Apple release removal tool for unwanted U2 album


Recommended Posts

.... Yes, you read that right. Removing the album requires a removal tool. After numerous complaints, Apple has set up a special knowledge base article detailing the steps needed to remove the album here. But be warned, if you would like to acquire the album again, you'll need to re-download it through iTunes. It'll remain free up until October 13th.

 

 

Via The Verge

.... Yes, you read that right. Removing the album requires a removal tool.  

... You were able to get rid of it even before. It worked like any other iTunes purchase. Now this will remove it from your purchase history as well (where it could only be hidden before)

People will bitch about anything when it comes to Apple. Even when gifted stuff.

 

A copy of Transformers Dark Side of the Moon appeared in my Google Play account when I purchased a Nexus 7. Did I want it? No. Did I feel the need to bitch about it online? No.

People will bitch about anything when it comes to Apple. Even when gifted stuff.

 

A copy of Transformers Dark Side of the Moon appeared in my Google Play account when I purchased a Nexus 7. Did I want it? No. Did I feel the need to bitch about it online? No.

 

Was it automatically downloaded to your phone taking up space you may not want to spare?  I don't own one but what they did was wrong.

Was it automatically downloaded to your phone taking up space you may not want to spare?   

 

that depends entirely on whether he had his devices set up to automatically download new purchases.

 

Apple's approach of automatically distributing this album in the same way that an actual purchase would was a bit heavy-handed. But people have also been making a mountain out of this molehill...

I think its the inconvenience of having to remove it is the issue that everyone has... not the fact it was available for free. After all for many users it automatically downloads it to all devices they own. Using storage and bandwidth.

 

What stops this happening again tomorrow, and the day after - allowing apple to push content onto devices without say so is pretty much advertising and if this became an accepted norm in no time we be having to deleted "free content" every day.

 

Would it have really been that difficult to send users a text, or an email or a notification saying "click here to grab it for free now" - of course not but that would have meant most people wouldn't have bothered to download it.

Removal tool? Please. It's the equivalent of a dialog box that pops up saying, "Are you sure you want to remove this file? If you click yes, you can't get it back if you do!"

that depends entirely on whether he had his devices set up to automatically download new purchases.

 

Apple's approach of automatically distributing this album in the same way that an actual purchase would was a bit heavy-handed. But people have also been making a mountain out of this molehill...

 

Who wants to manually push everything to their phone?  I'd wager 80% or more do not.  So they took advantage of a situation they created to have a marketing opportunity.  It's the principle of the idea.  People don't want their private phones invaded.  Even though we have no real privacy the general public wants to believe we do.

It's the principle of the idea.  People don't want their private phones invaded.  Even though we have no real privacy the general public wants to believe we do.

I'm sorry, it's fine to compare this to spam if you want to (even though I might disagree), but to call it an invasion of privacy is a little far-fetched. At that point I find it hard to take the discussion seriously anymore. Nobody's phone was "invaded". People were  gifted an item that they might not have wanted, that's all.

I'm sorry, it's fine to compare this to spam if you want to (even though I might disagree), but to call it an invasion of privacy is a little far-fetched. At that point I find it hard to take the discussion seriously anymore. Nobody's phone was "invaded". People were  gifted an item that they might not have wanted, that's all.

 

This.

 

They maybe didn't execute the delivery of the gift very well. An email or something with instructions on how to claim your free U2 album (if you wanted it) probably would have been better received. But the rhetoric of this is getting a little ridiculous.

Not a big Apple fan myself, but I agree this is blown out of proportion.

Could they have had a better delivery system, with an email like some are suggesting, yes, but it doesn't deserve all the bitching

Hilarious.  give people the option to DL it themselves...dont force it on others.

Unfortunately, Apple doesn't grasp too well the idea of choice.  Heck, they have decided for you that you don't need an SD card in your iPhone or iPad, nor do you need a USB slot on an iPad.  Since they know better than their customers, why would they give them a choice?

Removal tool? Please. It's the equivalent of a dialog box that pops up saying, "Are you sure you want to remove this file? If you click yes, you can't get it back if you do!"

That might be a little much for some people who have Apple devices.

Unfortunately, Apple doesn't grasp too well the idea of choice.  Heck, they have decided for you that you don't need an SD card in your iPhone or iPad, nor do you need a USB slot on an iPad.  Since they know better than their customers, why would they give them a choice?

That might be a little much for some people who have Apple devices.

 

Okay, let's look at that SD card example.

 

What are we trying to solve here, what's the actual crux of the matter? Well, people have different storage needs. Some need less and don't want to pay for more storage than they require, and some need a lot of storage. Solution? We'll sell phones with different amounts of storage.

 

As a designer or engineer, do you ask whether we should support SD cards? Or do you ask why people use SD cards? Indeed, why? To add storage? Well give them enough built-in storage so that they don't have to go out and buy an SD card. The alternative is to ship, and hence charge people for, reader hardware that not everybody might use, and which takes up volume on the device. And once you ship with this reader, you create a dependency on that reader for future generations of the device. Think really hard before adding this kind of dependency. Once added, you can't easily take it away from people who have come to depend on it.

