As someone that has had clients sign over 500+ contracts, nobody reads AND understand them. Despite even how short they are, they don't read them enough to actually understand it.
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
Ridiculous the entitlement spoken here. Even worse are people here defending developers that they don't even know personally who are perhaps making well over 6 figures on their apps and don't give a horsecrap about which country is getting more or less of a credit.
People need to step into reality and understand that this contract between Apple and the developers is to lease the equipment for $500USD. Do some people here not understand what a lease is? Ever leased an apartment or leased a car? Since when does the customer who leased the apartment or car get any money or credit back after they satisfied the lease and given the car or the apartment back?
Another thing, some people here seem to FEEL that developers should be able to keep the equipment. NO. When you're done with leasing the car do you get to keep it? Is the apartments yours to keep when you're done leasing it? NO.
All the money you gave to the company to lease the car or the apartment is non-refundable (outside of a security deposit) and you don't get credit to go rent an apartment or lease a car elsewhere.
Developers are running a business to make money, just like Apple and leasing the equipment with ZERO credit is the cost of doing business. Apple offering any credit is nice gesture and is 100% not required. Some people here need to stop acting like Apple owes them something or the developers are doing Apple a favor. All this entitlement is only because it's Apple and it's popular here to show hatred for Apple, even if what is said is pure nonsense.
People need to step into reality and understand that this contract between Apple and the developers is to lease the equipment for $500USD. Do some people here not understand what a lease is? Ever leased an apartment or leased a car? Since when does the customer who leased the apartment or car get any money or credit back after they satisfied the lease and given the car or the apartment back?
Another thing, some people here seem to FEEL that developers should be able to keep the equipment. NO. When you're done with leasing the car do you get to keep it? Is the apartments yours to keep when you're done leasing it? NO.
All the money you gave to the company to lease the car or the apartment is non-refundable (outside of a security deposit) and you don't get credit to go rent an apartment or lease a car elsewhere.
Developers are running a business to make money, just like Apple and leasing the equipment with ZERO credit is the cost of doing business. Apple offering any credit is nice gesture and is 100% not required. Some people here need to stop acting like Apple owes them something or the developers are doing Apple a favor. All this entitlement is only because it's Apple and it's popular here to show hatred for Apple, even if what is said is pure nonsense.
When it comes to a court decision ignorance and laziness are not rewarded.
To the folks who ask why Apple insists on DTKs being returned, just to recycle/pitch them, I don't know why. However, I can remember an good analogy from the auto industry. A number of years ago, one of the majors (GM if I recall) had an electric car program, which was cancelled. They required the test models be returned. This didn't sit well with the drivers, who were happy and wanted to keep them. Lots of negative press ensued.
However, in those days I listened to Howard Koenig, a car technician with a radio show. He explained that, were those cars left in the wild, the manufacturers (and dealers) would have been legally required to maintain a parts/service network for a number of years. The mainstream stories didn't get into such nuance.
I can only guess here, but there might be similar legal implications in Apple just letting folks keep these semi-Macs. Certainly I can picture them going on eBay, with buyers being hornswoggled as to what they actually bought.
However, in those days I listened to Howard Koenig, a car technician with a radio show. He explained that, were those cars left in the wild, the manufacturers (and dealers) would have been legally required to maintain a parts/service network for a number of years. The mainstream stories didn't get into such nuance.
I can only guess here, but there might be similar legal implications in Apple just letting folks keep these semi-Macs. Certainly I can picture them going on eBay, with buyers being hornswoggled as to what they actually bought.
...and, sadly, people are being trained to pay even less attention to contracts every time they click "agree" to a 30 page spiel of partly non-enforceable gobbledygook in order to allow them to use the software/hardware that they've already purchased as a retail product.
(What really makes me sad is when open-source software presents licenses like GPL2 that you don't need to agree to in order to use the software as click-throughs...)
