You want an Apple iPad, you better not pay by cash

jinjuku

Demiurge wrote: »

This made it to the news section of the San Francisco Gate by way of a single woman's inability to solver her own problem which is the only reason it went national.

Sounds like there is a solution, but hey...by any means necessary, right? (for those of you who miss the point)

I see your point 100%. I don't know if the inverse is true. She solved her problem with a phone call. You may not like how she went about it, but she still took the initiative and it yielded results.

I think a retail business not taking cash is just as absurd as one that only takes cash.

Look at it this way: The power of the press and one women to change corporate policy of a mega-billion $$ corporation. That means things still do work in this country.

Again the pen is mightier than the sword.

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote: »

I guess I'm just a little confused on exactly who you are pissed at and why.

For starters I'm not pissed at anyone. I'm just not following the herd on this one.

The reason Apple was getting piled on over this is because this woman was unwilling or unable to deal with an issue on her own.

The reason she has her iPad now is because she whined to a newspaper, not because she used common sense problem solving skills and personal initiative to figure out how to obtain an iPad on her own or just not buy one. I find that wildly pathetic.

There are times when the media should be an entity to turn to for help -- this wasn't one of them.

I'm also not arguing whether what she did was effective, because she clearly got her iPad and their policy was changed. I'm arguing that A.) it wasn't right and B.) its a sad commentary that people can't find solutions to simple problems without blabbing to a reporter. Since we got a nice result I'm supposed to agree with the means? No way.

I don't think it is the media's role to comment on how a business chooses to accept payment for their products or services. Explain to me how that is news. Can't anyone walking into an Apple store figure this out for themselves?

nooshinjohn

deleted...

Demiurge

jinjuku wrote: »

I see your point 100%. I don't know if the inverse is true. She solved her problem with a phone call. You may not like how she went about it, but she still took the initiative and it yielded results.

I think a retail business not taking cash is just as absurd as one that only takes cash.

Look at it this way: The power of the press and one women to change corporate policy of a mega-billion $$ corporation. That means things still do work in this country.

Again the pen is mightier than the sword.

You're right, I don't like how she went about it because such things can do great harm to a company very quickly. It takes a long time to build up a good reputation and very little time to completely destroy it.

Apple was essentially forced to change their policy under pressure of negative media coverage based off of one woman's inability to deal with this issue on her own. Big company picking on a poor old innocent woman. That plays really well, so I completely understand why the story exploded.

Still I ask, how was the public served by this story? Shouldn't that play into whether or not news media entities choose to run with things like this?

Face

I agree Demi, it appears she needs to get her priorities in line.

inspiredsports

edbert wrote: »

If you pay cash they don't have a way to track who purchased it originally if it ends up in a foreign country. If you use plastic, they have a name attached to the serial number of that iPad and therefore knows who is selling them illegally. Someone correct me if I am off base in my thinking.

I think you are on it. But more insidious than reselling it, I think they want to be able to link the hardware with a physical billing address so they plop you into a database and cross index it with other database to track what you do.

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote: »

Still I ask, how was the public served by this story? Shouldn't that play into whether or not news media entities choose to run with things like this?

Fortunately or unfortunately, media entities are for-profit businesses who are more likely to run a story like this because it gets attention and therefor money through advertisers.

How is the public served? Well for one, now people can pay cash at Apple stores to purchase an ipad. No one forced Apple to not take cash in the first place, and they are completely free to continue that policy as well. Obviously they now feel its in their best interest to accept cash payment. If they didn't, I'm sure they would not have changed the policy.

Why should a company as big and with as much exposure as Apple expect something so simple as a payment policy be hidden or obscured from the public eye? If the evening news tomorrow decided to run a 10 minutes piece discussing the TOS attached to an Apple product, how exactly is that unfair? It would be boring as hell, and more than likely nothing egregious would come from it. Obviously there is a large portion of the population that did not agree with apple's non-cash policy. That's their right to their opinion. Apple is completely free to do as they please as well. It just seems to me like you think Apple has been harmed or forced in some way that wasn't of their own doing which I think couldn't be further from the truth.

jinjuku

Demiurge wrote: »

For starters I'm not pissed at anyone. I'm just not following the herd on this one.

