If you miss an Apple Card payment, Apple disables all your Apple accounts(twitter.com)
twitter.com
If you miss an Apple Card payment, Apple disables all your Apple accounts
https://twitter.com/dcurtis/status/1366467736931606528
230 comments
So here's the weird thing.
> No, Apple did not disable my account.
I believe you, but I also trust the original poster by reputation. So what is the difference?
> No, Apple did not disable my account.
I believe you, but I also trust the original poster by reputation. So what is the difference?
The original poster was paying for iCloud storage with their apple card, which is an Apple service.
But he said the iCloud subscription was not due or past due. which means Apple did not try to charge his card for the iCloud service and then locked his account because they couldn't
The iCloud subscription was not past due. [1]
1. https://twitter.com/dcurtis/status/1366485756546539520
The iCloud subscription was not past due. [1]
1. https://twitter.com/dcurtis/status/1366485756546539520
It can't be just that. iCloud storage and Apple Music were two of the subscriptions I was paying for, to get that sweet 3% cash back.
It's possible that the card was maxed out and payments for the subscription failed, maybe? I caught mine before that happened.
Edit: a sibling comment makes it clear that that isn't what happened: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26308468
It's possible that the card was maxed out and payments for the subscription failed, maybe? I caught mine before that happened.
Edit: a sibling comment makes it clear that that isn't what happened: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26308468
It could be just random rule enforcement.
I manually pay my electric and gas. I can skip if for a month (or two) and not a problem. Except sometimes (once)..
I have no idea why. I feel its just some random thing depending on who's running the dept that day.
We experienced the same thing in College when after paying our electric bill for two months, they shut our power off without notice. Upon digging it was because we were still listed as "Residents" on the bills we were paying.
I manually pay my electric and gas. I can skip if for a month (or two) and not a problem. Except sometimes (once)..
I have no idea why. I feel its just some random thing depending on who's running the dept that day.
We experienced the same thing in College when after paying our electric bill for two months, they shut our power off without notice. Upon digging it was because we were still listed as "Residents" on the bills we were paying.
While this is frustratingly common with things like the App Store where every choice requires human reviewer judgment, I suspect this is probably an automated thing.
Perhaps it’s a new policy though which would explain the difference.
Perhaps it’s a new policy though which would explain the difference.
Don’t take a simple tweet as a final word, that’s how misinformation spreads
I'm not taking anything as final word. But I trust the author of the original Tweet to not make an over-reactive, uninformed post. That I'm curious what the difference between his situation and the above poster's is.
[deleted]
The same is true for a HackerNews comment.
Original poster observed A, then observed B, and concluded causality
>>So what is the difference?
Your expectation that a policy or rule would be enforced evenly across the organization..
I think at this point it is clear that Big Tech do not have any policy, rule or terms of service that is enforced with anything that could be reasonably be considered "uniform"
Your expectation that a policy or rule would be enforced evenly across the organization..
I think at this point it is clear that Big Tech do not have any policy, rule or terms of service that is enforced with anything that could be reasonably be considered "uniform"
Routine things like what happens when payments get missed is usually automated.
There are a lot of places in tech where human opinion is interjected introducing variability, but I doubt this is one of them.
There are a lot of places in tech where human opinion is interjected introducing variability, but I doubt this is one of them.
Literally just talked to a friend a few days ago who did this same exact thing. He carried a balance for about 2 months and also did not have his account disabled.
> So, little embarrassed to admit this, but: I plumb forgot to set up autopay on my Apple Card when I first got it.
Why is that embarassing? Why on earth would you set up auto-pay? That's just asking for a headache if anything is every compromised, or if a vendor fraudulently or accidentally overcharges you. Reversing charges from your bank is a headache, and rogue charges can quickly cascade into a series of overdrafts, other failed payments, etc. Good luck getting reimbursed for all the charges if that happens, and hope it doesn't get you into a situation where you can't pay an important bill.
It's madness to ever allow automatic financial transactions that aren't fixed, scheduled payments from trusted vendors.
Why is that embarassing? Why on earth would you set up auto-pay? That's just asking for a headache if anything is every compromised, or if a vendor fraudulently or accidentally overcharges you. Reversing charges from your bank is a headache, and rogue charges can quickly cascade into a series of overdrafts, other failed payments, etc. Good luck getting reimbursed for all the charges if that happens, and hope it doesn't get you into a situation where you can't pay an important bill.
It's madness to ever allow automatic financial transactions that aren't fixed, scheduled payments from trusted vendors.
> Why on earth would you set up auto-pay?
I've setup auto-pay on several accounts and left it running for over a decade. whatever issue I may have in the future would not exceed the amount of time wasted in manually paying each account.
I've setup auto-pay on several accounts and left it running for over a decade. whatever issue I may have in the future would not exceed the amount of time wasted in manually paying each account.
A surprise 17,000 electric Bill?
I don’t hear about it much anymore but for years was terrified of making a cell data mistake and ending up with a 40k+ bill.
I don’t hear about it much anymore but for years was terrified of making a cell data mistake and ending up with a 40k+ bill.
Not sure I understand this, because autopay or not, if you accrue a 17k bill for a service then that's what's due unless you negotiate otherwise, and the lack of autopay is irrelevant.
If you're worried about funds disappearing unexpectedly, many major U.S. banks wave checking account fees with direct deposits setup. It's trivial to setup a bank account with multiple checking/savings accounts, where one account is funded as necessary with expected spending, and have the excess go into the other checking/savings account(s).
That's a best practice anyway, since having a debit card hacked into is a much bigger ordeal than a credit card, so keeping that checking account with minimal funds is optimal.
If you're worried about funds disappearing unexpectedly, many major U.S. banks wave checking account fees with direct deposits setup. It's trivial to setup a bank account with multiple checking/savings accounts, where one account is funded as necessary with expected spending, and have the excess go into the other checking/savings account(s).
That's a best practice anyway, since having a debit card hacked into is a much bigger ordeal than a credit card, so keeping that checking account with minimal funds is optimal.
> if you accrue a 17k bill for a service then that's what's due
Au contraire: every time I have had a large bill it has been because the biller stuffed up.
Water utility couldn't read the water meter because of the dog so they estimated based on past usage. I don't have a dog. They estimated using someone else's meter. They overcharged me by an order of magnitude.
Electricity utility couldn't read the meter because of the dog, so they too estimated based on past usage. Again, I don't have a dog and they estimated based on the average usage of a house my size (typically a family of 4 to 8). They overcharged me by a factor of three or so.
At one point I changed my mobile phone plan to one that had a special offer going. It took three months for the company to get the amount right, and then it took another three months to get my money back for the first three months they billed incorrectly.
With any system that has variable costs (such as usage fees) I far prefer to receive a bill and pay it by hand because it only takes one error to completely wipe me out financially.
Note about the dog above: at one point the utility company wanted access to my yard to perform some maintenance on the electricity transmission lines (in my town the aerial electrical services are in the back yard to improve the street aesthetic). I asked them to please call me so I can lock up my chickens. The person I talked to didn't have a box to tick for "chickens" so they ticked the box that said "dog". Since then I have not had a meter reader actually read my meters, every bill is "estimated because of dog." I have to take a photo of the meter and send it in to them because they're too lazy to read it themselves.
Au contraire: every time I have had a large bill it has been because the biller stuffed up.
Water utility couldn't read the water meter because of the dog so they estimated based on past usage. I don't have a dog. They estimated using someone else's meter. They overcharged me by an order of magnitude.
Electricity utility couldn't read the meter because of the dog, so they too estimated based on past usage. Again, I don't have a dog and they estimated based on the average usage of a house my size (typically a family of 4 to 8). They overcharged me by a factor of three or so.
At one point I changed my mobile phone plan to one that had a special offer going. It took three months for the company to get the amount right, and then it took another three months to get my money back for the first three months they billed incorrectly.
With any system that has variable costs (such as usage fees) I far prefer to receive a bill and pay it by hand because it only takes one error to completely wipe me out financially.
Note about the dog above: at one point the utility company wanted access to my yard to perform some maintenance on the electricity transmission lines (in my town the aerial electrical services are in the back yard to improve the street aesthetic). I asked them to please call me so I can lock up my chickens. The person I talked to didn't have a box to tick for "chickens" so they ticked the box that said "dog". Since then I have not had a meter reader actually read my meters, every bill is "estimated because of dog." I have to take a photo of the meter and send it in to them because they're too lazy to read it themselves.
If some service suddenly tries to charge 17K it's almost certainly an error on their part.
With autopay that error can propagate into draining your account and then all your other autopay accounts that come later get rejected and you'll get penalties and late charges on those.
The first provider, the one who made a mistake, can be talked into correcting it (hopefully anyway). But all the other penalties you'll be responsible for since your account was indeed empty.
So there are real risks to autopay. Maybe not too frequent, but good to be aware.
With autopay that error can propagate into draining your account and then all your other autopay accounts that come later get rejected and you'll get penalties and late charges on those.
The first provider, the one who made a mistake, can be talked into correcting it (hopefully anyway). But all the other penalties you'll be responsible for since your account was indeed empty.
So there are real risks to autopay. Maybe not too frequent, but good to be aware.
This is a misunderstanding of what I said, I agree that a 17k utility bill is most certainly a mistake.
But for example, if your autopay bills with direct access to your checking account total 2k/mo then it makes sense to limit the funds of that checking account to roughly that much, maybe a bit more incase of variance. If a utility tried to withdraw 17k from an account that only has 2.5k in it, it will not be able to do so (Overdraft "protection" can be turned off).
If there's a small buffer in the checking account, other bills should not cascade from one large anomaly in that case, because the bank won't hand out partial payments.
Yes, there are still risks with autopay, but they're greatly mitigated with a dedicated checking account for that specific purpose. Furthermore, forgetting to pay one of the several bills manually is a risk in and of itself. I'm just pointing out that setting up autopay doesn't necessarily mean giving unlimited access to one's funds.
But for example, if your autopay bills with direct access to your checking account total 2k/mo then it makes sense to limit the funds of that checking account to roughly that much, maybe a bit more incase of variance. If a utility tried to withdraw 17k from an account that only has 2.5k in it, it will not be able to do so (Overdraft "protection" can be turned off).
If there's a small buffer in the checking account, other bills should not cascade from one large anomaly in that case, because the bank won't hand out partial payments.
Yes, there are still risks with autopay, but they're greatly mitigated with a dedicated checking account for that specific purpose. Furthermore, forgetting to pay one of the several bills manually is a risk in and of itself. I'm just pointing out that setting up autopay doesn't necessarily mean giving unlimited access to one's funds.
Flew to another country once, with a newborn baby. Flight attendant was having some trouble then declared it all good.
What I didn’t realize was she canceling and redoing the tickets over and over again, each charging me for them. A grand each time. So I ended up in a foreign country penniless. Airline company said it was fine since my funds would be returned in a week.
What I didn’t realize was she canceling and redoing the tickets over and over again, each charging me for them. A grand each time. So I ended up in a foreign country penniless. Airline company said it was fine since my funds would be returned in a week.
Negotiating is a lot easier before you send the money.
I've known people who received huge bills where it was the billing companies fault (such as a bad meter for utility service). On autopay, it would have been a real chore to claw back the amount overpaid.
Bunch of people in Texas just got surprise massive electric bills.
My electric company where I lived a few years ago would take mailed in check or autopay ach only. No cc, no manual payments via ach. They were a little behind...