 

What's the other use of an SD card - to transfer files? Give them email, messaging, and allow third party apps so that Dropbox etc. can offer solutions. Why not an SD card? Well, the receiving device needs to have a reader too. Plus if the receiving device needs to be able to read the files that means that we can't encrypt the storage layer! Do you want people to be able to pick your phone up, take the SD card out and simply copy your files?

 

SD cards aren't an end unto themselves. Solve problems instead of thinking in terms of features. Remember where SD cards come from. They were originally created to store photos on cameras back in the days when storage was counted in megabytes and you needed to carry multiple cards to cater for one photo shoot. Why add mechanical, electronic and software complexity to a device if you're simply going to stick an SD card in and leave it there all the time? Ship with enough built-in storage. Solve the real problem. SD cards were also meant to transfer photos back to the photographer's computer back when cameras couldn't simply stream photos out in real time as you took them. What Does a Horse?s Ass have to do with The Space Shuttle?

 

People put "choice" on a pedestal like it's a binary. It's not "choice" vs. "no choice". It's a continuum on a scale. But how opinionated should a solution be? It's better for a design to take a stance. You know for a fact that you won't be able to please everybody, so don't try to do that at the expense of adding complexity to your solution, hence making it less convenient and less effective. Some people will not use your product as a result, but hey, there are other products that will please them. A great solution elicits the reaction - Well of course it works this way. How else would it? Conversely, you may also have a strong adverse reaction from some people. But that's inevitable. Better to solve the problem really well for some people than to offer a middling solution for most people. Anyone who's ever designed anything will know that customisation can be a cop out. "I can't solve this problem, we'll let the people decide". If you're having to add tons of settings to cater for edge cases, then maybe it's time to rethink the problem. As a programmer, when that happens, I know that I need to raise the abstraction level, take a step back and look at the problem again from a higher vantage point. It's a sign that I'm solving the wrong problem.

 

So know when choice is important, and what form it takes. Maybe it doesn't take the form of an SD card. Maybe it takes the form of different amounts of built-in storage. Granted, sometimes customisability for the sake of personalisation trumps almost everything else. Well guess who's offering the most choices with their smart watch?

Was it automatically downloaded to your phone taking up space you may not want to spare?  I don't own one but what they did was wrong.

 

Strange the u2 album was not auto downloaded on my ipod. I guess it's an option you need to turn on.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Hi all. I have a seven year old Acer laptop which according to Acer website can't receive the new MS updates. This device lives in my bedroom and is purely a consumption device. No gaming, no nothing. I have followed online instructions and turned off secure boot which now gives me a green tick in W11 Security. Now, I have MWB Premium now for several years and I'm reasonably careful with my online activity with this laptop. I'm also not a gamer in any way so I'm not asking much from this laptop. Given that, am I safe to continue using this device given I've turned off secure boot? That's it, that's my question.
    • finally [Taskbar] Taskbar customization just got easier. As we continue to make improvements to the Taskbar experience mentioned last month, we've introduced a dedicated Taskbar Size setting, making it simpler to find, understand, and personalize your ideal taskbar experience.
    • Let me get this straight... It was a web interface for Gmail, so if privacy at Google wasn't concerning enough you'd be going through two companies. And their big feature was the very thing that would make people consider dumping Gmail.
    • Microsoft's fast coding model MAI-Code-1-Flash comes to Copilot Business and Enterprise by Karthik Mudaliar Microsoft’s recently announced MAI-Code-1-Flash model is now generally available to GitHub Copilot Business and Copilot Enterprise customers. With this support, organizations can have more centralized policy controls and billing while finally being able to use Microsoft’s lightweight, first-party coding model. According to GitHub’s announcement, Business and Enterprise plan administrators must enable the MAI-Code-1-Flash policy in Copilot settings before developers can access the model. Microsoft says that MAI-Code-1-Flash is for fast, iterative coding work rather than the most demanding architectural or debugging tasks. GitHub’s official model comparison page says that the model is great for "general-purpose coding and writing," while it excels at fast, accurate code completions and explanations Microsoft introduced MAI-Code-1-Flash on June 2 as part of a broader collection of internally developed MAI models. GitHub subsequently expanded support to Copilot CLI, the Copilot cloud agent, GitHub.com chat, GitHub Mobile, Visual Studio, JetBrains IDEs, Eclipse, and Xcode, but said support for managed Business and Enterprise customers was still on the way. In Microsoft’s own benchmark testing, MAI-Code-1-Flash scored 51.2% on SWE-Bench Pro, compared with 35.2% for Anthropic’s Claude Haiku 4.5. Microsoft also claimed that the model used up to 60% fewer tokens on SWE-Bench Verified. Do note that these are vendor-run results rather than independent measurements. The model is billed at provider list pricing under GitHub’s usage-based system. GitHub currently lists MAI-Code-1-Flash at $0.75 per million input tokens, $0.075 per million cached input tokens, and $4.50 per million output tokens. For organizations, the main incentive to use MAI-Code-1-Flash is likely to be efficiency rather than maximum capability. A smaller model that responds quickly and limits unnecessary output is quite useful for repetitive agent tasks at scale, especially after GitHub Copilot’s move toward usage-based billing. The "Flash" model is recommended for fast work and not necessarily for huge repositories with loads of context. It's better if teams compare their output with other larger models, especially if they're working on security-sensitive changes and complex, multi-file work.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      462
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      213
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      157
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!