Apple hasn’t really lost anything here - the case hasn’t even really begun. Having a motion denied means jack as far as the whole trial is concerned and has no bearing on the merits of the case as a whole.
In a way it could be good for them that it was denied. Because if it had been dismissed there would be little to stop some other group from filing again. Now if Apple wins there will be precedent which can be used to shut down other suits.
This lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous. These parents have no case. I would be really shocked if Apple loses. My lawyer buddies just shook their heads in disbelief when I asked them what they thought about the case. It's a pretty sad state of affairs with the court system now. I don't know what this judge was thinking to allow this case to move forward.
In a way it could be good for them that it was denied. Because if it had been dismissed there would be little to stop some other group from filing again. Now if Apple wins there will be precedent which can be used to shut down other suits.
That is possible, but I think it was a short term legal strategy for this case more than anything - just because the case wasn’t dismissed outright doesn’t mean that Apple still cannot bring it up later as a defense - judges allow for that all the time. In reality, the whole thing was more Apple objecting to the complaint more than anything since it was described as bait and switch. Apple basically tried for a quick dismissal saying “no it wasn’t and cite their agreement as a basis”. They can just bring it up later in more detail. The judge basically said that there is still a basis for the trial to proceed. I doubted that a direct dismissal would happen with this - their license agreement wouldn’t be enough to argue some of the arguments anyway. There are several arguments here remember, my guess that’s why things proceeded. The judge didn’t think that was enough to override the claim as a whole. I don’t see anything here where the judge ruled that the EULA is invalid or precluded as evidence for a defense. That would have been bad...
Haven't ANY of you realized, Apple caters their products to main stream, stupid people, people that are afraid of technology. The $100 billion in the bank came from them, not you! You geeks could barely muster a 10% market share and nearly drove Apple to bankruptcy!!
"..these parents have no responsibility..."
"...Yep I am have three children and they don't own phone's I want allow it...."
"...the judge is an idiot..."
"... the judiciary in the US -- including its highest court -- has become a pathetic joke..."
"...It's your own fucking fault for supplying it to your kids..."
Totally agree, can't believe some of the comments here.
'Smurfs', FREE!!! (like free candy for kids), then press one of these delicious add-ons (some as much as $100). Ok, developers can do what they like, fine, we don't have to buy what they sell because we have enough sense, us adults that is. Apple must take some responsibility here after all they created the bridge between these con artists and the unsuspecting credit card owner with a kid. All high value in app purchases like $100 should require a password at all times, how many of us would fine that inconvenient?
Totally agree, can't believe some of the comments here.
'Smurfs', FREE!!! (like free candy for kids), then press one of these delicious add-ons (some as much as $100). Ok, developers can do what they like, fine, we don't have to buy what they sell because we have enough sense, us adults that is. Apple must take some responsibility here after all they created the bridge between these con artists and the unsuspecting credit card owner with a kid. All high value in app purchases like $100 should require a password at all times, how many of us would fine that inconvenient?
Indeed, "Smurfs" is a big rip-off, that should never have been allowed on the AppStore in the first place, on moral grounds, because it is specifically aimed at misleading youngsters. And there are quite a few other apps in the same league, to a lesser extent.
It is not because Apple has corrected the problem (satisfactorily) at some point, that a case can't be made for occurrences before that.
The fact that in-app purchases when logged-in now always require at least one more password, is a big improvement.
Of course logging out after a purchase has always been an option and trumps waiting 5 minutes before automatic logout:).
With respect to any "damages" that people are suing for, these should obviously be limited to the incurred in-app charges.
RE SPONS ABILTY Folks. Either you have, teach it or not. I as a parent understand that I am responsible for my children and what they do, which is why I choose to teach them right from wrong.
I also didn't provide my children with an iPhone / iPad or any other device that would allow them to make purchases without my consent!
To those folks who choose to let Apple, Nintendo, Xbox and other forms of non-life baby sit and bring up their kids, well folks, you got what you deserved!
This lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous. These parents have no case. I would be really shocked if Apple loses. My lawyer buddies just shook their heads in disbelief when I asked them what they thought about the case. It's a pretty sad state of affairs with the court system now. I don't know what this judge was thinking to allow this case to move forward.
The judge HAS to allow it to go forward.
Apple asked for dismissal - which is only allowed when there is no disagreement over the facts and the law is completely clear. That is, if there's ANY case at all or any real dispute after the facts, the plaintiff is entitled to a hearing. Like it or not, the US system allows plaintiffs to sue with virtually no justification at all. Only in rare cases will a suit be dismissed at this stage. The judge had no choice in the matter.
He did, however, dismiss some of the claims - so apparently there were some claims that were completely unsupportable.
