If you buy an iPad etc at full price at store then you can do whatever you want. However, Apple has a discount on promotions and if you want that discount you need to sign a contract that specifies what constitutes a promotion. (AKA they only give the discount if it's useful promotion of their brand.)
Doing that is senseless. Does it really matter what I do with it after I buy it? Why does it matter if I bought it as a reseller or not? Is it just a money grab? If I'm not going to take the thin retail margin, Apple wants to keep it for themselves.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing the policy. I just don't get it.
It's the same basic concept as product placement in movies. The whole point of the program is advertizing. So, if you place the product in a negative light then the whole idea is wasted. (AKA, coke is not going to pay for a spot where someone says this soda is terrible bring me a Pepsi, even if the coke get's airtime and people see the bottle etc.)
PS: I don't know the details but the discount could easily drop the price well below apples production costs. And apparently you also get the right to use some of their IP (advertizing copy etc?).
I was thinking something snarky about how unenforceable this might be, but then I considered the document:
official "Guidelines for Third Party Promotions,"
It seems unlikely that the word choice of "guidelines" and not something like "terms" is accidental. I couldn't find a particularly appropriate dictionary definition, but wikipedia says "By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory (protocol would be a better term for a mandatory procedure)" which more or less fits with my understanding.
Indeed, in the document it says:
Strict adherence is essential because
you and/or your company may be held responsible if your use of Apple products for promotional purposes do not conform with the following guidelines. In any event, we reserve the right to revoke our consent to your use of Apple products in your promotion at any time and for any reason.
Which makes the whole thing sound like it only applies to situations where Apple was giving their consent in the first place.
I have a friend who recently tried to purchase an iPad for a contest her work was going to put on during an event this summer. Apparently the Apple store rep had to deny the sale, giving pretty much the same reasons in this article. She pushed back a bit and pretty much found out that if they really wanted to get an iPad, it would still be possible; it basically ended up being a "just don't mention what you're using it for" and they couldn't really block the purchase.
I can only find relevant documents for Australia[1] and Canada[2] on Apple's site. There are interesting differences:
Canada
* You can't give out free iPad.
* Creative review is required - "Apple Canada requests that you forward an electronic layout of your final artwork for review and comment before you proceed with your promotional campaign."
* No mentioned of approved imagery.
* Required disclaimer - "Apple is not a sponsor of, nor a participant in this promotion."
Australia
* You can't give out free iPad and iPhone.
* No mention of creative review.
* Approved imagery provided.
* Required disclaimer - "Apple is not a participant in or sponsor of this promotion."
I wonder why these only exist for these countries and why they are different.
The PDF that seems to be the source of this story doesn't appear to be on Apple's site, nor does it seem to be complete (it references "this Agreement" but bears no such title). I'm not really seeing the story here. It sounds more like something taken out of context and twisted into a scandal. (Oh wait, I'm on the Internet.)
As much as Apple is prone to doing silly legal maneuvers, I really can't see this as anything other than massively out of context.
I can't find the original document that Techdirt is claiming to quote.
I would not be surprised if this is from an agreement between Apple and a retail partner, e.g. Best Buy. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple wanted to discourage Best Buy from offering up a free iPad with purchase of your new Shiny Gadget of the Week. In that context, this seems entirely reasonable. It's Apple's product, and they can tell third-party retailers of it how to sell it.
Can't use Apple's trademarks for a giveaway promotion? OK, I see the legal basis there. "We have iPads. And we're giving them away for free." Looks like that avoids their concerns.
I don't get the point behind this move by Apple. First-sale doctrine. That is all.
If you buy an iPad etc at full price at store then you can do whatever you want. However, Apple has a discount on promotions and if you want that discount you need to sign a contract that specifies what constitutes a promotion. (AKA they only give the discount if it's useful promotion of their brand.)