Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bugs Apple loves

bugsappleloves.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 550 posts

Re: Bugs Apple loves

#441

Post by xp84 »

charcircuit wrote: post #268
twelvedogs wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you think that makes it ok? they walked into a store, tried to pay money to apple and as a result they had their stuff locked forever apple recommended they only buy gift cards from apple, but they still sell them in stores... obviously money is more important to them than the consumers but pretending apple have zero responsibility is silly

>they had their stuff locked forever It was locked for less than a week. >but they still sell them in stores Unfortunately there are sketchy resellers that exist too.

It wasn't a sketchy retailer though, it was one Apple has authorized through its handpicked affiliate (in the US, this is probably Blackhawk who basically owns the third-party-giftcard-sales business).

For Apple to say "Don't buy gift cards from our authorized retailers, or prepare to face incredibly harsh consequences due to fraud that you can't detect or predict" while continuing to sell them through those channels is morally bankrupt and completely unacceptable.

I have no doubt fraud is a big problem. It is for all gift cards. But this is a 3 trillion dollar company -- and they make minimum 30% of every gift card sold in pure profit. If they can't secure those channels without torpedoing innocent customers' entire digital lives, they need to drop that channel.

Re: Bugs Apple loves

#442

Post by xp84 »

charcircuit wrote: post #409
wat10000 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What matters is that the purchaser had every reason to think that it was legitimate and they were not the malefactor in this scenario, but they still got banned.

If you buy stolen property without knowing you still get punished by having the stolen property taken away. Just because you don't know, it doesn't mean you have not done anything wrong.

Terrible analogy. The victim here bought the card from the retailer. Someone else had gained access to the secret contained on the card and stolen or attempted to steal the value on the card because Apple can't figure out how to sell a gift card securely.

Our victim was the victim of the only theft that involved the gift card. Then Apple stole the person's whole digital life with no recourse because they are ham-fisted and don't care.

Re: Bugs Apple loves

#443

Post by TurkTurkleton »

charcircuit wrote: post #413
direwolf20 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since it's gog at least you could download the game and save it somewhere.

Using it would be copyright infringement since the license is revoked since it was refunded.

Let me guess, you think GOG was perfectly justified in unilaterally taking away nake89's copy of--excuse me, I meant unilaterally revoking nake89's license to play Cyberpunk 2077--when they judged the gift transaction to be fraudulent, just because it could have been a conspiracy between nake89 and their wife to defraud GOG of the princely sum of eighty United States dollars[0]?

I don't dispute that GOG has the right, from a strictly legal standpoint, to revoke a license for any reason their terms of service allow, and that someone continuing to play a game after their license was revoked would be in breach of contract. What I do dispute is that this is a correct, fair, or desirable state of affairs, especially when the license in question was received as a gift and believed in good faith by the recipient to have been acquired non-fraudulently.

And in particular, if GOG wants the absolute and irrevocable right to prevent consumers from using products for which GOG has decided to revoke the licenses, they shouldn't advertise themselves as a DRM-free platform, nor claim that "Here, you won't be locked out of titles you paid for, or constantly asked to prove you own them - this is DRM-free gaming." -- advertising copy may not have the force of law, but courts tend to take a dim view of ad claims that are provably false.

[0]: the list price of the Cyberpunk 2077 Ultimate Edition on GOG as of this writing (though it is currently on sale for 38% off)

Re: Bugs Apple loves

#444

Post by xp84 »

charcircuit wrote: post #269
muppetman wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it was. He purchased it from a legitimate reseller 100% legally and correctly.

[flagged]

Elsewhere in this thread, you assert that perhaps Apple simply reversed all this out of the kindness of their heart without regard for the social media blowup that this lucky victim was able to create.

This is cognitive dissonance. If Apple reversed it due to their conscience, it's because they are pretty convinced this user is honest and Apple PR isn't (or didn't need to be) involved.

If on the other hand, Apple has proof the user is not honest, then Apple PR took a huge hit for nothing by forcing Apple Support to unban them, when they could have said "Because we have documented proof the user couldn't have bought this from a legitimate reseller, we cannot unban them."

Re: Bugs Apple loves

#445

Post by direwolf20 »

TurkTurkleton wrote: post #443
charcircuit wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using it would be copyright infringement since the license is revoked since it was refunded.

