I don't see how it would have been difficult for them to add a payment threshold from the outset of offering IAPs. If you attempt to spend more than say $50, they could send an email out to the account linked with the credit card and it would require the credit card owner to enter their CVV code or something to authorize the transaction and do the same every $50 after that. It's just damage limitation and the whole lawsuit could have been avoided.
Also, I assume that Apple paid the developers of the apps already. It was the developers that were responsible for it, they knew every IAP made and benefitted from it. Apple knows who they are and they should be made to return the money. This is why certain kinds of scams keep coming back again and again because they get away with it.
I don't see how it would have been difficult for them to add a payment threshold from the outset of offering IAPs. If you attempt to spend more than say $50, they could send an email out to the account linked with the credit card and it would require the credit card owner to enter their CVV code or something to authorize the transaction and do the same every $50 after that. It's just damage limitation and the whole lawsuit could have been avoided.
Also, I assume that Apple paid the developers of the apps already. It was the developers that were responsible for it, they knew every IAP made and benefitted from it. Apple knows who they are and they should be made to return the money. This is why certain kinds of scams keep coming back again and again because they get away with it.
I still don't know why it takes Apple a minimum of 24 hours and sometimes days to send emails of purchases. My son buys downloads from Google, Microsoft, Sony (PS3, PSVita), and Apple. I get almost instantaneous emails from the others but not from Apple. How many more IAPs occurred because the parents didn’t get the email until the next day?
Also, I assume that Apple paid the developers of the apps already. It was the developers that were responsible for it, they knew every IAP made and benefitted from it. Apple knows who they are and they should be made to return the money. This is why certain kinds of scams keep coming back again and again because they get away with it.
Unless it's been changed (again) the developer contract stipulates that in the event Apple refunds a customer for app purchses within 90 days of the original transaction they have the right to withhold enough commissions due to that developer to reimburse Apple. This is/was the applicable contract sub-section found under "Responsibility, Liability and Indemnity
"6.3 In the event that Apple receives any notice or claim from any end-user that: (i) the end-user wishes to cancel its license to any of the Licensed Applications within ninety (90) days of the date of download of that Licensed Application by that end-user; or (ii) a Licensed Application fails to conform to Your specifications or Your product warranty or the requirements of any applicable law, Apple may refund to the end-user the full amount of the price paid by the end-user for that Licensed Application. In the event that Apple refunds any such price to an end-user, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. Apple will have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that Licensed Application, notwithstanding the refund of the price to the end-user."
But seeing as many of the refunds now will be outside that 90 day window Apple may not have recourse under the contract to hold the developer ultimately responsible. Dunno. In addition any monies not refunded to App Store customers from the $32.5M settlement will be "contributed" to the FTC.
I remember a story about the FTC investiging potential privacy issues in apps targeting children, and yes that included Google Play.
In many countries (and especially so on certain days, such as Christmas, birthdays, etc...) giving a child an Android device is classified as child abuse.
Unless there's something that Apple isn't revealing, I don't understand why the FTC got involved. Seems to me that Apple was already doing the right thing and the court agreed.
I'm not an Apple fanboy and I criticize Apple when I believe they're in the wrong, but how many other companies would have contacted everyone by email (instead of waiting for customer service complaints) who had made a purchase and then, when emails bounced back, notified people with postcards?
Something "stinks" about the kid who ordered $thousands of dollars of in-app purchases. The kid would of had to of made those purchases within 15 minutes AND with a password. Hell...the app store makes you enter a password even for free applications (which drives me nuts). So how did the kid make all those purchases without the parent knowing (and obviously without the parent properly setting up the device).
Fortune explained why the FTC got involved AFTER Apple had already begun the reimbursements. Get this... Any of the $32.5 million NOT paid out MUST go to the FTC!
The US government is going to get its slimy, thieving paws on Apple's cash horde no matter what!
Fortune explained why the FTC got involved AFTER Apple had already begun the reimbursements. Get this... Any of the $32.5 million NOT paid out MUST go to the FTC!
The US government is going to get its slimy, thieving paws on Apple's cash horde no matter what!
Which is the reason why I took the iPod Touch away from my son and got him a PS Vita instead. The IAPs for these 'cheap' games were costing me a small fortune. I'd rather pay $15-20 one time for a full game than $. 99 for a crippled game that requires one to spend more money in order to play it fully.
it seems that parents these days have been released of all responsibility for supervising their kids<span style="line-height:22px;">…</span> .and on top it, they get paid for being ignorant.
So, will those that get reimbursed for unauthorized app purchases delete those apps they didn't give their kids permission to buy? I highly doubt it.
A?s a result, Apple <span style="line-height:22px;">will probably</span> require us to sign-in with every single app purchase in the future so as to avoid the litigious <span style="line-height:22px;">behavior</span> of those that find it easier to sue than to set and enforce ground rules with their children. Guaranteed, those same parents will be the first ones to complain that they have to input their password with every purchase made.
There's something we're not considering. There are games like Angry Birds that initially did not have IAPs, but then included it in a update, so if a game is set to auto-update then a parent might be unaware that a game they thought had no IAPs now all of a sudden does.
Apple in turn should place a law suit on all the stupid irresponsible parents who do a crappy job with "basic parenting" - dumb dumb parents (or are they truly a "parent"). Hysterical how dumb people are...
I don't see how it would have been difficult for them to add a payment threshold from the outset of offering IAPs. If you attempt to spend more than say $50, they could send an email out to the account linked with the credit card and it would require the credit card owner to enter their CVV code or something to authorize the transaction and do the same every $50 after that. It's just damage limitation and the whole lawsuit could have been avoided.
Also, I assume that Apple paid the developers of the apps already. It was the developers that were responsible for it, they knew every IAP made and benefitted from it. Apple knows who they are and they should be made to return the money. This is why certain kinds of scams keep coming back again and again because they get away with it.
Or if it's such a problem, don't give the kids the iPhone. But that would require actual parenting.
Or if it's such a problem, don't give the kids the iPhone.
That would not be in Apple's interest. It's important for those young users to be committed to Apple's ecosystem and become Apple consumers when they reach adulthood.
That is the exact problem, the FTC has forced Apple's hand (wonder what is real back story) they have now reinforce the idea that people do not need to be responsible for their actions.
But this was before Apple absolved themselves thereof. They have a toggle switch now to turn off in-app purchases entirely.
They cannot be sued over this ever again, not only because they already have been, but because they have everything in place available to the user that is required to prevent it from happening.
Originally Posted by maccherry
The app maker make a watered down product and then ask you to add on to it, at a price, to make it the way it should have been at time of download.
This is legal and allowed by Apple. Get over it and just buy the full version.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That would not be in Apple's interest. It's important for those young users to be committed to Apple's ecosystem and become Apple consumers when they reach adulthood.
Or if it's such a problem, don't give the kids the iPhone. But that would require actual parenting.
It doesn't have to be a iPhone, it could be a iPod Touch. How many here laud it for being a much better choice than a Nintendo DS or PS Vita? No parent is going to stand over a child and watch him/her play. A game like Angry Birds didn't originally have IAPs but included them in a update, previous updates just included more levels so someone could very easily had missed that a certain update now included IAPs. I know I'm repeating myself but nobody is considering that point.
It would help stop IAPs that are selected by accident and help buyers be more responsible with overpriced or highly addictive games. Gambling companies have measures and warnings to help people gamble responsibly. Some IAPs are much more expensive than the app and should be guarded against:
Stopping kids getting devices is fine in an ideal world but you can't keep them under control 24/7. The devices aren't always expensive. An iPod Touch is just $230 and could be used to buy music and the stored credentials then used to buy games.
It does help that kids get these devices too so they stay in the Apple eco-system. Imagine what the future would be like with an entire generation raised on Android. A dystopia filled with hate, jealousy, theft and lies.
Isn't that was it meant by 'parenting': be a good parent and set the restrictions to desired level. I wouldn't want some kid to have access to my mail. Not that they may not read it, just don't want anything deleted.
Comments
Also, I assume that Apple paid the developers of the apps already. It was the developers that were responsible for it, they knew every IAP made and benefitted from it. Apple knows who they are and they should be made to return the money. This is why certain kinds of scams keep coming back again and again because they get away with it.
I still don't know why it takes Apple a minimum of 24 hours and sometimes days to send emails of purchases. My son buys downloads from Google, Microsoft, Sony (PS3, PSVita), and Apple. I get almost instantaneous emails from the others but not from Apple. How many more IAPs occurred because the parents didn’t get the email until the next day?