Mine is prepaid.
One day I got a text that my balance was low. As I picked up my phone I got another saying balance was 0. While I was opening the app to add funds I got another text saying my service would be turned off if I didn’t pay.
While on the confirm payment screen my power went out.
All happened in about 10 seconds.
One day I got a text that my balance was low. As I picked up my phone I got another saying balance was 0. While I was opening the app to add funds I got another text saying my service would be turned off if I didn’t pay.
While on the confirm payment screen my power went out.
All happened in about 10 seconds.
[deleted]
None of the electric bills in Texas should have been a surprise. Those people chose to pay market rate for their electricity, that is not always going to turn out well for the consumer during events that would lead to market rate being completely out of wack.
Victim blaming?
So you think any of the resized how absurdly high market rates can get.
So you think any of the resized how absurdly high market rates can get.
So I guess this is a US thing. Is 'auto-pay' the same thing as setting up a monthly direct debit to pay either your minimum payment, a percentage, or to clear the full balance?
If that's the case, and I can only speak for my experience in the UK and across the EU for a few years, I'll take the automated payment over the infinitesimal threat of being compromised and clicking a 'dispute this payment' link in my account.
ATM withdrawals have far more risk and you wouldn't do those with a credit card.
If that's the case, and I can only speak for my experience in the UK and across the EU for a few years, I'll take the automated payment over the infinitesimal threat of being compromised and clicking a 'dispute this payment' link in my account.
ATM withdrawals have far more risk and you wouldn't do those with a credit card.
> So I guess this is a US thing. Is 'auto-pay' the same thing as setting up a monthly direct debit to pay either your minimum payment, a percentage, or to clear the full balance?
There are a variety of things someone could mean when they say "auto-pay" in the US, including:
1. Authorizing a merchant to keep your credit card info on file and to charge that whenever they want to bill you,
2. Providing a merchant with your checking account information and authorizing them to take money from there whenever they want to bill you,
3. Many banks include a bill paying service for free with your checking account, which can be configured to receive bills electronically from many merchants, and to automatically pay them from your checking account. Many banks will allow you to choose whether to automatically pay the full bill amount, the minimum due amount, the full balance amount, or a fixed amount, and will allow you to set a maximum amount.
4. For merchants that can not send bills electronically to your bank's bill paying service, many banks will let your configure the bill paying service to send the merchant a fixed amount on a regular schedule.
5. For bills for credit cards issued by the same bank where you have your checking account, there is often an auto-pay feature to automatically pay your credit card from that checking account.
This often means that there are several ways to auto-pay a given bill. For example, I could auto-pay my electric bill by method #1, method #2, or method #3. If I used method #1, I could auto-pay that credit card with #2 and maybe #3.
There are a variety of things someone could mean when they say "auto-pay" in the US, including:
1. Authorizing a merchant to keep your credit card info on file and to charge that whenever they want to bill you,
2. Providing a merchant with your checking account information and authorizing them to take money from there whenever they want to bill you,
3. Many banks include a bill paying service for free with your checking account, which can be configured to receive bills electronically from many merchants, and to automatically pay them from your checking account. Many banks will allow you to choose whether to automatically pay the full bill amount, the minimum due amount, the full balance amount, or a fixed amount, and will allow you to set a maximum amount.
4. For merchants that can not send bills electronically to your bank's bill paying service, many banks will let your configure the bill paying service to send the merchant a fixed amount on a regular schedule.
5. For bills for credit cards issued by the same bank where you have your checking account, there is often an auto-pay feature to automatically pay your credit card from that checking account.
This often means that there are several ways to auto-pay a given bill. For example, I could auto-pay my electric bill by method #1, method #2, or method #3. If I used method #1, I could auto-pay that credit card with #2 and maybe #3.
Heh, we generally cover all of that with a direct debit across the pond, both in the UK and EU (through SEPA). There isn't really a notion of an 'automatic bill paying service', you offer the provider the mandate to take payment from your account. This mandate is fully transferable and revocable and encoded in a standardised format.
You wouldn't be able to run a bank without it. Most monthly outgoings will be through such an agreement.
(I've worked on such systems. XML up the wazoo but you're expected to be able to cryptographically verify a mandate years after the fact, for auditing purposes, so the format works. And it's all API'd up.)
You wouldn't be able to run a bank without it. Most monthly outgoings will be through such an agreement.
(I've worked on such systems. XML up the wazoo but you're expected to be able to cryptographically verify a mandate years after the fact, for auditing purposes, so the format works. And it's all API'd up.)
Yes, that's exactly what auto-pay is. I'm in the US myself and in my experience, almost everyone advocates auto-pay. Some people may choose to pay early and some people may not be able to pay, but generally people in the US are recommended to set up auto-pay.
Sorry but how is this dangerous? You don't have your credit cards on autopay?
I regularly verify what transactions show up across my cards and you have 30 days to dispute anything.
10+ years and I never had an issue.
I regularly verify what transactions show up across my cards and you have 30 days to dispute anything.
10+ years and I never had an issue.
I don't actually auto pay any of my credit cards.
I keep my checking account balance intentionally low and often run into times where paying off my cards would overdraft me.
I don't think it's all that crazy of a thing to do, I just don't do it.
I keep my checking account balance intentionally low and often run into times where paying off my cards would overdraft me.
I don't think it's all that crazy of a thing to do, I just don't do it.
Same here. I carefully plan my bill paying schedule so as to never go below zero in my checking account. Sometimes that involves deferring payments until the next paycheck. With AutoPay I give up that ability to schedule exactly when the money goes out.
Additionally, I like to review every bill I pay to make sure it makes sense. I've had to dispute bills in the past that were unexplainably incorrect by $10, $20, sometimes close to $50, and if I had them on AutoPay I probably wouldn't have even noticed it.
Additionally, I like to review every bill I pay to make sure it makes sense. I've had to dispute bills in the past that were unexplainably incorrect by $10, $20, sometimes close to $50, and if I had them on AutoPay I probably wouldn't have even noticed it.
[deleted]
Every card which I've owned has allowed an option to autopay the minimum payment. This way you don't have to deal with accidentally missing a payment which can be quite costly.
That said, the real solution here is to not spend more than you can pay off. Every time you carry over your balance, it's a big win for the credit companies. If you get to the end of the pay period and your card balance is greater than your checking balance, then you lose.
That said, the real solution here is to not spend more than you can pay off. Every time you carry over your balance, it's a big win for the credit companies. If you get to the end of the pay period and your card balance is greater than your checking balance, then you lose.
I don't autopay credit cards. I only do this for accounts that have fixed value and require little overseeing, e.g., car payments. Any of my credit cards are payed only when I review the amount and make the decision.
Some people use their CC as an accounts payable. It acts like a buffer to give you time to dispute BS nuisance charges.
Credit card auto pay only happens 4 weeks or more after the charges post. If there is fraudulent activity on your account there’s lots of time to address it before it becomes a bank charge.
Depends on when the charge was made. If the charge was made the day before the scheduled payment, you will have problems.
Shouldn’t be true because that should go in the next month
The autopay typically comes out the last day that you can make a payment in the current cycle, which is 20-25 days after the cycle closes. You’ll always have a minimum 2-3 weeks to review the charges before the autopay goes out.
Also AFAIK you can still dispute charges after you have paid them; if you win the dispute you'll get credited later.
> That's just asking for a headache if anything is every compromised, or if a vendor fraudulently or accidentally overcharges you
How is any of that specific for auto pay? Non-auto pay transactions can be compromised, and a non-auto pay vendor can fraudulently charge you, too.
How is any of that specific for auto pay? Non-auto pay transactions can be compromised, and a non-auto pay vendor can fraudulently charge you, too.
I think the posters touting autopay should review the 'experience of being poor-ish'
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26300139
I'd _never_ let any major bills pull directly from my accounts. I'm bothered just by having a recurring Netflix draw. I'm not claiming one perspective is right and the other wrong... but that my history and experiences have strongly trained me into one behavior, and yours into another.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26300139
I'd _never_ let any major bills pull directly from my accounts. I'm bothered just by having a recurring Netflix draw. I'm not claiming one perspective is right and the other wrong... but that my history and experiences have strongly trained me into one behavior, and yours into another.
The hit on your credit report that can last many years if you pay late is far more of a risk than fraud, IME. I forgot to pay my credit card 6 years ago, and that has been hurting me ever since, including on my mortgage. Finally fell off just this year.
> Why on earth would you set up auto-pay?
Because it's super convenient. I resisted a long time and just had some of my accounts set to pay minimum payments, but that got expensive when I forgot to make manual payments.
Regardless, the important bit here isn't so much that he forgot autopay, it's that he didn't pay at all for 3 months.
Because it's super convenient. I resisted a long time and just had some of my accounts set to pay minimum payments, but that got expensive when I forgot to make manual payments.
Regardless, the important bit here isn't so much that he forgot autopay, it's that he didn't pay at all for 3 months.
I auto-pay all my bills (rent, utilities, etc), but manually pay my credit cards weekly. I have auto-pay set up on CCs as a backup just in case I ever fall into a coma and can’t make a manual payment. It only auto-pays on a specific date, so you can dispute any charges prior to then.
Other than shopping, I don't think I have any payments from my account that aren't auto-pay (direct debit, the other person chooses the amount).
I check the bank account every 6 weeks or so, and can investigate then if necessary. It's never been necessary.
I check the bank account every 6 weeks or so, and can investigate then if necessary. It's never been necessary.
You can monitor transactions on services like Mint or Personal Capital daily or weekly. When you see a fraudulent charge, you dispute it, even if you’ve already auto-paid the balance.
Eh, I disagree. I keep an eye on my credit card balances on a regular basis. It's nice to have autopay on for the credit cards I use less. Helps avoid late fees.
most autopay setups are not dangerous.
autopay on a credit card is great.
But some are. the sketchy and hard-to-cancel services.
autopay on a credit card is great.
But some are. the sketchy and hard-to-cancel services.
This *FEELS* (not saying it is) like a false claim. Much like the much upvoted (and later debunked) HN post from a while back when a iOS developer claimed that Apple always keeps it 30% commission, even on a refunded purchase.
I consider it worrying that a claim wholly lacking evidence is getting so much attention.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23995750
I consider it worrying that a claim wholly lacking evidence is getting so much attention.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23995750
It's just noise/bullshit on Twitter.
The Apple Card t&c are here: https://www.goldmansachs.com/terms-and-conditions/Apple-Card...
They prominently mention any reference to iCloud, etc as your "Apple ID" and "account" is used with respect to the financial account. On page 11, consequences of "Default" include suspension of your "account". You are required to use a "Required Device", and specifically an Apple ID in "good standing" with Apple and Apple two-factor auth.
My guess is that if anything happened to this guy, he did something to fubar his Apple ID, which then fubared his Apple Card.
The Apple Card t&c are here: https://www.goldmansachs.com/terms-and-conditions/Apple-Card...
They prominently mention any reference to iCloud, etc as your "Apple ID" and "account" is used with respect to the financial account. On page 11, consequences of "Default" include suspension of your "account". You are required to use a "Required Device", and specifically an Apple ID in "good standing" with Apple and Apple two-factor auth.
My guess is that if anything happened to this guy, he did something to fubar his Apple ID, which then fubared his Apple Card.
