Apple Faces Class-Action Suit For In-App Purchases 283
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica:
"Garen Meguerian and a team of lawyers are taking Apple to task for 'inducing' children to spend hundreds of dollars of their parents' money on in-app game purchases. Meguerian filed a class-action lawsuit this week in California, acknowledging that Apple has already addressed the problem, but saying that the company continues to unfairly profit from sales of virtual 'smurfberries' and 'fish bucks.' The issue at hand is related to games that rely on a 'freemium' business model, giving away the game for free on the App Store and relying on in-app purchases of virtual currency, extra levels, or other add-ons as a revenue stream."
Bad parenting (Score:4, Insightful)
So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?
How about this: don't give your kid the iTunes account password?
WORKAROUND AVAILABLE (Score:3)
Apple has already released a workaround for this issue:
iOS Settings/Store/AppleID/Sign Out
Also, it appears NYC is also helping out with the issue. [apple.com]
Re:Bad parenting (Score:5, Insightful)
So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?
How about this: don't give your kid the iTunes account password?
The point is THEY WEREN'T GIVING THEIR KIDS THE PASSWORD. They typed it in for them to "buy" a free app and then the kids bought things from within that app in the 15 minute window you can buy things without having to re-type the password.
I would VERY much prefer an option to disable that password caching altogether. When I buy something I want the device to require the password each and every time I spend money.
Re: (Score:2)
So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?
How about this: don't give your kid the iTunes account password?
The point is THEY WEREN'T GIVING THEIR KIDS THE PASSWORD. They typed it in for them to "buy" a free app and then the kids bought things from within that app in the 15 minute window you can buy things without having to re-type the password.
I would VERY much prefer an option to disable that password caching altogether. When I buy something I want the device to require the password each and every time I spend money.
That's already an option now.
Re:Bad parenting (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: this is a children's game. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A CHILDREN'S GAME TO ALLOW ITS PLAYERS TO SPEND $100 ON IN-GAME ITEMS.
What the fuck is wrong with you "parents are being neglectful" people?
--Jeremy
Most "blame the parents" don't have kids (Score:3)
Unless you actually have kids, your opinion about what is right and wrong involving raising kids means less than nothing. It's a bunch of assumptions glued together with logic that has absolutely no bearing on what it's really like to raise children.
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of bad parenting out there -- but knee-jerk reactions saying "BAD PARENTS" is so naive it's almost not worth the trouble to respond to.
And Apple is completely faultless? (Score:2)
There are huge numbers of problems with the singularly minded idea that there is only one person at fault here.
1) On a moral level, as the old saying goes, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
2) Technology, even Apple's is complicated. One might be an expert in construction, art, cleaning, accounting, or teaching, but I'll be damned if I continue to see people who can't figure out their super cool iPhones and the apps that go along with it.
3) Parents aren't perfect. Sometimes a
Re:Bad parenting (Score:4, Informative)
An obvious problem with all these "stupid parent posts" is that these kids in most jurisdictions can't enter contracts without the consent of their parents or guardians, so I'm curious as to why everyone is saying "stupid parent", when they should be saying "stupid Apple lawyers".
Re: (Score:3)
According to GP, the *parent* was the one who did the downloading/install for his kid. Kinda implies that the parent agreed to the terms on the kid's behalf anyway.
My vote is for "stupid parent" - esp. with the comment about demanding that he not be arsed to "read all about these apps" first. :/
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An obvious problem with all these "stupid parent posts" is that these kids in most jurisdictions can't enter contracts without the consent of their parents or guardians, so I'm curious as to why everyone is saying "stupid parent", when they should be saying "stupid Apple lawyers".
Um, because parents, as ADULTS, are expected to have the requisite judgment to not simply allow unfettered access to their bank accounts by their children?
Apple promptly fixed this loophole when the "child abuse" (see what I did there?) was uncovered. It was one of those, in retrospect, "ease-of-use over security" decisions, and Apple, to their credit (no pun), promptly fixed their usability-hole problem, so the issue would be done and over with.
There was no willful and wanton attempt by Apple to defrau
Re: (Score:2)
How is that worthy of class action? It wasn't any sort of bait-and-switch, and isn't a secret. In fact, Apple highly touts this as a reason for people to choose iOS devices.
Re:Bad parenting (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying large corporations should be excused from unethical behavior? Are you saying consumers should not assume that everything Apple (and other corporations) does is hostile to consumers' best interests?
If you have to perform "due diligence" just to buy a consumer product to make sure it's not going to rip you off, you should probably scratch that company off the list of companies you'll do business with.
