AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's settlement over in-app purchasing inches closer to approval, may include 23M refunds
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's settlement over in-app purchasing inches closer to approval, may include 23M refunds - Page 2

post #41 of 120
3/2/13 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


"It's Apple's fault I'm too lazy to learn about my device and take responsibility for the actions of my dependents!"

No it's Apple's fault that there's snakes in the walled garden. Aren't iOS devices so easy to use that a 2 day old kid or a senile old lady can use them? When you dumb things down for people guess what the end result is. They become lazy and stupid.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #42 of 120
3/2/13 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Not until we have implants in our eyes that can tell the device what the perceived brightness is there is no way for it to know.

Why can't it learn that the user sets a certain screen brightness under certain light conditions, simply remember user settings and mimic it when on auto.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #43 of 120
3/2/13 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

No it's Apple's fault that there's snakes in the walled garden. Aren't iOS devices so easy to use that a 2 day old kid or a senile old lady can use them? When you dumb things down for people guess what the end result is. They become lazy and stupid.

What a horribly myopic and elitist things to say. Computers are easier today then in years past but in no way does that mean that people are lazier and stupid for it. I know people of brilliant and hardworking people that don't know much about their CE because they simply put their efforts elsewhere; things they deem more important or worthy of their time. This doesn't mean they are lazy. This doesn't mean they are stupid. Do you know everything about your car's mechanics or how to fix every piece of machinery in your home? Of course not, but according to you that makes you lazy and stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Why can't it learn that the user sets a certain screen brightness under certain light conditions, simply remember user settings and mimic it when on auto.

I guess you could teach it but how would it now exactly the varying light sources or the dilation of your pupils or sensitivity of your rods and cones? Also, how would you teach it if you spend that time just trying to access the device to adjust it so it's overly bright in a dark area or overly dim in a bright in a dim area.

For example, you were at the movies one afternoon and were using yuor phone on the dimmest setting before the previews or movie started. It was then in your pocket they entire duration of the film (which means it has no way of knowing what your eyes can perceive as the sensor is in your pocket). You then take it out as you're existing the theater in bright daylight to find that your eyes haven't adjusted and it's too dim to see anything on the display. How exactly can you teach it if you can't use it without altering your environment to use it?

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #44 of 120
3/2/13 at 2:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What a horribly myopic and elitist things to say. Computers are easier today then in years past but in no way does that mean that people are lazier and stupid for it. I know people of brilliant and hardworking people that don't know much about their CE because they simply put their efforts elsewhere; things they deem more important or worthy of their time. This doesn't mean they are lazy. This doesn't mean they are stupid. Do you know everything about your car's mechanics or how to fix every piece of machinery in your home? Of course not, but according to you that makes you lazy and stupid.

Most times a car mechanic doesn't have to troubleshoot. He plugs his computer into the cars computer and all the detective work is done for him. Error codes come up telling him what's wrong with the car. We used to memorize phone numbers, nobody does that, we used to know math, everyone uses the built in calculator, we all used to have lovely penmanship but now most people write like chicken scratch. I for one love technology but it's slowly making us dumber and more reliant on it to tell us the things we used to know by heart.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #45 of 120
3/2/13 at 3:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Most times a car mechanic doesn't have to troubleshoot. He plugs his computer into the cars computer and all the detective work is done for him. Error codes come up telling him what's wrong with the car. We used to memorize phone numbers, nobody does that, we used to know math, everyone uses the built in calculator, we all used to have lovely penmanship but now most people write like chicken scratch. I for one love technology but it's slowly making us dumber and more reliant on it to tell us the things we used to know by heart.

1) So you think a mechanic is more stupid because cars are more complex with computerized systems that no only make it harder to tell where a problem resides but also can pin point a problem more precisely? FYI, those on-board system can't troubleshoot everything and often they indicate an issue without knowing about the root cause, and they are neither lazy as it not only means they have to know how to fix more vehicle types than in decades past but work the machines that can help them track down issues.