This is not a false claim. I didn't miss a payment, but complained about a $10 WaPost recurring charge via their chat support and they went ahead and locked my account (I think they were trying to be helpful but this fucked things up royally). This was many months ago. The support has been nice, but completely neutered. I have screenshots. I've spoken to 8 people and no one can figure it out. I can't log in, pay, or close the account. The only way I still know there is some account in the ether is I get notifications on my phone that I'm being charged interest and letters in the mail I'm being charged interest.
For the record, I always pay the balance in full and until this I loved the UI and the product. But boy what a fucked up support experience and they should probably end relationship with Goldman and just stick to apple pay. There are about 6 points of total failure in the support experience. I could only spend so many hours holding their fucking hands before I had to give up.
I emailed TCook about this on 11/10/2020.
I greatly regret signing up for Apple Card and please DON'T. It was the best card until it stopped working, then it's the worse card I've ever had. I stick to Apple Pay now with an amex.
I'd also recommend using PayPal for recurring charged. 1 click to see all recurring charges and 1 click to cancel. Apple needs this ASAP.
For the record, I always pay the balance in full and until this I loved the UI and the product. But boy what a fucked up support experience and they should probably end relationship with Goldman and just stick to apple pay. There are about 6 points of total failure in the support experience. I could only spend so many hours holding their fucking hands before I had to give up.
I emailed TCook about this on 11/10/2020.
I greatly regret signing up for Apple Card and please DON'T. It was the best card until it stopped working, then it's the worse card I've ever had. I stick to Apple Pay now with an amex.
I'd also recommend using PayPal for recurring charged. 1 click to see all recurring charges and 1 click to cancel. Apple needs this ASAP.
This has nothing to do with the Twitter complaint. Are you locked out of iCloud? If not, then it’s not the same at all.
I had to change all my iCloud credentials. I couldn't believe there was any linkages between the 2 things. Seemed insane and dangerous to me. Luckily I was able to get back into my iCloud/Apple. I just assumed the Apple Card was like any credit card. But I learned the hard way that it is not, and it's dangerous to mess with.
Yes, I don't think Apple Card has anything to do with it - I think his iCloud subscription was past due and that was that disabled his account - and then he found himself in a Catch 22 where he couldn't update/pay his Apple Card because he was locked out of iCloud. I'd imagine the same would have happened if he let his Visa card lapse.
Nope -- iCloud was not past due. It is an Apple Card policy.
Apples Customer agreement->
Definition ->
“Account” means the Apple Card consumer credit account opened for you under this Agreement
Default actions ->
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF BEING IN DEFAULT If you are in default, we may take any of the following actions to the extent permitted under applicable law: • Continue to charge you interest as long as you have an outstanding Account balance; • Lower your credit limit; • Decline or otherwise limit your ability to make Transactions; • Report information about your Account to the credit reporting bureaus; • Begin collections activities; • Suspend or close your Account; • Require you to immediately pay all or any portion of your total outstanding balance (this action may also be taken upon death); • If we retain an attorney who is not our salaried employee to collect amounts you owe, we may require you to pay for the court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees that we actually incur; and/or • Take any other action permitted by law.
Definition ->
“Account” means the Apple Card consumer credit account opened for you under this Agreement
Default actions ->
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF BEING IN DEFAULT If you are in default, we may take any of the following actions to the extent permitted under applicable law: • Continue to charge you interest as long as you have an outstanding Account balance; • Lower your credit limit; • Decline or otherwise limit your ability to make Transactions; • Report information about your Account to the credit reporting bureaus; • Begin collections activities; • Suspend or close your Account; • Require you to immediately pay all or any portion of your total outstanding balance (this action may also be taken upon death); • If we retain an attorney who is not our salaried employee to collect amounts you owe, we may require you to pay for the court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees that we actually incur; and/or • Take any other action permitted by law.
> Suspend or close your Account
I guess account is one whole system the way they built it so it includes his iCloud and whatnot.
This should be last resort solution for Apple. I’m thinking well past 3 months of notifications or something, maybe even a year, considering it goes beyond just the card itself.
Or just not have it affect other services at all.
I guess account is one whole system the way they built it so it includes his iCloud and whatnot.
This should be last resort solution for Apple. I’m thinking well past 3 months of notifications or something, maybe even a year, considering it goes beyond just the card itself.
Or just not have it affect other services at all.
It’s not, at all. I have an Apple Card. My Apple Card account is totally separate from my iCloud account.
“Account” means the Apple Card consumer credit account opened for you under this Agreement.
Not same as Apple ID.
Not same as Apple ID.
Can you point out any public documentation about this policy?
It's not an Apple Card policy. At all. And you didn't post any convincing evidence of that.
What is an Apple Card policy?
I keep refreshing these comments and the twitter thread to see if any better info is provided. This is the kind of thing that could be a mistake on Apple's side, could be a lie from the user, or could be a misunderstanding of what actually happened.
I don't think the OP is lying. Their account was probably locked because they missed a payment. I do think this is a misunderstanding of what's happening.
They're paying for iCloud with their Apple Card. If that payment fails, the account can be locked.
So it's not "Missing a payment on the Apple Card locks your account" it might be "Missing an iCloud Payment locks your account."
They also say the iCloud payment wasn't past due. I wouldn't be surprised if this was some weird edge case or bug that caused the account to be locked.
They're paying for iCloud with their Apple Card. If that payment fails, the account can be locked.
So it's not "Missing a payment on the Apple Card locks your account" it might be "Missing an iCloud Payment locks your account."
They also say the iCloud payment wasn't past due. I wouldn't be surprised if this was some weird edge case or bug that caused the account to be locked.
This doesn’t sound like how iCloud, Apple Card, and Apple ID work.
I stopped paying for iCloud and it didn’t diable my Apple ID nor my Apple Card.
Also you don’t have past due iCloud accounts. You stop paying iCloud services stop working for you.
Sounds like something else is a going on here.
I stopped paying for iCloud and it didn’t diable my Apple ID nor my Apple Card.
Also you don’t have past due iCloud accounts. You stop paying iCloud services stop working for you.
Sounds like something else is a going on here.
Do you have any evidence aside from a feeling? Just curious.
This would be egregious behavior by Apple, and the Apple Card has been out long enough that there would be numerous reports of this that gained steam by now. It's also been out long enough and distributed to enough people that someone somewhere was likely to encounter two issues with Apple at about the same time. So it's much more likely that Apple doesn't just suspend all your accounts until you pay up.
That's a very different argument from "this feels false," which is just some subjective bullshit. However, your argument is little better.
You're saying "it stands to reason that a widely used product would have already hit this corner case by now." The problem with your argument is that it's a tautology. If in fact the statement by dcurtis is the first efflorescence of the problem, your line of thinking would reject it anyway.
That's why it's useless to say "this feels wrong" or even "surely we would know by now." The guy who wrote the tweet has already said here in HN comments that he will substantiate what he wrote, so it seems unnecessary to dogpile the skepticism and "feelings" in the interim.
You don't have to accept a logical proposition in order to consider/entertain it.
You're saying "it stands to reason that a widely used product would have already hit this corner case by now." The problem with your argument is that it's a tautology. If in fact the statement by dcurtis is the first efflorescence of the problem, your line of thinking would reject it anyway.
That's why it's useless to say "this feels wrong" or even "surely we would know by now." The guy who wrote the tweet has already said here in HN comments that he will substantiate what he wrote, so it seems unnecessary to dogpile the skepticism and "feelings" in the interim.
You don't have to accept a logical proposition in order to consider/entertain it.
>The problem with your argument is that it's a tautology. If in fact the statement by dcurtis is the first efflorescence of the problem, your line of thinking would reject it anyway
No its not; it's defining a probability. This report is most likely false, because it would be unlikely for this to be the first instance of it. It's not defining a logical proposition -- that's just you extracting more gaurantees from the statement than what was actually specified. It's not if this then that, it's if probably this, then probably that.
And it's valid to state it "feels false", if only because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- the same way it's valid to not significantly consider the claim "I saw an alien" stated on its own. Yes, there is a possibility it's true, and yes, its not valid to declare it false only on the basis that aliens are involved, but it would be unreasonable to assume that possibility it is true is significant based on the claim alone.
It is perfectly valid to assume it's false, because the likelihood of the alternative is low. It is not valid to declare it false for the same reasoning; but no one in this chain did such a thing.
No its not; it's defining a probability. This report is most likely false, because it would be unlikely for this to be the first instance of it. It's not defining a logical proposition -- that's just you extracting more gaurantees from the statement than what was actually specified. It's not if this then that, it's if probably this, then probably that.
And it's valid to state it "feels false", if only because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- the same way it's valid to not significantly consider the claim "I saw an alien" stated on its own. Yes, there is a possibility it's true, and yes, its not valid to declare it false only on the basis that aliens are involved, but it would be unreasonable to assume that possibility it is true is significant based on the claim alone.
It is perfectly valid to assume it's false, because the likelihood of the alternative is low. It is not valid to declare it false for the same reasoning; but no one in this chain did such a thing.
You're conflating two different parent comments; I'll take them separately.
If you think something "feels false" but you have no evidence for it, that's not a particularly strong basis for reasoning.
>it's defining a probability.
This is not true. It's classifying the first instance as false.
If you think something "feels false" but you have no evidence for it, that's not a particularly strong basis for reasoning.
>it's defining a probability.
This is not true. It's classifying the first instance as false.
>If you think something "feels false" but you have no evidence for it, that's not a particularly strong basis for reasoning.
That's true, but an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence is also not a particularly strong basis for reasoning.
and from the original post...
>I consider it worrying that a claim wholly lacking evidence is getting so much attention.
That is, the conclusion reached by twitter is not well-reasoned, which gives kevindong the well-reasoned conclusion: it's probably false.
>It's classifying the first instance as false.
>This *FEELS* (not saying it is) like a false claim.
I'm not clear how you can read this as anything other than a probability. It says nothing about the premise, and it clearly specifies that the conclusion has not been [definitively] classified.
Otherwise, if that ain't the money-quote, I don't know what you're reading but it's not what I'm reading.
That's true, but an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence is also not a particularly strong basis for reasoning.
and from the original post...
>I consider it worrying that a claim wholly lacking evidence is getting so much attention.
That is, the conclusion reached by twitter is not well-reasoned, which gives kevindong the well-reasoned conclusion: it's probably false.
>It's classifying the first instance as false.
>This *FEELS* (not saying it is) like a false claim.
I'm not clear how you can read this as anything other than a probability. It says nothing about the premise, and it clearly specifies that the conclusion has not been [definitively] classified.
Otherwise, if that ain't the money-quote, I don't know what you're reading but it's not what I'm reading.
> If you think something "feels false" but you have no evidence for it, that's not a particularly strong basis for reasoning.
We can’t determine that.
Whether it is a strong basis for reasoning depends on the person’s priors, which may be very strong.
Until we ask them about their priors, we simply don’t know.
We can’t determine that.
Whether it is a strong basis for reasoning depends on the person’s priors, which may be very strong.
Until we ask them about their priors, we simply don’t know.
> If in fact the statement by dcurtis is the first efflorescence of the problem, your line of thinking would reject it anyway.
This is true, but we have to take it in context. How likely is it that this is the policy, and we’ve never heard about it before now?
The card has been our for a couple of years. Millions of people are using it. This implies 10s of millions of payments. At a conservative estimate this would mean there must have been thousands of missed payments, and therefore thousands of locked Apple accounts.
