Since in 27 Feb 2021 €500 is US$603.60 they actually are getting more than their counterpart in the US...and they are still complaining. How in the freaking world does that make any sense...or cents?!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Requiring Developers to Return DTK Mac Minis by March 31
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First, from the agreement (which has already been quoted several times here):
"You agree to promptly return the Developer Transition Kit to the Apple address designated by Apple no later than thirty (30) days after the end of the Term, or as otherwise earlier requested by Apple”
....it couldn’t have been clearer. In any case, the machines are iPads-in-a-box and only have limited compatibility with the M1 and have been useless for development and testing since the day the real M1 machines came out, so nobody is losing anything of value by returning them a few months early.
As for the $200, that was exactly $200 more than anybody was entitled too. I think Apple’s only mistake was giving in and increasing that: the people complaining were already being ridiculous, pandering to them is only going to encourage them.
Don't you have to buy a Mac in the first place to develop for Macs? Or, do you have a special connection with Apple where the company gives you computers for free because you want to be a "developer"? Just because Apple is switching to a new CPU architecture doesn't mean they have to provide new hardware for free.
I think the term is rent. Quite high rent too. But I guess the credit can be used for a mac mini?
I read the article to say that those outside the US get the equivalent of $500USD. So today that would mean someone who paid €500 for the DTK would get back €414, which equals $500USD, so they are actually losing.Since in 27 Feb 2021 €500 is US$603.60 they actually are getting more than their counterpart in the US...and they are still complaining. How in the freaking world does that make any sense...or cents?!
But, like other developers have said, they make many times over what the DTK cost them, so it doesn't matter.
If you make money selling apps, the DTK is sort of the cost of doing business and the fact you're getting anything back is a bonus.
Perfectly fair. $200 is $200 more than the dev agreed too. A huge bonus. Now The these greedy devs want even more. In violation of what they agreed to.
I hope you aren't an accountant, or you'd be getting sued for costing Apple a lot.
While what you say is correct, it's irrelevant here. This is a lease that ends, not a sale followed by a return/refund. In the UK, for example, VAT is chargeable on services @ 20%. So of that £479, Apple only kept £400. They paid £80 of it in tax to the taxman. Not a huge issue because, well, it probably didn't cost anywhere near that much to produce.
The issue comes when you consider, if they gave back £479... a developed could use that to buy a 40mm apple watch series 6 gps+cellular with a solo loop for £479. The developer would give Apple nothing - but Apple would still have to pay £80 to the government for that "sale". Essentially, in countries where this applies... Apple would be paying VAT twice on the same sale. I gather that in the US, developers didn't pay sales tax to be part of this program and so refunding the entire value is a non-issue.
I think it would be a nice gesture if developers could include $50 in the box when the computer is returned to Apple.
A contract where everyone looses but 🍎. What horrifies me is the application process and fees they have to go through. Yet, developers are the ones who spend their lives coding while 🍎 fills executives pockets. Unable to innovate due to talent loss.
I checked and the kit was 500 USD NOT €500 so there was a conversion on the loan.
According to Google, on July 30, 2020 the conversion rate from $ to € was 0.84 (€420) while in on 27 Feb 2021 it is 0.83 (€415). So they are crying over €5 or 6.04 USD.
So they are crying over the equivalent of less then two 4 piece Mcdonlalds Chicken McNuggets Happy meals!
As I said before how does that make any sense or cents?!
Last edited:
No; or, rather, it depends on the exact setup here, which comes down to information right now basically only in hands of the accountants at Apple.I hope you aren't an accountant, or you'd be getting sued for costing Apple a lot.
While what you say is correct, it's irrelevant here. This is a lease that ends, not a sale followed by a return/refund. In the UK, for example, VAT is chargeable on services @ 20%. So of that £479, Apple only kept £400. They paid £80 of it in tax to the taxman. Not a huge issue because, well, it probably didn't cost anywhere near that much to produce.
The issue comes when you consider, if they gave back £479... a developed could use that to buy a 40mm apple watch series 6 gps+cellular with a solo loop for £479. The developer would give Apple nothing - but Apple would still have to pay £80 to the government for that "sale". Essentially, in countries where this applies... Apple would be paying VAT twice on the same sale. I gather that in the US, developers didn't pay sales tax to be part of this program and so refunding the entire value is a non-issue.