2) You think not remembering a phone number or using a pen as often to write to people makes you lazy and stupid? You sound like Luddite. Might as well just burn all your CE and buy a shake in the woods to live out your days.

3) It is impossible to see how you can love technology when you've done nothing for two posts but make sweeping claims that we are dumber and lazier for having it. I, personally, learn things that I would have had the chance to now if not for computers.

4) You keep saying technology but mastering fire is a technology, animal husbandry is a technology, agriculture is a technology, learning how to make earthen pots is a technology, medicine is a technology, language is a technology and on and on and on. We are living proof that technology has helped our species evolve and the fact that you have time between hunting, foraging and looking for shelter to contemplate the horrors of technology and then go on an internet forum to complain about it isn't proof that technology is bad but that you need a better hobby.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/2/13 at 3:15pm

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #46 of 120
3/2/13 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Should they hold the device for 15 minutes before letting their child use it?

Perhaps there should be a checkbox during the app purchase to indicate that the end user is a child thus enabling the immediate password feature otherwise the 15 minute rule is in effect. That way the parents could hand over the iPad right away to the impatient child. If the iPad had multi-user capability the parental controls could be activated like on OS X.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #47 of 120
3/2/13 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Perhaps there should be a checkbox during the app purchase to indicate that the end user is a child thus enabling the immediate password feature otherwise the 15 minute rule is in effect. That way the parents could hand over the iPad right away to the impatient child. If the iPad had multi-user capability the parental controls could be activated like on OS X.

I like that idea, as well as having a way to kill the 15 minute wait time after a purchase from the purchase page, but I think that defaulting tall in-app purchases to need a password by default should also be implemented.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #48 of 120
3/2/13 at 3:29pm

Agree. Do these parents also ask their toddlers to hold their beer for them?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #49 of 120
3/2/13 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

I highly suspect that those slamming the parents, don't have any young kids of their own.

 

The IAP thing happened to us last year.  Wife downloaded a game, gave the iPad to our daughter, ended up with $250 of purchases within minutes.    Fully expecting to pay for this mistake, we wrote Apple to simply ask how to prevent it in the future.  Apple voluntarily responded that they would remove the charges and sent a form email with instructions on how to turn off the "feature". 

 

Mind you, our daughter had used Android tablets for years before this... without any problem.  (She had preferred them because of all the online kid's apps that were based on Flash.)   Such games almost always have fake money to buy game options, and kids get used to that.

 

So we thought we doing good when we let her use an iPad instead, after she had expressed an interest in Apple products as she got older.  We figured that Apple, of all companies, would not have a system that was less kid and parent friendly than Android. 

 

It's heavily ironic that people will promote Apple's products as "they just work", and the iPad as "usable by even babies", and then turn around and claim buyers should know about every setting menu, in order to turn off something that should've been off by default in the first place.

 

Then again, most Android apps are free and developers never expect to make money on them. They expect them to be stolen.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #50 of 120
3/2/13 at 3:58pm
The whole in-app purchases was not originally a feature of apps. Apple added the feature to allow the developers a legitimate way of creating add-on purchases. Of course, this opened th editor for unscrupulous developers to put colourful, fun 'money' into their free apps, that look like part of the game, but are, In fact, ridiculous amounts of in-app purchases. So, who is responsible? Are parents to blame, no I don't think so, unless devices defaulted to no purchases and the parent turned in one and agreed to a list of terms and conditions. Is Apple to blame? They need to share part of th blame, for not defaulting to off, and possible for not limiting the maximum amount of in-app purchases to a reasonable amount ie. $10. Are the developers to blame? Absolutely. They new exactly what they were doing, planting purchases in games for 3 year olds, discuising them as part of the game. So, my verdict would be that settlement shout see Apple pay back 30% of the final amount, while the developers involved pay back the remaining 70% - seems like a logical price model. After all, Apple provided the vehicle, without the necessary restrictions, however, the developers demonstrated the intent and deceit, by wilfully and knowingly adding the purchases in games that were aimed at children who were unable to comprehend what they were doing.
Edited by leighr - 3/3/13 at 3:17am
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 120
3/2/13 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) So you think a mechanic is more stupid because cars are more complex with computerized systems that no only make it harder to tell where a problem resides but also can pin point a problem more precisely? FYI, those on-board system can't troubleshoot everything and often they indicate an issue without knowing about the root cause, and they are neither lazy as it not only means they have to know how to fix more vehicle types than in decades past but work the machines that can help them track down issues.