It therefore seems unlikely we wouldn’t have heard about it. I could of course be wrong as could the GP, because this is just a probability estimate. But that’s all the GP is saying.
This is true, but we have to take it in context. How likely is it that this is the policy, and we’ve never heard about it before now?
The card has been our for a couple of years. Millions of people are using it. This implies 10s of millions of payments. At a conservative estimate this would mean there must have been thousands of missed payments, and therefore thousands of locked Apple accounts.
It therefore seems unlikely we wouldn’t have heard about it. I could of course be wrong as could the GP, because this is just a probability estimate. But that’s all the GP is saying.
Thanks, and I agree with you. But policies can change, so it's a fair conversation to have if in fact the stated thing happened. People seem to think that "is there evidence for what you said" is some kind of abusive reply but that should be table stakes for most claims. The guy in the tweet already said he'd write something up, but the people who said he is probably stating falsehoods just came up with that based on a gut feeling.
Me personally, Apple repeatedly locked (not disabled) my account earlier this year when they weren't able to process a payment. PayPal had authorized but not charged an M1 laptop I had ordered with a non-English keyboard, and somehow the order hung. My bank and PayPal showed the authorization, but Apple showed it as "hold" due to unsuccessful payment. Customer service wasn't able to push the order through without taking credit card information directly, and I ended up canceling the order, which means I lose my place in the order queue.
Based on my recent experience, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple had some issues with payment processing. The reason that I care about this particular topic is that I'm considering doing the re-order of the M1 laptop with Apple Card financing. That's why chaff like "it feels false lol" is not useful information for me.
Me personally, Apple repeatedly locked (not disabled) my account earlier this year when they weren't able to process a payment. PayPal had authorized but not charged an M1 laptop I had ordered with a non-English keyboard, and somehow the order hung. My bank and PayPal showed the authorization, but Apple showed it as "hold" due to unsuccessful payment. Customer service wasn't able to push the order through without taking credit card information directly, and I ended up canceling the order, which means I lose my place in the order queue.
Based on my recent experience, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple had some issues with payment processing. The reason that I care about this particular topic is that I'm considering doing the re-order of the M1 laptop with Apple Card financing. That's why chaff like "it feels false lol" is not useful information for me.
> But policies can change, so it's a fair conversation to have if in fact the stated thing happened.
Yes, but it’s a not a fair conversation to start by spreading a false statement.
If we’re just speculating about the policies, headlines like the one on this post are simply not true.
Right now, that may be exactly what has happened. We don’t know yet but we do know it’s not as simple as the tweet and headline claim.
Yes, but it’s a not a fair conversation to start by spreading a false statement.
If we’re just speculating about the policies, headlines like the one on this post are simply not true.
Right now, that may be exactly what has happened. We don’t know yet but we do know it’s not as simple as the tweet and headline claim.
Not sure if you're referring to me but I haven't spread any false statements. I have neither argued that the tweet is true nor that it is false. What I did was ask if the guy making the comment had any evidence for what he was saying. Others had already asked dcurtis the same and he said he would write more about it later.
I wanted to know if the comment was just a pontification or if there was actually a reason to dismiss what dcurtis said. As I explained earlier, I have a direct reason (a purchase) to care,
If you actually think I speculated about anything, please quote where I did so.
I wanted to know if the comment was just a pontification or if there was actually a reason to dismiss what dcurtis said. As I explained earlier, I have a direct reason (a purchase) to care,
If you actually think I speculated about anything, please quote where I did so.
I’m not accusing you of anything.
There is clearly reason to doubt what Dcurtis said, as you have agreed.
I’m referring to this overall conversation which is a discussion of a statement by Dcurtis, which we already know is not what it originally sounded like, and may turn out to be false.
There is clearly reason to doubt what Dcurtis said, as you have agreed.
I’m referring to this overall conversation which is a discussion of a statement by Dcurtis, which we already know is not what it originally sounded like, and may turn out to be false.
Doubting something and dismissing it are two different animals in the same zoo.
https://dcurt.is/apple-card-can-disable-your-icloud-account
Turns out his issue is also related to an M1 purchase. Go figure.
https://dcurt.is/apple-card-can-disable-your-icloud-account
Turns out his issue is also related to an M1 purchase. Go figure.
This discussion wasn’t dismissing anything.
They were just saying that it was highly unlikely to be true.
This is his original statement:
> If you miss an Apple Card payment, Apple disables all your Apple accounts
It turns out that as writing it is complete and utter bullshit.
Also, Apple Card provides a lot of notifications of due payments if you don’t have autopay.
Somehow he doesn’t mention those.
The fact that he made a bullshit statement thar would have been cause for great concern if true, to a much more complicated story of compounded errors that would affect very few people and doesn’t explain how he missed the warnings, undermines his credibility.
Seems like he screwed up and is just trying to save face.
The comment thread on the more accurate blog post he wrote later seems like a very reasonable discussion of the issue itself.
This comment thread is a reasonable discussion about how it seemed like he made a false statement, because that’s what he did.
They were just saying that it was highly unlikely to be true.
This is his original statement:
> If you miss an Apple Card payment, Apple disables all your Apple accounts
It turns out that as writing it is complete and utter bullshit.
Also, Apple Card provides a lot of notifications of due payments if you don’t have autopay.
Somehow he doesn’t mention those.
The fact that he made a bullshit statement thar would have been cause for great concern if true, to a much more complicated story of compounded errors that would affect very few people and doesn’t explain how he missed the warnings, undermines his credibility.
Seems like he screwed up and is just trying to save face.
The comment thread on the more accurate blog post he wrote later seems like a very reasonable discussion of the issue itself.
This comment thread is a reasonable discussion about how it seemed like he made a false statement, because that’s what he did.
It's also possible that this is new behavior on Apple's part.
The onus of providing proof is on the claimant. At the time of writing, there was none.
I agree with rblatz's response's reasoning.
I agree with rblatz's response's reasoning.
You're making a claim too, kevindong.
I'm just asking whether there's any meat to your claim.
I can tell from your response that there is not. For example, evidence would be "this happened to me and I didn't encounter the same consequences for my Apple account."
I'm just asking whether there's any meat to your claim.
I can tell from your response that there is not. For example, evidence would be "this happened to me and I didn't encounter the same consequences for my Apple account."
> "this happened to me and I didn't encounter the same consequences for my Apple account."
You can see other commenters on this thread saying exactly this.
E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26307849
You can see other commenters on this thread saying exactly this.
E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26307849
That comment is from a different user and was posted an hour after the one to which I replied.
I didn't expect that tweet to get so much attention. I plan to write more about what exactly happened when my accounts are re-activated.
But to clear a couple of things up:
1. I've since learned that the reason this happened could be due to an unusual confluence of events including Apple Card, autopay, and the online Apple Store.
2. The disabling of iCloud, App Store, and Apple ID accounts is actually an Apple Card policy for overdue accounts, and they have a team dedicated to handling these account de-activation issues. (I think this is absurd, which is why I am drawing attention to it.)
But to clear a couple of things up:
1. I've since learned that the reason this happened could be due to an unusual confluence of events including Apple Card, autopay, and the online Apple Store.
2. The disabling of iCloud, App Store, and Apple ID accounts is actually an Apple Card policy for overdue accounts, and they have a team dedicated to handling these account de-activation issues. (I think this is absurd, which is why I am drawing attention to it.)
> The disabling of iCloud, App Store, and Apple ID accounts is actually an Apple Card policy for overdue accounts
Do you have any more information on this?
It sounds alarming when stated without further context, because it makes it sounds like a slightly overdue payment could cause an instant shutdown of ones account.
You originally seemed to be saying this is what happened, but now you are saying it’s not that simple.
I would be very surprised if my Apple account was locked out after 15 days of non payment of my card.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it was locked out (for example) after 100 days, especially if I hadn’t communicated with them.
Another reason for it to be locked out might be fraud detection, in which case I might actively want that, even thought it occasionally causes inconvenience.
One is indeed absurd and very salient to all Apple users, the other two would be unsurprising and frankly of no real concern. At this point we don’t know where on the spectrum the policy actually lies.
So without more context, #2 seems like a potentially very serious claim that could later turn out not to be so bad.
This is a common way damaging misinformation starts to spread.
I’m not for a second suggesting this is your intent, but I am pointing out that this is a likely effect, dependent on what the context actually turns out to be.
Edit: also worth noting that the tweet, and the HN headline are worded in an unequivocal way. It seems like as written, they may simply be false based on what you have now said.
Do you have any more information on this?
It sounds alarming when stated without further context, because it makes it sounds like a slightly overdue payment could cause an instant shutdown of ones account.
You originally seemed to be saying this is what happened, but now you are saying it’s not that simple.
I would be very surprised if my Apple account was locked out after 15 days of non payment of my card.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it was locked out (for example) after 100 days, especially if I hadn’t communicated with them.
Another reason for it to be locked out might be fraud detection, in which case I might actively want that, even thought it occasionally causes inconvenience.
One is indeed absurd and very salient to all Apple users, the other two would be unsurprising and frankly of no real concern. At this point we don’t know where on the spectrum the policy actually lies.
So without more context, #2 seems like a potentially very serious claim that could later turn out not to be so bad.
This is a common way damaging misinformation starts to spread.
I’m not for a second suggesting this is your intent, but I am pointing out that this is a likely effect, dependent on what the context actually turns out to be.
Edit: also worth noting that the tweet, and the HN headline are worded in an unequivocal way. It seems like as written, they may simply be false based on what you have now said.
> The disabling of iCloud, App Store, and Apple ID accounts is actually an Apple Card policy for overdue accounts
My understanding is that the Apple Card policy is referring to "account" as "Apple Card Account is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA", and not the iCloud account issued by Apple.
My understanding is that the Apple Card policy is referring to "account" as "Apple Card Account is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA", and not the iCloud account issued by Apple.
[deleted]
Did you happen to do a chargeback in the past month?
I'm aware of a situation where a user wanted to cancel an account with an app they had subscribed to via the app store. To do so they did a charge back on their credit card. Because he bought via the app store he ended up charging back Apple.
Apple then blocked his icloud.
I'm aware of a situation where a user wanted to cancel an account with an app they had subscribed to via the app store. To do so they did a charge back on their credit card. Because he bought via the app store he ended up charging back Apple.
Apple then blocked his icloud.
Do the right thing and delete your twitter post.
This poster continues to fling accusations at Apple and has yet to provide any proof of any of these suppositions whatsoever. I’m not sure why the commenters are so eager to believe a comment from a random Twitter account posted to HN. Confirmation bias is strong, I guess.
This is a heavy accusation and I think the burden is heavily on the accuser to provide clear evidence that lack of payment for anything somehow locks you out of your Apple account. These comments and posts also seem to be conflating different accounts, like Apple ID, iCloud, and the Apple Card Account.
I’m in no way trying to defend Apple, this just seems like an incredibly user hostile policy, and also one that doesn’t exactly follow sound business logic.
If this is true, can you point to this policy? Can you share the “unusual confluence of events”?
This is a heavy accusation and I think the burden is heavily on the accuser to provide clear evidence that lack of payment for anything somehow locks you out of your Apple account. These comments and posts also seem to be conflating different accounts, like Apple ID, iCloud, and the Apple Card Account.
I’m in no way trying to defend Apple, this just seems like an incredibly user hostile policy, and also one that doesn’t exactly follow sound business logic.
If this is true, can you point to this policy? Can you share the “unusual confluence of events”?
The level of evidence you're expecting is unreasonable given the events. Consider it from his perspective, which is what most of us are doing:
You suddenly notice that you can't access any of the stuff you need to live out your life. Oh fuck. You make a tweet in a panic, and maybe hoping to get some attention, since the faceless trillion dollar company doesn't give a fuck about you.
The tweet blows up, and wbronitsky comes along demanding more information. A clear timeline, strong evidence, legal arguments etc etc. Meanwhile this poor guy is just trying to get his shit back.
Trust me, Apple pays plenty of people to run interference for them. You don't need to do it for free.
You suddenly notice that you can't access any of the stuff you need to live out your life. Oh fuck. You make a tweet in a panic, and maybe hoping to get some attention, since the faceless trillion dollar company doesn't give a fuck about you.
The tweet blows up, and wbronitsky comes along demanding more information. A clear timeline, strong evidence, legal arguments etc etc. Meanwhile this poor guy is just trying to get his shit back.
Trust me, Apple pays plenty of people to run interference for them. You don't need to do it for free.
I think my posting history would show that I’m far from a company shill. It would be cool to respond to the best interpretation of my post, instead of the worst, maybe.
Either way, I’m sure this person had their account frozen; I’m merely wondering how this person knows that there is policy at Apple to intentionally do such things.
Either way, I’m sure this person had their account frozen; I’m merely wondering how this person knows that there is policy at Apple to intentionally do such things.
The OP posted a hugely contradictory post with respect to these original comments. The tweet and the defensive comments here now hold no water.
This forum is no longer seems a place for rational conversation backed up by facts. The GP used dismissive language to put me down and even called me out by my user name in an attempt to intimidate me into silence. I flagged it, but nothing happens; in HN it’s not the intent but purely the language. We are allowed to go on insulting and attacking each other as long as it’s subtle enough to be able to be explained away. This is corporate gaslighting coming down to us here.
It’s a trap full of idiotic rhetorical devices and capitalist wannabes. But then I remind myself that really HN is just a tool for billionaires to steal our ideas.
Receipts: https://dcurt.is/apple-card-can-disable-your-icloud-account
This forum is no longer seems a place for rational conversation backed up by facts. The GP used dismissive language to put me down and even called me out by my user name in an attempt to intimidate me into silence. I flagged it, but nothing happens; in HN it’s not the intent but purely the language. We are allowed to go on insulting and attacking each other as long as it’s subtle enough to be able to be explained away. This is corporate gaslighting coming down to us here.
It’s a trap full of idiotic rhetorical devices and capitalist wannabes. But then I remind myself that really HN is just a tool for billionaires to steal our ideas.
Receipts: https://dcurt.is/apple-card-can-disable-your-icloud-account
> I’m not sure why the commenters are so eager to believe a comment from a random Twitter account posted to HN.
dcurtis isn't a random Twitter account; he's a regular here (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dcurtis) and made svbtle.
He has credibility here, and I think a lot of the upvotes (including mine) are based on expecting he wouldn't say something like this without a good reason.
dcurtis isn't a random Twitter account; he's a regular here (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dcurtis) and made svbtle.
He has credibility here, and I think a lot of the upvotes (including mine) are based on expecting he wouldn't say something like this without a good reason.
> he has credibility here
I don’t even know how to respond to this appeal to amorphous authority, and to reply to the best possible interpretation of the post, I’ll pass over it.
I’m sure this person is not lying that their account was shut down; I’m asking for an accounting of the Apple policy that supposedly exists. It would certainly be something I would be deeply concerned about.
I don’t even know how to respond to this appeal to amorphous authority, and to reply to the best possible interpretation of the post, I’ll pass over it.
I’m sure this person is not lying that their account was shut down; I’m asking for an accounting of the Apple policy that supposedly exists. It would certainly be something I would be deeply concerned about.
I'm not saying you have to take Dustin's word for it or anything, but I think him being known to many here makes his tweet more likely to be upvoted than if it were posted by someone without a reputation.
I would like to point out that the tweet and subsequent comments were inflammatory nonsense. Here is the proof https://dcurt.is/apple-card-can-disable-your-icloud-account
Maybe we shouldn’t just blindly believe and defend people just because lots of karma and Twitter followers and built a thing. I think these actions make this forum much much worse.
Maybe we shouldn’t just blindly believe and defend people just because lots of karma and Twitter followers and built a thing. I think these actions make this forum much much worse.
> based on expecting he wouldn't say something like this without a good reason
That’s why people are asking for the reasons.
He’s exactly the kind of person you’d expect to be able to be able to give them, and frankly without them it doesn’t matter who is making the statement.
He has already partially walked it back, effectively invalidating the tweet.
That’s why people are asking for the reasons.
He’s exactly the kind of person you’d expect to be able to be able to give them, and frankly without them it doesn’t matter who is making the statement.
He has already partially walked it back, effectively invalidating the tweet.
[deleted]
Downvoting of this comment is ludicrous.
This is a very serious accusation and it's irresponsible to fling around such charges without evidence.
There's no way Apple is doing this.
This is a very serious accusation and it's irresponsible to fling around such charges without evidence.
There's no way Apple is doing this.
Important detail:
> The only thing Apple Card was paying for was the 2TB iCloud upgrade — and when I try to change the payment method, it refuses and says “Your account has been disabled in the App Store and iTunes.”
It's not hard to imagine a payment issue for iCloud causing iCloud to be locked or otherwise limited, and given that Apple's online services tend to be buggy and unreliable it's not a huge stretch to think this could have some unintended consequences for adjacent things like the App Store. As someone else in the thread pointed out, surely others have missed Apple Card payments at this point, and we would've already heard about this if it were consistent and/or by design.
Of course even if it wasn't intentional, it's still another example of the single-point-of-failure problem we have when our entire lives depend on an account with a tech company that's way too big to care when users fall through the cracks.
> The only thing Apple Card was paying for was the 2TB iCloud upgrade — and when I try to change the payment method, it refuses and says “Your account has been disabled in the App Store and iTunes.”
It's not hard to imagine a payment issue for iCloud causing iCloud to be locked or otherwise limited, and given that Apple's online services tend to be buggy and unreliable it's not a huge stretch to think this could have some unintended consequences for adjacent things like the App Store. As someone else in the thread pointed out, surely others have missed Apple Card payments at this point, and we would've already heard about this if it were consistent and/or by design.
Of course even if it wasn't intentional, it's still another example of the single-point-of-failure problem we have when our entire lives depend on an account with a tech company that's way too big to care when users fall through the cracks.
You don't even need payment problems, someone can call into the support and have your account disabled.
My mom's Apple account was disabled with the same message, thought it was billing related as well. It turned out that someone with a similar surname had called in and requested their account to be disabled, but the call had cut out. The support rep happily connected the two dots and disabled my mom's account.
My mom's Apple account was disabled with the same message, thought it was billing related as well. It turned out that someone with a similar surname had called in and requested their account to be disabled, but the call had cut out. The support rep happily connected the two dots and disabled my mom's account.
Are you suggesting it is a fraud detection? Which sounds like one if he was changing payment info. ( Like doing it with VPN )
I'm suggesting it was something like "Your payment for iCloud didn't go through, so we locked iCloud, and whoops our system is a mess so I guess you can't use the App Store or iTunes either, maybe, although it's possible you're just getting a boilerplate error that isn't actually telling you the truth". This would be consistent with my past experiences with Apple's online services, and it's the reason I don't plan to spend money on any of them or rely on them for anything important. They're a dumpster-fire; the exact opposite of Apple's hardware and (for the most part) their system software.
Fraud detection is plausible too, though
Fraud detection is plausible too, though
Years ago I had "Fraud" detected on my Apple ID. Because of this, Apple locked my account and disabled all of my paid applications. I'm a pilot and this included an iPad program called ForeFlight which was critical for flying. I had to wipe my iPad, create a new Apple ID, and pay the $300 subscription for another copy of ForeFlight. About a week later my ID was reactivated with no explanation.
I'm assuming someone hacked into my Apple ID, but not sure. I was never told.
I'm assuming someone hacked into my Apple ID, but not sure. I was never told.
I'm guessing (and hoping) this is a bug and not intentional, but this is pretty scary. My digital personal life is almost all within Apple's ecosystem, including most of the smart devices in my house. Getting locked out for any amount of time would be super frustrating.
It sounds like you're "over-exposed" to Apple in this risk category
What makes you believe this is not intentional?
Maybe because it's been quite a while since Apple Card was released and this is the first time we're hearing about it?
So they haven't refined their processes since Launch Day?
I've had Apple Card since day one. I'll tell you what makes me certain that this is not intentional and is in fact not even happening as the user is implying:
-Apple and Goldman Sachs' service with Apple Card has been exemplary in every detail
-Apple went out of its way throughout the early months of covid to let users skip payments for any reason. No extra interest charges
-Apple Card doesn't even have any late fees, or annual fees, or fees of any kind. And the app for the card goes out of its way to keep you from paying any unnecessary interest charges
-This sort of punitive action just does not jibe with the entire nature of the product or Apple's service in general
-Apple and Goldman Sachs' service with Apple Card has been exemplary in every detail
-Apple went out of its way throughout the early months of covid to let users skip payments for any reason. No extra interest charges
-Apple Card doesn't even have any late fees, or annual fees, or fees of any kind. And the app for the card goes out of its way to keep you from paying any unnecessary interest charges
-This sort of punitive action just does not jibe with the entire nature of the product or Apple's service in general
Your emphasis is wrong. This is more accurate:
> I'll tell you what makes _me_ certain
And you're now accusing someone of being dishonest due to lack of evidence based on your anecdotal experience, also absent evidence.
> Apple and Goldman Sachs' service with Apple Card has been exemplary in every detail
So that makes it "certainly" not possible that someone can have a sub-par customer sevice interaction?
> Apple Card doesn't even have any late fees
You're right. Good for them. They absolutely will charge you "additional interest" on top of your current APR for any late fees, however. That gets the same net effect, while providing a nice little soundbite.
> I'll tell you what makes _me_ certain
And you're now accusing someone of being dishonest due to lack of evidence based on your anecdotal experience, also absent evidence.
> Apple and Goldman Sachs' service with Apple Card has been exemplary in every detail
So that makes it "certainly" not possible that someone can have a sub-par customer sevice interaction?
> Apple Card doesn't even have any late fees
You're right. Good for them. They absolutely will charge you "additional interest" on top of your current APR for any late fees, however. That gets the same net effect, while providing a nice little soundbite.
I didn't accuse anyone of being dishonest; you should probably retract that.
Also, since you seem so very certain about this, I offered 10-1 odds on $100 elsewhere in the thread if it's proven Apple is doing this intentionally as a policy. Nobody took me up on it. Would you like to? Easy money, if you're right.
Also, since you seem so very certain about this, I offered 10-1 odds on $100 elsewhere in the thread if it's proven Apple is doing this intentionally as a policy. Nobody took me up on it. Would you like to? Easy money, if you're right.
This is not a bug, this is by design. There is no possible way this wasn't spec'd as a test scenario to force payment compliance. They know they have leverage that a bank wouldn't have so they are using it.
And you know this.. how?
Or are you simply following a chain of assumptions to a place that meets your opinion of Apple?