I'm not trying to pick on Apple here. So many corporations have broken trust with their customers that the only solution is to have the government place a heavy regulatory foot on their necks which doesn't get removed until the company proves it's not going to rip off consumers. Considering the complex nature of computer software, and the labyrinthine complexity of end user licenses and agreements, there is no practical way that any individual consumer can protect himself. It's got to be done by someone who has the same legal and financial power as the company. The only entity that fits that bill is the government.
The non-existent "free market" has already shown its insufficiency in protecting consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be a hell of a lot harder to operate an unethical corporation if people were wiser, more savvy, less naive, and performed due diligence. Really it'd be damn near impossible to be unethical without clearly and obviously breaking criminal law.
We have the same problem in the marketplace that we have in government: the real power does come from the regular people, but they have forgotten that. They have abdicated their own responsibility (due diligence) and are shocked that this leaves room for any bad r
Re: (Score:3)
Please stop blaming the victims.
So you believe Apple's customers asked for applications that had "in-app" purchases and Apple simply acquiesced? That if Apple's customers had not begged Apple to sell programs with in-app purchase
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A "closed-platform" that the company actively markets to children and turns out to be hostile to their best interests cannot blame anyone but itself when a lawsuit comes crashing down on their head.
With their "walled garden" Apple is saying "these applications are safe. We give our stamp of approval. In fact, you can get no other apps than the ones we approve". If those apps prey on children, it's n
Re: (Score:3)
If those apps prey on children, it's no longer the developers who are to blame, but Apple.
I think you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of a "legal guardian", and the responsibilities that they have for their children. The child abusers are the parents who fail to educate their children. The parents are at fault for failing to understand that they are giving their children the power to spend money. If the parents do not want the money to be spent, they need to be smarter about it.
The parents
Re: (Score:3)
Let me ask you a question: Do you believe companies design their EULAs to be read?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm gonna have to disagree... just look at the Smurf Village game. In order to do about anything, you have to use Smurfberries (which you can buy). That game is definitely targeted at children. It's a predatory practice, kinda like those web games asking to dial in a 900 number to buy stuff for your game...
Children won't know the difference between virtual and real money and will ramp up a bill...
BTW, Farmville is no different...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, conscientious parents are suing Apple for preying on children. And they found out about Apple preying on their children by watching what their children were doing.
It's far more likely they're suing because they got the bill and saw how much virtual currency their child purchased, and rather than blaming their child for doing something stupid, or blaming themselves for not actually watching their child, they resort to court action. Because if it's one thing courts are good for, it's fixing problems in ways that make everyone happy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you have kids? If so, do you hover over their shoulders during every activity they undertake?
If you are a parent, then I'd imagine that getting the kids distracted for a couple hours with a silly game (which you have no idea has these revenue traps built in at the outset) lets you get some stuff done around the house or just a few minutes of peace and quiet.
I'm not arguing that the lawsuits aren't frivolous, but blaming the parents for not being omniscient is just plain stupid.
Easy Way Out (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess taking a multinational corp to court is easier than being a responsible parent these days.
Here's a hint: if they are too young and dumb^H^H^H^Hnaive to be trusted with a toy or device that lets them spend money, a parent who's worth a damn will wait until they're old enough to handle it before giving it to them. A parent who's worth a d
Re:Easy Way Out (Score:4, Informative)
OTOH I've had my kids' phones "virused" with pay-per-month crap... The invitation is sent as a text, and it's the typical "Hey check this out!" and all the kid has to do is reply. Bang! $10/month for ever for a monthly fortune. I don't know what stuff Apple was pulling, but certainly the texts my kids got were deceiving and not clear. And T-Mobile was complicit in allowing these operators to continue, no doubt getting a big slice of the action. I asked my daughter if she ever subscribed intentionally; she didn't even know she had subscribed. And T-Mobile admitted when I bitched about it that the come-on was often deceptive.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you blocked all incoming X except Whitelisted stuff? Only his 4 friends and say 5 companies can text him?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Easy Way Out (Score:4, Interesting)
This is one of those issues of parenthood.... My daughter sends some 7K per month. Of those, 2 in the last year were bad (resulting in extra charges). That to me is responsible use. (And lest people start yelling at me about her 'excessive' use, we don't have cable TV, she's on the honor roll and carries an A to A+ average in school, blah, blah, blah. She's not a slacker.)
So imposing draconian limits on her use is not the answer. The fault lies with deceptive and fraudulent marketing tactics. teaching her to be more careful, yes. Punishing, no.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those issues of parenthood.... My daughter sends some 7K per month
I'm curious: Just HOW thick are the callouses on her thumbs?
Re: (Score:2)
She uses her fingernails, filed to sharp points.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know what stuff Apple was pulling
From Day 1, Apple has had parental controls that can disable the ability to make any App Store purchases on the device. And by default the phone would ask for the iTunes password whenever a new app was downloaded. The problem initially is that in app purchases didn't require a password every time. Apple has since corrected that.
