×

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 Offers Refund To Stiffed Breaking Bad Season Pass Customers

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the we're-sorry-you-caught-us dept.

Television 215

An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago, a man sued Apple after finding out that the $22.99 he paid for a season pass of Breaking Bad was only good for the final season's first 8 episodes. ... In light the mix-up, Apple late on Monday began informing folks who purchased a season pass for the 5th season of Breaking Bad that they are entitled to a refund in full in the form of a $22.99 iTunes credit." "Mix-up" seems an entirely charitable description.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

215 comments

Netflix (3, Insightful)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about 7 months ago | (#44934851)

Whoever pays $22.99 for half a season, or any other TV show, when it is available on Netflix is beyond me. Don't get me started on bluray box sets.

Re:Netflix (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44934995)

The last season isn't available on Netflix.

[insert something witty for mod points]

Re:Netflix (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935759)

The last season isn't available on Netflix.

[insert something witty for mod points]

Yet. Will likely be available this fall or spring after the shows conclusion. Yeah for those of us with some patience!

Re:Netflix (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 7 months ago | (#44935985)

Here in Ireland, we get the latest Breaking Bad episodes on a Monday (I watch them during my lunch break). So this is either misinformation, or just another example of stupid geo-location-shite.

Re:Netflix (2)

Forbo (3035827) | about 7 months ago | (#44935011)

The content in question won't be available on Netflix for several months after the release. The reason people buy it is because they want that content available as it is released.

Re:Netflix (-1, Troll)

Archangel_Azazel (707030) | about 7 months ago | (#44936043)

Proving that Americans are idiots with more money than brains or patience...

(just my opinion on the matter. seems that we buy an awful lot of shite RIGHT WHEN IT COMES OUT BECAUSE I GOTTAHAVEITRIGHTNOWGIMMIE!)

Just sayin'....

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936797)

Thing is, I have a lot of brains and a LOT of money, so if I want to spend it on entertainment I enjoy to signal to its creators that I enjoy it, that doesn't make me stupid.

You comment DOES make you stupid, in case you were wondering.

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936807)

Buy it on day 1 or buy it on day 345, the price will be the same except for when it's on sale.

Proving that you are absolutely the moron you rally so hard against.

Re:Netflix (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935013)

People who assume certain content will always be available on Netflix or that everyone has access to it, are idiots. Don't get me started on those people.

Re:Netflix (2)

Serneum (3195887) | about 7 months ago | (#44935047)

I buy shows that I want to own because I may not always have Netflix and/or Netflix may eventually shut down.

Re:Netflix (1)

roninmagus (721889) | about 7 months ago | (#44935269)

This is sensible; but the reason I don't buy on iTunes or physical media is because I really don't care if it becomes unavailable. I've watched it, no point to me in watching again. My only exception at all to this rule is Office Space. :)

Because it's worth it so have it now (2, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | about 7 months ago | (#44935339)

Whoever pays $22.99 for half a season, or any other TV show, when it is available on Netflix is beyond me. Don't get me started on bluray box sets.

With most movies I have no problem waiting for them to come out on DVD. But somethings are just so good you want to see them now. One of the things about a series is that it's immersive and lasts a long time. You enjoy talking to your friends about it while the thoughts are fresh and the possibilities in the next show have your mind alive. You want to talk about it now not in hindsight. that's the thrill. Look at all the discussion sites for breaking bad.

Since it's currently the best and most engaging drama on TV, this of all examples is a case where you should understand why anyone would want to pay $22.

Also Dumbledor dies at the end of harry potter. The cake is a lie. Walter poisons Todd's Tea with ricin.

Re:Netflix (0, Troll)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 7 months ago | (#44935391)

Trying to find logic in Apple customers' actions is completely impossible.

Re: Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936067)

Logic in their motivation, yes you are correct. However, a logical scientific method can be used to predict their migratory pattern: namely, how they periodically queue outside the Apple Store. Zoologists study similar behavior patterns in many other species.

Re:Netflix (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 7 months ago | (#44935817)

People who don't want to wait to whenever Netflix gets it? Netflix doesn't always get content right away after release. Apple and Amazon offered Breaking Bad episodes the week after they aired. Also once you pay for a show, it's yours to play as many times you like. Netflix rotates their content so it may not be around next year or whenever you get around to watchin it.

