Re:Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access
by goodluckchuck on Friday December 08, 2023 @08:30PM
(#38577373)
There’s certainly a contract there, but it’s not obvious how a customers compliance the terms and obligations create a profit for Apple. I think most outside observers would generally assume that Apple‘s profits come from the payments the customers make to Apple, when purchasing devices or making subscriptions. After all, the only people subject to, and breaching the terms of service are Apple customers who did pay for their phones, etc..
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access
by tptacek on Saturday December 09, 2023 @02:13PM
(#38584872)
In a California interference case, Apple would need to prove:
1. An enforceable contract existed (check!)
2. Beeper knew about the contract (check!)
3. Beeper's actions intentionally caused a breach of that contract (check!)
4. An actual breach of Apple's Terms & Conditions occurred
5. Apple had damages
None of those elements have much to do with profit.