This site may earn chapter commissions from the links on this folio. Terms of utilise.

Apple-iTunes-Feature

Update 9/18/18:The outcome is related to region locking; read our new story for details. The original story continues beneath.

When digital downloads kickoff began to cut into the physical media market, one common argument was that buying digital goods meant they were never really yours. That argument hasn't gone away, merely it's lost a lot of power over the years equally content libraries have, for the nigh part, remained under user control. There accept been some high-profile exceptions, similar Amazon'southward decision to pull 1984 out of user libraries several years ago, but for the most function, content access has remained constant, at least from major vendors.

A contempo move by Apple, however, illustrates just how illusory that access is, and how niggling the company cares when consumers get screwed. Anders G da Silva recently contacted Apple when he discovered multiple movies he had purchased on iTunes were no longer available for him to picket. The company's response to him is beneath:

It states, in part:

Later on reviewing this case, I accept noticed that the content provider has removed these movies from the Canadian Store. Hence, these movies are not available in the Canada iTunes Store at this time.

Movies on iTunes range from sub-$10 prices to $20, suggesting da Silva likely spent between $30 – $60 on his three films. As a consolation prize, Apple offers him two gratuitous movie rentals of any movie upwardly to $five.99, which isn't exactly restitution for his loss.

Companies talk about both sides of their mouths on this consequence and they do information technology frequently. There are games that tin can't be sold whatever longer because their sound licensing agreements have expired (some games become effectually this past patching in unlike audio or removing certain songs afterwards a flow of time). Da Silva never endemic those movies at all — not for whatever bodily meaning of the word ownership. And Apple doesn't intendance. When Da Silva responded that he wasn't satisfied with his situation, the visitor responded by clarifying that Apple doesn't actually sell anything.

The new letter reads:

Delight be informed that the iTunes/App Store is a store front that gives content provider[sic] a platform or identify to sell their items. We can only offer what has been made available to us via the studios or a distributor… Also, know that our power to issue the refund diminishes over time. Hence your purchases doesn't run into the conditions for a refund.

Apple, the company with a trillion-dollar valuation, whose business can literally make or break other companies, who one time entered the e-book business specifically to degrade and diminish Amazon'southward market power in that expanse, the visitor that kicked off a revolution in how apps are distributed on mobile devices and created the first modern smartphone to ever come to marketplace. That Apple. It's App Store is just a store front with a magical coin fountain that gradually evaporates, preventing it from granting refunds over fourth dimension.

Here'south a crazy idea. Maybe Da Silva deserves a refund because Apple falsely represented that it had the right to sell a production information technology actually offered for a very long rental period. I realize that legally, the company undoubtedly crafted its contracts to cover its ass, but this is not solely a legal issue. This is a question of how ownership is perceived culturally, not but legally, and the just lesser line Apple cares about is its own. That's how one of the most powerful companies on the planet suddenly becomes a meek, shrinking violet at the mercy of titanic forces it tin can scarcely comprehend. The App Shop is a "shop front." No, the App Store is a distribution portal through which billions of dollars flows every unmarried yr. The question of whether or not the App Shop wields sufficient power to be considered a monopoly is headed to the Supreme Courtroom, and Apple has the unmitigated gall to declare itself a "store front" so information technology can avert making a customer whole after revoking access to content he'd paid for.

If you care about really retaining access to a piece of content, buy it physically. Apple could've demanded that its customers retain the correct to play works they purchased in perpetuity. It didn't. And if Apple doesn't care enough about its customers to ensure they retain admission to content they paid full purchase price for, or even enough to refund their money in an outcome like this, there'southward no reason it should run into another dime of yours.

Now Read: Apple App Store Antitrust Example Heads to Supreme Court, Apple tree Found Guilty of Price Fixing, Stiff Arming Retail Partners, and Appeals Court Upholds $450M Verdict Against Apple tree for Fixing ebook Prices