And that's where this lawsuit gets harder to defend.
1. Plaintiff knowingly gave iTunes password to minors.
2. Apple implemented a requirement to input password for each In App purchase.
3. Apple implemented parental controls to completely disable In App purchases.
4. Apple placed a banner at the top of each App that allows purchases called "Top In App Purchases".
5. Plaintiff is guessing that Apple has made millions (Apple only gets 30%) by assuming other parents were as negligent.
I'm sorry but the guy who tried to slap Apple with a class-action for his iPad overheating after leaving it in the hot sun had a better chance of winning...and he didn't. So this moron is spending how much to reclaim $200?
You don't have to be sorry to me. I'm just pointing out (without the benefit of the primary document) that the action appears to be based not on the 'same password' allegation, but on the prior 'time out' policy.
The situation as it stands now is not to the point, as far as I can tell. The cause of action arose in a different context, when the 'time out' policy was in effect. The fact that Apple has mitigated the effect by forcing password reentry is nice, but that scheme was not present at the time of the incident. Again, going from the article, and not wanting to explore endless timelines of os/itunes updates to correlate.
Like I said before, I'd be inclined to take the charge on the chin and teach my kids about it - and trust, but to each their own. I doubt this will be successful.
I'm a parent. I never thought to even look, so thanks for the heads up. But as a parent I do have sympathy. I used not to but after a short while of parenthood I stopped blaming parents. The reality of parenthood is much different from the inside than the outside. My guess is that most parents, even tech savvy ones, would say, "The password is 'xyz'. Now get out of my hair", followed by "Only free apps, OK?", never even thinking there might be anything like in-app purchases. Not saying it warrants a class action lawsuit but all you people coming down hard on parents - do you have kids?
If you give your child the 'zyz' password without knowing for certain what that can entail then you are a fool. I trust my kids but would never give them my password because kids are just that 'kids' and can't always be counted on to make the proper decision(s) in unknown situations where adult experience(s) and common sense are required.
in app purchases are just a bad bad, evil idea. f*** zynga and all imitators.
In-app purchases themselves are not a bad idea, but any game targeted at minors, like the Smurf game, should absolutely be rejected if they include in-app purchase mechanisms.
$59 for a basket of 1000 Smurfberries? Are you fanbois agreeing that this was a great idea? Are you implying that the app developers figured a parent would okay such a purchase?
No. The Smurfberries and the other examples given are a blatant means for literally stealing money by tricking children into using their parents' credit cards.
Can anyone here present a remotely believable scenario where this is not the case? I bet you can't.
How about this: Age-rate the games and say, "No in-app purchases for games rated Under 13". Is that so tough?
Apple did virtually nothing to address this. They paid lip service, and that's it. If they expect parents to use parental controls, then classify apps so that they can be controlled, and create a place where children can play safely.
If you'd all get your Apple-lovin' heads out of Jobs' butt long enough for a breath of fresh air, you'd realize that mocking parents does nothing to solve this issue. Apple needs to become a responsible member of the global community and move away from the selfishness that has characterized its entire existence.
Apple did virtually nothing to address this. They paid lip service, and that's it. If they expect parents to use parental controls, then classify apps so that they can be controlled, and create a place where children can play safely.
If you'd all get your Apple-lovin' heads out of Jobs' butt long enough for a breath of fresh air, you'd realize that mocking parents does nothing to solve this issue. Apple needs to become a responsible member of the global community and move away from the selfishness that has characterized its entire existence.
Why can't we take responsibility for our own actions, monitor our own children and stop asking the government and companies to "protect" us. Is it always about passing the buck and not owning up? Use your brain and stop having the need for others to think for you. You need to be just as responsible as Apple does. Jeeze.
In-app purchases themselves are not a bad idea, but any game targeted at minors, like the Smurf game, should absolutely be rejected if they include in-app purchase mechanisms.