Let me guess, you think GOG was perfectly justified in unilaterally taking away nake89's copy of--excuse me, I meant unilaterally revoking nake89's license to play Cyberpunk 2077--when they judged the gift transaction to be fraudulent, just because it could have been a conspiracy between nake89 and their wife to defraud GOG of the princely sum of eighty United States dollars[0]? I don't dispute that GOG has the right…

GOG may have the right to revoke a sale, but since it lets you download the game without DRM, it doesn't have the ability. Unless you delete your copy of the game and then try to download it again.

If you buy milk from the supermarket and they reverse the transaction 2 days later claiming you used a fraudulent card, but you didn't use a fraudulent card, you have the right to keep the milk and the loss of money is the store's problem.

Re: Bugs Apple loves

#446

Post by direwolf20 »

charcircuit wrote: post #432
direwolf20 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy milk at a store and then walk out of the store and then the store refunds you 2 days later, that's the store's problem and you're still allowed to drink the milk. You didn't steal the milk. Subscription logic only applies to subscriptions, and GoG is a simple exchange of money for goods, not a subscription.

If it was a contract saying you were allowed to drink the milk and it was terminated with a refund. You would not be able to drink the milk.

If the store tried to sue you claiming there was a contract for you not to drink the milk if refunded, it would be laughed out of court and banned from suing anyone ever again.

Re: Bugs Apple loves

#447

Post by rpdillon »

ryandrake wrote: post #382
appplication wrote: post #101

This is missing the most annoying one for me: when I type a search term into safari and it randomly interprets it as an address that it can’t resolve. E.g. “how to bake cookies” gets resolved to how%20to%20bake%20cookies (which safari tries to resolve via DNS or whatever instead of piping it to the search provider). Even better, it’s entirely nondeterministic, though it does seem to be due to some race condition with…

Browsers never should have gotten rid of the separate and dedicated search bar. I don't want my browser guessing whether what I'm typing is a search or a URL. It should be easy to guess, but they frequently get it wrong for doubtless stupid reasons. If you can't even reliably classify a URL vs. a search, just have two separate text inputs, like the old days!

One of my favorite relics of this era was walking up to somebody's computer in the office and being able to see what they searched for last.

Re: Bugs Apple loves

#449

Post by mmmlinux »

HexDecOctBin wrote: post #16
magnio wrote: post #7

Had the pleasure of making an Apple account to join our company's developer team. I filled out the form on the website 7 times: Edge on Windows, Edge on macOS, Safari on macOS, using 2 different phone numbers. No matter what, Apple just refused to send the verification code to me. It only worked after I remember Apple is a dick to the web platform, then I managed to create one from the popup in the App Store.

I had a similar issue when I first brought my iPad. Turns out, Apple doesn't like custom domains for emails. So, I had to make an Apple account with a Gmail account, then remove the Gmail account and add my email address with the custom domain. Why? Who knows. Still remember my first experience after buying an iPad.

I couldn't make an account on the website Digikey outsourced all their 3d models to with my work email. signed up with my personal gmail account in less than 30 seconds.

This is not some Apple specific problem.

Also this was yesterday. Never did I get any of the 3 confirmation emails they claim they sent to my work mail.

Re: Bugs Apple loves

#450

Post by dzonga »

ActorNightly wrote: post #397
BitsAndObjects wrote: post #33

Trying to type this comment on an iPhone and that very last issue, text selection, is so so real. It’s probably the single biggest thing I hate about this phone that makes me consider switching back to Android (I was on Android for 12 years before trying out an iPhone for 3 years atm, and in general, on average, I can’t tell the difference… they both have strengths and flaws. Text selection is a pretty massive flaw o…

Wait till you realize with Samsung Android phones, you can pretty much replace your laptop with a lapdock, or any TV + bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Android stuff has been ahead of apple since like 2014. Apple is really good at optimizing the one thing that they use in advertising, while the rest of the stuff falls by the wayside. Was the exact same thing with Apple silicon and battery life. Sure, your laptop battery…

but don't buy a Google Pixel. such shitty phones.

battery will explode on you, they overheat - it will try store your photos in 5 different places

Post reply on HN