Re:Netflix (1)

ccguy (1116865) | about 7 months ago | (#44935863)

Whoever pays $22.99 for half a season, or any other TV show, when it is available on Netflix is beyond me.

What's beyond me is why AMC, HBO, etc, insist on not taking my money. It's Euros, OK, but really - they can be exchanged to USD and then used for everything. I can write a walk through should the network exec consider my proposal interesting.

Re:Netflix (2)

petermgreen (876956) | about 7 months ago | (#44936905)

What's beyond me is why AMC, HBO, etc, insist on not taking my money.

AIUI when a TV show is made it is typically made for and owned by a TV network in it's home country (or sometimes for expensive shows several TV networks in different countries). That TV network (or networks) then sells the rights to it to other TV networks arround the world. The first TV network in a given region to buy it pays a premium because it's "new and exclutive". If they sell copies directly to customers in your country then they can no longer sell it to a TV network in your country as "new and exclusive". So while there is clearly a benefit from selling to you directly there is also potentially a cost.

Not saying I support regionisation, just that I understand why it happens.

Re:Netflix (1)

kbonin (58917) | about 7 months ago | (#44936375)

While I won't argue about the convenience of Netflix (for movies and shows that appear there, once they do do appear), since I don't spend a great deal of time watching TV, its more practical for me to take my money that would otherwise go to Cable and/or Netflix and buy movies and TV shows on DVD or BD. That way, while the fine print does state that I'm only licensed to use the "video device" for personal non-commercial private viewing, I do have a growing library of insured high quality digital copies I may watch immediately anytime I want that cannot be revoked or disappear in an annual licensing negotiation, nor count against the steadily more constrained bandwidth available in most of the US. And someday when the courts uphold that the DMCA anti-circumvention clause may no longer invalidate the "space shifting" precedent, I'll be able to legally rip it all and have a legal mobile digital library of same content. (I know, I can dream...)

That's not a refund. (5, Interesting)

Forbo (3035827) | about 7 months ago | (#44934883)

That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.

Re:That's not a refund. (3, Insightful)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about 7 months ago | (#44934987)

Meanwhile Apple can profit from the interest. It may be pennies on this single credit note, but increase that to tens or hundreds of thousand people and Apple are sure to profit handsomely.

Re:That's not a refund. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935059)

You guys realize Apple doesn't set prices or chose how seasons are offered for sale. They can't refund money they have already given to AMC. This is a good faith measure. Why are you complaining to apple when AMC is the reason this happened?

Re:That's not a refund. (5, Insightful)

wchin (6284) | about 7 months ago | (#44935099)

Bashing Apple has become a favorite past time for some people. Yes, AMC is at fault here. Apple did the right thing - I'm curious if AMC is going to reimburse Apple for the loss.

Re:That's not a refund. (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 7 months ago | (#44935233)

As always, that depends exclusively on the relative power of their law firms.

And we're talking about Apple here.

Re: That's not a refund. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936153)

Apple's legal staff is all tied up engaging in blood feuds at the moment.

Re:That's not a refund. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935595)

Don't be so damned quick to exhonerate Apple, here. Apple was the "vendor", and they deliberately misrepresented the product they sold - period. It's entirely possible that AMC/Sony had some hand in it, however they were selling a "Season Pass" to Breaking Bad Season 5 - no strings attached. This is still "Season 5" regardless of what Apple iTunes insists it is - visit AMC's site, listen to interviews to Vince Gilligan. No one at AMC has *ever* represented the last 8 episodes as anything other than the second half of season 5. Apple is guilty (even if it is a matter of being complicit) of false advertising through manipulation of terms - in this case, selling a "Season Pass" when it only entitled the buyer to half of said season. "Season" is the key term in this whole mess, and Apple grossly abused it's meaning in this case. Yes, I purchased a "Season Pass" to Breaking Bad Season 5, it was the first (and will be only) iTunes "Season Pass" I have purchased. I purchased it last year so I could continue to follow the show while Dish Network was busy lying to it's customers over their blackout/dispute with AMC. To the fanbois who will quickly point out that $22.99 was "far below the value of comparable Season Pass cost", I'd say this: 1) this was the first (and ony) Season Pass I've ever purchased, I had nothing to compare it to, and 2) if you purchase and pay for an entire product months "in advance" of it completion, it's natural to expect some kind of break/discount on said product. In retrospect, at $2.99 an individual episode versus $22.99 for a (half) season in this case, that works out to be a whopping 3.9%/$0.93 savings. Big. Fucking. Deal. Yes, Apple "made good" on what they sold the original "Season Pass" customers - bravo. But not without a lot of screaming, frustration, and finally threats of litigation over the false advertising issue. They didn't do it because they wanted to - they did it because they had to.

Re:That's not a refund. (1)

Forbo (3035827) | about 7 months ago | (#44935185)

It's all a matter of presentation. How was it presented when it first went on sale? Did it explicitly say that you would only be getting half of the season due to AMC's restrictions? Or did it just have "ZOMG BREAKING BAD NEW SEASON BUY NAO"

Re:That's not a refund. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 7 months ago | (#44935635)

From what I know it was "Season 5" but the episode count was not specified. However, "Season 5" is 8 episodes everywhere including Amazon Instant and Microsoft stores as well as DVD and Bluray boxed sets.

Re:That's not a refund. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 7 months ago | (#44936475)

I guess that's a problem with buying Season's passes in general though. Nobody knows how many episodes there's going to be. They could cancel the show (unlikely in this case), or there could be another writer's strike. In most cases they aren't even done writing all the episodes, let alone filming them, when you buy the season's pass. If you can't handle the thought that you might lose out on some money in the case where the show doesn't make as many episodes as you expected, you should either buy them one at a time, or wait until the season is over before paying for the whole thing.

Re:That's not a refund. (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 7 months ago | (#44935535)

It is their walled garden, is it not? They exercise editorial control over what is or is not offered, do they not? AMC may have been the ones who tried to screw customers, but they did it through the Apple App store, which apple polices and staffs.

It is pretty clearly apple's responsibility to step in here, a responsibility they gave themselves by the design of their store.

If I go to your store, see signs claiming features of a product that are misleading, get the product home and find it doesn't do what is claimed, why shouldn't I take it back to your store? From my perspective I bought this product from you, in your store. I don't care who made it or who lied to you, that is your problem. I sympathise, but sympathy doesn't make it my problem. You sold a bad product its your responsibility to fix it with your customer.

Re:That's not a refund. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 7 months ago | (#44935713)

If I go to your store, see signs claiming features of a product that are misleading, get the product home and find it doesn't do what is claimed, why shouldn't I take it back to your store? From my perspective I bought this product from you, in your store. I don't care who made it or who lied to you, that is your problem. I sympathise, but sympathy doesn't make it my problem. You sold a bad product its your responsibility to fix it with your customer.

That really depends on who made the claims. For example in the VitaminWater lawsuit, Coca-Cola was sued because their ads and claims were misleading in that it conveyed that drinking VitaminWater provided health benefits when it does not. Now in the class action suit, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers were not named as defendants. Most likely it is because they have limited liability as all they did was resell the product.

Re:That's not a refund. (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 7 months ago | (#44936371)

Sure but I would argue there is a difference between who a lawyer will decide is worth including in a lawsuit and how to handle a customer being wronged, which, one hopefully is able to resolve without lawsuits.

Also, Just because you don't get included as a defendant doesn't mean that you couldn't have been either. Water drinks and many other mass market products are sold in mom and pop shops all over the place...adding distributors to the suit would have likely not resulted in enough gain to be worth it, especially if it complicates the case.

In this case, there distributor is Apple, there may be others but, if there are, they can likely be counted on one hand, and all of them have the kind of money that nobody is going to feel bad about bringing a suit against them. Where a mom and pop shop may have little to squeeze out of them and even a small squeeze may shut them down, neither of those is true of the companies which distribute the show.

Re:That's not a refund. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 7 months ago | (#44936027)

sure they can. they can then send a bill to amc.

SOMEONE fucked up in the chain to the customer. from the customers perspective it's irrelevant if it was amc, someone puts their stuff on itunes or if it was apples fault. customer bought the stuff from apple and the product description was decidedly fraudalent either by stupidity or malice. I'd go for malice because making that one season into two seasons while calling it one season pretty much is just that. if you do that then don't fucking sell season passes without calling them half season passes... doesn't america have any rules on what you can lie to customers about? yeah sure, but none of those rules seem to be enforced ever.

Re:That's not a refund. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936883)

No. AMC set the rules, that the charge was for half a season. Apple fucked up by not stating on iTunes to the customer that their purchase was for only half the season. This isn't a normal practice(splitting the season) and Apple should have made it clear what was going on.