The reason Apple was getting piled on over this is because this woman was unwilling or unable to deal with an issue on her own.

The reason she has her iPad now is because she whined to a newspaper, not because she used common sense problem solving skills and personal initiative to figure out how to obtain an iPad on her own or just not buy one. I find that wildly pathetic.

I am intensely interested on how you managed to get a muti-billion operation to change what a good degree of people would see as a bad policy.

I believe by definition that is one of the functions the press serves. It gives voice to people at the scale the enterprise works at.

exalted512

Ok guys, we all know where everyone stands on this...let it be.
-Cody

Jstas

jinjuku wrote: »

It's not illegal to transfer ownership of something you purchased outright. Now the person over sea's may have an issue with warranty work...

Yes, it can be, depending on export laws.

Jstas

ShinAce wrote: »

Kudos to her for trying. She obviously has a bank account if she receives cheques, so I'm guessing she has a debit card. Nice try, but no go.

I have 3 checking accounts. I have a debit card attached to one account. I have only had that card for about a year now. Just because she might have a checking account doesn't necessarily mean that she has a debit card. A checking account is a requirement for a debit card but a debit card is not a requirement for a checking account.

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote: »

Fortunately or unfortunately, media entities are for-profit businesses who are more likely to run a story like this because it gets attention and therefor money through advertisers.

This is well known. There are still journalistic ethics and standards.

It seems they gave no consideration to the fact they were complicit in using media muscle to force a company's hand over a single complaint for which there was absolutely NO wrongdoing on the part of the company.

Should there be news stories about companies that don't accept checks? "Damn it all, I want to write checks!!!!111" :mad:

See why this wasn't news?

PhantomOG wrote: »

How is the public served? Well for one, now people can pay cash at Apple stores to purchase an ipad.

You and I must have two totally different ideas of what a public service is. The iPads could be purchased with a credit card or a debit card (cash from your bank account).

I must be missing the injustice that was corrected for the public good by running with this woman's whine fest.

PhantomOG wrote: »

No one forced Apple to not take cash in the first place, and they are completely free to continue that policy as well.

Obviously they now feel its in their best interest to accept cash payment. If they didn't, I'm sure they would not have changed the policy.

Oh really? What is a company supposed to do when they are portrayed to look like the big bad corporation trying to screw a little old lady out of her iPad by not letting her pay cash? Ignore the hell storm raining on them by people reacting emotionally rather than logically? Are you implying that the initial story didn't force their hand? Of course it did. There are too many illogical people who react emotionally to stories like these, which is how they were muscled into changing their policy by the news media.

PhantomOG wrote: »

Why should a company as big and with as much exposure as Apple expect something so simple as a payment policy be hidden or obscured from the public eye?

What is hidden or obscured about "I'm sorry, but we only accept debit or credit cards." What does the size of the company matter? They weren't breaking any laws or doing anything unseemly or untoward.

PhantomOG wrote: »

If the evening news tomorrow decided to run a 10 minutes piece discussing the TOS attached to an Apple product, how exactly is that unfair? It would be boring as hell, and more than likely nothing egregious would come from it.

The news media has the ability to sway public opinion based on how they report things. This is why journalistic ethics and standards exist in the first place.

PhantomOG wrote: »

Obviously there is a large portion of the population that did not agree with apple's non-cash policy.

It isn't obvious to me. I didn't know about it until it was posted here and after I thought it through I asked myself "Umm, so what? Why does the public need to know this? Can't people choose on their own what is acceptable policy from a company by speaking with their wallets or finding a way around it?"

Apparently this woman couldn't or wouldn't. Don't you find that remarkably sad?

