[_qulr]

> Today I can put an App Store charge on my Chase card and do a chargeback making up some stupid reason that I never got my app in which the chargeback would be successful. It's not entirely out of the question that Apple would lock my account until that charge is resolved.

Yes, we're all aware of chargebacks, and nobody is disputing that you would owe Apple in that situation. Not sure how this really helps the argument.

The issue here is that the Apple Card seems to completely obliterate any separation between the merchant and the bank, which is obviously problematic. In fact there are 3 different things that you would expect to have some separation: the hardware (MacBook Pro), the services (iCloud), and the credit card. But now all 3 are the same, so buying the hardware with the credit card causes the service to be shut down.

Whereas if the hardware were Dell, the service was Google, and the credit card was Chase, then this problem wouldn't exist, and it would merely be an issue between Chase and the card holder, not affecting the Google services at all.

[komocode]

Chargeback is to establish that Apple can shutdown your services if Apple thinks you owe them money.

Dustin was erroneously credited for something from Apple, and now Apple shutdown his account because they want the money back. This would have happened if it was a Chase card which would prove this statement wrong (which is my whole point):

" the main issue is that Apple shut down his other Apple services because of non-payment. This presumably wouldn't happen if the charge was on a non-Apple card."

[_qulr]

> Making this situation sound like this would have never happened if Dustin used a Chase card would be not true.

It is true! If Dustin missed a Chase payment, it has no effect on any of these other things. The iCloud account was paid up already, it wasn't late.

[komocode]

Wrong.

If Dustin used a Chase card for the trade in/payment for the Mac, this situation would have resulted in the exact same way.

[_qulr]

> If Dustin used a Chase card for the trade in/payment for the Mac, this situation would have resulted in the exact same way.

How so? Apple charges the Chase card, Chase pays Apple, end of story as far as Apple is concerned, Apple gets its money.

[komocode]

I think you missed the point where Dustin mentioned this:

"Very soon after, it seems that Apple simply added the amount of the credit I received when I purchased the M1 MacBook Pro to my Apple Card balance."

Timeline is as follows: Dustin bought the MacBook in mid January, he mentioned he never received a trade in kit after 2 weeks, then received a reminder in mid-February to send the item in, and "soon after" received credit on his Apple Card. This tells me Apple refunded a portion of the M1 purchase to the credit card erroneously. This can happen with any credit card, not just Apple Card.

As I've already established, if Apple thinks you owe them any amount of cash, they'll lock your account. In this case, Apple thinks Dustin owes them money because Apple accidentally refunded a portion of the M1 purchase.

[_qulr]

That's not exactly what happened. "they give you a credit at purchase time" https://twitter.com/dcurtis/status/1366579549610381320

What happened is that when Apple did not receive the trade-in, they added a charge to the card for the amount of the credit.

Anyway, the important point you're missing is that if Apple was dealing with a Chase card, Apple would not be out any money, because Chase pays Apple for any charges to the card. You're conceiving of a scenario where Apple doesn't get all of its money, and that's simply not the case with a third-party credit card.

Now if Apple and Goldman Sachs operated in the same manner, then Apple would also get all of the money it was owed, from Goldman Sachs, and then it would be up to Goldman Sachs to get payment from Dustin, which is no concern of Apple's. But apparently Apple and Goldman Sachs have a different kind of relationship with the Apple Card.

It appears that Apple is using its iCloud leverage to force the card holder to pay Goldman Sachs. Apple would have no such leverage to force the card holder to pay Chase, nor would Apple have any desire to use such leverage for Chase, because Apple is not "in bed", so to speak, with Chase.