All anyone would say is that I need to contact Seller Performance to attempt to get back on. I tried doing their "Contact Us" methods, but no one would respond to my messages or talk to me on the phone, since the account was suspended. I sent the same info I had sent, and this time included full tracking info for all of the affected orders (and by this time most of them had already been delivered). Their response was simply that our late shipment rate was too high and that my account was suspended as a result. I explained what happened, showed them how I fixed it, and explained how we'd ensure it didn't happen again. I wrote to Seller Performance about this, exactly as they instruct you to. I got the order software working right again, and I manually marked all the "unshipped"-but-actually-shipped orders as shipped and added the tracking. I immediately figured out what went wrong. Amazon sent a warning that our late shipment rate was too high just an hour or so before they sent an notification saying we lost selling privileges. Customers weren't complaining since they were getting their stuff. Something got messed up with our order software so that when we shipped something it wasn't marked as shipped and the tracking info was not uploaded to Amazon for a few days during a busy season. But I can state factually that they don't always indicate that you're about to be shut down, nor do they always make it remotely easy to get back on or even figure out why you were shut down.įor instance, I went through quite a Kafka-esque nightmare just a few months ago. Sometimes dealing with it was as you described. I've been selling on Amazon for 6+ years and have lost selling privileges a few times (every time due to an issue with our order management software). Apple's inscrutable opaque approval process is another annoying risk on top of that, but whether you're going to eat shouldn't be a part of the equation here. You do it to make money, and you do it knowing the risk that it won't be successful and you won't make any money. You don't create an app on the app store as a last ditch attempt to feed your family. In the context of the original comment, the "need to eat" phrase was used in the context of an app developer. It's used that way because the former statement elicits sympathy and the latter statement attracts derision. The point I was making is that this rhetorical device of "I need to eat" is used way too often as a euphemism for "I want to make a lot of money". success is the difference between eating and not eating, you've made that decision consciously, knowing that you (necessarily) have the skills to get other jobs without such dire consequences. If you're most concerned with just making enough money to eat, you have a huge number of jobs available. Yes of course, your family needs to eat and you need to eat. However given that the contracts governing the relationship were known in advance, the situation is just the realization of the risks inherent in doing business. If the developer was wronged, he could file a lawsuit. This isn't dumping chemicals into rivers or denying service based on skin color. Society isn't harmed by this company not being able to sell on the App Store. I feel bad for the situation, but extending government power into private business relationships is a bad idea. This company can still sell their products, just not at that particular store. Should there be a law that when a girl (or guy) doesn't accept a dinner invitation that they provide a valid reason? That's really what this comes down to. However making laws to require it? That's absurd. I get it: Apple should give the guy an explanation. Imagine it this way: you are a contract developer, should you have no right to terminate a contract with a client under the terms of the agreement? Almost every contract I'be ever signed as a developer has some form of "either party can terminate this agree with notice."įrom what I am reading here, we want to hold Apple to different rules than the ones we ourselves routinely follow? A company should have the right to terminate a business arrangement provided the terms of the contract governing such an arrangement are upheld. Apple dumping a dev? Not even remotely close. Dumping chemicals harms society - even those who are not participating in a particular market. These aren't even in the same league of similarity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |