or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple agrees to pay $32.5M in refunds, settling App Store in-app purchase lawsuit with US government
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple agrees to pay $32.5M in refunds, settling App Store in-app purchase lawsuit with US government - Page 3

post #81 of 102
Originally Posted by BrettF View Post

I am done with this conversation.

 

Good.

 

For whatever reason you seem obsessed with defending Apple, when you clearly have no concept of seeing the realty of the situation.

 

Because there’s nothing wrong being done here. Because they already have everything in place that can be “reasonably expected” of them. Because your ideas are wrong.

 
If the parents don't know the feature exist, how can you expect them to research and teach themselves?!?

 

Do you have the slightest idea what research is? Holy crap.

 
There is no lawsuit about porn, because any reasonable adult knows the possibility exist.

 

Thanks for confirming that you were wrong and I was right.

 
If it bothers them they can reasonable investigate and research how to prevent it.

 

Except you JUST SAID THAT THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY DO THAT. Pick a side and stick with it.

 
At the time the concept was entirely new.

 

Nope. It’s a digital extension of a preexisting concept.

 
To clarify I am not arguing that the parents didn't reasonable know "restrictions" could be enabled, but rather that the feature of making purchases with real money within a free children's game existed. 

 

So. They. Find. Out. About. That.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #82 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettF View Post

Your missing the point.  I am not saying they shouldn't understand how to consult a manual.  I am saying they had no reasonable expectation that such a feature existed in the first place.  If they never made an in app purchase themselves, its fair to assume they weren't aware of the feature.

The owner / parent has open doors in a car before, they can assume the child will do the same and should look into preventing it.

"In-App purchases" are listed in the game information in the App Store.
post #83 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

"In-App purchases" are listed in the game information in the App Store.

How many apps didn’t have IAPs but included them in a update? Saying that parents 'should've, could've, would've' doesn't help. There's a lot tech illiterate people who don't understand what 'in app purchase' means, so how can a parent educate a child on something that they don't know about. Many parents rely on their kids to educate them. Kids have been getting into trouble since the beginning of time, that's why we have child proof locks on medication, and a plethora of child proof locks on just about everything in a home, window guards, and household products that contain an extremely bitter ingredient to avoid consumption.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #84 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

How many apps didn’t have IAPs but included them in a update? Saying that parents 'should've, could've, would've' doesn't help. There's a lot tech illiterate people who don't understand what 'in app purchase' means, so how can a parent educate a child on something that they don't know about. Many parents rely on their kids to educate them. Kids have been getting into trouble since the beginning of time, that's why we have child proof locks on medication, and a plethora of child proof locks on just about everything in a home, window guards, and household products that contain an extremely bitter ingredient to avoid consumption.

If I don't understand something, I look it up. Are we going to blame Ford if we failed to enable the child safety lock because we didn't understand them?
post #85 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

If I don't understand something, I look it up. Are we going to blame Ford if we failed to enable the child safety lock because we didn't understand them?

That makes 2 of us, but even I was surprised when I saw that Rovio had added IAPs to Angry Birds. A parent could be vigilant in finding games that don't have IAPs and not realize that they were added later on.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #86 of 102
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
That makes 2 of us, but even I was surprised when I saw that Rovio had added IAPs to Angry Birds. A parent could be vigilant in finding games that don't have IAPs and not realize that they were added later on.

 

But flipping that ONE switch means that any additions are meaningless.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #87 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

But flipping that ONE switch means that any additions are meaningless.

I know I promised I was done with this conversation, but my point still stands.  If the parents don't know to LOOK for the restriction they aren't being moronic.  Apple is taking the opt-out approach, when they should have taken the opt-in approach.  At the very least SHOW the screen or a prompt explaining that restrictions can be turned on during the initial setup.  If they see something can be restricted then they can investigate whether or not to "flip" the one switch.

 

I didn't even consider games that LATER added IAP and were automatically updated.  Even Android prevents this by not allowing auto updates if permissions have changed on the app.  This is a great example of how it sneaks in there.  And yes, it does mention it in the store but it was not as clearly indicated until the most recent release.

 

Your logic is failing in that you are assuming the parents are aware that such a feature exists to have the need to restrict.  Read the complaints and they all say the same thing.  The parents had no idea that passwords weren't prompted every purchase or that purchases within apps were even possible.  They (well most) aren't lying, they really just had no reason to suspect differently.  I know 2 people where this happen to them with the kids being 3 years old (i.e. has no idea what he pressed) and 8 years old (i.e. thought it was just "part of the game").

 

Look, just like you, I definitely am smart enough to restrict my phone in advance.  I do the same thing with my PCs using only "standard" or "child" accounts to prevent changes.  That said, I refuse to fault a parent who downloaded a FREE CHILDS GAME and was victim to their child buying 15,000 Smurf berries within 15 minutes for $99.  And that is all this is really about!

 

The entire concept is predatory.  Who in their right mind would spend $99 on a video game virtual currency for a child's game?  I know several wealthy and spoiled brats, none of which would be allowed such an insane and stupid purchase.

post #88 of 102
Originally Posted by BrettF View Post
I know I promised I was done with this conversation, but my point still stands.  If the parents don't know to LOOK for the restriction they aren't being moronic.

 

They just rescind their right to complain about it later and absolve Apple of responsibility.

 
Apple is taking the opt-out approach, when they should have taken the opt-in approach.

 

Nope. The world doesn’t revolve around people with children.

 

Your logic is failing in that you are assuming the parents are aware that such a feature exists to have the need to restrict.

 

No, I’m explicitly stating otherwise. If you do not have knowledge, you find knowledge. Apple has great help articles.

 

Look, just like you, I definitely am smart enough to restrict my phone in advance. 

 

Thanks for proving my point: people can get the information needed to do what they want done.

 
I refuse to fault a parent who downloaded a FREE CHILDS GAME and was victim to their child buying 15,000 Smurf berries within 15 minutes for $99. And that is all this is really about!

 

My feelings on the content, scope, and purpose of in-app purchases probably eclipse yours by an order of magnitude, but that’s not what we’re discussing right now.

 

If you’d like to start discussing the sleaziness of the above, let me know. I’ll bring the pain. :lol:

 
The entire concept is predatory. Who in their right mind would spend $99 on a video game virtual currency for a child's game?

 

Preach it, brother.

 
I know several wealthy and spoiled brats, none of which would be allowed such an insane and stupid purchase.

 

Sounds more like the ‘wealthy and spoiled brats’ would be the ones who’d get a pass on such a thing because of 1. parental neglect/abuse (allowing the kid to do whatever he wants is abuse) and 2. the money being less than pocket change. :p

 

Or are you highlighting the magnitude of the purchase as being even beyond what those parents would accept?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #89 of 102

I gather from your post you might be a developer or have a strong connection somehow to IAP purchases.  Otherwise, I can't imagine why you would be so insistently against at minimum just showing the restrictions page upon setup.

 

I understand there are some "legit" reasons for IAP purchases, but that is not at all what my argument to being more proactive aims to prevent.  Rather, I am more concerned about the real situations where the credit card owner is being held liable for a purchase they themselves did not commit nor would have ever allowed if they were aware of the situation.  That's all there is to it.

 

I am not arguing that folks shouldn't educate themselves on the devices.  All I am saying is it is unreasonable to assume they would have thought of this until it was a problem.

 

Its fine that we disagree here.  That's a fact of life.

post #90 of 102
Originally Posted by BrettF View Post

Rather, I am more concerned about the real situations where the credit card owner is being held liable for a purchase they themselves did not commit nor would have ever allowed if they were aware of the situation.

 

If the device is stolen and in-app purchases are committed, the credit card owner is not liable thanks to insurance.

 

If the device is not stolen and given to a child, that child–the dependent of the credit card owner–IS LIABLE for the purchases.

 

If they didn’t want the purchases allowed, they educate the kid, educate themselves, and change the situation. It’s. not. that. hard.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #91 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But flipping that ONE switch means that any additions are meaningless.

You're absolutely correct but how many flip that switch under a false sense of security?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #92 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
If they didn’t want the purchases allowed, they educate the kid, educate themselves, and change the situation. It’s. not. that. hard.

My god.  Even when I try to say politely lets just agree to disagree you don't give up.

 

You continue to say its not that hard.  Well the fact is someone felt it was that hard because they are giving up $32M in refunds.  The entire idea of IAP in games AIM AT CHILDREN is predatory and awful.  There is absolutely no example or way you could possibly present it where IAP in games intended for CHILDREN (or with CHILDREN likely to play) doesn't look awful and wrong.  Its a bad idea no matter how you slice it.

 

If the child made IAP in a game intended for Mature or perhaps even Teen I could see the point.  However, these arguments are about games aimed at very young children that can barely read (if at all).  The kid is not doing anything wrong, and the parents who have previously never made any IAP in their life, are not moronic idiots for being unaware of this one VERY MINOR feature that the phone offers.

post #93 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettF View Post

I gather from your post you might be a developer or have a strong connection somehow to IAP purchases.  Otherwise, I can't imagine why you would be so insistently against at minimum just showing the restrictions page upon setup.

I understand there are some "legit" reasons for IAP purchases, but that is not at all what my argument to being more proactive aims to prevent.  Rather, I am more concerned about the real situations where the credit card owner is being held liable for a purchase they themselves did not commit nor would have ever allowed if they were aware of the situation.  That's all there is to it.

I am not arguing that folks shouldn't educate themselves on the devices.  All I am saying is it is unreasonable to assume they would have thought of this until it was a problem.

Its fine that we disagree here.  That's a fact of life.

Android is worse: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/01/google-play-store-lets-your-kid-spend-like-a-drunken-sailor/index.htm

Oh and it's called "personal responsibility".
post #94 of 102
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
You're absolutely correct but how many flip that switch under a false sense of security?

 

Do in-app purchases circumvent the toggle that turns off in-app purchases?

 

Yes or no. I don’t want to see anything but ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #95 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Do in-app purchases circumvent the toggle that turns off in-app purchases?

Yes or no. I don’t want to see anything but ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

No they don't, but a parent that has taken precautions not to get games that have IAPs could leave it the toggle on thinking that they're safe from their kids making IAPs.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #96 of 102
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
No they don't

 

Then how on earth could the switch be a “false sense of security”? 

 
…a parent that has taken precautions not to get games that have IAPs could leave it the toggle on thinking that they’re safe from their kids making IAPs.

 

That seems like a failing of precaution to me. 

 

“Nah, I’ll take the airbags out of my car; I won’t drive on roads that would get me in an accident.”

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #97 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Then how on earth could the switch be a “false sense of security”? 

That seems like a failing of precaution to me. 

“Nah, I’ll take the airbags out of my car; I won’t drive on roads that would get me in an accident.”

Not the switch, but that they checked to see if a app had IAPs to begin with. I'll use Angry Birds again as a example, a parent might have assumed that the game was safe to let their kid play because it initially didn’t have IAPs but we're added a few updates later. That's the false sense of security I'm talking about.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #98 of 102
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Not the switch, but that they checked to see if a app had IAPs to begin with. I'll use Angry Birds again as a example, a parent might have assumed that the game was safe to let their kid play because it initially didn’t have IAPs but we're added a few updates later. That's the false sense of security I'm talking about.

 

I dunno; I figure that if they don’t want something to happen, it’d be easier to just prevent it from happening. If they’re proactive enough to search specifically for apps without purchases because they didn’t want them, just turning off the purchases themselves doesn’t seem too much of a stretch.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #99 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I dunno; I figure that if they don’t want something to happen, it’d be easier to just prevent it from happening. If they’re proactive enough to search specifically for apps without purchases because they didn’t want them, just turning off the purchases themselves doesn’t seem too much of a stretch.

Unfortunately most steps are taken reactively. How many kids got poisoned before child proof caps were the norm? I totally understand your position but as we see a bunch of people didn't take those precautions. How many abortions were preformed today on women that didn't take 'precautions'? If people don't do it with their own bodies what makes you think they're going to do it on a piece of CE?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #100 of 102
If Apple and Google won't crack down harder on "free games" then apparently regulatory agencies will do it for them. Beginning April 1st developers of games with in-app purchases are going to be exposed to some very broad legal claims from both consumers and regulators based on UK rules that go into effect. I suspect it's going to put a chill of the proliferation of that type of app.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2014/05-14#.UupAkHm18jI
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #101 of 102
I agree with most people that it's the parents fault for not setting up the ipad to require a password for in app purchases, however when we are talking about something like $100s. If we pay $79 dollars for a games on major consoles with rich graphics and next gen gameplay, how can games like campus life have an unlimited price. Being able to spend 1000s of dollars per app is extortionate... This is one reason I will not install apps which have an unlimited amount of potential purchases..

Consider this analogy, you buy a car for $50000 dollars and this car is like the app,you maintenance cost, gas, in-car purchases are unlimited and you can potentially rack up $100,000,000? It nuts but if an app costs $3 and a kid spends $6000, $100,000,000 would be the equivalent for a $50,000 car. It sounds ridiculous right. If a client knew that, they wouldn't buy the car... The client would buy a spaceship instead of a car

There is a paid app I recently downloaded for my son called reader. It's about £1.99 per 20 words and there are only 3 reader packs, making the top potential cost of a great but simple app for kids under $15 which is reasonable.
post #102 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

So when does Google have to pay up for the same thing in the Google app store? Or, like the Chinese labor flaps, only Apple does this and gets sued?

Google agreed to pay out at minimum $19M in an FTC settlement over in-app purchases similar to the one Apple agreed to. Amazon is still putting up a fight.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple agrees to pay $32.5M in refunds, settling App Store in-app purchase lawsuit with US government
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple agrees to pay $32.5M in refunds, settling App Store in-app purchase lawsuit with US government