This case is as if I gave my young child a $20 bill and told her to go look around the candy store while I enjoyed my coffee and relaxed in the food court of the mall. Is it the candy store's fault if the kid ignores my request and buys something?
The prior poster to your response is actually spot on. The bulk of Apple's growth does not come from Geeks and Tech Sector fanbois. It comes from general consumers. Go visit a few Apple stores in the afternoon. They sure as hell are full of nerds walking around hoping to outwit an Apple Genius. They're full of general consumers getting excited often for the first time to try out an iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, and a Mac.
The prior poster to your response is actually spot on. The bulk of Apple's growth does not come from Geeks and Tech Sector fanbois. It comes from general consumers. Go visit a few Apple stores in the afternoon. They sure as hell are full of nerds walking around hoping to outwit an Apple Genius. They're full of general consumers getting excited often for the first time to try out an iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, and a Mac.
So not knowing much about technology somehow absolves them of any personal responsibility?
Hold the phone, then; I now consider myself a tech idiot. Hang on, I have to go run up a bill with twenty thousand texts and five hundred in-app purchases and then get the money waived because I didn't understand what I was doing.
Unless you're ONLY replying to his large text out of context, in which case I sort of agree with you, but the conclusion is somewhat wrong.
What annoys me most about in-app purchases is the ridiculous amounts that the game can charge people for (usually for coins or something). For instance, you download the game for free, and in-app purchases begin at $1, but then, they go up as much as $100. This is just insane. There needs to be a cap on this. It's no wonder some people are angry. I agree people need to take due care and responsibility for in-app purchases, including supervising their children, but is it ok to charge $100 for coins or whatever to play the game? These people understandably feel the developers have been unreasonable.
What annoys me most about in-app purchases is the ridiculous amounts that the game can charge people for (usually for coins or something). For instance, you download the game for free, and in-app purchases begin at $1, but then, they go up as much as $100. This is just insane. There needs to be a cap on this. It's no wonder some people are angry. I agree people need to take due care and responsibility for in-app purchases, including supervising their children, but is it ok to charge $100 for coins or whatever to play the game? These people understandably feel the developers have been unreasonable.
What about this: the in-app purchases can't cost more than the app itself?
Before you say, "That doesn't work; free apps allow in-app purchases," I'll amend "or more than $25 if the app is free". That seems reasonable. Not that it's not the user's fault in the first place.
What annoys me most about in-app purchases is the ridiculous amounts that the game can charge people for (usually for coins or something). For instance, you download the game for free, and in-app purchases begin at $1, but then, they go up as much as $100. This is just insane. There needs to be a cap on this. It's no wonder some people are angry. I agree people need to take due care and responsibility for in-app purchases, including supervising their children, but is it ok to charge $100 for coins or whatever to play the game? These people understandably feel the developers have been unreasonable.
You're absolutely right. The government should control what we spend money on. No one should be allowed to sell a car for more than $100,000. And there should be a rule that wines in a restaurant shouldn't cost more than an average entree. And Disney should not be able to charge more for a family pack of tickets than for a hotel room. After all, why should anyone be responsible for how they spend their own money?
In all fairness, Apple is doing a horrible job of raising their children.
I dunno, they're doing a pretty good job of keeping their children away from "adult content"/porn. Too bad it's technically impossible to have parental controls that would keep items rated as "porn" away from children.
In other words... it seems that they argue that parental controls are a great solution, but only when it suits their pockets.
This case is as if I gave my young child a $20 bill and told her to go look around the candy store while I enjoyed my coffee and relaxed in the food court of the mall. Is it the candy store's fault if the kid ignores my request and buys something?
It's the candy store's fault if they charge it to your credit card because they already have it on file.
I don't think these parents gave their children their credit card or their password. Apple (like the vast majority of businesses) simply cares more about making it convenient for them to make money, not so much that purchases can be unintentional. In this sort of situation, Apple doesn't "Think Different"-- they do what most other businesses would do.
It's the candy store's fault if they charge it to your credit card because they already have it on file.
I don't think these parents gave their children their credit card or their password. Apple (like the vast majority of businesses) simply cares more about making it convenient for them to make money, not so much that purchases can be unintentional. In this sort of situation, Apple doesn't "Think Different"-- they do what most other businesses would do.
If you gave the candy store permission for the child to charge things to your account, then why is it their fault when they let the child do so?
And giving the child the password to your iTunes account is the same as giving them your credit card.
What part of 'personal responsibility' do you not understand?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy
Apple hasn’t really lost anything here - the case hasn’t even really begun. Having a motion denied means jack as far as the whole trial is concerned and has no bearing on the merits of the case as a whole.