Or are you simply following a chain of assumptions to a place that meets your opinion of Apple?
I added some clarification in another reply.
To your point, I don't know for fact just as you don't know for fact I'm wrong. And this could even be a false claim without having some sort of proof. Maybe my wording was to deterministic and should've been worded as more a "possibility", but a complex system like this takes a ton of requirements and testing and it is super hard to see Apple not paying attention to this specific issue.
You don't know my opinion of Apple. I generally like Apple and use them for quite a lot of things. Sure, maybe they are priced too high on some hardware (IMO) and some app store policies I dislike but overall I don't view them as evil and I build things for their platform because it is worth it. Apple simply takes advantage of their platform and why wouldn't they?
My one complaint with Apple is just wanting to know all the rules ahead of time so we can play by the rules, and sometimes it does feel like we find many of the rules out through this type of scenario versus Apple being 100% transparent up front.
To your point, I don't know for fact just as you don't know for fact I'm wrong. And this could even be a false claim without having some sort of proof. Maybe my wording was to deterministic and should've been worded as more a "possibility", but a complex system like this takes a ton of requirements and testing and it is super hard to see Apple not paying attention to this specific issue.
You don't know my opinion of Apple. I generally like Apple and use them for quite a lot of things. Sure, maybe they are priced too high on some hardware (IMO) and some app store policies I dislike but overall I don't view them as evil and I build things for their platform because it is worth it. Apple simply takes advantage of their platform and why wouldn't they?
My one complaint with Apple is just wanting to know all the rules ahead of time so we can play by the rules, and sometimes it does feel like we find many of the rules out through this type of scenario versus Apple being 100% transparent up front.
"This is not a bug, this is by design."
Please provide some clearer support for this statement of supposed fact.
We've got so many MUCH MORE likely scenarios.
These are the common ones that disable or lock account:
* Repeatedly entering an incorrect Apple ID and password. * Not using your Apple account for an extended amount of time * Billing issues such as unpaid iTunes or App Store orders * Security reasons * Charge disputes on your credit card
I've yet to hear of a missed payment on an apple card resulting in this (and I have an apple card and have missed payments).
Please provide some clearer support for this statement of supposed fact.
We've got so many MUCH MORE likely scenarios.
These are the common ones that disable or lock account:
* Repeatedly entering an incorrect Apple ID and password. * Not using your Apple account for an extended amount of time * Billing issues such as unpaid iTunes or App Store orders * Security reasons * Charge disputes on your credit card
I've yet to hear of a missed payment on an apple card resulting in this (and I have an apple card and have missed payments).
Are you saying anyone can disable anyone else's appleid by just hammering https://appleid.apple.com with their email address and bogus password?
Exactly correct.
"If you or someone else enters your password, security questions, or other account information incorrectly too many times, your Apple ID automatically locks to protect your security and you can't sign in to any Apple services."
There is then an immediate unlock option with a trusted device or recovery key etc. There are other recovery methods if you don't have 2FA. If you don't have 2FA you are in security question land, which is more heavily rate limited even beyond this for recovery.
"If you or someone else enters your password, security questions, or other account information incorrectly too many times, your Apple ID automatically locks to protect your security and you can't sign in to any Apple services."
There is then an immediate unlock option with a trusted device or recovery key etc. There are other recovery methods if you don't have 2FA. If you don't have 2FA you are in security question land, which is more heavily rate limited even beyond this for recovery.
And most unfortunately, there is no regulation yet that would allow you to file a complaint with the CFPB or other regulatory body (maybe in California, with regards to access to your personal data under CCPA?) over Apple's overreach as a credit facilitator (as Goldman is the issuer for the card) if this is verified as expected behavior.
Wow if this actually is expected behavior then the backlash the first time
this hits someone prominent in political space is definitely going to produce the regulations that you point to as currently non-existent ...
Please don't spread unsupported rumors like this unless you are willing to back them up with evidence.
First, of course I could be wrong on this (or it could be a false claim as some have suggested), but a few reasons I said this is intentional and not a defect of code.
1. The OP in a response tweet said it took ~15 days before his accounts were disabled and a few more before he linked to two things together. Meaning likely there is a process that the bank handling the actual card sends details to Apple on some interval which says who is late etc, and when Apple got it they then process the disabling of accounts.
2. If it was unintentional I'd expect Apple to have an easy and quick resolution to fixing it, and I'd also think if Apple's systems were that linked it would have happened more immediate not taken ~15 days.
3. The reason it would take 3-5 days to re-enable the Apple ID's and associated services would be because the bank has to update their records for payment and then send notice to Apple that the user is current, hence it isn't an immediate task and takes a small process with associated delays. This fits the description of what the user stated.
Lastly, personally, Apple has been helpful to me in the past when a company I was working with had an issue with our corporate Apple ID & services. Apple support were able to unlock the account (and associated services) after just a couple of hours of back and forth and they were clear their managers had clear ability to enable/disable Apple ID's. I am sure they have some decision tree they use but it was immediate once the support woman told me it was reactivated I could immediately log in, no delay.
1. The OP in a response tweet said it took ~15 days before his accounts were disabled and a few more before he linked to two things together. Meaning likely there is a process that the bank handling the actual card sends details to Apple on some interval which says who is late etc, and when Apple got it they then process the disabling of accounts.
2. If it was unintentional I'd expect Apple to have an easy and quick resolution to fixing it, and I'd also think if Apple's systems were that linked it would have happened more immediate not taken ~15 days.
3. The reason it would take 3-5 days to re-enable the Apple ID's and associated services would be because the bank has to update their records for payment and then send notice to Apple that the user is current, hence it isn't an immediate task and takes a small process with associated delays. This fits the description of what the user stated.
Lastly, personally, Apple has been helpful to me in the past when a company I was working with had an issue with our corporate Apple ID & services. Apple support were able to unlock the account (and associated services) after just a couple of hours of back and forth and they were clear their managers had clear ability to enable/disable Apple ID's. I am sure they have some decision tree they use but it was immediate once the support woman told me it was reactivated I could immediately log in, no delay.
Can't verify this myself, but if true - this seems like part of a growing problem with big-tech, that everything is connected to one account, and as far as risk goes - you (the consumer) are putting all your eggs in one basket.
I understand WHY companies do this, with respect to spam accounts and what not, but the false positives for real human users can be devastating, when every service and product connected to your account gets blocked/bricked.
I understand WHY companies do this, with respect to spam accounts and what not, but the false positives for real human users can be devastating, when every service and product connected to your account gets blocked/bricked.
I remember some story about the Soviet Union. People whose records had been lost could end up completely shut out from the system. Can't get a job, housing, etc.
Wowza, that's a quick and efficient way to add another antitrust complaint to your list.
Wow, I hope this is a bug or similar. Wouldn't the card be issued by a partner bank? How this is supposed to legally implicit the products you buy from a separate company? Could it be that when the the card fails, the services paid by that card also fail to receive the payment, thus they get locked until a payment is made?
I remember stories about having an issue with an account on a Google property and losing all your access to all your Google accounts.
It's a prime reason to buy services from different companies.
I remember stories about having an issue with an account on a Google property and losing all your access to all your Google accounts.
It's a prime reason to buy services from different companies.
Posts like this often seem to be a waste of reading time. Even if the person is 'a somebody'[1] there is often no context to other details just outrage by the community believing it as truth in some way. And then the predictable outrage follows. One commenter 'this is why I will not sign up for Apple Card' other comments 'big corporations suck' and so on.
And no I don't think it matters that Dustin has so many twitter followers in terms of believability.
Test should be has enough info been presented to draw a conclusion even if the person was nobody or just had opened a twitter account?
The discussion is often interesting and sure you might learn things. But still why not just make random things up and do it that way (I am joking).
And no I don't think it matters that Dustin has so many twitter followers in terms of believability.
Test should be has enough info been presented to draw a conclusion even if the person was nobody or just had opened a twitter account?
The discussion is often interesting and sure you might learn things. But still why not just make random things up and do it that way (I am joking).
Apple has done it before. So I am not surprised.
John Gruber ( and only him ) [1] suggest Epic was making things up when Apple would terminate Sign in with Apple on EPIC's App. While I dont fully side with EPIC on their case against Apple, on this issue alone it was clear the fault was on Apple [2].
And imagine you are in a dispute with Apple on this matter for longer than 30days without resolution, the time your iCloud would keep your backup before it is completely wipe out due to Account termination.
[1] https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/09/29/epic-games-unre...
[2] https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/131179493779778355...
John Gruber ( and only him ) [1] suggest Epic was making things up when Apple would terminate Sign in with Apple on EPIC's App. While I dont fully side with EPIC on their case against Apple, on this issue alone it was clear the fault was on Apple [2].
And imagine you are in a dispute with Apple on this matter for longer than 30days without resolution, the time your iCloud would keep your backup before it is completely wipe out due to Account termination.
[1] https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/09/29/epic-games-unre...
[2] https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/131179493779778355...
If you read Tim's tweet, it says in the policy "Ability to ENABLE Apple services [like] Sign in with Apple". This makes sense as Epic no longer has the ability to enable SIWA on new apps.
Says nothing about termination of SIWA on current apps as SIWA will continue to work on existing Apps.
I think Tim wasn't being too honest here.
Says nothing about termination of SIWA on current apps as SIWA will continue to work on existing Apps.
I think Tim wasn't being too honest here.
What does the following mean?
> Apple is entirely within its rights to terminate Epic Games, Inc.'s developer account and all related functionality, but Sign In with Apple will continue to function for Apple customers for the next two weeks.
> Apple is entirely within its rights to terminate Epic Games, Inc.'s developer account and all related functionality, but Sign In with Apple will continue to function for Apple customers for the next two weeks.
"Within rights to terminate [...] all related functionality" is completely different than "Apple HAS TERMINATED [...] all related functionality". Upon terminating "all related functionality", SIWA will still work for two weeks, but no where in the letter said they have "terminated all related functionality". Apple chose to keep it alive.
Tim Sweeny took this and misled the public saying "oh yeah, Apple is terminating it for sure" which is not the case.
Tim Sweeny took this and misled the public saying "oh yeah, Apple is terminating it for sure" which is not the case.
SIWA will still work for two weeks - that doesn't imply Apple might have terminated SIWA two weeks after that?
SIWA will still work for two weeks should Apple decide to "terminate all related functionality". Apple did not decide to "terminate all related functionality".
And by extension all the services you sign in to using a (mandatory) sign in with Apple button.
The presence of the button is mandatory, your use of it is not.
It’s not even mandatory unless the app offers other auth providers like Google and Facebook. If your app is based around old fashioned email and password sign-in you don’t need to include Sign In with Apple at all.
But ugh please do. From the end user's perspective I 100% do not want to navigate your app's account creation process bouncing back and forth between my email client and your website and your app (if the redirect works, which it probably wont), and I 100% do not want to give your app my actual email address. Just implement apple's Auth flow. It's not that hard.
And the reason the redirect is broken, more often than not, is because there's analytics sitting somewhere in the stack that's either not working properly because it's inherently brittle or because it's getting blocked by my adblocker.
I understand the need for analytics in some situations but registration, signin, recovery, etc are critical paths and every layer of indirection is playing with fire.
I understand the need for analytics in some situations but registration, signin, recovery, etc are critical paths and every layer of indirection is playing with fire.