Outside of that, Apple has done nothing. App developers are the ones putting in the in app purchases and promoting them in a way that chi
Re:Easy Way Out (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, that's different from the crap T-Mobile was pulling....
My kids' iPods are hooked to their debit (cash) cards. So if they spend money, it's their own - and limited by the amount of cash they have. They spend wisely. (Amazing how frugal kids get when they're spending their own money.)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, shouldn't all parents do this? It will just give errors "you're out of funds this month until you reload".
Re:Easy Way Out (Score:4, Insightful)
From Day 1, Apple has had parental controls that can disable the ability to make any App Store purchases on the device. And by default the phone would ask for the iTunes password whenever a new app was downloaded.
Well yes, you can completely disable app store purchases. However, they do not now, and never have considered $0 purchases any differently than $1000 purchases. Why not a graduated scale? Or allow $0 purchases without a password (after all, who cares about a $0 purchase?).
And the default of is not to ask for the password for every app purchase. They only ask once every 15 minutes. So you could get one app and not have to reauthenticate again if you immediately got another.
The problem initially is that in app purchases didn't require a password every time.
App purchases didn't "require" a password ever, as long as you had performed any authenticated iTunes login and purchase in the last 15 minutes. So if you don't let your children have the password, and you find a free game, like the Smurf one, download it and hand the phone to them, they have 15 minutes of in-app purchases without authentication. There was no way at all to turn off that functionality. What I'd do was to get the app then put it in airplane mode, start a countdown, and hand over the phone. No calls for 15 minutes, but no charges. When the alarm went off, I could take it out of airplane mode. From what I can tell, that's the easiest way to enforce on in-app purchases.
Apple has since corrected that.
They released a new OS that everyone would have to upgrade to. Because of their choice to never patch an OS, but instead to release new ones, this means that anyone with a 2G or 3G iPhone can never get the "fix." We have two iPhones, and they are the ones that can never get that OS. So it isn't fixed. I don't know the distribution of sales, but I'd guess that the number of iPhones sold which can't be "fixed" exceeds the number that can. And that's apparently ok with you.
Outside of that, Apple has done nothing.
They created a security model that considers the download of a $0 app to require the same security as $1000 of smurfberries, and that authorizing a single $0 app should authorize and infinite amount of other app and in-app purchases. That's a little sloppy. Once it's pointed out and it takes them years to fix it (spending most of that time doing what I see here and blaming parents for their inherently broken security) and then the fix doesn't work for many (most?) iPhones, it's no longer sloppy, it's negligent.
App developers are the ones putting in the in app purchases and promoting them in a way that children were getting to them. There may be some liability since Apple does have a curated app store, but it's going to be hard to prove intent that Apple was in any way doing this intentionally.
It's easy to prove they did it intentionally. How? It happened. People complained. Years passed... If they didn't do it intentionally, they continued the practice intentionally. The "best" fix is to allow users to disable in-app purchases of any kind. However, Apple doesn't want that because they make 30% of errors. They want people to make errors and then not demand refunds because the users feel silly asking for a refund for something they did and know they did, even if it was unintentional. Apple is profiting from these, and they were negligently slow in addressing the issue (and did so in a way that affected the least possible number of phones). And here you are lining up to blame the parents and exonerate Apple. I just don't see it.
Re: (Score:3)
Well yes, you can completely disable app store purchases. However, they do not now, and never have considered $0 purchases any differently than $1000 purchases. Why not a graduated scale? Or allow $0 purchases without a password (after all, who cares about a $0 purchase?).
I think that is more of a last confirmation that anything else. Do you really want to install this app even though it's free.
Because of their choice to never patch an OS, but instead to release new ones, this means that anyone with a 2G or 3G iPhone can never get the "fix."
I'm pretty sure that iPhone owners have been able to get patches [wikipedia.org]. With the last major release 4.3, iPhone 3G owners were excluded but considering they went from 2.0-->3.0->4.2 and all minor version in between, they have been getting patches.
They created a security model that considers the download of a $0 app to require the same security as $1000 of smurfberries, and that authorizing a single $0 app should authorize and infinite amount of other app and in-app purchases.
What's to stop a child from making a bunch of non $0 purchases after the purchase of your $1000 app? Nothing?
The "best" fix is to allow users to disable in-app purchases of any kind.
Since 3.0: iPhone/iPod Touc
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
oohOohhh OOOOH! Well reasoned and said. I guess Apple doesn't vet and approve each and every item in the App store, and never ever pulls anything it considers offensive to its strict code....
Anyway, I was reacting to the quick draw "blame the parents" crap, not so much the Apple bashing.
Re: (Score:2)
oohOohhh OOOOH! Well reasoned and said. I guess Apple doesn't vet and approve each and every item in the App store, and never ever pulls anything it considers offensive to its strict code....
Anyway, I was reacting to the quick draw "blame the parents" crap, not so much the Apple bashing.
The parents are the ones making the purchasing decisions. That means they are to blame, ultimately, for being naive and trusting instead of knowing what they were buying. Parents like this are why you have companies like this who create problems like this. Is the company doing something bad here? Yes, it is. But take that a step further. What is the ultimate financial foundation that had to be laid down first before the company could dream of doing that? There had to be a market for it.
When I really
Never mind that fact... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying Apple hasn't been somewhat irresponsible for making it so easy to run up bills but a class action lawsuit is a little extreme for something that the parents are equally, if not more responsible for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The government.
Or, single mothers who want to show off their amazing independence^H selfishness by raising a bunch of bastard children with no father figure around even though it's well known that children who come from two-parent homes are much more likely to graduate from school, get decent jobs, stay out of jail, avoid becoming teen parents, etc. But those single mothers love their kids so much they think this doesn't apply to them. Course a lot of them are usin
Re: (Score:3)
To get a driver's license you have to pass a written and driving test.
To get a concealed weapons permit you have to pass a written test and proficiency test.
In some cities to have a dog you need a license.
To spawn, all it takes is boredom and ignorance.
Re:Never mind that fact... (Score:4, Interesting)
But if you want to raise a child and don't want to spawn, it takes $25k and two years and you better have no dings on your mental health record.
We have friends who always wanted to adopt, but they are in a different state working for a few years. There's no point in starting the process there, because when they move (and they'll plan to move), they lose all the money and all the progress and would have to start over.
So they just made their own baby. Of course they can take care of their own, but that means there's some un-adopted baby out there who just lost parents.
Re: (Score:2)
To get a driver's license you have to pass a written and driving test.
To get a concealed weapons permit you have to pass a written test and proficiency test.
In some cities to have a dog you need a license.
To spawn, all it takes is boredom and ignorance.
I think there is actually a sort of logic to that.
If we as a civilization have become so decadent and degenerate that parents are no longer willing to do whatever is necessary to provide their children with a good, stable, loving home so that hopefully their children can have a better life than they did, then we are already so far gone that we have deeper problems than a licensing system is likely to solve.
That's without getting into issues like: has the government displayed such competence and excellence a
Re: (Score:2)
A better question, have parents displayed such competence and excellence and wisdom in all the other things it tries to handle these days that you could make a compelling case for its worthiness of being entrusted with such an important decision as parenting?
My answer would be no, so the government couldn't screw it up worse then the DNA donors already have.
Re: (Score:2)
I really should have emphasized the sarcasm and personal frustration of "Who told them parenting wasn't hard work?" I agree with everything you've laid out. Too many people don't realize the work required to raise a child. I do infact love that there is a charity that will pay drug an alcohol abusers to be sterilized so that they can't have children. It may be controversial but at least somebody is being proactive about improving this messed up society.
Yes, but truth hurts especially when it involves facts we'd rather not admit about things that tend to get idolized like motherhood. Done wisely there'd be no need to put it on a pedestal because it would stand on the merits of its own inherent virtues. Done poorly the damage it does to society is quite real simply because of the awesome responsibility it represents. Personally I am all for adults doing whatever they want to do, up until they allow their bad decision-making to affect others.
Far as the st
Re: (Score:3)
I'm assuming the kids are playing the game on the parents' iphone. Nothing wrong with keeping the kids occupied on a long car trip. Would you rather they count out-of-state license plates or something equally mind-numbing?
Long car trip? (Score:2)
You could always do what my parents did when I was a kid.
Talk with them. Teach them things you think they should know. Discuss your family history. Bring some books along that they can read aloud and *discuss* with you. Ask them stuff. Sing songs - and make a few up while you're at it. Talk about what makes the weather they see outside, or teach them the different kinds of trees/cacti/mountains/etc they see passing by the window. If you have more than one kid, supply a couple of notebooks and pencils, and h
Re: (Score:2)
If the parent is the driver of the vehicle and single adult present, then this option is not really an option. A few senteces here or there can help break the trance of the drive. But trying to have any kind of sustained conversation can lead to accidents. It's just as bad as talking on the phone and driving.
Actually there is something particular about talking on a cellphone. It affects driving in a way that conversing with a physically present passenger does not. That's why it has been noticed as a problem, laws have been passed against it, controversies have arisen, studies have been made, etc, when no such effects have arisen out of having more than one person physically occupying a vehicle.
