debit card for the above reason when I went to add an extra hour, so I whipped out the credit card and it worked even though the names on both cards are identical.

I love to talk trash about Apple, but their buyers are being very idiotic crying about it when(as TFA says) they could simply walk down the street to Best Buy if they wanted to buy more. Furthermore, the people who can't get more than 1 debit/credit transaction card are the people who have no business dropping that kind of dough on an iPad.

Re:Black market? (3, Informative)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284062)

False. Nobody's doing that, and if they are it doesn't hurt Apple. This was a marketing move to try to propagate the artificial scarcity ploy Apple is using with the iPad. Nothing more. I'm surprised so many rubes don't see that, it's very obvious.

Re:Black market? (1)

immaterial (1520413) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284344)

Not letting people buy 50 at a time somehow increases scarcity?

Stores were selling out on launch day. I would have been pissed if I was the twentieth guy in a 60-person line and was told "Sorry, the first three guys bought 25 each, we're out. (For the record I didn't wait in line for one and I don't even own one.)

Re:Black market? (2, Informative)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283806)

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:Black market? (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283820)

And how is that considered the "black market"?

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? (3, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283982)

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:Black market? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283952)

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:Black market? (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284272)

Goods on the black market are either illegally obtained (stolen), illegally distributed, or just plain illegal.

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.

it works! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32283736)

And they've taken the opportunity to put a bow on the story by giving the formerly scorned Diane Campbell a free iPad.

Awwww, how nice of Apple. See, they really are a good company.




</sarcasm>

Re:it works! (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283764)

The moral is: if you cause enough bad publicity for a company, you get free stuff.

Re:it works! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32283836)

Tell that to Gizmodo.

Re:it works! (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283970)

Gizmodo was creating positive publicity though. I mean, what could be more positive than spamming viewers with basic iPhone Generation 4 ads. A bit like someone playing a site full of movie trailers, it only generates good publicity.

Re:it works! (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283976)

They got free lawsuits!

Re:it works! (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284038)

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 restrict purchase! Wow, I gotta get me one of those, look how many they're selling! Ahahaha. Ridiculous. We live in an age of idiocy.

This note is legal tender (2, Insightful)

54mc (897170) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283770)

for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.

Re:This note is legal tender (1, Insightful)

zelbinion (442226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283862)

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 (1)

rwade (131726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283912)

There's a pretty notable precedent [denverpost.com] .

Re:This note is legal tender (3, Informative)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283916)

It's not a debt if the store refuses to complete the sale. If a customer attempts to buy something with cash, and the store refuses, is there any outstanding debt on behalf of the (potential) customer? Nope, not if they haven't actually bought anything yet.

Re:This note is legal tender (4, Informative)

zelbinion (442226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283930)

Okay, I guess I was wrong:

[from the horse's mouth] [treas.gov]

Re:This note is legal tender (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32283934)

You said it yourself: DEBTS. However much Apple would like to believe it, you do not OWE them the money. As with e.g. bars and restaurants, they reserve the right to refuse service.

Re:This note is legal tender (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283962)

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:This note is legal tender (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283980)

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:This note is legal tender (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32284024)

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....

From: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

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. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

So, no, they don't have to take cash. (Unless a State law says otherwise.)

Re:This note is legal tender (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32283884)

for all debts, public and private.

Oh, except debts to apple.

It isn't a debt if a person has not yet made the purchase.

If she owed Apple money she certainly could have paid in cash. Apple has every right (no matter how stupid) to refuse sale for any reason.

Re:This note is legal tender (2, Informative)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283890)

But you don't owe them a debt, if they won't sell it to you.

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 (1)

langedb (518453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283898)

While cash is legal tender for private debts; there is no requirement on the creditor to accept it. source [ustreas.gov]

Re:This note is legal tender (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284066)

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.)

Re:This note is legal tender (4, Informative)

Burdell (228580) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283920)

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:This note is legal tender (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284326)

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:This note is legal tender (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283942)

for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.

There is no debt until both parties enter into an agreement.

Re:This note is legal tender (1)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283966)

At that point it was not debt. Only if they had given her and ipad on payment plan then they refused to take U.S. dollars would it have been debt and had caused problems.

Re:This note is legal tender (3, Informative)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284008)

for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.

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:This note is legal tender (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284054)

The issue is that the debtor can refuse creation of the debt. I have the right to refuse sale. That is how most places get past the issue of not accepting $100 bills.

So Apple can confirm the identity of any iPad user (4, Interesting)

SlashSim (229766) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283772)

Apple can confirm the identity of any iPad user, so long as they have not purchased the device used.

Very interesting.

Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32283774)

Maybe Steve Jobs just has a howard hughesian mental disorder, like he hates anything ending in "ash."

"Damn you Flash, and all this cash! And fuck Johnny Cash and the movie Slash!"

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32284234)

"Screw this rash, and screw that trash and I doubly hate hash..."

NO! NO! NAiPS (0, Troll)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283780)

(Not Another iPad Story)

A story about some poor lady who saved up her pennies to by an iPad only to be thwarted by the Evil Jobsion Empire of Credit and Security.

Come on folks. The Two Minute Hate is only supposed to last .... two minutes.