In a way it could be good for them that it was denied. Because if it had been dismissed there would be little to stop some other group from filing again. Now if Apple wins there will be precedent which can be used to shut down other suits.
This lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous. These parents have no case. I would be really shocked if Apple loses. My lawyer buddies just shook their heads in disbelief when I asked them what they thought about the case. It's a pretty sad state of affairs with the court system now. I don't know what this judge was thinking to allow this case to move forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
In a way it could be good for them that it was denied. Because if it had been dismissed there would be little to stop some other group from filing again. Now if Apple wins there will be precedent which can be used to shut down other suits.
That is possible, but I think it was a short term legal strategy for this case more than anything - just because the case wasn’t dismissed outright doesn’t mean that Apple still cannot bring it up later as a defense - judges allow for that all the time. In reality, the whole thing was more Apple objecting to the complaint more than anything since it was described as bait and switch. Apple basically tried for a quick dismissal saying “no it wasn’t and cite their agreement as a basis”. They can just bring it up later in more detail. The judge basically said that there is still a basis for the trial to proceed. I doubted that a direct dismissal would happen with this - their license agreement wouldn’t be enough to argue some of the arguments anyway. There are several arguments here remember, my guess that’s why things proceeded. The judge didn’t think that was enough to override the claim as a whole. I don’t see anything here where the judge ruled that the EULA is invalid or precluded as evidence for a defense. That would have been bad...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
If any post needed an irony mark, THIS one does. Epic first post.
Ditto!
PS: To AI forum devs, can you please tighten up all the extra carriage returns that are now being added to all posts?
Haven't ANY of you realized, Apple caters their products to main stream, stupid people, people that are afraid of technology. The $100 billion in the bank came from them, not you! You geeks could barely muster a 10% market share and nearly drove Apple to bankruptcy!!
"..these parents have no responsibility..."
"...Yep I am have three children and they don't own phone's I want allow it...."
"...the judge is an idiot..."
"... the judiciary in the US -- including its highest court -- has become a pathetic joke..."
"...It's your own fucking fault for supplying it to your kids..."
"...moronic and irresponsible parents..."
Are you really this myopic or merely another Poe?
Totally agree, can't believe some of the comments here.
'Smurfs', FREE!!! (like free candy for kids), then press one of these delicious add-ons (some as much as $100). Ok, developers can do what they like, fine, we don't have to buy what they sell because we have enough sense, us adults that is. Apple must take some responsibility here after all they created the bridge between these con artists and the unsuspecting credit card owner with a kid. All high value in app purchases like $100 should require a password at all times, how many of us would fine that inconvenient?
i dont think so...whos winnign then nokia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyweston
Totally agree, can't believe some of the comments here.
'Smurfs', FREE!!! (like free candy for kids), then press one of these delicious add-ons (some as much as $100). Ok, developers can do what they like, fine, we don't have to buy what they sell because we have enough sense, us adults that is. Apple must take some responsibility here after all they created the bridge between these con artists and the unsuspecting credit card owner with a kid. All high value in app purchases like $100 should require a password at all times, how many of us would fine that inconvenient?
Indeed, "Smurfs" is a big rip-off, that should never have been allowed on the AppStore in the first place, on moral grounds, because it is specifically aimed at misleading youngsters. And there are quite a few other apps in the same league, to a lesser extent.
It is not because Apple has corrected the problem (satisfactorily) at some point, that a case can't be made for occurrences before that.
The fact that in-app purchases when logged-in now always require at least one more password, is a big improvement.
Of course logging out after a purchase has always been an option and trumps waiting 5 minutes before automatic logout:).
With respect to any "damages" that people are suing for, these should obviously be limited to the incurred in-app charges.
RE SPONS ABILTY Folks. Either you have, teach it or not. I as a parent understand that I am responsible for my children and what they do, which is why I choose to teach them right from wrong.
I also didn't provide my children with an iPhone / iPad or any other device that would allow them to make purchases without my consent!
To those folks who choose to let Apple, Nintendo, Xbox and other forms of non-life baby sit and bring up their kids, well folks, you got what you deserved!
Skip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan17
This lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous. These parents have no case. I would be really shocked if Apple loses. My lawyer buddies just shook their heads in disbelief when I asked them what they thought about the case. It's a pretty sad state of affairs with the court system now. I don't know what this judge was thinking to allow this case to move forward.
The judge HAS to allow it to go forward.
Apple asked for dismissal - which is only allowed when there is no disagreement over the facts and the law is completely clear. That is, if there's ANY case at all or any real dispute after the facts, the plaintiff is entitled to a hearing. Like it or not, the US system allows plaintiffs to sue with virtually no justification at all. Only in rare cases will a suit be dismissed at this stage. The judge had no choice in the matter.