If a factory in China makes a "Widget Repair Kit" that deliberately doesn't include "Part C" that Amazon sells online and Amazon doesn't make it obvious on the product page that if you order this, it isn't coming with Part C the factory is not at fault. Amazon is. This is the same situation. And Amazon would refund the money they already gave to the factory in China.

Re:That's not a refund. (3, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 7 months ago | (#44935091)

But (assuming the second half costs the same as the first), the net effect is that people get more than they bargained for - they have the choice between using the credit to pay for the second half season - getting exactly what they paid for, or they can chose to use it for something else.

Season 5 versus Series 5. (3, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | about 7 months ago | (#44935161)

That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.

Well, on the other hand, the viewer already watched half the season. It's not like the season was a stale donut to be sent back. What the viewer got was good. Just half of what he expected.

I find the whole proposition dubious, and therefore apple is being quite generous. Not only that they aren't putting up much of a fight which is what makes it even more sincere. The customer is always right is an ideal that, when you can pull it off, makes for a good premium bussiness model. Discounters can't pull that off. So it distinguishes apple.

Personally, if it were my decision I'd fight with this customer. A season is a 1/4 trip around the sun. He got all the episodes available in that season. What he thought he was buying was Series 5 not season 5. Like how the british TV is named. If AMC had simply named them properly, Season 5 and seasons 6 or series 5 and series 6, rather than calling both season 5 there would be no ambiguity at all.

Apple is caving here not because they have to but because thats how they roll. Apples knows it's customers are loyal and they know that Apple limits their risks (which is a good reason to buy apple if your time has any value). So they look for ways to set themselves apart in that niche

If they are lucky this will turn up the heat on Amazon. Amazon probably has a lot more financial exposure to this. Will people make the demand to amazon now?

Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. (1)

msauve (701917) | about 7 months ago | (#44935357)

"What he thought he was buying was Series 5 not season 5."

Nope. The source, AMC [amctv.com] , refers to them as "seasons." A "series" is all the seasons. Your attempt to be pedantic fails.

Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935411)

Your attempt at reading comprehension fails. Should have finished the next sentence before suavely hitting reply, Mdumkopf.

Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 7 months ago | (#44936787)

Uh, not really. GGP was trying to redefine things into British terminology, which AMC does not do and (to my knowledge) has never done. A season, in TV terminology, has nothing to do with 1/4 of Earth's orbit. It was an attempt to be pedantic and GP was justified in calling it out.

Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. (4, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 7 months ago | (#44935505)

A season is a 1/4 trip around the sun. He got all the episodes available in that season. What he thought he was buying was Series 5 not season 5. Like how the british TV is named. If AMC had simply named them properly, Season 5 and seasons 6 or series 5 and series 6, rather than calling both season 5 there would be no ambiguity at all.

And if I were your customer and you said this to me, I wouldn't be your customer any longer. AMC has broken seasons in half before. With the Walking Dead seasons 2 and 3, they broke the season in two, with the first half airing Oct - Nov, and the second half airing Feb - March. If you bought the "season" pass in Oct, you got the episodes airing in March without having to pay again. Thus, anyone buying a season pass to Breaking Bad season 5 had every expectation that they would get the first half and second half, since the are all part of the same season. From the start, it was announced that Season 5 would be the last. Now all of a sudden they want to charge for a Season "6" or "5.5" to capitalize on the popularity of the show? Sorry, but customers see this bullshit money grab for what it is from a mile away. I for one bought season passes to Walking Dead and Breaking Bad for 8 total seasons. I won't be buying any more.

Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936069)

How much did you pay for that "full season" pass? Well you paid 2x as much for the Walking dead - season pass. The customer was certainly aware the price was cheaper.

Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. (-1, Troll)

xerandin (2392832) | about 7 months ago | (#44936251)

Yeah, okay, that's all good and well...except the part where you're wrong. Apple doesn't give a DAMN about customers. They've gotten too many millions of people to drink their kool-aid. They think their brand is invincible...and to a certain point, it really kind of is. What really blows my mindhole is the part where you mentioned Apple somehow putting pressure on Amazon. Wtf? Seriously? If Amazon even THINKS they've wronged you, they pretty much shell out a BJ on the spot. Figuratively, of course. I've seen people get refunds and replacements for the most ridiculous reasons. Amazon is the most play-nice companies with which I've ever done business. How you can say Apple cares about customers and Amazon doesn't... Mindblowing, sir, absolutely mindblowing.

Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. (1)

xerandin (2392832) | about 7 months ago | (#44936285)

Oh, and we're not in the British market. We're in the US market. In the context of TV shows in the US, a season is a season. A whole season, jackass. Why you are vouching for Apple is beyond me, they pay asshole lawyers for that.

Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 7 months ago | (#44936569)

That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.

Well, on the other hand, the viewer already watched half the season. It's not like the season was a stale donut to be sent back. What the viewer got was good. Just half of what he expected.

that's a fun idea. imagine the offer that you could get your cash back if you returned your memories of the episodes and did something negative to negate the enjoyment you got out of them. more realistically, you could cash in only on episodes that were unwatched. unrealistic, but fun to think about.

Not only that (1, Insightful)

justthinkit (954982) | about 7 months ago | (#44935163)

Not only that. Apple is still breaking their contract. They agreed to provide a full season for a fixed price. That should be in their new offer -- everyone who signed up gets the full season for $22.99.
.

The way this is being "resolved" is they jack up the price to everyone. No different than the original offer.

The class action lawsuit should continue...

Try thinking about it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935597)

How are they not getting the full season for what they paid now that they have a refund. They just can buy the "second half" of the alleged season for free now. That's exactly what they asked for. Think man.

Re:Not only that (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 7 months ago | (#44936617)

actually, this could have been a reasonable plan as well. everybody who bought season 5.1 gets 5.2 for free. I wonder how much that would have cost?

Re:That's not a refund. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935353)

No, it's not. But on the other hand, customers aren't being required to "give back" the first half of the season. If the customers were unhappy because they thought they were getting a full season for their money, this should make that right, because they can take this "refund", spend it on a season pass for the second half of the season, and then they have exactly what they thought they were paying for, for the money they originally paid.

Now if customers were unhappy for some other reason (e.g. because some episodes were substandard encoding quality), then a real refund might be in order. But since the only grievance is getting access to less content than they thought they were getting, a "refund" that allows them to access the remainder of the content is fair enough.

It's better than a refund (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about 7 months ago | (#44935445)

That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.

Dude, they can use the refund to buy the rest of the season. That's all they wanted in the first place. So the refund is actually a better deal than they originally thought they were buying. They DID want to buy the whole season.

Re:It's better than a refund (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#44935887)

Yes, but perhaps not from Apple any longer.

Re:It's better than a refund (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936193)

Yes, but perhaps not from Apple any longer.

Then from who? Everyone else from the cable company to Amazon to google play did the same thing. What you are agreeing is that yes, indeed, apple gvae them something better than a refund. Why would that steer you away from apple? Would you stop buying Apple products if microsoft word turned out to be crappy and you bought it at the apple store? Would you then go elsewhere and buy a new copy if apple gave you a refund? If you do, then the retailer would be happy to see you go I suspect since you are not being a logical customer.

Re:That's not a refund. (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 7 months ago | (#44936465)

That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.

cmon man. the itunes page said what this dude was buying. he didn't read and clicked on the "BUY ME!!!" button. Apple is throwing him a bone.

Also, everybody will get their full value back if they continue to buy on iTunes. Likely if they bought a $23 season pass they have committed to the iTunes ecosystem anyway. The only people who get pinched are those who are like screw you apple smell ya later! which is probably 1%. and if you feel so strongly, you can even use the money to gift media or apps to someone else.

in short, problem goes away, let's move on with our lives.

Well done (0)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 7 months ago | (#44934899)

I guess this is a good thing. They screwed up, and now they pay the price for it.

credit (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 7 months ago | (#44934911)

I don't really count a credit as a full refund. They still keep my money. But I guess you can use your credit to buy the second half of the season, so they delivered the promised goods.

Stupid (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 7 months ago | (#44934929)

I really thought by this time they'd have hired someone whose only task was to stop everybody else in the corporation to piss off large sections of the customers.

Taking into account we are paying because we believe we should, while having the alternative to simply stop paying and watch everything on torrents.

They're a beggar spitting to the people who give him money.

Re:Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936023)

The joke is one you. It was AMC's fault, not iTunes. iTunes is just a shop, the content owner sets the prices and content of their offer.

tl;dr : YOU are stupid.

Should not be a refund (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 7 months ago | (#44934939)

Instead, give them what they paid for.

Re:Should not be a refund (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935045)

They can use said credit to get the other half of the season, when the content is available. The studio is the one controlling the latter.