Yeah, refusing to implement sign-in with Apple is anti-user: as a user I want to use sign-in with Apple (and Apple Pay) everywhere I can, forcing me to use some other product for these functions is not good UX.
Like Apple Card, like Facebook, like Google... ;-)
After a decade deep into the Apple/iOS ecosystem, I now make a unique disposable Apple ID for each and every mobile device, and eschew all paid apps. I don't use iCloud at all. I don't use an Apple ID on desktops at all, save for one that has its own disposable one for certain essential apps that are not available elsewhere (Apple Configurator 2 is required to restore M1 macs).
Making entirely unlinked/unique Apple IDs is expensive because each one requires a working phone number to create.
This is really the only safe approach these days, given nonsense like this.
Because iCloud Backup is non-e2e (like most of iCloud) and thus permits Apple (and the FBI by extension without a warrant) to read whatever they want out of your phone's contents, I have to do manual corded backups periodically because Apple doesn't have their cryptographic shit together. :/
I have one old wiped phone that is signed in to my ~decade-old Apple ID for managing my Apple Card, which cannot be moved between Apple IDs (just like your purchases). I'll probably cancel the card soon and delete that account. I've already replaced all of the movies I foolishly bought years ago on iTunes with torrented copies.
Making entirely unlinked/unique Apple IDs is expensive because each one requires a working phone number to create.
This is really the only safe approach these days, given nonsense like this.
Because iCloud Backup is non-e2e (like most of iCloud) and thus permits Apple (and the FBI by extension without a warrant) to read whatever they want out of your phone's contents, I have to do manual corded backups periodically because Apple doesn't have their cryptographic shit together. :/
I have one old wiped phone that is signed in to my ~decade-old Apple ID for managing my Apple Card, which cannot be moved between Apple IDs (just like your purchases). I'll probably cancel the card soon and delete that account. I've already replaced all of the movies I foolishly bought years ago on iTunes with torrented copies.
> because each one requires a working phone number to create
This isn't true. I have an email-only apple account that works fine. My lock screen constantly carries a "Verify your phone number" badge that's rather annoying, but otherwise everything functions.
This isn't true. I have an email-only apple account that works fine. My lock screen constantly carries a "Verify your phone number" badge that's rather annoying, but otherwise everything functions.
It is true today. It wasn't in the past.
You can't today make a new Apple ID without a phone number.
(Please double check that your information is current before you claim something is false.)
You can't today make a new Apple ID without a phone number.
(Please double check that your information is current before you claim something is false.)
I made apple IDs for all three of my children without a phone number or pre-existing email address (their @icloud.com email was their first, created during setup).
I believe they've started requiring phone numbers and some form of SMS two-factor authentication on new accounts.
(I've gone through this recently when I created a new, separate account.)
(I've gone through this recently when I created a new, separate account.)
So... it works until it doesn't? What if you are traveling and Apple decides they really need your phone number this time, and locks you out of your stuff?
What if you are traveling and Apple decides they really need another identifier, and locks you out of your stuff?
This is quite interesting and I’d like to know about the reasons as well as how all these are managed, the constraints, and any other annoyances you might face because of this approach. Using iCloud makes sharing things so easy across devices, and I’m not for trading off one bad service for another bad service (am not implying that you are).
If you ever write this up (or have written this up) in detail, please do share.
If you ever write this up (or have written this up) in detail, please do share.
I use the devices primarily as clients for cloud computing services: IMAP email boxes, Signal, Google Voice, Standard Notes, Spotify, Feedly, ProtonMail, Slack, Mattermost, et c. I find I have relatively little need for "sharing things across devices" that aren't met by the cloud functionality of apps.
The big one I thought I was going to miss: contacts sync. I don't miss it. I keep a phone number list in Standard Notes. Most of the functionality of Signal's "recent conversations" covers this need for me.
I'm setting up nextcloud soon and I understand that can do contacts/calendar sync to iOS. The only thing I haven't found a solution for is email inbox delegation and shared calendars.
You're right that this would make a good writeup.
The big one I thought I was going to miss: contacts sync. I don't miss it. I keep a phone number list in Standard Notes. Most of the functionality of Signal's "recent conversations" covers this need for me.
I'm setting up nextcloud soon and I understand that can do contacts/calendar sync to iOS. The only thing I haven't found a solution for is email inbox delegation and shared calendars.
You're right that this would make a good writeup.
I don't have a US credit score because I never had a credit card in my life and always bought everything with money I knew I had (including my little home).
That never fails to completely throw financial institutions for a loop; they can't conceptualize it.
Ironically it means that if I was to apply for a credit card it would be very difficult to get it.
That never fails to completely throw financial institutions for a loop; they can't conceptualize it.
Ironically it means that if I was to apply for a credit card it would be very difficult to get it.
>That never fails to completely throw financial institutions for a loop; they can't conceptualize it.
They can conceptualize it. No one has come up with an automated way to adequately predict someone's ability to repay a loan other than the current credit reporting system that greatly factors in one's history of repaying previous loans. If you have a better idea, it's probably worth a lot of money.
>Ironically it means that if I was to apply for a credit card it would be very difficult to get it.
It wouldn't be very difficult to get. You would just have to submit proof of your assets and possibly history of expenses.
They can conceptualize it. No one has come up with an automated way to adequately predict someone's ability to repay a loan other than the current credit reporting system that greatly factors in one's history of repaying previous loans. If you have a better idea, it's probably worth a lot of money.
>Ironically it means that if I was to apply for a credit card it would be very difficult to get it.
It wouldn't be very difficult to get. You would just have to submit proof of your assets and possibly history of expenses.
That's the thing though: someone who has bought their car and their home in cash isn't a high-risk borrower, rather, he or she is someone who is able to save in order to do that, so he or she should be considered a low-risk borrower. That's simple logic, really.
Depends on the card you apply for. I didn’t have a credit score until my mid 20s because I avoided them like the plague and bought only with money I had. Now I still do the latter, but I get rewards for using a credit card for purchases. My very first credit card had a very small limit ($250-500, I think), and I only used it for groceries.
Not to say everybody needs a credit card/score, but they do have advantages if you’re responsible with them. :)
Not to say everybody needs a credit card/score, but they do have advantages if you’re responsible with them. :)
In other countries at least, there are score-builder credit cards that come with relatively high interest (and presumably capped credit limits) to allow high-risk borrowers such as yourself to build up their credit history. Once you use one of these for a while and pay it off every month, you would start building up a credit history/credit score that would allow you access to better lending deals.
That's the thing though: someone who has bought their car and their home in cash isn't a high-risk borrower, rather, he or she is someone who is able to save in order to do that, so he or she should be considered a low-risk borrower. I'm not going to acquiesce to the contrary.
> always bought everything with money I knew I had
You can do this with a credit card, fwiw, but i'm sure i'm not the first to tell you this.
I don't think we should glorify debt avoidance, and avoidance of financial tools (like CCards) as the only, or best, way to be financial responsible. It works for some people, but that doesn't mean its for everyone or should be a goal.
You can do this with a credit card, fwiw, but i'm sure i'm not the first to tell you this.
I don't think we should glorify debt avoidance, and avoidance of financial tools (like CCards) as the only, or best, way to be financial responsible. It works for some people, but that doesn't mean its for everyone or should be a goal.
All this speculation about whether or not it's true, or what might or might have happened. If only there was some format one could use on the internet that was useful for discussing something in longer-than-240-character statements. If only.
I canceled Twitter so that I wouldn't have to see these tempests in teacups. Once you do this, your eyes open to just how much of our news cycle is being carried by Twitter, and how much it bleeds over into everything else now. Half the "front page" of Imgur is Twitter hot takes now, so I don't go there any more either. Half of serious news articles seem to either be ABOUT a Tweet, or carry at least one Twitter quote to further its narrative. I think this encroachment should alarm everyone.
#SocialMediaIsDestroyingSociety
I canceled Twitter so that I wouldn't have to see these tempests in teacups. Once you do this, your eyes open to just how much of our news cycle is being carried by Twitter, and how much it bleeds over into everything else now. Half the "front page" of Imgur is Twitter hot takes now, so I don't go there any more either. Half of serious news articles seem to either be ABOUT a Tweet, or carry at least one Twitter quote to further its narrative. I think this encroachment should alarm everyone.
#SocialMediaIsDestroyingSociety
This is one of the areas where consumers are losing their rights because of leverage by foundational companies.
I think it should be illegal for a company to block your account on unrelated services. For example, Facebook should not be able to block your Occulus account, based on what happens on Facebook or WhatsApp. If the companies argue that these accounts are tied to closely together to be able to separate enforcement like that, the answer should be, "too bad, then you can't block at all, until you figure out how to separate the service blocks."
I think it should be illegal for a company to block your account on unrelated services. For example, Facebook should not be able to block your Occulus account, based on what happens on Facebook or WhatsApp. If the companies argue that these accounts are tied to closely together to be able to separate enforcement like that, the answer should be, "too bad, then you can't block at all, until you figure out how to separate the service blocks."
> it should be illegal for a company to block your account on unrelated services
According to the OP, they haven’t - Sign In with Apple still works.
According to the OP, they haven’t - Sign In with Apple still works.
[deleted]
This tweet and claim don't really pass the laugh test, given that Apple has gone out of its way to help Apple Card holders who needed to skip payments for months in a row during covid.
There's simply no way that Apple is doing this; there is another explanation for this single user having this experience and I'm sure that will come out. This isn't found anywhere in Apple's terms of service.
I'll give 10-1 odds on a $100 bet that this isn't happening. Any takers?
There's simply no way that Apple is doing this; there is another explanation for this single user having this experience and I'm sure that will come out. This isn't found anywhere in Apple's terms of service.
I'll give 10-1 odds on a $100 bet that this isn't happening. Any takers?
I doubt very much the face-value interpretation here is accurate, but it's also a good reminder about the eggs vs. baskets rule.
I use a lot of Apple products and services, but if Apple did this to me it would be at worst an inconvenience. Nothing existential requires my Apple account. They don't, for example, handle my email; I prefer Dropbox to iCloud; etc.
It's not just an Apple thing. Google chicanery could hit someone much harder, given how many more folks depend on Google for email. It's a great time to review your own services and products, and figure out if you have any "portfolio killer" dependencies.
I use a lot of Apple products and services, but if Apple did this to me it would be at worst an inconvenience. Nothing existential requires my Apple account. They don't, for example, handle my email; I prefer Dropbox to iCloud; etc.
It's not just an Apple thing. Google chicanery could hit someone much harder, given how many more folks depend on Google for email. It's a great time to review your own services and products, and figure out if you have any "portfolio killer" dependencies.
How come I am seeing surprising behavior from various Apple products multiple times a week at this point? Is it a new thing or is it just that they are huge and everyone is paying attention to them?
Weird, isn’t it. I mean Facebook is openly leading a push to discredit Apple.
That doesn’t mean Facebook is somehow behind these posts, but their attempt could be working and causing people to report things more.
That doesn’t mean Facebook is somehow behind these posts, but their attempt could be working and causing people to report things more.
These posts do have a very specific feel to them, in that it's about how a perfectly rational engineering decision leads to bad UX. Upgrades that lock down the system further are probably good for most people, but not for developers. Missed payment leads to account lockdown is how an engineer would think to set things up, but not someone who's advocating for the user's experience. All the stuff with their new chips.
You could be right that this is someone sniping at their issues and maybe playing the market at the same time. Even if it is a larger evil competitor, these do seem like legitimate problems.