He did, however, dismiss some of the claims - so apparently there were some claims that were completely unsupportable.
This case is as if I gave my young child a $20 bill and told her to go look around the candy store while I enjoyed my coffee and relaxed in the food court of the mall. Is it the candy store's fault if the kid ignores my request and buys something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
Are you really this myopic or merely another Poe?
The prior poster to your response is actually spot on. The bulk of Apple's growth does not come from Geeks and Tech Sector fanbois. It comes from general consumers. Go visit a few Apple stores in the afternoon. They sure as hell are full of nerds walking around hoping to outwit an Apple Genius. They're full of general consumers getting excited often for the first time to try out an iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, and a Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
The prior poster to your response is actually spot on. The bulk of Apple's growth does not come from Geeks and Tech Sector fanbois. It comes from general consumers. Go visit a few Apple stores in the afternoon. They sure as hell are full of nerds walking around hoping to outwit an Apple Genius. They're full of general consumers getting excited often for the first time to try out an iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, and a Mac.
So not knowing much about technology somehow absolves them of any personal responsibility?
Hold the phone, then; I now consider myself a tech idiot. Hang on, I have to go run up a bill with twenty thousand texts and five hundred in-app purchases and then get the money waived because I didn't understand what I was doing.
Unless you're ONLY replying to his large text out of context, in which case I sort of agree with you, but the conclusion is somewhat wrong.
What annoys me most about in-app purchases is the ridiculous amounts that the game can charge people for (usually for coins or something). For instance, you download the game for free, and in-app purchases begin at $1, but then, they go up as much as $100. This is just insane. There needs to be a cap on this. It's no wonder some people are angry. I agree people need to take due care and responsibility for in-app purchases, including supervising their children, but is it ok to charge $100 for coins or whatever to play the game? These people understandably feel the developers have been unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin0611
What annoys me most about in-app purchases is the ridiculous amounts that the game can charge people for (usually for coins or something). For instance, you download the game for free, and in-app purchases begin at $1, but then, they go up as much as $100. This is just insane. There needs to be a cap on this. It's no wonder some people are angry. I agree people need to take due care and responsibility for in-app purchases, including supervising their children, but is it ok to charge $100 for coins or whatever to play the game? These people understandably feel the developers have been unreasonable.
What about this: the in-app purchases can't cost more than the app itself?
Before you say, "That doesn't work; free apps allow in-app purchases," I'll amend "or more than $25 if the app is free". That seems reasonable. Not that it's not the user's fault in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphin0611
What annoys me most about in-app purchases is the ridiculous amounts that the game can charge people for (usually for coins or something). For instance, you download the game for free, and in-app purchases begin at $1, but then, they go up as much as $100. This is just insane. There needs to be a cap on this. It's no wonder some people are angry. I agree people need to take due care and responsibility for in-app purchases, including supervising their children, but is it ok to charge $100 for coins or whatever to play the game? These people understandably feel the developers have been unreasonable.
You're absolutely right. The government should control what we spend money on. No one should be allowed to sell a car for more than $100,000. And there should be a rule that wines in a restaurant shouldn't cost more than an average entree. And Disney should not be able to charge more for a family pack of tickets than for a hotel room. After all, why should anyone be responsible for how they spend their own money?
/s
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotones
In all fairness, Apple is doing a horrible job of raising their children.
I dunno, they're doing a pretty good job of keeping their children away from "adult content"/porn. Too bad it's technically impossible to have parental controls that would keep items rated as "porn" away from children.
In other words... it seems that they argue that parental controls are a great solution, but only when it suits their pockets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
This case is as if I gave my young child a $20 bill and told her to go look around the candy store while I enjoyed my coffee and relaxed in the food court of the mall. Is it the candy store's fault if the kid ignores my request and buys something?
It's the candy store's fault if they charge it to your credit card because they already have it on file.
I don't think these parents gave their children their credit card or their password. Apple (like the vast majority of businesses) simply cares more about making it convenient for them to make money, not so much that purchases can be unintentional. In this sort of situation, Apple doesn't "Think Different"-- they do what most other businesses would do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by entification
It's the candy store's fault if they charge it to your credit card because they already have it on file.
I don't think these parents gave their children their credit card or their password. Apple (like the vast majority of businesses) simply cares more about making it convenient for them to make money, not so much that purchases can be unintentional. In this sort of situation, Apple doesn't "Think Different"-- they do what most other businesses would do.
If you gave the candy store permission for the child to charge things to your account, then why is it their fault when they let the child do so?
And giving the child the password to your iTunes account is the same as giving them your credit card.
What part of 'personal responsibility' do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
What part of 'personal responsibility' do you not understand?
"Personal", I'd imagine. Unfortunately, he's far from alone these days.