Consumers buying retail goods, phone service, utilities etc. should <i>absolutely</i> not have to bother with contracts, or even take a masters course in cynicism to ward off misleading advertising... and Apple, in general, are far from innocent in that respect - but not here.
The contract in question was for a package of services that wasn't retail, wasn't open to the general public, wasn't a purchase, or even a lease/rental - and that was made clear on the main web page, which only talked about "access to" a DTK. The actual ToCs were a mere 6 pages of what amounts to crystal clear lucidity alongside the turbid EULA for the typical fart app.
Seems like some people got $500 worth of education out of the experience - or will do once they get out of denial.
I don't know about the US (probably varies by state and how good a lawyer you can afford) but certainly in the EU and UK a lot of consumer protection law only applies to... well, consumers... and not transactions between businesses.... although I'm not even sure that the Apple program, presented the way it was, would have fallen foul of consumer law.
Nobody? That's amazing.
Apple's contract is very readable and understandable. I suspect most (all?) who signed, at least understood the computer was a loan and not a gift. In any event, I have a feeling "I didn't read the contract or try to understand what I was signing up for" wouldn't go very far in court.
We're living in an age of "Apple is a rich company and wants me to send their loaned computer back and that makes me upset because I deserve to keep it" entitlement.
In general it's a very bad idea to apply and obtain a prototype device from Apple without fully understanding the conditions, since Apple explicitly prohibits various practices on these prototypes like e.g. publishing benchmark tests or performing teardowns.
I'm genuinely curious about something. What happens if for some reason you're unable to return the DTK legitimately, or something goes wrong in the return?
I could go in to a long rant about how it's unreasonable to expect the average Joe to understand complex contract language, and the whole "You agreed to it" thing has many arguments against it, but a more interesting question is that the contract really doesn't have any provisions for "what-if's" like these.
- You're in the hospital/otherwise incapacitated
- The shipment gets lost in the mail
- Your DTK got stolen (legitimately)
- Your DTK was irreversibly physically damaged (e.g. you live in Texas and the flooding post-freeze damaged it)
- You lost your DTK (suppose a family member helping you clean your flooded house absentmindedly tossed it in the trash) - Unlikely I know, but considering many possibilities here.
- You're away from home/office for a long term due to some unforeseen circumstance (Again, the floods come to mind, but there's many other reasons you might have to be away unexpectedly for a long time).
- And so on...
I could go in to a long rant about how it's unreasonable to expect the average Joe to understand complex contract language, and the whole "You agreed to it" thing has many arguments against it, but a more interesting question is that the contract really doesn't have any provisions for "what-if's" like these.
The average Joe isn’t a developer, and the average developer doesn’t have the DTK either.
You can consult the conditions here and I don't see any particular provision there covering "force majeure" events which might justify not returning the DTK.
The possible consequences of failing to return the DTK are clearly stated and make clear that it's ultimately up to Apple whether the developer account will be suspended, terminated or left alone.
I assume Apple would decide on a case-by-case basis.
Depends who the dev was, a small indie. Yeah probably
A big company like say, Facebook. Probably not because Apple needs them on the platform.
Apple might not pursue the developer assuming they had proper documentation (insurance claims, police reports, etc). Apple could block the unit's serial number from getting updates and will likely sometime soon kill support for DTK units.
More importantly for the developer, it might be a strike against the developer and hinder their relationship with the Apple Developer Program.
Most likely due to space and battery life. More electronics means lower battery life. Less space used means more for the battery.What gets me is that they'll put two USB-A ports on the Mac mini, but none on the MBP.
Well, time has passed, and the exchange rates have changed. DXY is down heavily for the year, so USD is broadly down. I don't know if that totally accounts for the difference, but if so, you can think of it as, you paid for 500 US Dollars and later got back 500 USD that had depreciated.