It's not a refund (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935165)

It's not just a refund.

The Apple email says that you get a $22.95 credit. But you keep "Breaking Bad Season 5" as well. So you could use that credit to buy "Breaking Bad The Final Season", and then you have what you thought you'd paid for. Or you could choose to buy something else instead. Customer's choice.

I'd note that this refund is happening about a week or two after Apple were sued over this. I suspect the two may be related...

Logical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44934941)

Why is the term mix up "charitable"? All previous seasons were a single season, not broken up into two small seasons. Is it not logical for Apple to assume the final season would be like the previous five?

Re:Logical (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 7 months ago | (#44935153)

Do you think Apple signs contracts for "one season" without specifying exactly how many chapters of how many minutes?

Working in IT, I always assume every other corporation does things at least not worse than us. Not the opposite.

lol...paying for tv shows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935001)

or movies
or music

There are only 8 episodes in the final season (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935037)

The final episode is this Sunday.

That's not a refund. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935051)

That's not a refund. A chargeback is a refund. With this they just keep your money and give you the illusion of getting the full value back, when in actuality it costs them cents on the dollar to do this.

Great going apple. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935177)

For the people even complaining now:

It's not a refund, it's something else.

Apple gives you enough credit to buy the remaining 8 episodes while you get to keep the first 8, so in the end you get what was advertised for $22.99.

People should read the darn article.

Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the costs (5, Informative)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 7 months ago | (#44935187)

Apple wasn't responsible for this clusterfuck. It was Sony Pictures TV and AMC.

AMC decided to split Season 5 into 2 halves, to extend Emmy eligibility for another year. But Sony insisted on referring to the 2 years as Season 5A and Season 5B, because that would allow them to get around having to give the actors and production staff the contractually mandated pay increase for each new season.

So we have 2 separate definitions for what constitutes a "season", depending on what provides the corporate interests the maximum benefit. They figured that they will make more money separating the DVD sets into 2 releases, so that's what they did.

Somebody really needs to go all Heisenberg on their asses....

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935415)

Not like any other TV shows do the same thing... *cough* futurama *cough*

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 7 months ago | (#44935451)

AMC just announced that they are pulling this same crap with Mad Men next year, as well....

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935655)

Aren't Mad Men seasons already only 13 episodes long?

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (2)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 7 months ago | (#44935787)

They are adding one additional episode to split the season into 2 runs of 7 episodes each. But unlike Breaking Bad, all the episodes will be filmed in one run, with AMC sitting on the last 7 for a year before airing them.

Breaking Bad originally was slated for 13 episodes in the final season, but was granted 3 additional episodes at the time the split was decided on. They were filmed over 2 years, though.

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#44935819)

With all the corporate bullshit that Futurama had to go through since it started, I'm just glad it's still here.

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#44936059)

If by still here, you mean until 20 days ago, then sure. The (probably) final finale aired on September 4. Well - and there will also be a crossover episodes in The Simpsons season 25.

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 7 months ago | (#44935487)

AMC decided to split Season 5 into 2 halves, to extend Emmy eligibility for another year. But Sony insisted on referring to the 2 years as Season 5A and Season 5B, because that would allow them to get around having to give the actors and production staff the contractually mandated pay increase for each new season.

Also another reason was probably sales/rentals of the discs. Had they waited until the end of the 16 episodes, the DVD and Blu-ray discs would have been delayed more than 18 months after Episode 1 aired. That would be a lot of sales that they missed.

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | about 7 months ago | (#44935501)

Somebody really needs to go all Heisenberg on their asses....

I'm uncertain what you mean by that.

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 7 months ago | (#44935717)

If you ever watched Breaking Bad you'd know "Going Heisenberg" involves copious amounts of corrosive liquid and a special type of plastic container.

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935813)

whoooosh!

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 7 months ago | (#44935839)

If you paid attention in physics class, you would get the connection between "Heisenberg" and uncertainty...

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936025)

woosh!

Re:Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the co (4, Funny)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about 7 months ago | (#44935965)

Somebody really needs to go all Heisenberg on their asses....

What does that mean? Do I kick their asses or don't I? Have I kicked their ass already? I have no idea.

Oh, screw it. I'm going Oppenheimer on their asses instead.

Doctor Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935207)

Any chance they feel so charitable as to give similar returns to those who bought Season 6 and/or 7 of DW off iTunes? Or did those folks not raise enough of a high profiled stink over it?