PhantomOG wrote: »

Apple is completely free to do as they please as well. It just seems to me like you think Apple has been harmed or forced in some way that wasn't of their own doing which I think couldn't be further from the truth.

It isn't about Apple to me, but their hand WAS forced here, and it is dishonest to state that it wasn't.

I'm done now, though. My opinions have been stated, agree or disagree and have a great weekend.

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote: »

This is well known. There are still journalistic ethics and standards.

And what ethics and standards were bent or broken here? Did the news lie about anything? Was anything exaggerated? Its all facts. The news article wasn't even being one sided, as they did print why Apple had said policy. Fact is she wanted to buy an Ipad with cash at an Apple store and could not because of Apple policy. The whole "big bad corporation" thing is up to reader interpretation. You didn't think that at all right? You thought, tough **** for her. Which is a completely valid response. Other people thought differently.

Demiurge wrote: »

Should there be news stories about companies that don't accept checks? "Damn it all, I want to write checks!!!!111" :mad:

See why this wasn't news?

Sure, if any media outlet wants to cover it, why not? Is it unethical to write a story about a store that doesn't accept checks? No, its just alot more boring because a much larger portion of the population uses cash rather than checks.

Demiurge wrote: »

What is hidden or obscured about "I'm sorry, but we only accept debit or credit cards." What does the size of the company matter? They weren't breaking any laws or doing anything unseemly or untoward.

Nothing is hidden or obscured about the policy itself. It becomes that way when you think the media has some moral obligation NOT to cover a story about it because you know that public opinion about the policy would not exactly align with yours.

Demiurge wrote: »

The news media has the ability to sway public opinion based on how they report things. This is why journalistic ethics and standards exist in the first place.

Absolutely they do. Especially if they report false information or leave important information out of a story. Where was that done in this article?


You think there is nothing wrong with Apple's no-cash policy (I actually agree with you!!). It seems like you also think that the unwashed masses would find this objectionable if this bit of information was presented to it by the media (which is apparently true as well). However, I fail to see how that point boils down to media entities having some sort of moral or ethical obligation NOT to cover a story about it because your opinion on it would fall into the minority.

Demiurge wrote: »

I must be missing the injustice that was corrected for the public good by running with this woman's whine fest.

I fail to see anything newsworthy or any injustice being righted by *most* of what the media covers. Celebrities having affairs, Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan... stuff all over the news and it probably does alot more damage to society as a whole than some backpage piece about Apple's payment policy. Does that mean some enterprising journalists shouldn't be able to make money off said tripe if the stupid public eats it up? Based on previous discussions with you I'd assume you'd be all for the media being free to cover what they want in a free capitalist society. We do have checks and balances, you can't just lie about someone in the press without the possibility of being sued for it.

cfrizz

Apple has the right to not accept our legal currency. Said lady chose her right to point this out to the media as being confusing as to why our legal currency would not be acceptable to Apple.

The media simply reported the information which is their right to do so.

The public excercised their right to question/complain/choose another brand other than Apple.

Apple excercised their right to reverse their policy, why they chose to do this is anyones guess.

No laws were broken by any of the parties involved and life goes on for both the woman & for Apple.

ryanjoachim

Guess what?

THE OLD LADY WON!
hahaha

Apple now accepting cash for iPads

Oh, and here's a little background on the "no cash policy":

Apple's no-cash policy (credit cards and debit cards only please) was put in place by Apple as a means of ensuring that customers were sticking to the two-device limit -- a policy that was originally put in place in October 2007 in order to deal with high demand for the iPhone and, some would say, to keep the devices off the grey market.

jinjuku

Jstas wrote: »

Yes, it can be, depending on export laws.

Barring products with concerns to national security (which I don't think the iPad counts) it is legal to sell something you own abroad (in a general sense). I am sure that with all the countries and import/duty yada yada yada some one here will find the exception:rolleyes:

I bet you had the rules for D&D memorized...:)

mmadden28

It is my opinion that the public is served by this issue in an indirect way. Especially any that are privacy advocates.

