First iOS, Now Mac OS X In-App Purchases Hacked

An anonymous reader writes "Last week Russian developer Alexey Borodin hacked Apple's In-App Purchase program for all devices running iOS 3.0 or later, allowing iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch users to circumvent the payment process and essentially steal in-app content. Apple [Friday] announced a temporary fix and that it would patch the holes with the release of iOS 6. While Cupertino was distracted, Borodin came in and pulled off the same scheme on the Mac."

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has recommended all along that you verify receipts to make sure they're not fake. Some apps don't, and can be hacked. How surprising.

Re:Overreacting

[mister_playboy]

Conflation of stealing and copying is deliberate propaganda by those who believe in imaginary property.

Corporate doublespeak and nothing more.

Patched

[mr100percent]

Apple already explained to developers [macnn.com] how to close the hole, with in-App receipts. Also, it's closed in iOS 6

Re:Overreacting

[jpapon]

He can't sell it if everyone just steals it. The problem with this "but they still have it" line of reasoning is that while it may work on an individual basis, it doesn't work in the aggregate. If everyone steals the app, then the developer's time is indeed being stolen, since they are getting paid nothing for their work. Just like the hooker.

This isn't a modern thing, as much as we like to make it out to be one. People have been selling intangibles for a long time and "theft" has applied to non-physical goods for just as long.

Re:Overreacting

[EdIII]

Language evolves.

Deal with it.

NO

This is not the evolution of language. It is the misappropriation of a word to give meaning to an action that is wholly inappropriate.

Evolution of language is just fine. For example, we could all agree that the word rape is an acceptable word to describe unflattering comments that a man may make to a woman regarding her pictures on Facebook. What is not fine, is applying the consequences of the "archaic" definition of the word at the same time.

If you insist on the stupidity of using the word steal to mean, "any acts of copyright infringement", then you must at the same time alter the perceived consequences and negativity of that word.

That does not make any sense does it? Why pervert and devalue the word steal when it is quite useful to mean the deprivation of real property without authorization? Why confuse the word with wholly contradictory definition?

Doing something that ridiculous is not the evolution of language at all. In fact, it is most often used as a manipulative tactic in the overall discussion of intellectual property, the Public Domain, and the evolution of our society with respect to both.