I have to ask though. The terms of this contract seem to mostly in contradiction to what they advertise their product to be.
They tell people they are offering the ability to develop and sell apps on the app store, but the terms of the contract make it explicit, that people pay $99 for 'whatever Apple feels like delivering', up and including nothing at all.
This is all well and good, but their advertising is misleading. They should have to be made to change the way they pitch the developers license.
I understand that. However, I am just pointing out the symantic content of that particular clause. So long as companies make good, and operate in good faith, it is smooth sailing.
Bad faith, or indifference to the real (or even imagined) economic impact on those who threw their lot into the Apple's corporate economy, changes the aggreableness/fairness of the contract terms.
I am given to understand from some random converstations with those who work contract law, that disproportionate terms are not enforcable to some degree.
"Anyone who wants to take on Apple in a court of law over something like this is going to be laughed out of court.
Do you really think Apple's legal counsel doesn't also know everything you've stated?"
Hmm, depends on if Apple counsel assumed Apple would be seen as operating in good faith.
Perhaps you conversant with contract law to know these things?
In essense, I am asking a very simple question: Does Apple's terms include Apple retaining the right to take $99 from anybody and delivery *nothing* in return? The terms of the contract seem to suggest "yes".
It doesn't matter to me if the terms of the agreement mean, "yes", but Apple should not advertise then, that a developer's license means that you can develop code, or indeed have any access to the app store. Indeed the terms of the agreement are: we can take your money and do to you whatever we want. I simply advocate that they should adhere to truth in advertizing.
That's the magic of software ! The only industry sector where the consequence of malfunction and loss resulting from incorrect design are to be swallowed by the end-user. I can imagine what this approach could do for car manufacturing. Apple is certainly not the worst in this category, so I'm not going to sing this song very long.
So, conclusion to Chester20. Bite the bullet, find something else to do until it is resolved.
Which seems to be ... NOW. Back to work, case closed.