It seems that Apple's reason for implementing the purchase restrictions was likely based on stemming potential blackmarket/graymarket activities by limiting the purchase funding source to those that would likely allow for some way to trace a purchase back to an individual. Or maybe they just wanted to establish a marketing list--who knows--its not really my point-- Even when I was briefly checking out some prepaid debit cards as an alternative to get around the restriction, they all seemed to require some proof of Identity and thus traceability. So to me it's not even about not accepting cash, but the specific forms of payments they limited it to.

If this practice continued it would probably become generally accepted and other big companies would start to follow suit. Then eventually almost anything you buy could have some purchase funding source restrictions and potentially become traceable.

To me its more of a privacy issue--If I want a company to know that I purchased one of their products, then I will register that product with them, but that's a decision I will make for myself. When I go to a Radio Shack, because I am so sick and tired of being asked for my Name and address for their mailing lists that I pay in cash, just so that they can't get my name from the Debit/Credit card.

The basis for my thinking that if the practice becomes generally accepted (or not protested) and where other companies might start following suit, is based on example from other industries such as the Airline Industry--It all started with one airline implementing checked in luggage restrictions or charging fees for any checked luggage. Once the rest of the industry found that the initiating airline was not profoundly impacted by it (such as by loss of business), then all the other airlines followed suit and implemented the same policies. Or perhaps another example might be where a State might implement a tax on a particular item, and once its seems that there is no major public outcry, then other states follow suit.
I hear stuff like this happening all the time on the news and it just seems like a trend.

So that's my opinion anyway-I'm also in a rush so my thoughts might not be complete.....

mmadden28

ShinAce wrote: »

.. She obviously has a bank account if she receives cheques, so I'm guessing she has a debit card. Nice try, but no go....

Actually that's not obvious. You do not need a bank account to cash a check. You can cash a check at the bank that the check is issued from, or you can cash a check at any check cashing agency (for a fee of course).

madmax

jinjuku wrote: »

I am like this lady, I prefer to save my $$ and purchase outright what I want. That is the way we purchased my wifes Infinity.

The people poking fun at her due to her fixed income should learn the lesson: If more people did what she did, that is save money for what you want then simply using a CC with no regard for the consequences, we wouldn't be in the financial mess we are in. Here we have someone that is fiscally responsible and she is being made fun of. That shows some real lack of class.

Good man, we could all stand to watch our finances more closely. It doesn't matter how much you make, its how you control it. The ipad was much more expensive for her than for most but yet she saved up for it rather than throwing on a card. This is a good thing to do, especially if you have a low income.

Zitro

Demiurge wrote: »

She isn't entitled to an iPad.

If she has $600 US dollars, she is entitled to an iPad. I don't care what form it is in. She can pay in quarter rolls; legal tender is legal tender.

You guys are ridiculous with some of this stuff lol. An American should be able to buy whatever the hell they want with their hard-earned cash. PERIOD.

shack

Zitro wrote:

An American should be able to buy whatever the hell they want with their hard-earned cash. PERIOD.

An American company should be able to sell THEIR PRODUCT in whatever the hell manner they choose as long as no laws are broken. PERIOD.

cfrizz

Which is what Apple did until it became public, now they have changed their minds. No laws have been broken, and no one has ORDERED Apple to change the way it's doing business. They could have kept right on not taking cash, and my guess is LOTS of cash paying Americans would have found another company to do business with.

sheldoal

shack wrote: »

An American company should be able to sell THEIR PRODUCT in whatever the hell manner they choose as long as no laws are broken. PERIOD.

You must own a business. Personally, I can't believe so many people on here are pro business. Don't boohoo for a big business like Apple. It won't give you a discount for your brown nosing. Seriously, I'm glad that the media took up for this woman. She didn't do anything wrong. She had cash. Cash should never be turned down. It is legal tender in the U.S. Oh, yeah, I forgot. This country sold out to the big businesses a long time ago. We are owned by the big businesses lock, stock, and barrel. Oh hail the big businesses. Let me sacrifice my first born child to their greatness!

By the way, Apple went to her home and gave her a free iPad. Jealous yet?Clearly, if Apple is rolling over so easily, it seems to reason that this crap they have been feeding us about businesses being able to make the rules about how you pay is bs, big time. If it were true, they would have stood strong against the desire by some to pay with good old US cash.

n European and Asian nations, people still barter in the markets. Here in the US, we don't dare to barter. "Oh, no, they might tell us no." Is it really better that we are going toward a totally plastic nation? Don't think so.

This old lady has more cohonas than those of you complaining about her do. :P I can't believe that people are irritated that she, gasp, complained to the media about not being able to use . . . wait for it . . . United States currency! I know!! I can't believe it either. She should be shot on the spot. What is she thinking. What an evil person, trying to take advantage of a multi-billon dollar company. What is our society coming to? I can't keep back the tears of outrage.

shack

sheldoal wrote:

You must own a business. Personally, I can't believe so many people on here are pro business. Don't boohoo for a big business like Apple. It won't give you a discount for your brown nosing. Seriously, I'm glad that the media took up for this woman. She didn't do anything wrong. She had cash. Cash should never be turned down. It is legal tender in the U.S. Oh, yeah, I forgot. This country sold out to the big businesses a long time ago. We are owned by the big businesses lock, stock, and barrel. Oh hail the big businesses. Let me sacrifice my first born child to their greatness!

By the way, Apple went to her home and gave her a free iPad. Jealous yet?Clearly, if Apple is rolling over so easily, it seems to reason that this crap they have been feeding us about businesses being able to make the rules about how you pay is bs, big time. If it were true, they would have stood strong against the desire by some to pay with good old US cash.

n European and Asian nations, people still barter in the markets. Here in the US, we don't dare to barter. "Oh, no, they might tell us no." Is it really better that we are going toward a totally plastic nation? Don't think so.

This old lady has more cohonas than those of you complaining about her do. :P I can't believe that people are irritated that she, gasp, complained to the media about not being able to use . . . wait for it . . . United States currency! I know!! I can't believe it either. She should be shot on the spot. What is she thinking. What an evil person, trying to take advantage of a multi-billon dollar company. What is our society coming to? I can't keep back the tears of outrage.

Wow...I am so impressed by your first post... :rolleyes:

Zitro

shack wrote: »

An American company should be able to sell THEIR PRODUCT in whatever the hell manner they choose as long as no laws are broken. PERIOD.

I'm sure you would feel the same way if all big businesses decided it was credit/debit they didn't want and you had to go to the bank for cash everytime you wanted something. :rolleyes:

shack

Zitro wrote:

I'm sure you would feel the same way if all big businesses decided it was credit/debit they didn't want and you had to go to the bank for cash everytime you wanted something. :rolleyes:

I would feel EXACTLY the same way. In fact I do business with establishments that accept no plastic. I like their product and accept their terms...and not once have I called the press to **** about it!

I also use an AmEx CC and their are quite a few places that don't accept that card. I'm fine with that. I made my choice and they have made theirs. It's all good.

And BTW...we are talking about one big business and a few items...not "all big business".

Serendipity

I buy everything with cash.

tonyb

A buisness should be free to sell their product anyway they see fit. You are also free to buy that product,or not. Gotta love that "freedom" thing. Personally,I don't see an issue here, don't buy an apple product if you don't like their practices.

doctorcilantro

Interesting:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

FAQs: Currency
Legal Tender Status

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

What are United States Notes and how are they diferent from Federal Reserve notes?

Question I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

Answer The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Does Apple take cash for anything in the store? I see the line about how businesses accept payment with regard to forms i.e. giving them 10,000 pennies. I wonder if it is logistical for Apple; in one day they must bring in a lot of sales and maybe they don't want to foot the bill for extra costs involved in security and getting the cash to the bank?

shack

doctorcilantro wrote:

Interesting

This is what I pointed out to you back in post #85