Sometimes I wonder if lawyers are partaking in the many suits filed against Apple just to pad their resume. Look at me, I filed 20 suits against Apple.
The number of lawsuits for often trivial reasons is getting out of hand. Do people not have some idea of personal responsibity or common sense? Is filing suit against Apple a task in some wierd version of Trivial Pusuit?
I’m glad for this lawsuit and I hope it makes headway!!!
I hate this free app, but have to buy loot boxes (or something else) to get anywhere in the game. Words with friends has even taken this on, wish it had a non-cheat mode so I can just play the game with other non-cheaters...I don’t know if someone is beating me because they are good at it or because they use the cheats.
Poor dear. Who forced you to buy it?
Hundreds of thousands are dead from Covid-19, people are protesting about legalized murder, and a major concern in your life is the fear that someone might be cheating in a video game?
I’m glad for this lawsuit and I hope it makes headway!!!
I hate this free app, but have to buy loot boxes (or something else) to get anywhere in the game. Words with friends has even taken this on, wish it had a non-cheat mode so I can just play the game with other non-cheaters...I don’t know if someone is beating me because they are good at it or because they use the cheats.
Poor dear. Who forced you to buy it?
Hundreds of thousands are dead from Covid-19, people are protesting about legalized murder, and a major concern in your life is the fear that someone might be cheating in a video game?
Well, based on your statement basically any thread here in this forum covers a first world problem.
America, land of ridiculous lawsuits and haven of lawyer.
It's actually a fairly logical result of the "freedom" of not having a government actively protecting the interests of the people.
Are you implied the rest of the world has no freedom? There are lots of things other countries can do but not in US.
it is more about people’s common sense. In most countries, people will not sue others for fun, carry gun in school/church and yelling freedom while restricting what other can do.
Here are two words for anyone who wants to limit spending on apps and can’t figure out how to place restrictions: gift cards.
That only adds money to iTunes/Apple account, there still is a credit or debit card assigned to that Apple ID...once the iTunes/App Store gift card runs out, that card is charged, so this doesn’t limit spending.
Like it or not, it is the current trend of gaming. I hate it as much as the next person.
but you always have a choice to not play it. Apple required the app developers to list the price and in app purchases. I always check it before I download it. You can just try it and decided to keep it or not.
Also, Apple always asks for confirmation and password/faceID/touchID. So it is the user’s responsibility to confirm it. How is it apple’s responsibility for user’s own choice?
Seems like we get a new case like this every four months or so. Maybe if parents would stop giving their kids their iPhone or iPad as a babysitter this wouldn't happen. I remember the day when my parents actually spent time with me and we would go to the park or the beach, or the mountains.
One of the many and varied reasons my kids hate me is I have banned games with in app purchases on principle, but I have a special hate for loot boxes.
America, land of ridiculous lawsuits and haven of lawyer.
It's actually a fairly logical result of the "freedom" of not having a government actively protecting the interests of the people.
If you end up trusting that "the market" will fix everything, then you will also end up with some type of specialists that will act as agents of those not experienced enough in protecting their own rights within that market; which, simply put, would be the lawyers. But, that same group will of course also turn predatory, and mostly be in it for their own monetary gain; making the "too free" market reach stability at a lower efficiency than one where a democratic government more actively act on behalf of the people.
There are pros and cons of either approachbut freedom does not belong in scare quotes.
On the one hand a clear benefit of the nanny state is the ambulance chasers don’t make as much money, there are less frivolous lawsuits and there is less of a corporate law system required.
On the other hand if you think time clock watching public servants employed by big brother government would as zealously pursue and do a better job of protecting your product quality and safety rights than vulture lawyers, well good luck with that.
The gripping hand is I would make the observation, coming from a place where nanny government is a lot more active than is the case in the US, that our great and benevolent nanny tends to follow the US in making regulations that mirror the requirements your courts have already imposed following litigation, not the other way around.
The important thing to understand here isn't the Apple-specific situation, but rather that companies could do a lot to trick people into "accidentally" doing purchases; which means that legally there needs to be some sort of guidelines as far as what is trickery, and what is a reasonable level of making sure you as a company don't by complacency allow your customers to accidentally make unwanted purchases.
So if Apple make their products to be used by children, and allow some type of purchases to happen in relationship to that, then they end up with a legal obligation to one way or another make sure the parents easily understand how to control such purchases. And "parents" in this context doesn't mean some ideal parents with perfect tech competency, but the type of normal parents of the market that buy Apple products.
I don't know how you can get tricked into accidentally purchasing something. Whenever I make a purchase either in the app store or in a game I have to enter my password or use face id/touch id. So if I see something pop up asking me to approve it and I didn't knowingly purchase something then I hit cancel and don't approve it. Not sure what else a company needs to do other than make a person enter their password to approve a purchase.
As for the second paragraph you speak in generalitites. What is easy for one person may not be easy for another. Also it doesn't take a parent with perfect tech competency to do anything on apple products, and how do you define normal parent? What's normal for one person may not be normal for another. If a parent doesn't understand how to do it then they should ask for help, either on line, go to the apple store or ask friend or family member. People need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions or kids actions and stop blaming others.
People need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions or kids actions and stop blaming others.
Naturally, the legal [cough][cough] profession would disagree with that sentence. In their perfect world, everyone would consult their lawyers before doing anything including something as mundane as going shopping. They want to be the guardians of the population and charge everyone top dollar for their services. IANAL etc. /sic
I’m glad for this lawsuit and I hope it makes headway!!!
I hate this free app, but have to buy loot boxes (or something else) to get anywhere in the game. Words with friends has even taken this on, wish it had a non-cheat mode so I can just play the game with other non-cheaters...I don’t know if someone is beating me because they are good at it or because they use the cheats.
Poor dear. Who forced you to buy it?
Hundreds of thousands are dead from Covid-19, people are protesting about legalized murder, and a major concern in your life is the fear that someone might be cheating in a video game?
You took ONE of my points out of context to suit your position, also don’t get smarmy with me!
As in this lawsuit, I have a problem with apps being designed to be addictive, especially for children. You can get caught up in the moment, but, there is still much more going on than just what the media is showing you, those things are important but not just those things matter.
That only adds money to iTunes/Apple account, there still is a credit or debit card assigned to that Apple ID...once the iTunes/App Store gift card runs out, that card is charged, so this doesn’t limit spending.
Not true. I have only ever had iTunes cards on my account with Apple. Never needed to supply a cc. I have a monthly GB fee and occasionally buy an iBook or game. When balance goes below $4 I add another iTunes card. I do the same with my B&N Nook account. -Just add another B&N gift card.
Then I dont have to wonder about odd charges on my cc bill.
If we are now requiring companies to monitor the behavior of children, how about we start requiring mandatory psychological screening before people have children.
I’m glad for this lawsuit and I hope it makes headway!!!
I hate this free app, but have to buy loot boxes (or something else) to get anywhere in the game. Words with friends has even taken this on, wish it had a non-cheat mode so I can just play the game with other non-cheaters...I don’t know if someone is beating me because they are good at it or because they use the cheats.
I have never made an in-app purchase in any game since I’ve had an iphone (9 years). I play many “free-mium “ games.
Here are two words for anyone who wants to limit spending on apps and can’t figure out how to place restrictions: gift cards.
That only adds money to iTunes/Apple account, there still is a credit or debit card assigned to that Apple ID...once the iTunes/App Store gift card runs out, that card is charged, so this doesn’t limit spending.
Indeed. That’s why Apple introduced parental control restrictions, Ask-to-buy, AppleID age declaration and even Apple Arcade to ring-fence good behaviour. They've done more than enough to mitigate ’loot boxes’ and frankly I’d rather have in-app purchases & subscriptions left intact and leave it to parents to actually parent. Unless you’re implying the state should step in where parents aren’t fit to be parents.
I actually looked at the suit, and they are grasping as straws with the gambling device definition. 1. It is a machine, apparatus, or device (coin operation is not required);
2. Something of value is given to play the device; and
3. The player has the opportunity to receive something of value by any element of hazard or
chance (“something of value” is not limited to coins, bills, or tokens—it also includes free
replays, additional playing time, redemption tickets, gift cards, game credits, or anything else
with a value, monetary or otherwise.) (Penal Code, §§ 330a, 330b & 330.1.)
