Slashdot Mirror


Apple Moves To Stop Kids Racking Up iTunes Bills

Xacid writes "Apple Inc. has changed how purchases inside iPhone and iPad games are authorized after customers complained that their kids were racking up hundreds of dollars worth of charges. The issue was that after a user entered his or her iTunes password on a device, the device didn't prompt for the password again for 15 minutes. Any purchases, whether in the iTunes store or inside kid-friendly games such as 'The Smurf's Village,' went through without a new password prompt. This meant that parents who handed over their iPhones or iPads to their kids were sometimes shocked by large purchases of 'Smurfberries' and other virtual bling."

13 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. In other news... by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...parents left cookies on the table and were shocked to find that their children ate them when they weren't looking.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  2. It's about time by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thank god they wised up and put in a new password prompt for in-game purchases. Now all they have to do is sit back and wait for the complaints to come in that "my kids said 'hey what's the password?' and then I got hundreds of dollars of racked up charges." Never mind the fact that they have a KID'S GAME that includes paying for virtual nothingness. I guess Steve's new motto is "get them addicted early."

    1. Re:It's about time by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if I had it to design myself, I'd make it so that apps could do in-game purchases that would require a call to the store API. That would pause the game and pop up a purchase area that didn't look like the game, that required their password for access. Then within that area they could buy items. Then leave that area to return to the game. Then require the password next time they wanted to go there.

      That would help create a division between the game and the store. Right now with completely in-game purchasing, the kids don't see the purchase as anything other than just another button to click in the game. It needs to have a completely different, consistent look to it, that says "you are not in the game right now, you are in the STORE, spending REAL MONEY".

      Another alternate implementation could be to just make such an area to "fund" the game. Then the game devs could implement their own in-game experience store, but that would draw on the funds transferred from the store. That would allow the parents to say "ok Timmy I've put $10 into your Smurfs store, spend it wisely!" That would actually be a good experience for the kids... they need to learn the value of money. It would also relieve the parents of having to mess with the store every time their kid wanted to buy their pet grasshopper a different color of shoes for a quarter etc.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:It's about time by egamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to draw the line somewhere, but the whole notion that online retailers insist upon saving your credit information is absurd. Beyond the tendency to overspend, there's also the issue of all of a sudden you have to worry about somebody stealing the details and running up large bills with stolen credit card details.

      Retailers need to store credit cards to issue refunds on returns. After that time period, I think they should delete the info. In reality, it can be tricky to clean up all references to data.

    3. Re:It's about time by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, they don't. They need the transaction id, nothing more.

      I know, we do CC transactions all the time and never have a CC number longer than the time it takes for a web page to pass it off to authorize.net. We can still easily refund the transaction or adjust the value down if need be.

      There are also methods for recurring billing that do basically the same thing, we get a reference ID, at the end of the billing period we send a 'bill these reference IDs for the price determined when the reference was setup' and they return a list of successful and unsuccessful transactions.

      Authorize.NET handles all the work for us, allowing us to not be bound by all the rules of PCI and not having to worry so much about what happens if your DB gets hacked, we have no CC numbers for anyone to steal.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  3. Not really a parenting issue... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I really don't see how this is much of a parenting issue. Many kids have an iPod touch just like they might have a GameBoy or DS. The problem is that in-game purchases are too integrated into the game and it is feasible that a kid playing a game might not fully realize that this is going to be charged real money. Ideally what Apple would do would be when you set up your device in iTunes, you can create a "gift card only" account on it that would only bill gift cards and wouldn't buy something without enough store credit. So kids could still download free apps and spend their gift cards on apps/DLC but without the fear of it charging their parent's credit card.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Not really a parenting issue... by DdJ · · Score: 4, Informative

      They already have that kind of thing, and even the concept of giving an allowance to a kid's iTunes account.

      http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2105

      The "problem" arises here when the parent hands their own iOS device with their own account to the kid within epsilon of using the account themselves (eg. right after they installed a game). If the kids really had their own iOS devices and iTunes accounts to begin with, the problems aren't the same.

    2. Re:Not really a parenting issue... by gfreeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really don't see how this is much of a parenting issue. ... a kid playing a game might not fully realize that this is going to be charged real money.

      Sounds TOTALLY like a parenting issue to me.

      See those candies in the store? Not the store's job to tell the kid they need real money to buy them.

      If you haven't taught your kids to appreciate real money yet, then they shouldn't be in the position to spend real money without your supervision.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  4. Before all you ABA haters get in a tissy... by romanval · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is how you avoid this problem:

    Step 1: Get Kid's iPod Touch/iPhone.
    Step 2: Setting->General->Restrictions->Enable Restrictions. Remember the passcode.
    Step 3: Setting->General->Restrictions->In App Purchases, TURN OFF.
    .
    That wasn't so hard now was it?

  5. Re:Sounds like... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speaking as a parent, if my daughter did this (and I would be shocked if she did), I would make damn sure sufficient wrath descended upon her that she'd never do it again. Firstly, for stealing from her father, and secondly, for spending money on stupid shit.

    If your kids don't think their actions have consequences, you're doing it wrong. Your job isn't to insulate them from the world, it's just to put safety wheels on it until they can ride it safely.

  6. Re:Sounds like... by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blame the victim much? You really don't understand the issue here. How about explaining scams and cons to your daughter, maybe explain that imaginary smurfberries cost real money, that a single ring tone costs $4.99 a month, and various other absurdities of online commerce. What, you think these kids are knowingly racking up that amount of debt? Yeah, then I've got a bridge to sell you, sucker.

    What makes you think this is about kids not understanding the consequences of their actions, rather than online scams and shady business practices? I despise smugly superior people who take the phrase "let the buyer beware" to mean "any con against an unaware buyer is fair game." Stop blaming the victim. Stop criticizing legitimate efforts by businesses to address the concerns of their customers. It's almost as if you want these people to lose money, so you can feel superior to them. Do you perhaps feel that social Darwinism will not weed out the "inferior" people if we protect them from human predators? Maybe you think the predators, being stronger, should have more rights than the weak and stupid? I don't know. I really can't even fathom a mindset like yours.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  7. Re:Sounds like... by david_thornley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speaking as a parent, if my son were young enough again to be interested in Smurfberries, I'd likely figure that he didn't know what he was doing; also, punishing a child for something he or she doesn't understand is stupid and unfair. I also have no idea how to teach a child that young that touching buttons on a phone is (a) stealing money, or (b) spending money (or, for that matter, that Smurfberries are stupid).

    My son was aware that actions have consequences from an early age, but when he was four he really wasn't good at predicting those consequences, particularly in an environment set up to scam him. I was a lot older than that before I realized that money was more than pieces of metal and paper, but also those numbers in the bank books.

    Consequently, some sort of safety wheel to make sure they don't inadvertantly spend large amounts of money strikes me as a real good idea.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. Re:Sounds like... by lactose99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No its not, its providing an ALTERNATIVE to what might become bad behavior.

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist