Apple Offers Refund To Stiffed Breaking Bad Season Pass Customers 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.
Netflix (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us are not allowed to have Netflix, or some of the content on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't say that pirating media is "honorable", per se, but in a situation where there isn't a realistic way to legally get your hands on something, I don't have serious qualms with it.
Re:Netflix (Score:5, Informative)
The last season isn't available on Netflix.
[insert something witty for mod points]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of us, just the stupid ones.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some places in the world where people chat together at lunch time, something you could have noticed if you had gotten out of your mother`s basement. It appears that in a lot of those discussions, people speak of things they recently did, watched, or such. Thus, there is a pressure from your peers to also watch the episode as they unfold or you will cause them grief if you don`t want them to talk too much about it, or you might dislike learning the punchline before seing your favorite serie.
Oh well
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well, I guess that`s way too deep for you. Have a nice day!
No, many of us understand "peer pressure" but can suppress the urge to do stupid and wastefully expensive things just because the guy in the next cubicle does them.
You mean, like, OMG, I can't waste time chatting about a ridiculous TV show with people who spend their lives living vicariously through the people they see on their idiot box? OMG. Did you see? Andy won BB! He's so rad. I want to be just like him. :-)
HAND. HTH.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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. :)
Of course, other people have other exceptions...
Re: (Score:2)
Given the DRM requirement still present on iTunes video, you’re no better protected against “[company] may shut down” than you are with Netflix. If Apple goes out of business & their DRM servers go down, you won’t be able to watch your content on anything but the five machines you have authorized now. And if anything changes, upgrades, or iTunes doesn’t work on Windows version [whatever], you stand to lose even those five.
Because it's worth it so have it now (Score:3, Insightful)
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 engagin
Re: (Score:2)
Lydia's tea.
Re: (Score:2)
His own tea.
Re: (Score:2)
He spent the last few years building up an immunity to ricin.
Re: (Score:2)
Also Dumbledor dies at the end of harry potter. The cake is a lie. Walter poisons Todd's Tea with ricin.
Dr. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) [wikipedia.org] has been dead throughout the whole movie and Soylent Green [wikipedia.org] is people.
[ Too soon for these spoilers? :-) ]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ender's game isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 exc
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That business model makes a lot of sense if you need the local network to distribute your product.
However technology now allows to cut the middleman. Plus I'm quite sure the Spanish networks wouldn't even blink at allowing the content provider to distribute in internet (as long as it wasn't free). They're quite clueless.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, middlemen being cut off can often fight it out. Just take a look at the recent setback suffered by Tesla; they should not even have to fight about being able to sell their product but I guess some middlemens fight harder than others!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, he purchased it last year and thought it was good for the *entire* season. Then probably became upset at the start of the second half of the season when he discovered that he had to pay another $22.99. The most recent episodes of BB aren't on Netflix until several months later.
I paid for both half seasons because BB is one show I don't wan
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever pays anything for any fraction of a season, or any other TV show, when it is available on The Pirate Bay is beyond me. Don't get me started on bluray box sets.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever pays $22.99 for half a season...
They didn't, clearly Apple misled them, by accident or on purpose. Never the less, your point is cogent- 22.99 for even the entire 5th season is high when I can get it for considerably less than that otherwhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The latest season probably won't show up on Netflix for another 8 to 12 month. If someone doesn't normally watch TV, and just wants to catch that show, it makes a lot of sense to just pay the 23$ for the latest season, rather than fork over several month's worth of cable bills at probably 50-100 a month, depending on the provider and location.
Re: (Score:2)
...when it is available on Netflix ...
Many (most?) shows are (or the current season is) not immediately available on Netflix.
Don't get me started on bluray box sets.
Not all shows / movies are available indefinitely online and, especially if it's something one will watch more than once, some people like the permanent, high-quality, availability that physical media provides. I have box sets of Farscape, Firefly and Dead Like Me and equivalent media for a few other, now canceled, shows I enjoy. Sure, these may all be currently available on Netflix - at least as long as you subscribe
Re: (Score:2)
Countless hours? I think you grossly over-estimate the difficulty.
That's not a refund. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's not a refund. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
As always, that depends exclusively on the relative power of their law firms.
And we're talking about Apple here.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably not. But Apple did it because you don't save much - it's what, $3 per episode? And the full "season" (as defined by AMC) is $24? So you're saving a whopping... $1?
I think in light of that, Apple decided it was stupid and let them have the full season for $23 (saving $25) versus charging it twice for a full whopping savings
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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, e
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I would argue that a lawyer knows the difference between legally who can be held responsible and who the customer feels is responsible. Really, you can name anyone as a defendant; those defendants that the courts recognize as not legally responsible will petition the court to have themselves removed from the suit.
As for mom and pop, Walmart and Target could have been named as they have money and are worth suing, But in the end, their cases will likely be dismissed.
Re: (Score:2)
> I would argue that a lawyer knows the difference between legally who can be held responsible
> and who the customer feels is responsible
But I would argue there is another category of potentially responsible but not worth it due to what evidence would be needed or the likelyhood of winning anything substantial vs the risk of doing the work and then having them removed as a defendant.