There's even been some interesting speculation about whether the microwave radiation might affect the brain in ways w
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course I would rather have my children come up with something to entertain themselves then to have them spoon-fed with commercial drivel. I remember these car trips from when I was younger. Every power line looked like a cable car or railway line, license plates were interesting as well - but this is Europe so they might be more varied than in the US - and the great blue (and all to often gray) yonder was (and
Re: (Score:3)
Parenting is hard work. And sometimes you have a choice between having a whiny and crabby kid or giving the kid something to entertain him or her for a few minutes. If you want to argue that whiny and crabby is better because it doesn't involve electronic diversion, be my guest, but you'll have to be pretty darn convincing before I'll buy it.
So, if I've got a young child, I might download an app to amuse the child for a few minutes. In doing so, I have to enter my password, and the phone is then author
Re: (Score:2)
Disable in-app purchases across the board. Then your kid will ask you if they can buy something, and you can evaluate each request on its merits.
Re: (Score:2)
Disable in-app purchases across the board. Then your kid will ask you if they can buy something, and you can evaluate each request on its merits.
Parents thought they would be doing exactly this by not giving their kids the passwords, so the kids had to come and ask their parents to type in the password for them. And then had to learn that for 15 minutes the kids could buy things without being presented with a password prompt.
Having to enable and disable in-app purchases over and over just to avoid to be run over by the 15 minute password caching is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. What about just DISABLING password caching, so that you have t
Re: (Score:2)
... that parents are buying their children (who clearly aren't yet older enough to understand financial responsibility) expensive pieces of technology so that they don't actually have to parent or spend time with their children. IMO it's becoming far to common place for parents to sit their children in front of a TV or video game so that they don't have to keep them occupied. Who told them parenting wasn't hard work?
Problem is most parents don't have a PhD from Parenting University. Junior or little Miss popped out and Mum and Dad have been on a running treadmill ever since, with scarcely a moment to see into the Crystal Ball of the future, to see what mischief their progeny will be up to next. Parents can use a little help from companies. Particularly where there is a sort of precedent.
I'm not saying Apple hasn't been somewhat irresponsible for making it so easy to run up bills but a class action lawsuit is a little extreme for something that the parents are equally, if not more responsible for.
Roll this back about 10 years and it's kids texting an added $5,000 to their parents mobile phone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying Apple hasn't been somewhat irresponsible for making it so easy to run up bills
I am.
Apple put a system-wide configuration option in iOS even BEFORE all this. It is up to the adult to use normal diligence when handing a device linked to their credit card info to their children and simply walking away.
I also believe that it is/was incumbent on the APP DEVELOPERS to limit the number of "smurfberries', or whatever, purchased during a particular time-period.
But, I guess everything is ultimately Apple's fault here in Slashdot-land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, there's a pretty simple way to prevent in-app purchases [cultofmac.com] built right in.
And if you think it's too hard to change a handful of parental control settings on your device, consider whether or not you'd allow a stranger to babysit your child without spending even a few moments getting to know them and finding out their name.
As if purchasing an expensive device to babysit your child wasn't bad enough, you want us to feel sympathy
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, there's a pretty simple way to prevent in-app purchases [cultofmac.com] built right in.
But maybe you don't want to prevent all in-app purchases? Maybe you only want to make sure that your kids don't buy things without your oversight? By keeping the password to yourself and having them ask you to buy things for them?
The trouble is the password caching for 15 minutes. Many parents thought (and still think) that by not giving the password to their kids and requiring them to come and ask to type in the password they would be safe against the kids buying things on their own. What's a password good
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2534 [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple take a cut of all sales. All sales have to go through Apple. If you've seen the ipod/phone/pad games, you will know they're 99% kiddy shit, and Apple does not provide a password option to prevent purchases from the device. They want this to happen, despite people asking for password/pin protection. You can't even download "free" games without Apple having you complete credit card details. That's obvious a problem, and they want it precisely clock up sales like this.
The parents are buying a toy/gadget and letting the kids play with it. It should come with some form of authentication on as a default to prevent this situation. It doesn't and Apple won't listen to customer requests. Fuck them, I hope they are torn to bits with this class action. There'll be no money at the end of it, but the publicity is going to cost them a fortune in lost sales.
Yeah...except that Apple required the password for in-app purchases in 4.3, which was before this lawsuit was filed. Yeah, you're right, they WANT this to happen so bad that they put in measures to prevent it! Gee, that kinda nullifies your entire ignorant, flaming, retarded rant, now doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Apple take a cut of all sales. All sales have to go through Apple. If you've seen the ipod/phone/pad games, you will know they're 99% kiddy shit, and Apple does not provide a password option to prevent purchases from the device. They want this to happen, despite people asking for password/pin protection. You can't even download "free" games without Apple having you complete credit card details. That's obvious a problem, and they want it precisely clock up sales like this.
BZZZT! Thanks for ASSuming, troll.
