Apple Screws Me Twice: Won't Let "Authorized User" Upgrade

[SuparShadow]

If you do not think age plays a factor in such situations, I can understand that.
The DOB and SSN are both on the account, part of the initial contract form and credit verification adn requirement. If a credit report is pulled anytime during a purchase not only DOB and SSN appear but a whole slew other things. The ATT rep doesn't see all of it but remember they have to enter such info to get an approval.
Each time I have called ATT I have been asked DOB and last 4 of the SSN for security purposes. It was on the initial application.

Authorized users. I deal with the cell phone account and there isn't really any need for additional authorized users. Again, you can say age doesn't play into anything but she has walked into verizon and AT&T and picked out new phones without being on my accounts. My son hasn't been so lucky.

Well, if you added your son as an authorized user, like I am on my parents' account, he wouldn't have a problem.

Because I'm an authorized user, all I have to provide for AT&T to let me make changes is my name, the accountholder's name, and the last four digits of her SSN. But whatever information they pull up certainly doesn't list my relation to the accountholder — I could be her son, brother, husband, father, uncle, whatever, as far as they know and as far as their records indicate.

And in any case, I'm not complaining about AT&T. They'll let me do whatever I want, regardless of age or my relation to the accountholder. My complaint is with Apple.

And an authorized user is an authorized user. It's someone the primary accountholder has given permission to and entrusted to make those kinds of changes through the service provider. What the relationship between the accountholder and the authorized user should make no difference; I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

 

[bruinsrme]

That is incorrect.

AT&T requires an authorized user, and Apple requires an authorized user and the last 4 of the SS# of the primary account holder.

Unfortunately I don't believe that this policy has been properly relayed to their employees.



Is there a written policy on Apple's web site? Where does Apple "state" this? And yes, you do have to use the Apple store because most resellers are out of stock indefinitely.

http://www.apple.com/retail/iphone/

 

[bruinsrme]

Well, if you added your son as an authorized user, like I am on my parents' account, he wouldn't have a problem.

He went in to have a repair done, and the rep tried to talk him into getting a new phone at the tune of $300+.
But since he wasn't able to disaster averted.

Please understand I think the apple store policy is f'in moronic. I try to avoid the apple stores like the plague.
I go to Best Buy because you surely don't need to be a genius to sell me an iphone. I wouldn't hesitate going to walmart either. Its the same phone in the same box just a different bag.

Hey, I would like to say your posts are very well thought out and make for a valid argument.

 

[simplemind]

WOW, you are my new hero. Can I have your autograph? Can you come hang out with me Friday night? I think it's really great you felt the need to let everyone know just how "supposedly" rich you are, oh BTW, if you bought mommy a house and a car, obviously you could have just bought the phones outright, I mean a man of your wealth doesn't need a subsidy at all, right?

I dont need to be someones hero, cant you find someone in Canada who is a much better choice? how about the RCMP's? and I charge for my autograph, why do you think I became "supposedly" wealthy?
where did I say that I NEEDED the subsidy?? just because I can afford to pay full price for something does not mean I dont look for deals, does that not make sense to you? hopefully you can put down the booze long enough for your brain to actually learn something about saving money someday. DUH! your a dolt.

 

[marksman]

there's no financial, legal, or physical reason that Apple needs to impose this policy when even AT&T doesn't

That is absurd. Of course there is potential liability in allowing account changes and modifications. The risk exists even with the account holder themselves present. Allowing authorized users extends that risk and also extends the potential for fraud to be committed. Perhaps Apple has decided they are not willing to take that risk. They have much less at stake here than AT&T so their willingness to take that risk should, rightfully, be less.

 

[marksman]

. And AT&T recognizes and permits me to make these kinds of changes, so there's no reason Apple shouldn't.

There are plenty of reasons why they would not want to do that.

You fail logic class when you keep saying because AT&T does it then there is no reason for Apple to do it. Apple and AT&T are not the same thing, and do not have the same interests at stake here.

Apple does hold the right to determine whom they will sell any of their products to as long as they are not using illegal discrimination.

There is a risk with allowing other people be authorized used in deals like this. I suspect Apple had all the statistics on AT&T and what percentage of issues arise from this ability existing. Apple likely looked at the information and other information they had, and decided it was not worth the trouble to them. Especially since people could just go to an AT&T store if they had this issue.

Hate to break it to you, but this is not an issue for most people.

 

[SuparShadow]

That is absurd. Of course there is potential liability in allowing account changes and modifications. The risk exists even with the account holder themselves present. Allowing authorized users extends that risk and also extends the potential for fraud to be committed. Perhaps Apple has decided they are not willing to take that risk. They have much less at stake here than AT&T so their willingness to take that risk should, rightfully, be less.

You fail logic class when you keep saying because AT&T does it then there is no reason for Apple to do it. Apple and AT&T are not the same thing, and do not have the same interests at stake here.