An example of this, I had a pretty solid case, and could have gotten gobs of evidence against a former roomate of mine w
Re: (Score:3)
Only on the App Store, not to be confused with the iBookstore, Music Store, and Movie & TV store.
Apple exercises less control on the latter stores as the publishers are the ones who do it and it makes very little sense for Apple to go about reviewing every new
Re: (Score:2)
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 passe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the EU the vendor is responsible, so even if Apple can't get the money back from AMC they still have to refund the customer and take the hit. If AMC refuses to refund Apple they should refuse to take any more AMC products or risk being burned in the same way again. Basically, EU laws looks out for the customer.
Is US law different?
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying Walmat can't offer a refund on a product that breaks since they've already paid the manufacturer. The whole point of a refund, from a business perspective, is to keep the customer happy and retain their long-term business, at the business's short-term expense. Sometimes it's a transparent process where the manufacturer steps in and honors it, resulting in nothing more than labor expenses for the company. Other times, they just eat the cost and move on knowing they may get some word of
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is the vendor, so Apple is responsible. That said, I think that "mixup" is a reasonable term from Apple's point of view.
OTOH, if I'd forked over $30, and then been left at a cliff-hanger, I don't think I'd be remotely satisfied with "OK, we'll let you try this again with a different show".
IOW, I don't think that Apple is being malicious here, rather the producer (AMC?). But I also don't feel that the proposed restitution is sufficient. And I don't feel that Apple is living up to their responsibilit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's not a refund. (Score:4, Insightful)
Season 5 versus Series 5. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Nope. The source, AMC [amctv.com], refers to them as "seasons." A "series" is all the seasons. Your attempt to be pedantic fails.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Season 5 versus Series 5. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not also forget that Season 6 will no doubt cost something similar, from iTunes. Apple has essentially given him the full two seasons, plus extra flexibility. So what if it doesn't cost Apple anything except opportunity costs? Apple's just delivering more than what the guy originally wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The season pass isn't a product, it's a service. You buy a contract to deliver the episodes in digital format, with DRM to enforce Apple's terms and conditions. Read the EULA, it's right there. Therefore your comparison is flawed.
This is more like breech of contract, and the legal remedy is usually whatever it costs to make things as if the contract had been fulfilled. If someone builds you half a house you can sue them for the cost of finishing the house. If someone delivers you half a season you can sue t
Not only that (Score:2, Insightful)
.
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
It's better than a refund (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Yes, but perhaps not from Apple any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
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 someon
Re: (Score:3)
It was only TFA that called it a refund. What Apple actually said was "we're giving you the 'The Final Season' for free. Here is a credit to buy that season with, or if you'd like, buy anything else for that amount."
Re: (Score:2)
Call it what you will, but it's a sensible solution.
In case you don't quite get the backstory, AMC created season 5 part 1 and sold it through Apple under the name 'Season 5'. Then they released season 5 part 2, and started selling that independently. A bunch of people who bought the item labelled 'Season 5', said, "Whoa, I already bought season 5. Why do I have to buy the second half of season 5 when I already bought the whole thing?"
So essentially Apple is providing enough in-store credit so that, if
credit (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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.
Should not be a refund (Score:2)
Instead, give them what they paid for.
Apple needs to go after Sony and AMC for the costs (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Somebody really needs to go all Heisenberg on their asses....
I'm uncertain what you mean by that.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all greed.
It's why I have no qualms in having my MythTV box at a friends house recording it for me and I get the files sent ot me via dropbox automatically.
Screw them. I give my buddy $10 a month for the box to sit there on his CATV and power.
Re: (Score:2)
AMC just announced that they are pulling this same crap with Mad Men next year, as well....
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Nope. Season 5 wasn't going to be the last seasion. They didn't give you an extra 3 episodes, they robbed you of 10 episodes of the blue stuff. They royally screwed up the negotiations with Gilligan.
You can really tell in the last few episodes just how much they're having to pack in, with little breathing room.
AMC are pissing in your pocket and telling you it's raining.
Re: (Score:2)
Vince Gilligan himself thought that 4 seasons would be enough to tell the story he wanted to tell, as late as 2010:
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/interview-breaking-bad-creator-vince-gilligan-post-mortems-season-three [hitfix.com]
Every interview I have seen with him since the show started said that the show by its very nature (terminal cancer) was going to be kind of self-limiting as far as length of run. Do you have a source where he says that there were ever plans for a full-length season 6?
Re: (Score:2)
With all the corporate bullshit that Futurama had to go through since it started, I'm just glad it's still here.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Lesson learned (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Much ado about... (Score:2)
Have you actually watched thuis show? (Score:2)
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*.
Blame AMC (Score:2)
This isn't news, (Score:2)
Hate to defend Apple and point out the obvious... (Score:2)
...but Breaking Bad's "season break" was 11 months. I don't see how it was at all unreasonable for Apple to be given the benefit of the doubt for treating this like a new season. Because, effectively, it was. It's not like Apple reset the toll between two episodes a couple of weeks apart or anything.
This was a lack of attention on Apple's part, but let's be honest here and call this a stupid marketing stunt on behalf of AMC, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that impressed anymore after reading TFA. I guess it's at least better than doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm, agree. It looked better at first glance.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.