411–420 of 483 posts
The thing the pisses me of about these cases is this: "I called them again and they said they can’t provide more information." They terminate your account and then they even refuse to tell you why. A basic human thing, a chance to fix the issue, but no. Go f* yourself from Apple and that's it.
Who here has read Franz Kafka?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also see the need for a company to be able to close an account for truly fraudulent activity and not disclose how they caught the misconduct. I'm in no way implying that such activity happened in this case, just that the policy makes sense. An appeal process should be in place though.
They don't need to disclose how they caught it, just what said misconduct was - going "yeah we're closing your account due to misconduct" is like fining someone for no reason. It'd be a violation of human rights if that happened, and in this particular case, it's potentially ruining someone financially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy only works in a growing economy.
Why is this a meme? Is there any evidence that this is true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The choice is that if you're going to develop software for sale to the public, you can choose to develop software for sale in another market which is not so restrictive and oppressive. Other platforms and marketplaces exist, and money can be made there. To contemplate the actual possibility of sweating for years building a business, slaving over software, creating marketing campaigns, and a brand and fighting to beat…
Just goes to show that selling App's in a walled ecosystem is NOT the exact same as building a software business. You lose so much control over your product, you essentially become commission-only contract software developers. Publishers have been pushing for this kind of control for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason these things are regulated is because they are fundamentally limited by and tied to land property/ownership laws and there is no way to efficiently reach a consensus without violating them. IT infrastructure has nothing in common with this aside from ISP.
That might look the way in theory, but it is not so in practice. There will never be another Google, or another Facebook, or another Amazon - efficiency based on scale and network effect mean they are entrenched as monopolies for ever, too big to fail.
The idea that economies of scale make it impossible for a company to never face competition is ridiculous. The only thing that can do that is govenment protectionism.
Along with economies of scale is the opposite effect: the inefficiency of bureaucracy and having competing interests between business units.
Being large isn't the magical unicorn you think.
everytime i've encountered a problem that someone couldn't resolve with apple over the phone, i've managed to resolve it by phoning them.
i wonder how much effort the developer really made, and how he talked to the people he dealt with. my experience of apple, and infact most customer service is that if you are nice and sympathetic and explain thoroughly the nature of the problem, then people will do their best to resolve it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human support is supposed to help them. What I found unacceptable is "We are banning you and we won't tell you anything about it". This pattern is extremely common. And extremely frustrating. You can't put one in jail without telling why (and right to defend). In many developed countries you can't even fire a worker without a solid reason. It should be prohibited for companies to halt service someone without providin…
>It should be prohibited for companies to halt service someone without providing a reasonable explanation. By US standards, that would require an absurd level of legislative and/or judicial overreach. I don't think I'd even want to do business in that kind of regulatory climate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason these things are regulated is because they are fundamentally limited by and tied to land property/ownership laws and there is no way to efficiently reach a consensus without violating them. IT infrastructure has nothing in common with this aside from ISP.
They are mainly regulated because they naturally form into monopolies, just like the large internet services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human support is supposed to help them. What I found unacceptable is "We are banning you and we won't tell you anything about it". This pattern is extremely common. And extremely frustrating. You can't put one in jail without telling why (and right to defend). In many developed countries you can't even fire a worker without a solid reason. It should be prohibited for companies to halt service someone without providin…
>It should be prohibited for companies to halt service someone without providing a reasonable explanation. By US standards, that would require an absurd level of legislative and/or judicial overreach. I don't think I'd even want to do business in that kind of regulatory climate.