Last edited:
Yeah, real devs who are complaining are doing so for one of two reasons:
1. Apple has surprised devs with a larger payout in the past, and this time they expected it again.
2. They didn't like the terms of the agreement to begin with but had to accept since it meant keeping their apps from breaking.
but seriously apple gives Devs who Leased the DTK money back. Its a nice gesture of apple. Show me any lease agreement in the world who give u a lot of money back. and even if its not the full 500$ u payd its still a lot they give u back.
Ok, I am neither a developer nor do I know one. I could probably find a copy of the terms Online and more likely somewhere on this site, either as a news article or a post in a forum, or both. But is what Apple did with their contact for developers unusual, especially considering the circumstances of a new architecture, or have developers had same/similar rules when writing code for other new hardware?
Secondly, and legally more importantly, does it matter that Apple got the better end of a deal if what the developers signed is likely to be upheld in court as a valid contract? Since I don’t develop software I don’t know if Apples terms were significantly different than other hardware manufacturers who gave early pre-production units to developers. It seems to me that it would still be an advantage to the developers to be able to offer compatible software earlier than your competitors who sat on the sidelines and waited to see what public acceptance would be and how well the new hardware performed, so it’s not a zero-sum game for a developer either. They have a better product on release day, which usually means more money.
Secondly, and legally more importantly, does it matter that Apple got the better end of a deal if what the developers signed is likely to be upheld in court as a valid contract? Since I don’t develop software I don’t know if Apples terms were significantly different than other hardware manufacturers who gave early pre-production units to developers. It seems to me that it would still be an advantage to the developers to be able to offer compatible software earlier than your competitors who sat on the sidelines and waited to see what public acceptance would be and how well the new hardware performed, so it’s not a zero-sum game for a developer either. They have a better product on release day, which usually means more money.
Getting developers new hardware to port applications is not unusual. I have gone through this with several companies. Every time we had to send the test system back. The hardware vendor will not support these prototypes and want them back so their design ideas do not get out to competitors. Also, prototype systems are not certified for retail sale and do not meet regulatory requirements for safety, interference, etc.
For the developers that take advantage of these programs and stick to the terms of the contract, early access can be an advantage. They can have their products ready to go on launch day, and customers will purchase new native versions of products to run on their shiny new device.
Hmm, it really depends, many hardware manufacturers send out dev kits for free as loaner devices. That’s what Samsung do.
My issue wouldn’t be around keeping the device or not, it’s more that the device didn’t work, we waited and waited for things to be fixed (as you would expect for a dev prototype) but it never got to the point where it was useful.
The hope was then that apple would provide a working computer that we could use to complete the job but instead they just want to forget about the program and “refund” people.
What isn’t right is the refund amounts. Developers (some who do this for free) shouldn’t be left out of pocket when apple didn’t supply what was promised.
I really don’t get some of the hate on developers, some make money but lots do things for free, and I’d bet you use just as many of these free apps as you do paid ones.
My issue wouldn’t be around keeping the device or not, it’s more that the device didn’t work, we waited and waited for things to be fixed (as you would expect for a dev prototype) but it never got to the point where it was useful.
The hope was then that apple would provide a working computer that we could use to complete the job but instead they just want to forget about the program and “refund” people.
What isn’t right is the refund amounts. Developers (some who do this for free) shouldn’t be left out of pocket when apple didn’t supply what was promised.
I really don’t get some of the hate on developers, some make money but lots do things for free, and I’d bet you use just as many of these free apps as you do paid ones.
It is a hassle still. And the agreement doesn't say $500, it says $0, which I wouldn't have liked. Personally I quit developing native stuff for Apple after I got sick of catering to their changes without ample support from them, then I quit developing for Apple's platforms altogether after I got sick of their rules. So I no longer have to sit here and complain. Love it or leave it.
Last edited:
My guess is that Apple will make exceptions for those with genuine issues, but you always cast a broad net with your initial wording to get maximum compliance.
It’s already valuable right now. (Probably retail price or slightly above aka the 500 the devs paid). I’m pretty sure in the future there’s going to be collectors who’ll be willing to pay a lot for these special edition Macs.