There is a risk with allowing other people be authorized used in deals like this. I suspect Apple had all the statistics on AT&T and what percentage of issues arise from this ability existing. Apple likely looked at the information and other information they had, and decided it was not worth the trouble to them. Especially since people could just go to an AT&T store if they had this issue.

It's the other way around; If Apple has less at stake to lose, they have more incentive to take the risk. (Basically since they have less at risk, they can take that risk more frequently).

Also, re: the particular "risks..." Without access to the agreements/negotiations between AT&T and Apple, this is pure speculation, but:

1.) If the Apple Store was defrauded by allowing someone to purchase an iPhone at a subsidized price and signing for an extended contract on an existing AT&T account, and;

2.) The true accountholder challenges the extended contract and it is deemed void;

3.) AT&T loses that contract, and any profits it would've made from the two years' worth of payments on that line

4.) AT&T also loses the $400 subsidy it paid to Apple for the $599 phone

5.) Apple makes a $599 profit on its sale — $400 from AT&T for the subsidy, and $199 from the defrauder

So AT&T takes at least a $400 loss, and Apple makes a $599 profit.

Unless there's a clause somewhere that says if Apple sells a subsidized iPhone to a customer who is not eligible for that price (even if the customer has defrauded the Store), then AT&T either isn't obligated to pay Apple the subsidy, or receives a refund on the subsidy.

Which could easily be prevented by an interface that gives Apple Store employees more information than just the primary accountholder's name...

Apple does hold the right to determine whom they will sell any of their products to as long as they are not using illegal discrimination.

When were Apple's rights in dispute? I said their policy was stupid and senseless, not illegal.

 

[Modacke]

Everybody needs to chill. I believe the reason why the OP wanted to post his dilemma and problem with Apple and AT&T, is to get advice and found out what we think he should do and to help him out. IT IS NOT TO YELL AT HIM AND GET INTO HIS PERSONAL LIFE. If you have a comment or question regarding this post just calmly and politely ask him. Sorry to go all Moddish, but seriously people CHILL!!!!!!

As to the actually post itself, I believe one thing. If you are an authorized account person you do have all the rights extended to you by the main account on your cellular network account. That being said there maybe a few exceptions to this. Unfortunately this is one of them. I understand your frustration OP, but think of it this way. You now have an excuse to go back to an Apple Store to buy something, because of your Un-Used 10%-OFF Coupon.

 

[SuparShadow]

I understand your frustration OP, but think of it this way. You now have an excuse to go back to an Apple Store to buy something, because of your Un-Used 10%-OFF Coupon.

Yeah, I used it on a set of H/K Soundsticks this afternoon, in fact.

I mean, at the end of the day, it's just an inconvenience — I'll still get the phone, I just had to order it online. Which is not the most ideal solution for people who need to replace their phones immediately (either because it's their only phone and their current one is, for whatever reason, nonfunctioning, or if they rely on their phones for work purposes, etc.)

 

[bruinsrme]

Yeah, I used it on a set of H/K Soundsticks this afternoon, in fact.

I mean, at the end of the day, it's just an inconvenience — I'll still get the phone, I just had to order it online. Which is not the most ideal solution for people who need to replace their phones immediately (either because it's their only phone and their current one is, for whatever reason, nonfunctioning, or if they rely on their phones for work purposes, etc.)

So you ordered in on line and went to the same apple store that refused to sell you the phone in the first place?
If so could you have hopped on a computer there and ordered the phone?

 

[SuparShadow]

So you ordered in on line and went to the same apple store that refused to sell you the phone in the first place?
If so could you have hopped on a computer there and ordered the phone?

1.) Yes, because it's the closest Apple Store (it's literally a five minute walk away from my apartment), and purchasing a set of speakers isn't — in theory, although theoretically neither should buying a phone — be a complicated process.

2.) Yes, but I still have to wait until the phone is shipped to me. Which wouldn't be such a big deal if I had a working phone to use in the meantime. Unless you're suggesting that I should've ordered the phone in front of an employee to demonstrate that I am, in fact, capable of ordering/purchasing a phone for my account without being the primary accountholder, in which case I guess I could have, but I don't know if that would've meant they could then turn around and sell me the phone in-store.

 

[bruinsrme]

1.) Yes, because it's the closest Apple Store (it's literally a five minute walk away from my apartment), and purchasing a set of speakers isn't — in theory, although theoretically neither should buying a phone — be a complicated process.

2.) Yes, but I still have to wait until the phone is shipped to me. Which wouldn't be such a big deal if I had a working phone to use in the meantime. Unless you're suggesting that I should've ordered the phone in front of an employee to demonstrate that I am, in fact, capable of ordering/purchasing a phone for my account without being the primary accountholder, in which case I guess I could have, but I don't know if that would've meant they could then turn around and sell me the phone in-store.

Ahh I see, I thought if you pre ordered the phone you could go to an Apple store and pick it up.
I was wondering about using the instore computer to do the transaction and walk away with the phone. That would ahve confirmed how whacked Apple's policy really is.

glad to hear it worked ut in the end.