Apple added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. Check out page 115 of this iPhone OS 3.0 User Guide [apple.com] for the iPod Touch.
Or do you propose that they should have had the restriction in place BEFORE the feature was even available? Probably so, with your mentality.
I get really sick and tired of all the Apple hate.
Although I do find this business model stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The business model is far from stupid. It is in fact brillant. It is the exact same model as Magic the Gathering used and many other games and products. It is in fact the old give away the razor and sell the blades model, or the cheap printer and expensive ink model. It makes lots of money and provides a reoccurring revenue stream. As business models go it is great and very successful.
As a consumer I have no interest in a video game where I winning will come down to how much I am willing to spend. But that
Re: (Score:2)
The dynamics of in-app purchases change the basic nature of game play, that much is certain. I think those dynamics present a conflict of interest or at least a moral dilemma of some sort. For example developers are motivated to create exceedingly frustrating and/or impossible "scenarios" that can be by-passed with a purchase, where those scenarios don't crop up until the user is sufficiently invested in the game-play to consider making the purchase. Its one thing to sell add ons / extra levels, its anot
Re: (Score:2)
I can't really say Apple is doing anything wrong here. They have not only the option to disable said purchases available, they also went the extra step of modifying their password handling. Seems just like another case of stupid parenting to me.
Yes... but have you ever had a child in a public school? A child who is failing? Who do you blame? Parents or school?
There is a logic here, but it escapes me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until the password handling changed it was a bit of an issue. Having a "live" password for 15 minutes was like holding a ticking grenade. i.e. once you'd entered your password to download the free game (fine) it was also valid for in app purchases until the cooldown wore off. That I think was the major source of this issue, as you've said, now fixed (I think?).
Apple just did a PR stunt with the changes they did. Now you have two independent 15 minute windows, one for app purchases and one for in-app purchases. So you can still keep the password for yourself, type in the password for your kid to buy a game for a buck, give the iPod/iPhone/iPad back to your kid and the brat can continue to spend a fortune by buying a dozen more expensive games without ever seeing a password prompt. Same with in-app purchases: Type the password once for an in-app purchase, allow 15
Re: (Score:2)
Until the password handling changed it was a bit of an issue. Having a "live" password for 15 minutes was like holding a ticking grenade. i.e. once you'd entered your password to download the free game (fine) it was also valid for in app purchases until the cooldown wore off. That I think was the major source of this issue, as you've said, now fixed (I think?).
Kind of like that sudo timeout, eh?
Usability vs. Security is always a tradeoff. At least Apple fixed the problem when it was brought to their attention.
As a developer using in app purchases ... (Score:2)
Although I do find this business model stupid ...
What is stupid about in app purchases? Admittedly I have a technical product rather than a game, Perpenso Calc [perpenso.com], but if works along the freemium model. The free version offers scientific functionality including fractions, complex numbers and metric conversions however advanced features like RPN come in from in app purchases. Also this app is really five calculators in one. Rather than offer separate calculators for scientific, statistics, business, hex and bill tip I allow the latter four to be added via in
Protect the Children! (Score:2)
Lets toss money at this team of lawyers to save our children
Re: (Score:2)
Lets toss money at this team of lawyers to save our children
You mean, let's point this team of lawyers at Apple and see if they can draw money out of them and then possibly share the remaining 30% with us.
parents (Score:5, Insightful)
It was like the uproar over Beavis and Butthead many years ago. Even though parents were evidently responsible enough to get a tv, pay the electricity and the cable bill, they were not deemed responsible enough to monitor what the kids watched. Therefor MTV got in trouble when Beavis and Butthead tortured animals of set them afire. Evidently the kids would do the same and it was TV, not the parents fault.
So yes children are impressionable. Parents have to set limits on what kids are and are not able to do. But when parent make an explicitly decision to allow kids access to something, either by driving them there, or ordering a product, or giving access to a credit card, or whatever, it is no longer the companies fault. We saw this when kids were racking up huge phone and texting bills. I don't know what the issue was. If the kid can't use the phone, they don't get one, or have a prepaid.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully, it ended up getting thrown out, but still...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps is nothing more than whether a service should by default be enabled or not.
I'm a great one for a loud outburst of swearing every time I get a new computer with Microsoft Office on it, because I have to spend hours going through and turning off all the enabled by default options which I hate (and they are so clever at hiding the on/off buttons for.)
Where a purchasing ability is enabled by default, I can see that being a problem, particularly when they can't possibly be convincingly daft enough to bel
Re: (Score:2)
Or get an unlimited plan.
Apple is the responsible party (Score:4, Informative)
From the complaint: "The sale of an App and/or Game Currency is a transaction between Apple and the consumer. There is no privity between the user and the developer of the App...."