$59 for a basket of 1000 Smurfberries? Are you fanbois agreeing that this was a great idea? Are you implying that the app developers figured a parent would okay such a purchase?
No. The Smurfberries and the other examples given are a blatant means for literally stealing money by tricking children into using their parents' credit cards.
Can anyone here present a remotely believable scenario where this is not the case? I bet you can't.
How about this: Age-rate the games and say, "No in-app purchases for games rated Under 13". Is that so tough?
Apple did virtually nothing to address this. They paid lip service, and that's it. If they expect parents to use parental controls, then classify apps so that they can be controlled, and create a place where children can play safely.
If you'd all get your Apple-lovin' heads out of Jobs' butt long enough for a breath of fresh air, you'd realize that mocking parents does nothing to solve this issue. Apple needs to become a responsible member of the global community and move away from the selfishness that has characterized its entire existence.
After reading this I realize the irony of your screen name.
You seem to be the only commenter in this thread capable of reading comprehension. +1 to you for recognizing the 15 minute window being the problem, and now being fixed.
This is inaccurate. Once you'd entered your password to install a free app there was no way to log out to disallow in app purchases, even rebooting one's phone left the authorization for in-app purchases active for 15 minutes.
Hmm, it worked for me. Downloaded Men vs Machines, then went to settings and tapped on store and signed out. Played the game for less than 10 minutes and went to make an in app purchase and it asked me to sign in. What am I doing right?
Anything I give to kids is linked to a prepaid iTunes card, just like cellphones, prepaid.
What that did was taught them the value of money, they learnt how to live within limits.
Something a lot of people could use a lesson in.
There were no later purchases. They were all done in that 15 minute window.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmillermcp
You stopped reading the rest apparently...
Again, not only are In App purchases password protected but you can also use the built-in parental restrictions to disable the purchases whether they know the password or not.
The article does not state he ever gave the password to he children. It merely says there were allowed to download free apps. Regardless, there was still a flaw with the 15 minute window that allowed in app purchases without a password. It was only later with a patch did that change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
you don't have to be sorry to me. I'm just pointing out (without the benefit of the primary document) that the action appears to be based not on the 'same password' allegation, but on the prior 'time out' policy.
The situation as it stands now is not to the point, as far as i can tell. The cause of action arose in a different context, when the 'time out' policy was in effect. The fact that apple has mitigated the effect by forcing password reentry is nice, but that scheme was not present at the time of the incident. Again, going from the article, and not wanting to explore endless timelines of os/itunes updates to correlate.
Like i said before, i'd be inclined to take the charge on the chin and teach my kids about it - and trust, but to each their own. I doubt this will be successful.
exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen
I was lucky enough to find out about the 15 minute rule on password authentication before my kids made any in app purchases. The only reason I knew about the "feature" was that I frequent sites like this one. As soon as I read about it I disabled in app purchases on all 6 of our iOS devices. I think my not getting charged by my 5 year old randomly clicking on buttons just after I downloaded a kids game was just luck. Up to my reading articles on Apple rumor and fan sites I had assumed that my kids would be prompted for a password each time. Before I knew about the 15 rule I had no reason to completely disable in app purchases because I thought my children would be prompted for authentication.
I was not so fortunate. I mistakenly thought the 15 minute window did not apply to in-app purchases. I was under the impression that Apple did not initially have in-app purchases for free apps for just such a reason. They did not want people to be confused into thinking that a free app was not always free-so to speak.
Those games should not be included in the free games section.
Given that you can play the games for months without ever buying anything, I have to disagree with this.
Quote:
Even an upgrade from a light to a full version should not be from within a 'free app' rather an ad would state it has to be 'purchased from the non-free section.
again I disagree. In fact I think they should require that all paid to upgrade has to be in app, whether it is to turn off apps or add levels. There should not be 15 Angry Birds or whatever that are just level packs. It should be one version. Or one for iPhone/touch and one for iPad but no more than that. Same for magazines, learn to whatever apps etc. Keeps things tidy, avoids rank spam and for games you can continue right where you were no issues
Also I recall that the whole in app purchases was one of those annoying terms updates. If folks agreed without reading that is their fault. Not Apple's
How about this: Age-rate the games and say, "No in-app purchases for games rated Under 13". Is that so tough?
