Simply, and without too many details: the load balancer failed to work properly when one server in the cluster stopped responding, causing a cascade of errors which successively crashed all of the other servers (including, interestingly, the RDS database server -- which even Amazon was unable to explain).
Shortly after publishing, I received a phone call from "Apple, Inc.". When I tried to answer, the call dropped. Then my Apple ID account was suddenly unlocked and I got an email from someone saying they are going to try to call again tomorrow.
I didn't expect that tweet to get so much attention. I plan to write more about what exactly happened when my accounts are re-activated.
But to clear a couple of things up:
1. I've since learned that the reason this happened could be due to an unusual confluence of events including Apple Card, autopay, and the online Apple Store.
2. The disabling of iCloud, App Store, and Apple ID accounts is actually an Apple Card policy for overdue accounts, and they have a team dedicated to handling these account de-activation issues. (I think this is absurd, which is why I am drawing attention to it.)
> The disabling of iCloud, App Store, and Apple ID accounts is actually an Apple Card policy for overdue accounts
Do you have any more information on this?
It sounds alarming when stated without further context, because it makes it sounds like a slightly overdue payment could cause an instant shutdown of ones account.
You originally seemed to be saying this is what happened, but now you are saying it’s not that simple.
I would be very surprised if my Apple account was locked out after 15 days of non payment of my card.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it was locked out (for example) after 100 days, especially if I hadn’t communicated with them.
Another reason for it to be locked out might be fraud detection, in which case I might actively want that, even thought it occasionally causes inconvenience.
One is indeed absurd and very salient to all Apple users, the other two would be unsurprising and frankly of no real concern. At this point we don’t know where on the spectrum the policy actually lies.
So without more context, #2 seems like a potentially very serious claim that could later turn out not to be so bad.
This is a common way damaging misinformation starts to spread.
I’m not for a second suggesting this is your intent, but I am pointing out that this is a likely effect, dependent on what the context actually turns out to be.
Edit: also worth noting that the tweet, and the HN headline are worded in an unequivocal way. It seems like as written, they may simply be false based on what you have now said.
> The disabling of iCloud, App Store, and Apple ID accounts is actually an Apple Card policy for overdue accounts
My understanding is that the Apple Card policy is referring to "account" as "Apple Card Account is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA", and not the iCloud account issued by Apple.
Did you happen to do a chargeback in the past month?
I'm aware of a situation where a user wanted to cancel an account with an app they had subscribed to via the app store. To do so they did a charge back on their credit card. Because he bought via the app store he ended up charging back Apple.
This poster continues to fling accusations at Apple and has yet to provide any proof of any of these suppositions whatsoever. I’m not sure why the commenters are so eager to believe a comment from a random Twitter account posted to HN. Confirmation bias is strong, I guess.
This is a heavy accusation and I think the burden is heavily on the accuser to provide clear evidence that lack of payment for anything somehow locks you out of your Apple account. These comments and posts also seem to be conflating different accounts, like Apple ID, iCloud, and the Apple Card Account.
I’m in no way trying to defend Apple, this just seems like an incredibly user hostile policy, and also one that doesn’t exactly follow sound business logic.
If this is true, can you point to this policy? Can you share the “unusual confluence of events”?
The level of evidence you're expecting is unreasonable given the events. Consider it from his perspective, which is what most of us are doing:
You suddenly notice that you can't access any of the stuff you need to live out your life. Oh fuck. You make a tweet in a panic, and maybe hoping to get some attention, since the faceless trillion dollar company doesn't give a fuck about you.
The tweet blows up, and wbronitsky comes along demanding more information. A clear timeline, strong evidence, legal arguments etc etc. Meanwhile this poor guy is just trying to get his shit back.
Trust me, Apple pays plenty of people to run interference for them. You don't need to do it for free.
I think my posting history would show that I’m far from a company shill. It would be cool to respond to the best interpretation of my post, instead of the worst, maybe.
Either way, I’m sure this person had their account frozen; I’m merely wondering how this person knows that there is policy at Apple to intentionally do such things.
The OP posted a hugely contradictory post with respect to these original comments. The tweet and the defensive comments here now hold no water.
This forum is no longer seems a place for rational conversation backed up by facts. The GP used dismissive language to put me down and even called me out by my user name in an attempt to intimidate me into silence. I flagged it, but nothing happens; in HN it’s not the intent but purely the language. We are allowed to go on insulting and attacking each other as long as it’s subtle enough to be able to be explained away. This is corporate gaslighting coming down to us here.
It’s a trap full of idiotic rhetorical devices and capitalist wannabes. But then I remind myself that really HN is just a tool for billionaires to steal our ideas.
He has credibility here, and I think a lot of the upvotes (including mine) are based on expecting he wouldn't say something like this without a good reason.
I don’t even know how to respond to this appeal to amorphous authority, and to reply to the best possible interpretation of the post, I’ll pass over it.
I’m sure this person is not lying that their account was shut down; I’m asking for an accounting of the Apple policy that supposedly exists. It would certainly be something I would be deeply concerned about.
I'm not saying you have to take Dustin's word for it or anything, but I think him being known to many here makes his tweet more likely to be upvoted than if it were posted by someone without a reputation.
Maybe we shouldn’t just blindly believe and defend people just because lots of karma and Twitter followers and built a thing. I think these actions make this forum much much worse.
> based on expecting he wouldn't say something like this without a good reason
That’s why people are asking for the reasons.
He’s exactly the kind of person you’d expect to be able to be able to give them, and frankly without them it doesn’t matter who is making the statement.
He has already partially walked it back, effectively invalidating the tweet.
“Account” means the Apple Card consumer credit account opened for you under this Agreement
Default actions ->
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF BEING IN DEFAULT
If you are in default, we may take any of the following actions to the extent permitted under applicable law:
• Continue to charge you interest as long as you have an outstanding Account balance;
• Lower your credit limit;
• Decline or otherwise limit your ability to make Transactions;
• Report information about your Account to the credit reporting bureaus;
• Begin collections activities;
• Suspend or close your Account;
• Require you to immediately pay all or any portion of your total outstanding balance (this action may also be taken upon death);
• If we retain an attorney who is not our salaried employee to collect amounts you owe, we may require you to pay for the court
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees that we actually incur; and/or
• Take any other action permitted by law.
I guess account is one whole system the way they built it so it includes his iCloud and whatnot.
This should be last resort solution for Apple. I’m thinking well past 3 months of notifications or something, maybe even a year, considering it goes beyond just the card itself.
As the author of The Best, I am quite surprised and confused by Rhinehart's suggestion that the piece marks the "death" of Silicon Valley. He does not seem to understand me or what I was saying at all.
Also, "my ilk" are the very people he praises, including Paul Graham and YC founders pre-2012. I'm tempted to write a rebuttal, because while I agree that there was a marked change in the startup community around that time, I think it happened for reasons very different from the ones Rhinehart outlines in his piece.
Your blog post sounds like your philosophy was to search for and find goods that you would enjoy using and give you peace of mind. His philosophy sounds more like "get what works, if it breaks replace it and try again." The longevity and quality of his items don't seem to matter so much as their ability to fulfill each stated purpose adequately. Your philosophy sounds consumeristic in the face of his more utilitarian sounding examples.
Taking the example of your flatware - why not just get some cheap stuff from Walmart? It will work well enough. The mouth sensation and feel in hand is secondary to the purpose of feeding yourself. I'd buy it because it looks nice but the cost of that vs a 20 piece set from Walmart? You can donate the excess to a soup kitchen.
My unasked for $0.02. I'd read your rebuttal. Please write it.
I think Rhinehart’s perspective may be that a generation of people are focused on solving the wrong problems (ones that don’t have real impact on human lives) and we (collective) are fetishsizing that singular focus on making the best of something that is largely inconsequential in the real of real problems. For example, should anyone be making the best flatware and why do we care about buying the best flatware when there’s plenty of good enough.
There’s so many points in his article that it’s hard to start in one place but I got the sense that his overarching thesis is this:
There’s a bunch of real human problems today (hunger, climate change, disease etc) and people can either be working on 1) solving these problems or 2) distracting people from thinking about their own mortality and these crises. In the bucket of the distraction-economy is probably anything entertainment related, social networking, consumerism, etc which is not innovative. There are people who are trying to change the system because it’s broken not just simply extract more value from it.
I missed your post when it came out the first time, but I don't think you need to add a rebuttal about "The Best"; I think the message is clear and hasn't changed. Now your view on if Silicon Valley has fallen would be something I'd like to read.
But as far as your original post, I couldn't find anything polarizing and controversial about why seeking and trusting the best would bring peace of mind, or how that is somehow a call for overconsumption.
It's strange how differently the same words can be understood by different people.