2) You think not remembering a phone number or using a pen as often to write to people makes you lazy and stupid? You sound like Luddite. Might as well just burn all your CE and buy a shake in the woods to live out your days.

3) It is impossible to see how you can love technology when you've done nothing for two posts but make sweeping claims that we are dumber and lazier for having it. I, personally, learn things that I would have had the chance to now if not for computers.

4) You keep saying technology but mastering fire is a technology, animal husbandry is a technology, agriculture is a technology, learning how to make earthen pots is a technology, medicine is a technology, language is a technology and on and on and on. We are living proof that technology has helped our species evolve and the fact that you have time between hunting, foraging and looking for shelter to contemplate the horrors of technology and then go on an internet forum to complain about it isn't proof that technology is bad but that you need a better hobby.

You have a problem over exaggerating. Are you one of those that always has a better story? "you know I died once" "oh yeah? Well I died twice". Of course technology has helped us far more than it's hurt us. Look at the whole Manti T'eo situation, they surveyed kids and many found it normal to have a gf/bf that they've never seen in person and only correspond with over the internet. If that's not stupid then I don't know what is.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 120
3/2/13 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Agree. Do these parents also ask their toddlers to hold their beer for them?

 

No, but thanks for establishing your parenting background.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Then again, most Android apps are free and developers never expect to make money on them. They expect them to be stolen.

 

As I pointed out, my daughter used Android because of very large and popular Flash based child games (e.g. Moshi Monsters).

 

Those were not written for Android.  They were written for laptop and desktop usage.

 

Their revenue comes from getting a fair number of parents to sign up for a small monthly fee that covers everything.


Edited by KDarling - 3/2/13 at 4:58pm
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 120
3/2/13 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

You have a problem over exaggerating. Are you one of those that always has a better story? "you know I died once" "oh yeah? Well I died twice". Of course technology has helped us far more than it's hurt us. Look at the whole Manti T'eo situation, they surveyed kids and many found it normal to have a gf/bf that they've never seen in person and only correspond with over the internet. If that's not stupid then I don't know what is.

1) What story do I have? What anecdote did I use to say something I've done is better than something you've done? That isn't even in context of anything we've discussed about your accusation that technology has made us dumb. You made an ignorant claim without considering the words you chose to use and then backed them up with weak examples in an attempt to prove your point as true. Your case was so ill-conceived and feeble that I shot it down, which is further backed by when next rebuttal wasn't to counter my argument but to make a claim that I am trying to "one-up" you in a story that never existed.

2) And what makes a person "stupid" for connecting with others? I have only a cursory knowledge of T'eo's situation (you just "one-upped" me there 1rolleyes.gif) but I see nothing wrong with individuals interacting without being proximal or knowing what the other looks like. Requiring the latter is quite superficial but it's natural in the animal kingdom.

I personally wouldn't call someone my girlfriend that I only know online, but I also wouldn't call someone my girlfriend that I'm only casually dating, either, not to mention that the label, at least to me, invokes a certain assumption of a physical relationship as dictated by our biological needs. But that's how I define the term but in no way expect everyone else to define their intimate relationships the same way. Can we assume that these people who have never met in person at least interact with other, right? Can we assume that most are being themselves and not dating someone that have egregiously falsified their corporeal self? If they are being honest with other why is wrong that found someone they can connect to that way in the world?

I can't see myself ever using an online dating site but I do think the concept is great. At a bar or club you have alcohol, music and lights to alter your perception of the environment and the people within. At clubs people also tend to dress up more. With an online profile you can read about them. You can get a feel for their personality, their hopes and dreams, activities you both like, and so on. Even putting the questionable matching algorithms aside this seems like a good way to weed out a potential mate quickly based on something other than looks. Again, I can't see myself using it as I'm "old school" but I commend those that do.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/2/13 at 5:32pm

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #54 of 120
3/2/13 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) What story do I have? What anecdote did I use to say something I've done is better than something you've done? That isn't even in context of anything we've discussed about your accusation that technology has made us dumb. You made an ignorant claim without considering the words you chose to use and then backed them up with weak examples in an attempt to prove your point as true. Your case was so ill-conceived and feeble that I shot it down, which is further backed by when next rebuttal wasn't to counter my argument but to make a claim that I am trying to "one-up" you in a story that never existed.

2) And what makes a person "stupid" for connecting with others? I have only a cursory knowledge of T'eo's situation (you just "one-upped" me there 1rolleyes.gif) but I see nothing wrong with individuals interacting without being proximal or knowing what the other looks like. Requiring the latter is quite superficial but it's natural in the animal kingdom.

I personally wouldn't call someone my girlfriend that I only know online, but I also wouldn't call someone my girlfriend that I'm only casually dating, either, not to mention that the label, at least to me, invokes a certain assumption of a physical relationship as dictated by our biological needs. But that's how I define the term but in no way expect everyone else to define their intimate relationships the same way. Can we assume that these people who have never met in person at least interact with other, right? Can we assume that most are being themselves and not dating someone that have egregiously falsified their corporeal self? If they are being honest with other why is wrong that found someone they can connect to that way in the world?

I can't see myself ever using an online dating site but I do think the concept is great. At a bar or club you have alcohol, music and lights to alter your perception of the environment and the people within. At clubs people also tend to dress up more. With an online profile you can read about them. You can get a feel for their personality, their hopes and dreams, activities you both like, and so on. Even putting the questionable matching algorithms aside this seems like a good way to weed out a potential mate quickly based on something other than looks. Again, I can't see myself using it as I'm "old school" but I commend those that do.

You more often than not take things that I say to the utmost extreme, so that's why I jokingly asked if you were a 'one upper'
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #55 of 120
3/2/13 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

You more often than not take things that I say to the utmost extreme, so that's why I jokingly asked if you were a 'one upper'

Ah, I didn't catch the question mark nor the implied humour. Mea culpa.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #56 of 120
3/2/13 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Ah, I didn't catch the question mark nor the implied humour. Mea culpa.

The "I died once" "oh yeah I died twice" didn't give it away?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #57 of 120
3/2/13 at 7:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

No, but thanks for establishing your parenting background.

 

I've owned a few pets before. It's basically the same thing as having a little kid running around. I took better care of my pets than many people take care of their kids, from what I've observed.

 

And I'm pretty sure that if I ever were responsible for a few kids, then there is no way that they would be charging any in-app purchases to my credit card without my knowledge. I stand by what I stated earlier, it is the parent's responsibility to take care of their kids.

Reply
Reply
post #58 of 120
3/2/13 at 7:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Perhaps there should be a checkbox during the app purchase to indicate that the end user is a child thus enabling the immediate password feature otherwise the 15 minute rule is in effect. That way the parents could hand over the iPad right away to the impatient child. If the iPad had multi-user capability the parental controls could be activated like on OS X.

Unnecessarily complex. Why create another action point and decision item for people who don't want or need it? Better to simply make the default 'immediate' and the problem is solved. If someone is knowledgeable, they can change it in just a matter of seconds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Agree. Do these parents also ask their toddlers to hold their beer for them?

Congratulations. You just won the "idiotic analogy of the month" award.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/156262/apples-settlement-over-in-app-purchasing-inches-closer-to-approval-may-include-23m-refunds/40#post_2286823"]
I've owned a few pets before. It's basically the same thing as having a little kid running around.

Too bad stupid people are allowed to post here.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 120
3/2/13 at 8:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

I've owned a few pets before. It's basically the same thing as having a little kid running around. I took better care of my pets than many people take care of their kids, from what I've observed.

 

And I'm pretty sure that if I ever were responsible for a few kids, then there is no way that they would be charging any in-app purchases to my credit card without my knowledge. I stand by what I stated earlier, it is the parent's responsibility to take care of their kids.

 

 

Were any of these pets capable of learning to make an in-app purchase on a tablet or phone? If they were, did you look over their shoulder for every single second they were using their device? Did these doggie app makers design their apps specifically to tempt them to buy bacon with "play" real money in the apps?

 

Seriously, you're just mindlessly belligerent on this issue. People have explained over and over to you that the 15-minute password retention feature was not documented anywhere, and parents had no way to know that their kids might be able to make additional purchases after they bought and installed an app for them. I have no doubt that the vast majority of parents who fell into this trap made the mistake for no more than one month (when their next iTunes bill arrived). 

 

I understand that you've staked out an extreme public position on this issue, and you feel like it will undercut your honor or something for you to give way. The "pets are basically the same as kids" thing suggests that you're probably just trolling at this point. So I don't know why I'm bothering to say anything. But people like you are the problem with the internet. 

Reply
Reply
post #60 of 120
3/2/13 at 9:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

People have explained over and over to you that the 15-minute password retention feature was not documented anywhere, and parents had no way to know that their kids might be able to make additional purchases after they bought and installed an app for them. 

 

But that was pre iOS 4.3, was it not? My comments are all based on post iOS 4.3. iOS 4.3 was a long time ago.

Reply
Reply
post #61 of 120
3/2/13 at 9:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Too bad stupid people are allowed to post here.

 

If you mean that there should be some sort of IQ test, before people are allowed to post, then I would certainly not have any objections to that.

Reply
Reply
post #62 of 120
3/2/13 at 9:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

But that was pre iOS 4.3, was it not? My comments are all based on post iOS 4.3. iOS 4.3 was a long time ago.

 

Which is what the lawsuit is about...

Reply
Reply
post #63 of 120
3/2/13 at 11:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

I highly suspect that those slamming the parents, don't have any young kids of their own.

 

The IAP thing happened to us last year.  Wife downloaded a game, gave the iPad to our daughter, ended up with $250 of purchases within minutes.    Fully expecting to pay for this mistake, we wrote Apple to simply ask how to prevent it in the future.  Apple voluntarily responded that they would remove the charges and sent a form email with instructions on how to turn off the "feature". 

 

Mind you, our daughter had used Android tablets for years before this... without any problem.  (She had preferred them because of all the online kid's apps that were based on Flash.)   Such games almost always have fake money to buy game options, and kids get used to that.

 

So we thought we doing good when we let her use an iPad instead, after she had expressed an interest in Apple products as she got older.  We figured that Apple, of all companies, would not have a system that was less kid and parent friendly than Android. 

 

It's heavily ironic that people will promote Apple's products as "they just work", and the iPad as "usable by even babies", and then turn around and claim buyers should know about every setting menu, in order to turn off something that should've been off by default in the first place.

 

Timeline iOS 4.3 was released in March 2011, "many years" there were no Android tablets before 2010.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

As I pointed out, my daughter used Android because of very large and popular Flash based child games (e.g. Moshi Monsters).

 

Those were not written for Android.  They were written for laptop and desktop usage.

 

Their revenue comes from getting a fair number of parents to sign up for a small monthly fee that covers everything.

 

If it was a Gingerbread tablet perhaps, but Gingerbread was released in December 2010, 4 months before iOS 4.3, the "many years" is getting shakier.

 

A Froyo tablet might fit the bill, although not optimal but they started appearing less than a year before iOS 4.3, low powered cpu's, graphics and RAM, you expect anyone with a modicum of sense to believe that your "daughter" was playing Flash based games, designed for mouse and keyboard inputs on one of those underpowered tablets, even Adobe and Google dropped support for Flash with Jelly Bean in June 2012 and that was on far higher powered devices.

 

"many years"

 

It comes down to the "many years" being a lie, having established that how much of the rest of your posts are based on blatant lies?

 

PS I am still waiting on a breakdown of the $250 expenses you and allenbf both coincidentally incurred which I asked for in this post.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #64 of 120
3/2/13 at 11:46pm
Apple should not pay a cent.
If these idiotic and extremely lazy parents cannot bother to place restrictions for in app purchases.
They are liable for any and all costs incurred.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 120
3/3/13 at 12:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

I highly suspect that those slamming the parents, don't have any young kids of their own.

The IAP 
thing happened to us last year.  Wife downloaded a game, gave the iPad to our daughter, ended up with $250 of purchases within minutes.    Fully expecting to pay for this mistake, we wrote Apple to simply ask how to prevent it in the future.  Apple voluntarily responded that they would remove the charges and sent a form email with instructions on how to turn off the "feature". 


Mind you, our daughter had used Android tablets for years before this... without any problem.  (She had preferred them because of all the online kid's apps that were based on Flash.)   Such games almost always have fake money to buy game options, and kids get used to that.

So we thought we doing good when we let her use an iPad instead, after she had expressed an interest in Apple products as she got older.  We figured that Apple, of all companies, would not have a system that was less kid and parent friendly than Android. 

It's heavily ironic that people will promote Apple's products as "they just work", and the iPad as "usable by even babies", and then turn around and claim buyers should know about every setting menu, in order to turn off something that should've been off by default in the first place.
So the iDevices have 100 page manuals do they?
You are such a troll.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 120
3/3/13 at 12:48am
By the way I have children.
They have no access to passwords and I have restrictions on many many things, not just in app purchases.
I took the time and effort, 5 mins per iDevice.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 120
3/3/13 at 4:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

PS I am still waiting on a breakdown of the $250 expenses you and allenbf both coincidentally incurred which I asked for in this post.

Ridiculous request, as tho it's any of your business.

 

No one has ever demanded a receipt as proof of any of the Android phones you've claimed to own, or a paycheck stub to prove you really worked for a cell provider. We just take your word for it. If you don't bother or choose not to provide written documentation for some past or future claim of yours is that proof you're a liar? You won't use any Google services for fear of your "privacy" being invaded by an ad yet demand someone else give up their's or be marked as dishonest, which you'll likely do anyway.

 

Out of 23 million potential refunds I'm sure there's more than two in the $250 range.


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/3/13 at 4:53am

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #68 of 120
3/3/13 at 5:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Timeline iOS 4.3 was released in March 2011, "many years" there were no Android tablets before 2010.


If it was a Gingerbread tablet perhaps, but Gingerbread was released in December 2010, 4 months before iOS 4.3, the "many years" is getting shakier.

A Froyo tablet might fit the bill, although not optimal but they started appearing less than a year before iOS 4.3, low powered cpu's, graphics and RAM, you expect anyone with a modicum of sense to believe that your "daughter" was playing Flash based games, designed for mouse and keyboard inputs on one of those underpowered tablets, even Adobe and Google dropped support for Flash with Jelly Bean in June 2012 and that was on far higher powered devices.

"many years"

It comes down to the "many years" being a lie, having established that how much of the rest of your posts are based on blatant lies?

PS I am still waiting on a breakdown of the $250 expenses you and allenbf both coincidentally incurred which I asked for in this post.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 120
3/3/13 at 5:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ridiculous request, as tho it's any of your business.

 

No one has ever demanded a receipt as proof of any of the Android phones you've claimed to own, or a paycheck stub to prove you really worked for a cell provider. We just take your word for it. If you don't bother or choose not to provide written documentation for some past or future claim of yours is that proof you're a liar? You won't use any Google services for fear of your "privacy" being invaded by an ad yet demand someone else give up their's or be marked as dishonest, which you'll likely do anyway.

 

Out of 23 million potential refunds I'm sure there's more than two in the $250 range.

 

It's an unusual coincidence that two posters here, had expenditures of exactly $250 each, one of whom apparently had a daughter who was using Android tablets "many years" before they even existed.

 

Welcome to the twilight zone.

 

btw you like these?

 

 

 

As far as I know, you can't buy them, you have to earn them.


Edited by hill60 - 3/3/13 at 5:44am

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #70 of 120
3/3/13 at 5:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Timeline iOS 4.3 was released in March 2011, "many years" there were no Android tablets before 2010.


If it was a Gingerbread tablet perhaps, but Gingerbread was released in December 2010, 4 months before iOS 4.3, the "many years" is getting shakier.

A Froyo tablet might fit the bill, although not optimal but they started appearing less than a year before iOS 4.3, low powered cpu's, graphics and RAM, you expect anyone with a modicum of sense to believe that your "daughter" was playing Flash based games, designed for mouse and keyboard inputs on one of those underpowered tablets, even Adobe and Google dropped support for Flash with Jelly Bean in June 2012 and that was on far higher powered devices.

"many years"

It comes down to the "many years" being a lie, having established that how much of the rest of your posts are based on blatant lies?

PS I am still waiting on a breakdown of the $250 expenses you and allenbf both coincidentally incurred which I asked for in this post.

First, feel free to review my post history before calling me a troll. Nothing is farther from the truth.

Second, note that I said Apple was kind enough to refund our money, so I have zero complaints. They refunded it within 3 days...excellent customer service.

My point simply is that the IAP should default to the safest setting, particularly if an app is targeted at kids. My kid is 5...barely learning to read. We now have the error fixed, lesson learned.

Finally, I'm not giving you any receipts if that is what you want. The app purchased was a teachers app for special needs children. My kid must have found the banner interesting and clicked on it

Good day.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 120
3/3/13 at 5:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

It's an unusual coincidence that two posters here, had expenditures of exactly $250 each, one of whom apparently had a daughter who was using Android tablets "many years" before they even existed.

Welcome to the twilight zone.

I never mentioned Android lol. I have never owned an Android tablet. Even phones...My first smart phone was a BB curve, then an original Droid, then iPhones ever since.

Edit: I see you said one poster, my bad.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 120
3/3/13 at 5:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post


I never mentioned Android lol. I have never owned an Android tablet. Even phones...My first smart phone was a BB curve, then an original Droid, then iPhones ever since.

 

Perhaps KDarling simply hitched a ride on your story and copied the $250 figure while embellishing and reposting it.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #73 of 120
3/3/13 at 5:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Perhaps KDarling simply hitched a ride on your story and copied the $250 figure while embellishing and reposting it.

Can't comment there. I am sure there multiple cases involving apps in the $250 range, especially if someone were looking in the business or education sections.

All I can say is my wife and I learned a lesson but we also were refunded the money, so I have no need of any settlement funds from Apple.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 120
3/3/13 at 5:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

PS I am still waiting on a breakdown of the $250 expenses you and allenbf both coincidentally incurred which I asked for in this post.

 

You don't get to make such demands.  There is so much proof online of this problem, it's not even funny.  A lot of them quote the $200-300 range, too... which is probably related to the time period involved.  However, in this case, I still have the emails to prove you wrong:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hfts View Post

So the iDevices have 100 page manuals do they?
You are such a troll.

 

Those who cry "troll" are usually one themselves, and are just trying to cover up their ignorance.  

 

The iPad 2 user manual alone is almost 190 pages.

 

Comment:  it's amazing the length that some people will go to, to defend Apple.  If nothing else, this thread has revealed to all the real adults here, just who the worst fanatics and kids are.


Edited by KDarling - 3/3/13 at 7:15am
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 120
3/3/13 at 6:13am

You went much further than I would have to appease Hill60, who will still impugn your character anyway with nary an apology.


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/3/13 at 6:21am

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #76 of 120
3/3/13 at 6:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Too bad stupid people are allowed to post here.

A mandatory IQ test would be great in order to sign up! I like freedom, love the US, but man, the internet? Duh..

@KDarling: that is one fugly email client you found there
Even if you disagree, he is entitled to his opinion, isn't he? Just as you're entitled to your blinders? (Stelligent)
Reply
Even if you disagree, he is entitled to his opinion, isn't he? Just as you're entitled to your blinders? (Stelligent)
Reply
post #77 of 120
3/3/13 at 6:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

It's an unusual coincidence that two posters here, had expenditures of exactly $250 each, one of whom apparently had a daughter who was using Android tablets "many years" before they even existed.

 

Welcome to the twilight zone.

 

btw you like these?

 

 

 

As far as I know, you can't buy them, you have to earn them.

I've no idea what those are, but they look interesting. What are they? I assume they're meant as proof that you're of good character or something like that? If so, no one has gone to the extent of calling you a liar as you did with KD. I would hope that if that image is supposed to be evidence for your integrity you'd display more of it by apologizing to KDarling for going so far as you did in questioning his. Way too much in the way of trollish claims in this forum.


Edited by Gatorguy - 3/3/13 at 7:09am

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #78 of 120
3/3/13 at 7:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


A mandatory IQ test would be great in order to sign up! I like freedom, love the US, but man, the internet? Duh..

 

I've been posting online under my own name for over 30 years, starting with local BBSes.

 

Later, I was a sysop on CompuServe.  So I know a bit about proper (and bad) admin behavior as well.

 

When I got started on the internet (Usenet), only government workers and college kids were around.  There were still lots of flamewars, but at least the posts were usually very intelligent and well written... because otherwise the poster would get rightfully slammed :)

 

Something could be said for the higher schooling of most people online back then.

 

Then came the September that Never Ended, and everything went downhill.

 

@KDarling: that is one fugly email client you found there
 

Yep, it is.  That's my old laptop with Outlook that I originally used for iTunes. (I got a MacBook later, but didn't feel like starting over.)


Edited by KDarling - 3/3/13 at 8:52am
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 120
3/3/13 at 8:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Those who cry "troll" are usually one themselves, and are just trying to cover up their ignorance.  

 

The iPad 2 user manual alone is almost 190 pages.

 

Comment:  it's amazing the length that some people will go to, to defend Apple.  If nothing else, this thread has revealed to all the real adults here, just who the worst fanatics and kids are.

 

The funny thing is that many countries already have consumer laws in place to protect both parties in these types of transactions. Consumers have rights to cancel contracts & return physical goods within reasonable time limits. Digital goods are increasingly being covered by similar laws, even though Apple's terms & conditions may infer otherwise, you don't sign away statutory rights by agreeing to other licenses.

 

Despite peoples opinions that the parents should pay all the costs, the reality is that in many countries the law already has covered this issue & the parents have the right to cancel and to request a refund. 

 

I can't believe the lengths SolipsismX went to to tear down dasanman69 for suggesting that the store had some snakes in the grass, how can it be appropriate for a childs game to have in game tokens that cost $99? Apple put this system in place & this is the results of their choices, bad actors will exploit every system. 

Reply
Reply
post #80 of 120
3/3/13 at 8:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droid View Post

I can't believe the lengths SolipsismX went to to tear down dasanman69 for suggesting that the store had some snakes in the grass, how can it be appropriate for a childs game to have in game tokens that cost $99? Apple put this system in place & this is the results of their choices, bad actors will exploit every system. 

Clearly you didn't read my posts in this thread or you're trolling. If the latter then well done.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's settlement over in-app purchasing inches closer to approval, may include 23M refunds