There is nothing stopping them from getting anything if they know the password or if the parents punch it in without vetting the app. The only possible way Apple could handle such an issue is if they restricted allowance accounts to only those things that were rated 4+ but not 13+ along with that rating rule.
But even then they would have to release a gigantic terms change in very large capital letters stating the new restriction very clearly and even more clearly that effective immediately they are not refunding in app purchases for any adult account regardless of your sob story and you need to put your kid on an allowance account or turn on restrictions. They could also change the rules so that you can't download 17+ aps or in app stuff unless you have a credit card on file or go to xyz webpage to fill out a digital affidavit that you are of age which requires you to include your driver's license number or other form of id. Hell if they did that perhaps they could put up a porn store th the kiddies wouldn't even see
My wife and I were had to the tune of $99.99 when our 10 year old grandson made a "Purchase" in a FREE game he asked if he could download on her iPad. We were shocked when the receipt for the transaction was emailed to us the following day.
If you think we could get any help whatsoever through iTunes OR Apple, you are DEAD WRONG. We made multiple efforts, too...emails, phone calls, and personal visits at the nearest Apple store 50 miles from our home. In the end we just figured we'd have to such it up as some sort of "Stupid Tax." We had stern talk with him so he understood the severity of what he did, but frankly, we did not think he understood what he really was doing at the time. We blamed Apple for allowing that type of application without proper safeguards.
Maybe we will see our hundred bucks again...I hope so. I love Apple products, but shame on them allowing for this sort of garbage occuring...and for their lack of willingness to own up to taking any responsibility or assisting us in getting the transaction reversed.
As soon as I read about it I disabled in app purchases on all 6 of our iOS devices. I think my not getting charged by my 5 year old randomly clicking on buttons just after I downloaded a kids game was just luck.
OK, so I won't deny that giving your kid your password is pretty stupid. I won't even tell my son the password to log into my devices.
However, it's clear that games like Smurfs Village were intended to take advantage of unsuspecting parents (or naive kids, dumb ass adults, whatever...), and that's still wrong.
Disagree? How do you explain Capcom listing Smurfs Village as a kids game, yet charging as much as $99 for in-app purchases? How many parents are likely to allow such a purchase and how many kids do you think have this much disposable income? If the minimum in-app purchase is $4.99, then why should the app be free?
I was pleased to see Apple change it's policy recently. Requiring the password helps and may negate the lawsuit. However, I'm still confused about when Apple changed it's policy around free apps.
Others in this forum recall Steve Jobs saying that free apps would remain free. I was also surprised to learn that this had changed. If an app is going to charge for content, then why can't it charge $.99 to download?
Keeping free apps free is still the best solution, but I'm not holding my breath.
Because of the way Apple lets you share apps we all use the same account (If I buy a game, everybody else in my family can download it for free. If we separate the accounts everybody has to pay individually).
Not so sure that it true. I have apps from two different accounts on my ipad no problem. yes it means that sometimes I have to go hit up our office assistant to give me the password to download updates but she's usually around so what's the worry.
My wife and I were had to the tune of $99.99 when our 10 year old grandson made a "Purchase" in a FREE game he asked if he could download on her iPad. We were shocked when the receipt for the transaction was emailed to us the following day.
Wow, that developer is clearly trying to rip people off, which game was it so other people don't get caught out? The reason why Apple won't be too receptive to a refund is that they make 30% of the amount so they'd have to give you back their $30 too.
I think Apple mentioned some controls over in-app purchases like logging out more quickly but they should really notify the account holder by email or something for every in-app purchase to confirm the transaction. Of course, someone could jump over to the email app and confirm it but a young person might not be able to figure it out.