You could be right that this is someone sniping at their issues and maybe playing the market at the same time. Even if it is a larger evil competitor, these do seem like legitimate problems.
> Even if it is a larger evil competitor, these do seem like legitimate problems.
I’m asserting that they are likely to be legitimate.
My suggestion is that the reason we are hearing about them so much at the moment could be Facebook’s influence in setting a tone which encourages people to write about problems we didn’t otherwise hear about.
But yes - it absolutely could be a symptom of a breakdown in management somewhere in Apple leading to more customer unfriendly policy outcomes. It wouldn’t be the first time they have gone through such phases.
I’m asserting that they are likely to be legitimate.
My suggestion is that the reason we are hearing about them so much at the moment could be Facebook’s influence in setting a tone which encourages people to write about problems we didn’t otherwise hear about.
But yes - it absolutely could be a symptom of a breakdown in management somewhere in Apple leading to more customer unfriendly policy outcomes. It wouldn’t be the first time they have gone through such phases.
[deleted]
How long until we can get Glass-Steagall for the bank of online identity?
Lets get Glass-Steagall back for finance first. . .its affiliation clauses were totally defanged in 1999 (and likely the contributing cause for the crash of 2007-2008). After that let's work on identity.
Sorry if this is a dumb question but I don’t have an iOS device. Could you be prevented from using the phone or internet, getting an Uber, or accessing your banking info because of this? Is it possible for somebody to get stranded if they don’t have a vehicle or any other phone? This seems like all sorts of horrible things could happen if you were travelling when you got locked out.
That would not be possible, no. You can use an iPhone and all of its phone-related features without an Apple account. You probably wouldn't be able to download new apps but it wouldn't retroactively prevent you from using any existing banking apps you might already have on your phone.
Ok, thanks! I didn’t know you could use the device with a disabled account.
If the question is "could you", then the answer is yes. Apple has full control over those APIs on your device, and could choose to stop serving them with the press of a button.
If the question is "will they" though, I doubt they'll go that far. Apple is super wary of tipping their hand when they're holding all of the cards, and an action like this would raise a lot of concern, even within the walled garden.
If the question is "will they" though, I doubt they'll go that far. Apple is super wary of tipping their hand when they're holding all of the cards, and an action like this would raise a lot of concern, even within the walled garden.
Probably not... unless you used sign-in with apple to sign in, and you only had apple pay (which you can't use anyways because you already got suspended on that account), and no other cards, and all sorts of other unlikely situations put together. But someone else reported that Sign-in still works post account disable
This sounds outrageous, do they really think this is worth the bad PR? Or the lost revenue from not letting people pay with another card while they work out the issue. There has to be more to this story, this can't be the first person to miss a payment.
I'm really curious who thought it was a good idea to use this line of credit in the first place.
If you are purchasing an apple device, the apple card gives a competitive cash back reward. Many people use credit cards while always paying the balance in full and use them for rewards (you could argue that these rewards are priced into the cost of goods so not getting them is leaving money on the table).
I think it's reasonable to believe that this system as a whole is exploitive and unfair, those with poor credit pay more to fund cash back for others and the high interest rates leading to circles of debt, but given this is the way it is, I think its a perfectly good idea for someone to have an Apple Card depending on their circumstances.
I think it's reasonable to believe that this system as a whole is exploitive and unfair, those with poor credit pay more to fund cash back for others and the high interest rates leading to circles of debt, but given this is the way it is, I think its a perfectly good idea for someone to have an Apple Card depending on their circumstances.
The people who want to borrow thousands of dollars for free.
I don't think that's possible with any line of credit. Our entire society is built off of interest rates.
There's plenty of zero-percent consumer credit lines. Interest rates are certainly not the only way to make money by lending money, particularly if you have something to sell.
In this instance: https://www.apple.com/apple-card/monthly-installments/
Buying a Mac on credit is considerably cheaper than buying with cash. 12 months of the time-value of money + you get 3% cash back.
In this instance: https://www.apple.com/apple-card/monthly-installments/
Buying a Mac on credit is considerably cheaper than buying with cash. 12 months of the time-value of money + you get 3% cash back.
No interest if you pay off the balance of the card every month. Tons of people do it.
Sure, tons of people don't, too. That's why creditors exist. When you use a credit card you're funding the impoverishment of others.
Granted, there's not much way to avoid that in american society.
Granted, there's not much way to avoid that in american society.
The apple card actually gives you 0% on apple products
Can user continue to use apple devices? MacBook, iPhone? Or are they also blocked?
This sounds like Chinas social credit score but on a lower threshold.
The modern version of debtors prison. Everything old is new again.
STOP. Think.
So many people running wild based on one twitter post.
So many people running wild based on one twitter post.
Their platform their choice, right? If you don't like it, don't use it..
/s if not obv
/s if not obv
Wouldn’t use this product considering that it’s Goldman Sachs backend. What a horrible company and a damn shame Apple partnered with them.
You would too if Mohammed bin Salman was your investor!
awww the apple fanbois don't like me
Why do we even let Apple do our banking in the first place? I can't really imagine a situation where I'd rather let Apple have all my banking data instead of some random bank. Centralizing your entire digital life like that is begging for identity theft, at least from where I'm standing.
Apple does not do any banking in the first place. They are not a bank, do not function as a bank, nor do they have any the requisite licenses to be a bank.
Not in a legal sense... but the apple credit card through a first party apple app only available on an apple phone that apple manages the UI and controls the marketing and perception is pretty close to an apple bank even if some other legal entity has the excel spreadsheet with account balances (...obvi not how that really works)
Apple doesn’t lend any money, is not owed any money, and takes no part in the financing aspect.
If anything, Goldman Sachs is the one that continues to be a bank, and Apple is providing the technical front end for it. It’s the opposite of vertical integration. A tech company is doing the tech part, a finance company is doing the finance part.
If anything, Goldman Sachs is the one that continues to be a bank, and Apple is providing the technical front end for it. It’s the opposite of vertical integration. A tech company is doing the tech part, a finance company is doing the finance part.
> Goldman Sachs is the one that continues to be a bank, and Apple is providing the technical front end for it.
Yeah, not disagreeing at all. This is the exact correct reality of this business arrangement...
But its meant to feel like apple is the bank. The only time you see GS is in the fine print. Its clearly meant to be an "apple experience", and you'd be forgiven for not remembering GS was involved at all.
I have an apple card and a amazon visa card. This is completely an apple experience, and not a store card like the amazon one. Regardless of who is issuing bank, the lived experience of using it is that it feels like apple is managing my money. Esp. with apple pay and apple cash (which also all technically use existing financial infra including other banks), you would have no idea.
Yeah, not disagreeing at all. This is the exact correct reality of this business arrangement...
But its meant to feel like apple is the bank. The only time you see GS is in the fine print. Its clearly meant to be an "apple experience", and you'd be forgiven for not remembering GS was involved at all.
I have an apple card and a amazon visa card. This is completely an apple experience, and not a store card like the amazon one. Regardless of who is issuing bank, the lived experience of using it is that it feels like apple is managing my money. Esp. with apple pay and apple cash (which also all technically use existing financial infra including other banks), you would have no idea.
Fundamentally, the issue is that a single company is allowed to operate a mobile OS, a web browser, an app market, a banking solution, physical hardware, retail stores, and various other verticals. Google has the exact same problems, for the exact same reasons.
Ban vertical integration. The government needs to force divestiture of each product category into a separately run company.
Ban vertical integration. The government needs to force divestiture of each product category into a separately run company.
>Ban vertical integration. The government needs to force divestiture of each product category into a separately run company.
Can you give an idea for how this law is written? For example, where is the line for a company that sells butter? Are they able to sell milk? Cheese? Ice cream? Frozen dinners? Wholesale to other restaurants? Are they allowed to open restaurants where they sell the same things they sell in the grocery store?
Can you give an idea for how this law is written? For example, where is the line for a company that sells butter? Are they able to sell milk? Cheese? Ice cream? Frozen dinners? Wholesale to other restaurants? Are they allowed to open restaurants where they sell the same things they sell in the grocery store?
How is such a ban any different than multiple independent company owned by the same parent entity (either a company, or an individual / group of individual). Each of these company having exclusive deal with each others.
You can't ban private property Rights / freedom of association.
You can't ban private property Rights / freedom of association.
You absolutely can, and the government has, banned exclusive deals and associations before. The government would require that any interactions given between two products Google presently offers as something competitors can replace either side of, with no special advantage permitted to be offered to the formerly Google products, for example.
So, for example, Google could be forbidden from requiring Google product apps are preloaded on Android phones. They could be required to give alternate web browsers and account systems equal visibility in new Chrome installs, for free. Google could face penalties for injecting Google Meet links into Zoom emails received by Gmail users.
The ways the government could prevent Google's self-preferencing is a very large matrix.
Apple has some similar examples, though less. I think Epic v. Apple will accomplish some big things there, particularly around the App Store.
So, for example, Google could be forbidden from requiring Google product apps are preloaded on Android phones. They could be required to give alternate web browsers and account systems equal visibility in new Chrome installs, for free. Google could face penalties for injecting Google Meet links into Zoom emails received by Gmail users.
The ways the government could prevent Google's self-preferencing is a very large matrix.
Apple has some similar examples, though less. I think Epic v. Apple will accomplish some big things there, particularly around the App Store.
[citation needed]
I mean, the comment is largely examples of actions the DOJ or FTC could take, so I'm not sure what your comment is trying to prove.
An example would be what was done with AIM. As a condition of AOL merging with Time Warner, AOL had to agree to allow competitors to interoperate with AIM: https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/aol-near-release-of-in...
Many of the other potential actions are similar to those already proposed or imposed upon Google in various European or other international jurisdictions. Though some of the search engine choice screen options have proven ineffective, and if the US wants to carry that forward, they might need to prohibit auctioning off the slots or other methods that just serve to add to Google's revenue at the expense of everyone else.
An example would be what was done with AIM. As a condition of AOL merging with Time Warner, AOL had to agree to allow competitors to interoperate with AIM: https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/aol-near-release-of-in...
Many of the other potential actions are similar to those already proposed or imposed upon Google in various European or other international jurisdictions. Though some of the search engine choice screen options have proven ineffective, and if the US wants to carry that forward, they might need to prohibit auctioning off the slots or other methods that just serve to add to Google's revenue at the expense of everyone else.
The AIM case was entirely different as it was in the mist of the Time Warner merge event. Also, many would argue that Google or Apple are in no monopolistic position.
I'd say this is horizontal integration, but they've built so much of a monolith and captured so much commerce, that it almost feels like a vertical stack.
I very much agree. The security threat it poses is not limited to just Apple, and it ultimately leads to a less competitive industry overall.
I remember a book from a number of years ago, called Jennifer Government: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government which suggested companies ran the world, and were divided into two customer loyalty program-based alliances. Everyone essentially belonged to one camp or the other, and it's surrounding ecosystem. It's hard not to feel that as an example of today, where people live in either the Apple or Google ecosystems, and only use products or services that integrate with that ecosystem.
I set it up to pay a few subscriptions and promptly forgot about it.
As a result, I carried a balance for I think three months without making payments, and only noticed when I hit my credit limit. This was an expensive mistake, and also dinged my credit score for about four months. Still kinda mad at myself about it.
No, Apple did not disable my account.