[syshum]

>>You have to look at it from the company’s point of view.

No we actually do not, and should not.

They are offering the product to the market, it is incumbent on them to fix the problem not just toss their hands up and say "Well it is too hard / expensive for us to solve so consumers just have to deal"

This is similar to my complaint over the concept of "Identity theft" no one identity is ever stolen, no companies fail to implement proper fraud controls then shift the liability to the victim to "prove" their "identity was stolen", that is the exact opposite of how the burden should work

Coming back around to the Apple situation, this is a result of allowing unconscionable contracts (aka severely one-sided and unfair) to permeate the digital goods world. The fact that Apple can terminate a contract in full, with one sided review with out having to notify the other party of the exact clause of the contract they alleged the other party violated, no recourse or notice to correct, no appeal or attempts to remedy, etc would not fly in most contract situations, the fact we allow it with "terms of service" is ridiculous