I do blame the parents, but I also think that to quell the bad PR apple could simply add a require password for each transaction/dont remember password option, and perhaps a disable/enable in app purchase switch just like the enable disable wifi or gps switch. - and they could even make it per app like location services.
update, now that I think about it, ive never seen a logout of store button, so if I have recently downloaded updates, then in app purchases would automatically happen without a password...the more I think this through, the more I think this suit is legit.
Why can't we take responsibility for our own actions, monitor our own children and stop asking the government and companies to "protect" us. Is it always about passing the buck and not owning up? Use your brain and stop having the need for others to think for you. You need to be just as responsible as Apple does. Jeeze.
I am a huge advocate of personal responsibility, but I think the case here is unique
Imagine if you buy a PPV movie on cable and the next day your kid is then able to buy some PPV event without entering a PIN or auth code because you entered one the night before...that is what we are talking about here, not cases of parents giving out passwords, cases of the password not being required as it should have been, and apple does have direct gain associated with this so called bug, so yeah its not a BS suit.
Not so sure that it true. I have apps from two different accounts on my ipad no problem. yes it means that sometimes I have to go hit up our office assistant to give me the password to download updates but she's usually around so what's the worry.
You can download content to your iPod / phone / pad using any number of accounts but a purchase under one account does not give you free access to that purchase on another account. If you buy an app under one account up to four more users can download the same app for free as long as they log in to the purchasing account. This is the main reason for sharing an account among family members.
Imagine if you buy a PPV movie on cable and the next day your kid is then able to buy some PPV event without entering a PIN or auth code because you entered one the night before...that is what we are talking about here, not cases of parents giving out passwords, cases of the password not being required as it should have been, and apple does have direct gain associated with this so called bug, so yeah its not a BS suit.
The night before is a far cry from 15 minutes. I don't think there is a resemblance of equivalence. It sounds like the answer is to go back to entering passwords every single time, I don't know if I like the idea of having to enter every time because Apple needed to protect themselves. They might need to publicize their parental locks more though, I think that's a key to preventing misuse and undesired surprises.
I guess 6 iOS devices is a bit much. My five year old doesn't have his own iOS device. My two oldest kids (11 and 9) have ipod touches and they share them with my youngest two.
Comments
And that's where this lawsuit gets harder to defend.
1. Plaintiff knowingly gave iTunes password to minors.
2. Apple implemented a requirement to input password for each In App purchase.
3. Apple implemented parental controls to completely disable In App purchases.
4. Apple placed a banner at the top of each App that allows purchases called "Top In App Purchases".
5. Plaintiff is guessing that Apple has made millions (Apple only gets 30%) by assuming other parents were as negligent.
I'm sorry but the guy who tried to slap Apple with a class-action for his iPad overheating after leaving it in the hot sun had a better chance of winning...and he didn't. So this moron is spending how much to reclaim $200?
You don't have to be sorry to me. I'm just pointing out (without the benefit of the primary document) that the action appears to be based not on the 'same password' allegation, but on the prior 'time out' policy.
The situation as it stands now is not to the point, as far as I can tell. The cause of action arose in a different context, when the 'time out' policy was in effect. The fact that Apple has mitigated the effect by forcing password reentry is nice, but that scheme was not present at the time of the incident. Again, going from the article, and not wanting to explore endless timelines of os/itunes updates to correlate.
Like I said before, I'd be inclined to take the charge on the chin and teach my kids about it - and trust, but to each their own. I doubt this will be successful.
I'm a parent. I never thought to even look, so thanks for the heads up. But as a parent I do have sympathy. I used not to but after a short while of parenthood I stopped blaming parents. The reality of parenthood is much different from the inside than the outside. My guess is that most parents, even tech savvy ones, would say, "The password is 'xyz'. Now get out of my hair", followed by "Only free apps, OK?", never even thinking there might be anything like in-app purchases. Not saying it warrants a class action lawsuit but all you people coming down hard on parents - do you have kids?