Can't we just gang up on BP this week and leave Apple alone for a bit? Or perhaps Scientology? We haven't had a Xenu themed thread in ages.

Re:NO! NO! NAiPS (1)

Some.Net(Guy) (1733146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283858)

no, i'm afraid that apple hatred and disgust is always going to be relevant.

by "afraid" i mean "overjoyed"

Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it right (5, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283818)

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this pattern in the last few months/years, especially as it relates to the iPhone OS devices.

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:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283882)

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:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (1, Troll)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283926)

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 (3, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283960)

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:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (1, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284224)

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?

I take it you didn't check out the prices on eBay.

It's stupid marketing done by stupid people targeting stupid people.

Whilst stupider people whine on slashdot.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284340)

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?

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:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (2, Informative)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284376)

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 (0, Flamebait)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284532)

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.

Plenty of sold iPads on eBay in the US for far more then retail. But that's as nothing compared with if you look on international sites for eBay.

But you keep whining like an idiot that the truth must be what goes on in your imagination, entirely unsupported by any evidence.

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (4, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283964)

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:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284102)

Because it is a strategy to make people want to buy their new generation of devices and software.

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 and multitasking in iPhone OS 4.0.

Same thing with hardware. Anyone could have told Apple they needed to have hardware volume up/down buttons on the iPod Touch, but they ignored it and made it be a "feature" of the 2nd generation, anyone could have told Apple a smartphone released in 2006 needed 3G (especially considering my samsung dumb phone I bought half a year before had it) but then they made it be a "feature"

If Apple did everything right the first time, they would fail to have lots of press coverage when they finally fixed things.

no, this is how things work. (1)

circusboy (580130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284182)

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:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (1)

Coder4Life (1396697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284246)

*Disclaimer* I own an iPhone but am in no way a fanboy, nor am I bashing raven's opinion. I am simply looking to play devils advocate

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.

Dumb policies and products have been apart of apple's legacy. Several times apple has almost tanked completely. Remember the Lisa? What's saved the company from going under time and time again has been their ability to step back from the situation, admit fault or miscalculation, and try their best to fix it.

Sometimes common sense isn't so common and while you and I both agree, yeah that's a stupid policy, someone within the company may not have anticipated such an outcry. Fortunately they were able to look at the situation with clearer eyes and rectify it the best they could

Re:Amazing how bad PR always helps Apple get it ri (1)

plurgid (943247) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284512)

at least they learn from their mistakes and correct them in a timely manner.
unlike ... well almost every other mega-corporation.

even when apple screws up, they do it right.
LOL.

damn. guess I'm a fanboy now.

Confused... (1)

Syberz (1170343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283844)

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.

Re:Confused... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284022)

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:Confused... (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284030)

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:Confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32284108)

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 would cut you off at two fully loaded iPads on that one gold Amex. Which, indeed, means you still get to hock TWO iPads, just not the ten you were looking to sell. So the question boils down to whether or not you're savvy enough to turn enough of a profit on two iPads to make it worth your while on the black market.

Assuming you didn't want one for yourself, that is. Then you'd be down to turning a profit on ONE iPad.

Re:Confused... (0, Redundant)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284494)

Of course you could just use your other credit card and buy two more.

Re:Confused... (1)

Pence128 (1389345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284496)

The black in black market means illegal. Pawning iPads is perfectly legal. Grey market is probably what you're looking for. It means: "there's no reason why it should be illegal, but we really want it to be".

Re:Confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32284540)

They use the credit card number to limit it to 2 per person.

More accurately... (0, Troll)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32283910)

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 won't take cash!".

Artificial scarcity is a pretty boring ploy these days - does anyone actually believe that nonsense?

Re:More accurately... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284290)

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:More accurately... (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284370)

Break out the tin foil hats, RightSaidFred99 has broken Apple's code! Ohz Noez.

They implemented the cash-only policy once their fake scarcity ploy wore out.

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."

First they pretended they couldn't make enough to meet the monster demand.

I don't think they're pretending. But maybe you know more than me... Apple's iPad believed to be outselling Macs in the US: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/05/20/apples_ipad_believed_to_be_outselling_macs_in_the_us.html [appleinsider.com] , Huge Wave of Apple iPad Demand: http://www.changewave.com/freecontent/viewalliance.html?source=/freecontent/2010/03/huge-wave-of-apple-ipad-demnd-03-05-10.html [changewave.com]

Then they resorted to "our gadget is so cool we won't take cash!".

Based on some of the stats, it looks like a bunch of people think it's cool... except RightSaidFree99.

Artificial scarcity is a pretty boring ploy these days - does anyone actually believe that nonsense?

Gee, I don't know. I kind of believe the reports I've been reading, but apparently you're some kind of genius on the matter. Please show me some stats on where you're getting your information from? I would love to see it. My guess, and this is just a guess, you're a windoze/flashboy/anti-apple zealot with some serious jealousy issues, a marketing shill or just oblivious to what's happening that you've decided to encase yourself in your own personal reality distortion field. Very sad.

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32284198)

Apple did not allow to pay cash for the iPOD OS upgrade, either.
Not even allowed to use funds on a gift card... just credit card on iTunes account.

It's time that someone should force them to accept legal tender.

Free publicity (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284254)

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... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32284458)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>