The range here is all the way from that the VAT/sales tax doesn't matter (like I'm basically claiming), to a way faulty setup; which in fact could require Apple to pay even more taxes as the US$500 handed out could be considered the same as if Apple was paying a salary to the developer.
Unless Apple have a bad setup (perhaps due to taking advantage of some other tax laws, and not expecting this exact situation), then I still claim that the VAT/sales tax on that first lease doesn't matter.
Basically they could say that due to the unforeseen trouble with the hardware they haven't provided what they promised, and they are now retroactively removing the US$500 rental fee due to this (which essentially would result in them also getting back the taxes paid to the government). The legal complications comes if they want to try that while keeping the actual cash, and only returning a type of "store credit"; but I'm pretty sure their accountants could easily handle that if they wanted to.
That looks pretty clear to me. It appears many here have trouble behaving ethically and honoring contracts they've entered.
Seems demanding free stuff is the new norm. And crying when it doesn't happen. Such entitlement.
Why wouldn't you return it? It's not like it's the best piece of Apple hardware ever. And if you are so hooked, just swap out the innards for some crap and then send it back, I'm sure they don't individually inspect them.
No, it is not even rent. It was one service provided as part of the "Quick start program"
From: https://developer.apple.com/programs/universal/
"As part of the program, you’ll have limited access to a Developer Transition Kit (DTK), which will be shipped to you, for developing and testing your Universal apps. The DTK is owned by Apple and must be returned."
(...followed by a link to a very clear set of terms and conditions - that have been quoted here several times already - that made it very clear that the DTK had to be returned on demand and if it broke you got to send back both parts, and that the fee was non-refundable).
No, they're gaining €414 because they were never promised a single cent back. It was a voluntary, good-will "gift" from Apple (albeit one they'd probably mitigate with extra Mac sales). Trouble is, you start from the false premise that developers were somehow entitled to a refund of their $500 and turn that into all sorts of nonsense. Or are people suggesting that Apple should have sent a $600 thank-you to people in Europe, but only $500 to US developers?
The Quick Start program wasn't obligatory and there was plenty of free information on how to get your code to the stage where it should "just compile" as soon as you got your hands on a M1.
If you didn't gain significantly more that $500 in sales by being a month or two ahead of the game in having a Universal version of your app, then you made a bad business decision. Own it... and if you enter into business-to-business deals (which lack many of the consumer protections that apply in many places, certainly the EU) without properly reading the contract then learn, quickly, or risk getting into real trouble.
It's certainly more than any other manufacturer would have offered to rank-and-file developers paying the princely sum of $100 a year (which is peanuts by developer program standards). Apple didn't need the DTK program at all - they could have just invited key developers like MS, Adobe et. al. to play with their (presumed) handful of pre-production M1 lash-ups. It must have cost them a small fortune to do a tiny run of the DTK, I doubt that they made much money from the program. Turns out that huge tranches of x86 software worked perfectly well in Rosetta, anyhow...
yes its simply a nice gesture by apple to provide Devs with the ability to get their apps up and running on ARM Platform macOS NATIVELY before the Apple Silicon Macs hit the marked.
To be fair, contracts are only binding until they are renegotiated; and the stipulated "punishment" for breaking a contract is simply a cost to be weighed against the cost of sticking to the contract.
This is often the difference between the poor and the rich; the poor wants to do what's "Right", while the rich knows that anything can be negotiated and recalculated.
That’s not my point, and you know it. US devs are getting what they paid for in credit, whereas devs outside US are getting a lot less than what they were charged.
And in the end, its unethical to violate the terms of a contract.
And both are getting way more than they agreed to when enrolling in the DTK program. Complaining about the size of your free gift (compared to your older brother's for instance) is stupid and greedy. Maybe I should complain that Apple hasn't giving my a free private jet?
Not really. Going into a contract with bad intent could be said to be unethical, and could under certain circumstances even void the contract or make you liable for all kinds of nastinesses; but the rest is just down to sticking to what was agreed to, and taking the punishment for breaking/getting out of the contract is part of that.