If you give your child the 'zyz' password without knowing for certain what that can entail then you are a fool. I trust my kids but would never give them my password because kids are just that 'kids' and can't always be counted on to make the proper decision(s) in unknown situations where adult experience(s) and common sense are required.
in app purchases are just a bad bad, evil idea. f*** zynga and all imitators.
In-app purchases themselves are not a bad idea, but any game targeted at minors, like the Smurf game, should absolutely be rejected if they include in-app purchase mechanisms.
$59 for a basket of 1000 Smurfberries? Are you fanbois agreeing that this was a great idea? Are you implying that the app developers figured a parent would okay such a purchase?
No. The Smurfberries and the other examples given are a blatant means for literally stealing money by tricking children into using their parents' credit cards.
Can anyone here present a remotely believable scenario where this is not the case? I bet you can't.
How about this: Age-rate the games and say, "No in-app purchases for games rated Under 13". Is that so tough?
Apple did virtually nothing to address this. They paid lip service, and that's it. If they expect parents to use parental controls, then classify apps so that they can be controlled, and create a place where children can play safely.
If you'd all get your Apple-lovin' heads out of Jobs' butt long enough for a breath of fresh air, you'd realize that mocking parents does nothing to solve this issue. Apple needs to become a responsible member of the global community and move away from the selfishness that has characterized its entire existence.
Apple did virtually nothing to address this. They paid lip service, and that's it. If they expect parents to use parental controls, then classify apps so that they can be controlled, and create a place where children can play safely.
If you'd all get your Apple-lovin' heads out of Jobs' butt long enough for a breath of fresh air, you'd realize that mocking parents does nothing to solve this issue. Apple needs to become a responsible member of the global community and move away from the selfishness that has characterized its entire existence.
Why can't we take responsibility for our own actions, monitor our own children and stop asking the government and companies to "protect" us. Is it always about passing the buck and not owning up?
In-app purchases themselves are not a bad idea, but any game targeted at minors, like the Smurf game, should absolutely be rejected if they include in-app purchase mechanisms.
$59 for a basket of 1000 Smurfberries? Are you fanbois agreeing that this was a great idea? Are you implying that the app developers figured a parent would okay such a purchase?
No. The Smurfberries and the other examples given are a blatant means for literally stealing money by tricking children into using their parents' credit cards.
Can anyone here present a remotely believable scenario where this is not the case? I bet you can't.
How about this: Age-rate the games and say, "No in-app purchases for games rated Under 13". Is that so tough?
Apple did virtually nothing to address this. They paid lip service, and that's it. If they expect parents to use parental controls, then classify apps so that they can be controlled, and create a place where children can play safely.
If you'd all get your Apple-lovin' heads out of Jobs' butt long enough for a breath of fresh air, you'd realize that mocking parents does nothing to solve this issue. Apple needs to become a responsible member of the global community and move away from the selfishness that has characterized its entire existence.
After reading this I realize the irony of your screen name.
You seem to be the only commenter in this thread capable of reading comprehension. +1 to you for recognizing the 15 minute window being the problem, and now being fixed.
This is inaccurate. Once you'd entered your password to install a free app there was no way to log out to disallow in app purchases, even rebooting one's phone left the authorization for in-app purchases active for 15 minutes.
Hmm, it worked for me. Downloaded Men vs Machines, then went to settings and tapped on store and signed out. Played the game for less than 10 minutes and went to make an in app purchase and it asked me to sign in. What am I doing right?
So how did he make the later purchases???
...hmmm?
Anything I give to kids is linked to a prepaid iTunes card, just like cellphones, prepaid.
What that did was taught them the value of money, they learnt how to live within limits.
Something a lot of people could use a lesson in.
There were no later purchases. They were all done in that 15 minute window.
You stopped reading the rest apparently...