Re:Doctor Who (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 7 months ago | (#44935525)

For season 7, didn't BBC label the split season, Parts 1 and 2. Their is less confusion there on what the customer thought they were getting.

Re:Doctor Who (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#44935855)

Oh, they will raise a stink alright, but only in three years. The problem is that the events happened twenty two years ago when iTunes didn't even exist. The court threw the whole case away. That's the kind of mess you have to endure when you're a fan of Time Lords.

Biased? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44935443)

"Mix-up" seems an entirely charitable description.

And your opinion seems entirely biased.

Obama (0)

jeff13 (255285) | about 7 months ago | (#44935531)

Well, yea but, how can we make this Obama's fault?

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936009)

It happened under Obama's watch. How many more years into his presidency are we going to have to wait until he owns up to his failures like this and stops blaming Bush. Season one came out during Bush's last year in office and I seem to remember I was able to purchase every episode for the price of a single season pass.

Re:Obama (-1, Offtopic)

Jawnn (445279) | about 7 months ago | (#44936409)

It happened under Obama's watch. How many more years into his presidency are we going to have to wait until he owns up to his failures like this and stops blaming Bush. Season one came out during Bush's last year in office and I seem to remember I was able to purchase every episode for the price of a single season pass.

Fair enough. Let's stop blaming 'W' for all the bullshit and start blaming the obstructionist Republican Congress and Senate minority.

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44936201)

Well, yea but, how can we make this Obama's fault?

If I had to, I'd do it like this: Obama has failed to pressure Congress into repealing DMCA.

Since DMCA still stands, due to congress' and presidents' negligence and corruptions, most people have no choice to pirate. But piracy results in a less even date distribution; different people end up seeing the show at different times, because they pirate differently. If they all were allowed to just subscribe to cable TV and have it work with a standard tuner card, then most people would see the show at about the same time. But they can't do that.

Unfortunately, Breaking Bad is both 1) popular 2) suspenseful (you really wanna know how it goes, if/how Walt becomes ultimately fucked), so there is high SPOILER potential. Lots of people will be spoiled, prior to seeing the final episodes. iTunes users, in particular (who ironically don't pirate, so they're last in line; DMCA harms them the second most) (copyright holders being the ones who win the 1st-place harmed-by-DMCA prize).

If DMCA had been repealed, there probably wouldn't even be something as silly as iTunes, or at least it wouldn't suffer from "iTunes lag" where you watch things a day later than everyone else except the Netflix guys (and Netflix's silliness wouldn't be around, either). Release of the videos would be more closely timed for everyone, and the spoilers would be prevented. Thus: Obama's fault. And Boener's fault. And so on.

And since no decent person or politician would ever endorse DMCA, or fail to tirelessly campaign against it, the fault is a result of lack of moral character. They are bad people, and the bad things were caused by their badness. That makes blame important.

Lesson learned (2)

mybecq (131456) | about 7 months ago | (#44935753)

Don't be surprised if, over the next year, Apple makes them start including the number of episodes or the length of the season for these passes. They don't get burned twice.

Much ado about... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 7 months ago | (#44936323)

...nothing of importance. Yes, a big corporation forced to give lots of $23 refunds is "news" (sort of), but that a teevee show generates this much buzz of any kind is, well, sad. Then again, this whole thing is dwarfed weekly by "Dancing With the Stars" and similar fake reality shows...

Have you actually watched thuis show? (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | about 7 months ago | (#44936799)

It is one of the exceedingly rare things on TV that actually deserves the hype that it generates.

Equal parts riveting drama, tense action, and Shakespearean tragedy, with just enough black comedy to keep viewers sane. Quite possibly the greatest show in the history of the medium. No exaggeration.

Will be really hard to see it gone after this Sunday's finale, but kudos to the writers and actors for going out at the top of their game, rather than milking a great show into mediocrity ala M*A*S*H*.

This is stupid (1)

kb7oeb (543726) | about 7 months ago | (#44936623)

I'm surprised Apple caved on this one, I don't think they were in the wrong. $22.99 / 8 is about $2.87 per episode. That is pretty much the going rate. On Amazon a season pass just buys each episode as they are released. The price is the same as everywhere else but I think its more clear. The plus to amazon is if the season you subscribed to starts to suck you can just cancel the season pass and cut your losses.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...