They're so right. Remember how Apple won't approve apps which do transactions that don't go through Apple? This is where that bites Apple. Apple is the seller, and the developers are its suppliers. There's no contractual relationship between the consumer and the developer. ("Privity" refers to the legal concept that if A has a contract with B, and B has a contract with C, A does not have a contract with C.)
Yes there is (Score:2)
There's no contractual relationship between the consumer and the developer.
Yes there is, because with an in-app purchase the consumer is saying they wish to give the app writer money in exchange for something.
What you are doing is like trying to sue the cash register maker because a kid bought something they shouldn't have.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes there is, because with an in-app purchase the consumer is saying they wish to give the app writer money in exchange for something.
But they're saying it to Apple. As the complaint points out, the app developer never sees the customer's payment data.
Now, if Apple's system let third parties collect payments directly, there would be a contractual relationship between the end user and the app developer. But Apple doesn't allow that. All the money passes through Apple's hands, and they take a cut. So they get hit with the liability if the transaction is illegal.
Apple Faces Class-Action Suit For In-App Purchases (Score:3, Insightful)
Press the Big Shiny Button for a Suprise! (Score:5, Informative)
Would you like to buy a cookie for your pet?
o_o
It's a really good cookie!
O_o
With chocolate and stuff!
O_O
Your pet will wuv oo!
@_@
You bought a cookie!
It was nummy!
Your pet wuvs oo!
Buy another?
@_@
Yay! Your pet weally, weally wuvs oo!
[repeat n times]
Thanks for buying all the cookies for your very happy pet!
Charging $483.75 to account.
+_+
Re: (Score:3)
Would you like to buy a new Macbook?
o_o
It's a really good Macbook!
O_o
With Thunderbolt and stuff!
O_O
Steve Jobs will wuv oo!
@_@
Questionable Business Practices (Score:2)
I'm not sure that Apple should itself be held responsible for the slimy practices of third-party developers (except that they do review all apps and should therefore be aware of questionable business practices), but I still think what some of these developers are doing is pretty screwed up. Games specifically designed to get as much money from kids who don't know how much money they're spending are borderline unethical. Their practices are similar to those of companies that sell ringtones designed to appeal
Re:Questionable Business Practices (Score:4, Insightful)
> I'm not sure that Apple should itself be held responsible for the slimy practices of third-party developers
They are a platform tyrant.
They have chosen to make themselves responsible.
Now that there are consequences, they should own up to them.
Now web games do the same sort of thing. Although it's more difficult to get carried away with it.
The iTunes approach to in-app purchases is kind of like a slot machine that takes credit cards.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and they changed their policies and password mechanisms in response to this, putting the onus back on the person who owns the credit card.
Alternatively you can set the account up with no credit card and then whatever the kid spends (if you give him your password) is limited to whatever is in the account from gift card top ups.
Nuisance Lawsuit. (Score:2)
1. You cannot buy anything from the App Store without having entered and stored a credit card account with Apple.
2. IOS has always had the ability to disable App Store purchases, both for apps, and for In-App Purchases.
3. Children should not be given such things without proper supervision.
Apple should countersue these stupid people for being such a nuisance.
Re: (Score:2)
So when you purchase something inside an iOS app, that app has the ability to use your current iTunes login to charge money to your iTunes account?
No. You have to put in your password.
Re: (Score:2)
So when you purchase something inside an iOS app, that app has the ability to use your current iTunes login to charge money to your iTunes account?
No. You have to put in your password.
Once you have put in your password to buy an app (even a free one) you can now buy things for 15 minutes without having to type your password.
Many people here don't seem to understand that exactly this is/was the problem for many parents: They did not give the password to their kids. They required their kids to ask nicely to buy/download an app and the parents then typed the password for them. And THEN the kids tapped around in the newly bought app and could spend huge sums of money without even knowing tha
Re: (Score:2)
Many people here don't seem to understand that exactly this is/was the problem for many parents:
We do understand, we just don't agree that it's a big issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And before you cry "bad parenting", you can't disable that feature.
The feature you disable is the "child has access to smartphone which is capable of making purchases" feature. You see, what you do is you walk over to the child, and you take the phone out of the child's hands...
Re: (Score:2)
Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model. For Apple to allow it is atrocious. There are much better alternatives, such as a short window to allow returns. I have kids with iOS devices, and thus hoping they win. Bad parenting? I don't have time to play every game to know its business model, but do try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.
I agree with you about the business model. That's why I don't buy iPhones. That's why I wouldn't buy them for anyone else, especially someone too young to be expected to understand financial responsibility. Problem solved. If Apple starts feeling lost sales they can do something about this -- they certainly have enough control over the platform and the App Store. If Apple doesn't care about that and feels satisfied with their sales figures, I can continue using and recommending something else.