Number 2 is very much a stretch as the phone or hardware does not need something of value to be used and the value part for number 3 is very iffy because of how you might determine value. I would argue that simply because there is an unsupported/unendorsed market for accounts that does not mean that value is immediately attributed to it.
The important thing to understand here isn't the Apple-specific situation, but rather that companies could do a lot to trick people into "accidentally" doing purchases; which means that legally there needs to be some sort of guidelines as far as what is trickery, and what is a reasonable level of making sure you as a company don't by complacency allow your customers to accidentally make unwanted purchases.
So if Apple make their products to be used by children, and allow some type of purchases to happen in relationship to that, then they end up with a legal obligation to one way or another make sure the parents easily understand how to control such purchases. And "parents" in this context doesn't mean some ideal parents with perfect tech competency, but the type of normal parents of the market that buy Apple products.
I don't know how you can get tricked into accidentally purchasing something. Whenever I make a purchase either in the app store or in a game I have to enter my password or use face id/touch id. So if I see something pop up asking me to approve it and I didn't knowingly purchase something then I hit cancel and don't approve it. Not sure what else a company needs to do other than make a person enter their password to approve a purchase.
As for the second paragraph you speak in generalitites. What is easy for one person may not be easy for another. Also it doesn't take a parent with perfect tech competency to do anything on apple products, and how do you define normal parent? What's normal for one person may not be normal for another. If a parent doesn't understand how to do it then they should ask for help, either on line, go to the apple store or ask friend or family member. People need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions or kids actions and stop blaming others.
It's very easy to trick people into buying things when you have their credit card already on file; like making the default being easy for children to click through the purchase procedure, all while carrying games which are meant for children.
And when it comes to generalities… That's how the world f*cking works.
If you start a business and someone asks you to describe your target market you don't start reading a list of every person you think might buy your products, instead you describe that group in a more general type of way; which includes whatever you needed to do to make your products suit them. Like, you wouldn't say that you're selling an easy website builder, and then go "f*ck the ones buying it for not making it easy by first getting a relevant eduction to code websites from scratch".
Comments
it is more about people’s common sense. In most countries, people will not sue others for fun, carry gun in school/church and yelling freedom while restricting what other can do.
but you always have a choice to not play it. Apple required the app developers to list the price and in app purchases. I always check it before I download it. You can just try it and decided to keep it or not.
On the one hand a clear benefit of the nanny state is the ambulance chasers don’t make as much money, there are less frivolous lawsuits and there is less of a corporate law system required.
The gripping hand is I would make the observation, coming from a place where nanny government is a lot more active than is the case in the US, that our great and benevolent nanny tends to follow the US in making regulations that mirror the requirements your courts have already imposed following litigation, not the other way around.
I do the same with my B&N Nook account. -Just add another B&N gift card.
They've done more than enough to mitigate ’loot boxes’ and frankly I’d rather have in-app purchases & subscriptions left intact and leave it to parents to actually parent. Unless you’re implying the state should step in where parents aren’t fit to be parents.
1. It is a machine, apparatus, or device (coin operation is not required);
2. Something of value is given to play the device; and
3. The player has the opportunity to receive something of value by any element of hazard or chance (“something of value” is not limited to coins, bills, or tokens—it also includes free replays, additional playing time, redemption tickets, gift cards, game credits, or anything else with a value, monetary or otherwise.) (Penal Code, §§ 330a, 330b & 330.1.)
Number 2 is very much a stretch as the phone or hardware does not need something of value to be used and the value part for number 3 is very iffy because of how you might determine value. I would argue that simply because there is an unsupported/unendorsed market for accounts that does not mean that value is immediately attributed to it.
And when it comes to generalities… That's how the world f*cking works.
If you start a business and someone asks you to describe your target market you don't start reading a list of every person you think might buy your products, instead you describe that group in a more general type of way; which includes whatever you needed to do to make your products suit them. Like, you wouldn't say that you're selling an easy website builder, and then go "f*ck the ones buying it for not making it easy by first getting a relevant eduction to code websites from scratch".