Apple nudged FTC to look into Google Play Store after in-app purchase settlement

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Aren't they in a different standard? Doesn't Apple hold itself to the highest standard? Why are you then surprised when other people try to hold them to that?

    Forum posters frequently use arbitrarily high "standards" invented by them to "prove" some spurious argument about Apple's conduct that they disagree with, or to predict the company's doom. The arbitrary "standards" have nothing to do with the high standards Apple (and its customers) expect from Apple.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 45
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Just because a company holds themselves to a higher standard doesn't mean that they should be governed at that same higher standard. That would mean a company with no or low standard of ethics should be allowed to get away with doing any form of unscrupulous behavior or practice they want…without repercussion.

    To whom much is given much is expected. People have given Apple lots of money, their loyalty, their trust, etc, etc...., and expect Apple to not act like every other company.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 45
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Forum posters frequently use arbitrarily high "standards" invented by them to "prove" some spurious argument about Apple's conduct that they disagree with, or to predict the company's doom. The arbitrary "standards" have nothing to do with the high standards Apple (and its customers) expect from Apple.

    Ahhhh so the high standard is a figment of their imagination. I'll try to remember that.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 45
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Aren't they in a different standard? Doesn't Apple hold itself to the highest standard? Why are you then surprised when other people try to hold them to that?

    What a dumb analogy. So any company that makes lower quality products should be held to a lower standard by law?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 45
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    splif wrote: »
    What a dumb analogy. So any company that makes lower quality products should be held to a lower standard by law?

    Faulty logic, just because one thing exists doesn’t mean that the opposite exists as well.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 45
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member

    If people have not figure it out, the US government is fining companies left and right to fill hole in the budget. The Wall Street and the banking industry imploded on itself and took all our money with them the government went after them for the rest by fining the hell out of them. Since 2007 the US government has been aggressively going after companies for any reason they can come up with.

     

    Grant it there are some screwed up companies out there and desire what that get, but it seem like the US government is going after any and all companies even before someone complains or their evidence that they are cheating people or causing any harm. Out government is planning on getting their fair share of the $100B Apple has off shore one lawsuit at a time.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 45
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    God help you if you become a success in America.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 45
    dickprinterdickprinter Posts: 1,060member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Faulty logic, just because one thing exists doesn’t mean that the opposite exists as well.

    I agree, but a company shouldn't be overly scrutinized for scrutinizing themselves. Given the same circumstances, all companies should be looked at equally. All Apple is doing is ensuring that they are not being singled out, which keeps the playing field level.

     

    Actually, rather than drawing the FTC's attention towards Google, if Apple ensured their users that "freemium" purchases require adult authorization, I would think they could use that to their advantage as a selling point.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 45
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Ahhhh so the high standard is a figment of their imagination. I'll try to remember that.

    I said the standard was arbitrary, custom crafted to support an argument about Apple's failure to meet it. Try to keep up.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 45
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    I agree, but a company shouldn't be overly scrutinized for scrutinizing themselves. Given the same circumstances, all companies should be looked at equally. All Apple is doing is ensuring that they are not being singled out, which keeps the playing field level.

    Actually, rather than drawing the FTC's attention towards Google, if Apple ensured their users that "freemium" purchases require adult authorization, I would think they could use that to their advantage as a selling point.

    Agreed, but the reason the FTC investigated Apple was because of the outcry of Apple's customers. They didn't pick on Apple because they just felt like it. If there's a similar problem with the Google Play Store then that too should be investigated, but I don't think it's Apple's responsibility to tell the FTC to do such investigation.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 45
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    To whom much is given much is expected. People have given Apple lots of money, their loyalty, their trust, etc, etc...., and expect Apple to not act like every other company.

    Except we are not talking about people, we are talking about a government commission. Person A should be subject to the same amount of legal scrutiny as person B regardless of the personal ethical standars that each hold themselves to.
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Agreed, but the reason the FTC investigated Apple was because of the outcry of Apple's customers. They didn't pick on Apple because they just felt like it. If there's a similar problem with the Google Play Store then that too should be investigated, but I don't think it's Apple's responsibility to tell the FTC to do such investigation.

    Apple already settled with their customers in civil court (on very generous terms) without the FTC getting involved, so I have a hard time believing that this investigation had anything to do with appeasing the customers.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 45
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Faulty logic, just because one thing exists doesn’t mean that the opposite exists as well.

    No, that is what you are saying. We are talking about the law being applied equally.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 45
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

     

    I agree, but a company shouldn't be overly scrutinized for scrutinizing themselves. Given the same circumstances, all companies should be looked at equally. All Apple is doing is ensuring that they are not being singled out, which keeps the playing field level.

     

    Actually, rather than drawing the FTC's attention towards Google, if Apple ensured their users that "freemium" purchases require adult authorization, I would think they could use that to their advantage as a selling point.


    You agree with what? That the law should not apply equally to companies that are doing the same thing because one company is perceived by consumers & itself to have a higher standard?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 45
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    splif wrote: »
    No, that is what you are saying. We are talking about the law being applied equally.

    It's still not Apple's place to see that the law is applied equally. The side effect of having users that are more educated, and of a higher economical status is that they call politicians when they can’t get a problem rectified. Enough calls to enough politicians gets the attention of a government agency.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 45
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    Companies won't admit to wrong-doing if it's a third party. Especially if they are making money off of it.

    Premium Text Message fraud? Oh the customer was an idiot.
    Freemium in-app purchase fraud? Oh the customer was an idiot.
    You can also put "blame a kid" in there.

    One place I worked for, customers routinely pulled the "blame a kid" excuse because they or their kid put their cell phone number into one of those "text ##### to win a (item)" scams. I can't believe how long these were allowed to continue, as I started seeing them in 2004 when text messages were separate packages.

    In those cases I told the customers that I would be disabling the text message support on their devices as a condition of refunding the money (which wasn't company policy, company policy was to deny all credit and have them sort it out with the third party, who often had no dispute mechanism.) The wireless company was getting some % of this fraud and was not incentivized to punish the third parties. I consider it "doing the right thing" by making whoever audits the credits see exactly what is being credited and why.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 45
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    but I don't think it's Apple's responsibility to tell the FTC to do such investigation.

    They didn't tell the FTC to do anything. They passed information along from a third party source about the Play store policies. It's okay to send emails containing information, right?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 45
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    They didn't tell the FTC to do anything. They passed information along from a third party source about the Play store policies. It's okay to send emails containing information, right?

    Where I'm from that's called 'dry snitching'.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 45
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Where I'm from that's called 'dry snitching'.

    What are you trying to say?

    Apple holds themselves to a higher standard, so they deserve more scrutiny from the law.

    But at the same time, if they demand equal treatment under the law, they somehow have low standards (by allowing themselves to sink to snitching)?

    That would be a circular argument except that your premise is the exact contradiction of your conclusion.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 45
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    iaeen wrote: »
    What are you trying to say?

    Apple holds themselves to a higher standard, so they deserve more scrutiny from the law.

    But at the same time, if they demand equal treatment under the law, they somehow have low standards (by allowing themselves to sink to snitching)?

    Like Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven, "deserve's got nothing to do with it". People are going expect Apple to act a certain way whether it deserves it or not.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 45
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 346member
    FTC Just announced they're suing Amazon over in app purchases... could Google be next?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.