One way o
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you about the business model. That's why I don't buy iPhones. That's why I wouldn't buy them for anyone else, especially someone too young to be expected to understand financial responsibility. Problem solved.
Next time, instead of spreading FUD to all those around you, why don't you become EDUTATED?
Apple first added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. AT THE VERY SAME TIME, they added a global lockout on that ability (see page 115 of the linked PDF for the User Manual for iPhone OS 3.0 [apple.com]). Just exactly how is that "slimy"?
It's a good thing for you that Apple has better things to do that sue people like you for libel and slander.
Re: (Score:2)
Do your kids understand how long-distance works on your phone?
Re: (Score:3)
Newsflash: if you give your kids the ability to spend your money, they will, generally speaking, spend it on "flashy things".
A simple answer to that is not to give them the ability to spend money. Last I checked, all purchases on iPhone require entering the Apple ID password. So you can create an account for them and tie the card to it so that you can buy apps for their phone, but you only need to not tell them the password.
Alternatively, open an account for them at the bank, and tie a debit card from that
Re: (Score:2)
Or do the simple and responsible thing - create a free account [apple.com].
Now, an iTunes Store also requires you to be 13 or older [apple.com]:
Many parents just take the easy way out and give their kids access to their own full account, meaning that th
Re: (Score:2)
The idea with debit card is to give some money for them to spend, but a limited amount, so that they learn to manage it on what they actually want (and not just every shiny thing they see). I.e. controlled spending where the kid can still choose what to buy for himself.
Paid apps also do in app purchase (Score:2)
... try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.
I have an app that is available in both paid and free versions, both offer in app purchases to expand functionality.
Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model ...
My app, Perpenso Calc [perpenso.com] is five calculators in one: scientific, statistics, business, hex and bill/tip. I could have one high priced paid app that offers all five calculators. Or I could have five separate low priced calculators. However I think the freemium model works well for my case. The scientific calculator is part of the free app but advanced features like RPN and the statistics, busines
How to handle consumable in app purchases? (Score:2)
Your app isn't targeted at children. Your app doesn't allow them to accidentally spend $100 on an in-app purchase that's right next to stuff that is bought with in-game currency. The developers of this game are slimy, trying to cash in on ignorance while they can.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that some developers as being slimy. However I am very curious to hear how people think options within a game should be handled. I hope to avoid becoming a slimy developer in the future. :-)
For instance lets say a game is freemium. Enhanced ammunition is optional. Additional levels are optional. Levels would be a non-cunsumable in app purchase, a one time thing, like the app itself they could always be re-enabled at no additional cost should the app be removed/reinstalled,
Re: (Score:2)
Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model. For Apple to allow it is atrocious. There are much better alternatives, such as a short window to allow returns. I have kids with iOS devices, and thus hoping they win. Bad parenting? I don't have time to play every game to know its business model, but do try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.
Um, Apple first allowed in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. At the very same time [apple.com], they instituted a global preference to disable in-app purchases (see page 115 of the PDF).
I believe your ire SHOULD be directed to the "slimy business model" of the app DEVELOPERS; who put absolutely ZERO restrictions or "reasonability tests" into the APP to prevent this, and then laughed all the way to the bank. Which one of THEM has stepped up to the plate and offered a REFUND?
I fail to see that Apple REQUIRES a CC (Score:4, Informative)
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2534 [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't require a credit card. You can have an iTunes store account without a credit card and fund it entirely through purchased iTunes gift cards that you can buy with cash in a store.
Details on setting up are left as an exercise to the reader with access to google and about 15 seconds of spare time.
Re: (Score:2)
This has perplexed me since I first bought an IPod 4th gen. Why on earth are you required to attach a credit card to an account? I fail to see the need for it. As far as kids racking up bills...That would immediately solve the problem. All the kids would have access to are the free apps.
Well, Apple requires a CC to set up an accout so that you can buy things. If you don't like that you can easily remove your CC data after the accout setup is finished. You can still buy things with ITMS gift cards then.
Still: If you have an iPod/iPhone/iPad and give it to your kids now and then it's actually a quite reasonable thing to have CC data on file and just keep the password for yourself. If your kids want to buy/download an app you can still type the password for them if you allow them this app. Th
Re: (Score:2)
One parent got 10,000$ bill [freeblogspot.org] for this. And before you cry "bad parenting", you can't disable that feature. You/your kid just installs some innocent and free game, and then when you are absent, he jacks up the phone bill. Yes, the phone bill, no CC needed.
Wrong.
Apple instituted a global lockout for in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0, the very same time the feature was first available. [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't let your kid drink Windex
Some parents would.
Curiously enough, that set has a nearly 100% overlap with the set of parents now participating in this lawsuit, and whining at Apple (yet again!) here on Slashdot.