Again, not only are In App purchases password protected but you can also use the built-in parental restrictions to disable the purchases whether they know the password or not.
The article does not state he ever gave the password to he children. It merely says there were allowed to download free apps. Regardless, there was still a flaw with the 15 minute window that allowed in app purchases without a password. It was only later with a patch did that change.
you don't have to be sorry to me. I'm just pointing out (without the benefit of the primary document) that the action appears to be based not on the 'same password' allegation, but on the prior 'time out' policy.
The situation as it stands now is not to the point, as far as i can tell. The cause of action arose in a different context, when the 'time out' policy was in effect. The fact that apple has mitigated the effect by forcing password reentry is nice, but that scheme was not present at the time of the incident. Again, going from the article, and not wanting to explore endless timelines of os/itunes updates to correlate.
Like i said before, i'd be inclined to take the charge on the chin and teach my kids about it - and trust, but to each their own. I doubt this will be successful.
exactly!
I was lucky enough to find out about the 15 minute rule on password authentication before my kids made any in app purchases. The only reason I knew about the "feature" was that I frequent sites like this one. As soon as I read about it I disabled in app purchases on all 6 of our iOS devices. I think my not getting charged by my 5 year old randomly clicking on buttons just after I downloaded a kids game was just luck. Up to my reading articles on Apple rumor and fan sites I had assumed that my kids would be prompted for a password each time. Before I knew about the 15 rule I had no reason to completely disable in app purchases because I thought my children would be prompted for authentication.
I was not so fortunate. I mistakenly thought the 15 minute window did not apply to in-app purchases. I was under the impression that Apple did not initially have in-app purchases for free apps for just such a reason. They did not want people to be confused into thinking that a free app was not always free-so to speak.
Those games should not be included in the free games section.
Given that you can play the games for months without ever buying anything, I have to disagree with this.
Even an upgrade from a light to a full version should not be from within a 'free app' rather an ad would state it has to be 'purchased from the non-free section.
again I disagree. In fact I think they should require that all paid to upgrade has to be in app, whether it is to turn off apps or add levels. There should not be 15 Angry Birds or whatever that are just level packs. It should be one version. Or one for iPhone/touch and one for iPad but no more than that. Same for magazines, learn to whatever apps etc. Keeps things tidy, avoids rank spam and for games you can continue right where you were no issues
Also I recall that the whole in app purchases was one of those annoying terms updates. If folks agreed without reading that is their fault. Not Apple's
How about this: Age-rate the games and say, "No in-app purchases for games rated Under 13". Is that so tough?
There is nothing stopping them from getting anything if they know the password or if the parents punch it in without vetting the app. The only possible way Apple could handle such an issue is if they restricted allowance accounts to only those things that were rated 4+ but not 13+ along with that rating rule.
But even then they would have to release a gigantic terms change in very large capital letters stating the new restriction very clearly and even more clearly that effective immediately they are not refunding in app purchases for any adult account regardless of your sob story and you need to put your kid on an allowance account or turn on restrictions. They could also change the rules so that you can't download 17+ aps or in app stuff unless you have a credit card on file or go to xyz webpage to fill out a digital affidavit that you are of age which requires you to include your driver's license number or other form of id. Hell if they did that perhaps they could put up a porn store th the kiddies wouldn't even see
If you think we could get any help whatsoever through iTunes OR Apple, you are DEAD WRONG. We made multiple efforts, too...emails, phone calls, and personal visits at the nearest Apple store 50 miles from our home. In the end we just figured we'd have to such it up as some sort of "Stupid Tax." We had stern talk with him so he understood the severity of what he did, but frankly, we did not think he understood what he really was doing at the time. We blamed Apple for allowing that type of application without proper safeguards.
Maybe we will see our hundred bucks again...I hope so. I love Apple products, but shame on them allowing for this sort of garbage occuring...and for their lack of willingness to own up to taking any responsibility or assisting us in getting the transaction reversed.
As soon as I read about it I disabled in app purchases on all 6 of our iOS devices. I think my not getting charged by my 5 year old randomly clicking on buttons just after I downloaded a kids game was just luck.
However, it's clear that games like Smurfs Village were intended to take advantage of unsuspecting parents (or naive kids, dumb ass adults, whatever...), and that's still wrong.
Disagree? How do you explain Capcom listing Smurfs Village as a kids game, yet charging as much as $99 for in-app purchases? How many parents are likely to allow such a purchase and how many kids do you think have this much disposable income? If the minimum in-app purchase is $4.99, then why should the app be free?
I was pleased to see Apple change it's policy recently. Requiring the password helps and may negate the lawsuit. However, I'm still confused about when Apple changed it's policy around free apps.
Others in this forum recall Steve Jobs saying that free apps would remain free. I was also surprised to learn that this had changed. If an app is going to charge for content, then why can't it charge $.99 to download?
Keeping free apps free is still the best solution, but I'm not holding my breath.
what about people stuck on 3.1.3 and 4.2.1?
Because of the way Apple lets you share apps we all use the same account (If I buy a game, everybody else in my family can download it for free. If we separate the accounts everybody has to pay individually).
Not so sure that it true. I have apps from two different accounts on my ipad no problem. yes it means that sometimes I have to go hit up our office assistant to give me the password to download updates but she's usually around so what's the worry.
My wife and I were had to the tune of $99.99 when our 10 year old grandson made a "Purchase" in a FREE game he asked if he could download on her iPad. We were shocked when the receipt for the transaction was emailed to us the following day.
Wow, that developer is clearly trying to rip people off, which game was it so other people don't get caught out? The reason why Apple won't be too receptive to a refund is that they make 30% of the amount so they'd have to give you back their $30 too.
I think Apple mentioned some controls over in-app purchases like logging out more quickly but they should really notify the account holder by email or something for every in-app purchase to confirm the transaction. Of course, someone could jump over to the email app and confirm it but a young person might not be able to figure it out.
update, now that I think about it, ive never seen a logout of store button, so if I have recently downloaded updates, then in app purchases would automatically happen without a password...the more I think this through, the more I think this suit is legit.
Why can't we take responsibility for our own actions, monitor our own children and stop asking the government and companies to "protect" us. Is it always about passing the buck and not owning up?
I am a huge advocate of personal responsibility, but I think the case here is unique
Imagine if you buy a PPV movie on cable and the next day your kid is then able to buy some PPV event without entering a PIN or auth code because you entered one the night before...that is what we are talking about here, not cases of parents giving out passwords, cases of the password not being required as it should have been, and apple does have direct gain associated with this so called bug, so yeah its not a BS suit.
Not so sure that it true. I have apps from two different accounts on my ipad no problem. yes it means that sometimes I have to go hit up our office assistant to give me the password to download updates but she's usually around so what's the worry.
You can download content to your iPod / phone / pad using any number of accounts but a purchase under one account does not give you free access to that purchase on another account. If you buy an app under one account up to four more users can download the same app for free as long as they log in to the purchasing account. This is the main reason for sharing an account among family members.
Imagine if you buy a PPV movie on cable and the next day your kid is then able to buy some PPV event without entering a PIN or auth code because you entered one the night before...that is what we are talking about here, not cases of parents giving out passwords, cases of the password not being required as it should have been, and apple does have direct gain associated with this so called bug, so yeah its not a BS suit.
The night before is a far cry from 15 minutes. I don't think there is a resemblance of equivalence. It sounds like the answer is to go back to entering passwords every single time, I don't know if I like the idea of having to enter every time because Apple needed to protect themselves. They might need to publicize their parental locks more though, I think that's a key to preventing misuse and undesired surprises.
I guess 6 iOS devices is a bit much. My five year old doesn't have his own iOS device. My two oldest kids (11 and 9) have ipod touches and they share them with my youngest two.