Unless it's been changed (again) the developer contract stipulates that in the event Apple refunds a customer for app purchses within 90 days of the original transaction they have the right to withhold enough commissions due to that developer to reimburse Apple. This is/was the applicable contract sub-section found under "Responsibility, Liability and Indemnity
"6.3 In the event that Apple receives any notice or claim from any end-user that: (i) the end-user wishes to cancel its license to any of the Licensed Applications within ninety (90) days of the date of download of that Licensed Application by that end-user; or (ii) a Licensed Application fails to conform to Your specifications or Your product warranty or the requirements of any applicable law, Apple may refund to the end-user the full amount of the price paid by the end-user for that Licensed Application. In the event that Apple refunds any such price to an end-user, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. Apple will have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that Licensed Application, notwithstanding the refund of the price to the end-user."
But seeing as many of the refunds now will be outside that 90 day window Apple may not have recourse under the contract to hold the developer ultimately responsible. Dunno. In addition any monies not refunded to App Store customers from the $32.5M settlement will be "contributed" to the FTC.
How convenient.
In many countries (and especially so on certain days, such as Christmas, birthdays, etc...) giving a child an Android device is classified as child abuse.
So when does Google have to pay up for the same thing in the Google app store?
Whenever the Google App Store actually makes $32.5 million.
Fortune explained why the FTC got involved AFTER Apple had already begun the reimbursements. Get this... Any of the $32.5 million NOT paid out MUST go to the FTC!
The US government is going to get its slimy, thieving paws on Apple's cash horde no matter what!
Here is the Fortune link...
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/15/apple-ftc-kid-apps/?source=yahoo_quote
Just in case the article gets mysteriously updated...
Excellent (and most interesting) article.
The related story there has some very interesting claims too. Over 75% of total App Store revenue coming from. . . wait for it... in-app purchases?? That's incredible.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/03/29/apple-in-app-purchase/
I agree. Also some good commenting over there
Which is the reason why I took the iPod Touch away from my son and got him a PS Vita instead. The IAPs for these 'cheap' games were costing me a small fortune. I'd rather pay $15-20 one time for a full game than $. 99 for a crippled game that requires one to spend more money in order to play it fully.
There's something we're not considering. There are games like Angry Birds that initially did not have IAPs, but then included it in a update, so if a game is set to auto-update then a parent might be unaware that a game they thought had no IAPs now all of a sudden does.
Or if it's such a problem, don't give the kids the iPhone. But that would require actual parenting.
That would not be in Apple's interest. It's important for those young users to be committed to Apple's ecosystem and become Apple consumers when they reach adulthood.
But this was before Apple absolved themselves thereof. They have a toggle switch now to turn off in-app purchases entirely.
They cannot be sued over this ever again, not only because they already have been, but because they have everything in place available to the user that is required to prevent it from happening.
This is legal and allowed by Apple. Get over it and just buy the full version.
Is Apple a parent? Then why would you say this?
It doesn't have to be a iPhone, it could be a iPod Touch. How many here laud it for being a much better choice than a Nintendo DS or PS Vita? No parent is going to stand over a child and watch him/her play. A game like Angry Birds didn't originally have IAPs but included them in a update, previous updates just included more levels so someone could very easily had missed that a certain update now included IAPs. I know I'm repeating myself but nobody is considering that point.
Because the poster said "don't give the kids the iPhone". Seems pretty clear why Apple would prefer parents not resort to that.
It's not just a protection for kids:
http://gizmodo.com/holy-shit-i-just-spent-236-on-candy-crush-help-1032185653
It would help stop IAPs that are selected by accident and help buyers be more responsible with overpriced or highly addictive games. Gambling companies have measures and warnings to help people gamble responsibly. Some IAPs are much more expensive than the app and should be guarded against:
http://www.t3.com/features/in-app-purchases-most-expensive-ever
Stopping kids getting devices is fine in an ideal world but you can't keep them under control 24/7. The devices aren't always expensive. An iPod Touch is just $230 and could be used to buy music and the stored credentials then used to buy games.
It does help that kids get these devices too so they stay in the Apple eco-system. Imagine what the future would be like with an entire generation raised on Android. A dystopia filled with hate, jealousy, theft and lies.
Isn't that was it meant by 'parenting': be a good parent and set the restrictions to desired level. I wouldn't want some kid to have access to my mail. Not that they may not read it, just don't want anything deleted.