Apple Faces Class-Action Suit For In-App Purchases

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: "Garen Meguerian and a team of lawyers are taking Apple to task for 'inducing' children to spend hundreds of dollars of their parents' money on in-app game purchases. Meguerian filed a class-action lawsuit this week in California, acknowledging that Apple has already addressed the problem, but saying that the company continues to unfairly profit from sales of virtual 'smurfberries' and 'fish bucks.' The issue at hand is related to games that rely on a 'freemium' business model, giving away the game for free on the App Store and relying on in-app purchases of virtual currency, extra levels, or other add-ons as a revenue stream."

Comments

Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?

How about this: don't give your kid the iTunes account password?

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several much better reasons for class-action suits against Apple. Don't get me wrong: I'm a fan of the company. But their lock-down and lock-in tactics surrounding iOS are much more worthy of class action than this nonsense.

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in an Apple Store where I saw a customer come in and corner one of the employees about purchases his kid had made on an in-app iPod touch. I can't remember all he was talking about but it was something like when his kid asked for an app, he'd log in and download it for him. I do remember the last thing he asked, "What am I supposed to do? Read about all these apps before I download them for my kid?" I tried not to laugh out loud as I walked away but I could have sworn the Apple guy looked like he was trying hard not to say "Well.... yes. Yes you should do that. You're an idiot."
Come on parents, iPods aren't babysitters. You need to pay attention to what your kids are doing.

Re:Bad parenting

[MightyMartian]

An obvious problem with all these "stupid parent posts" is that these kids in most jurisdictions can't enter contracts without the consent of their parents or guardians, so I'm curious as to why everyone is saying "stupid parent", when they should be saying "stupid Apple lawyers".

Re:Bad parenting

[Penguinisto]

According to GP, the *parent* was the one who did the downloading/install for his kid. Kinda implies that the parent agreed to the terms on the kid's behalf anyway.

My vote is for "stupid parent" - esp. with the comment about demanding that he not be arsed to "read all about these apps" first. :/

Re:Bad parenting

[macs4all]

An obvious problem with all these "stupid parent posts" is that these kids in most jurisdictions can't enter contracts without the consent of their parents or guardians, so I'm curious as to why everyone is saying "stupid parent", when they should be saying "stupid Apple lawyers".

Um, because parents, as ADULTS, are expected to have the requisite judgment to not simply allow unfettered access to their bank accounts by their children?

Apple promptly fixed this loophole when the "child abuse" (see what I did there?) was uncovered. It was one of those, in retrospect, "ease-of-use over security" decisions, and Apple, to their credit (no pun), promptly fixed their usability-hole problem, so the issue would be done and over with.

There was no willful and wanton attempt by Apple to defraud or fleece consumers. If anyone deserves your ire, it should ultimately be the greedy App developers, not one of whom, AFAIK, has refunded a single penny of those in-app purchases that THEY DID NOT PUT REASONABLE LIMITS ON THEMSELVES.

And yes, the parents share at least some of the blame, for using their iOS devices as nothing more than a glorified pacifier/electronic restraint (like "chemical restraint") system.

Re:Bad parenting

[joh]

So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?

How about this: don't give your kid the iTunes account password?

The point is THEY WEREN'T GIVING THEIR KIDS THE PASSWORD. They typed it in for them to "buy" a free app and then the kids bought things from within that app in the 15 minute window you can buy things without having to re-type the password.

I would VERY much prefer an option to disable that password caching altogether. When I buy something I want the device to require the password each and every time I spend money.

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

Your username gives you away as the Apple astroturfer that you are. Geeks might understand the difference, but the average consumer doesn't understand how locked in they are until it is too late.

Re:Bad parenting

[node 3]

How is that worthy of class action? It wasn't any sort of bait-and-switch, and isn't a secret. In fact, Apple highly touts this as a reason for people to choose iOS devices.

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?

No, conscientious parents are suing Apple for preying on children. And they found out about Apple preying on their children by watching what their children were doing.

Re:Bad parenting

[scot4875]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: this is a children's game. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A CHILDREN'S GAME TO ALLOW ITS PLAYERS TO SPEND $100 ON IN-GAME ITEMS.

What the fuck is wrong with you "parents are being neglectful" people?

--Jeremy

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

So, what you are saying is that the consumer should be excused from normal diligence before purchasing an iOS device?

Are you saying large corporations should be excused from unethical behavior? Are you saying consumers should not assume that everything Apple (and other corporations) does is hostile to consumers' best interests?

If you have to perform "due diligence" just to buy a consumer product to make sure it's not going to rip you off, you should probably scratch that company off the list of companies you'll do business with.

I'm not trying to pick on Apple here. So many corporations have broken trust with their customers that the only solution is to have the government place a heavy regulatory foot on their necks which doesn't get removed until the company proves it's not going to rip off consumers. Considering the complex nature of computer software, and the labyrinthine complexity of end user licenses and agreements, there is no practical way that any individual consumer can protect himself. It's got to be done by someone who has the same legal and financial power as the company. The only entity that fits that bill is the government.

The non-existent "free market" has already shown its insufficiency in protecting consumers.

Re:Bad parenting

[sessamoid]

So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?

How about this: don't give your kid the iTunes account password?

The point is THEY WEREN'T GIVING THEIR KIDS THE PASSWORD. They typed it in for them to "buy" a free app and then the kids bought things from within that app in the 15 minute window you can buy things without having to re-type the password.

I would VERY much prefer an option to disable that password caching altogether. When I buy something I want the device to require the password each and every time I spend money.

That's already an option now.

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

I mean, anyone who doesn't know that iOS is a "closed" platform at this point only has themselves to blame.

A "closed-platform" that the company actively markets to children and turns out to be hostile to their best interests cannot blame anyone but itself when a lawsuit comes crashing down on their head.

With their "walled garden" Apple is saying "these applications are safe. We give our stamp of approval. In fact, you can get no other apps than the ones we approve". If those apps prey on children, it's no longer the developers who are to blame, but Apple.

There are games in the App Store that started out with no "in-app" purchases. Not all of these were free apps. Subsequently, and without notice, they suddenly offer "in-app" purchases. So a parent that vetted the application when it was initially purchased has done the due diligence and we enter the realm of pure fraud, especially if the app was marketed to children.

We've got a couple of iOS devices in our house. One is my daughter's and one is mine. She's practically a grown-up (older than 19) so she's smart enough that I don't worry. Plus, I raised her to be suspicious of every single thing a corporation does, to not believe any advertising and to always assume the worst about corporations. If she was 10, there's no way I'd give her an iOS device.

Anyone who has kids knows how corporations prey on children, and how many of those corporations are serial child abusers.

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course... with those companies' and Apple's business model solely and *specifically* designed to trick people into paying them as much money for 100% guaranteed worthless fantasy glass pearls, it MUST be the *parents* who are bad.

Yes, letting your kids slip into a addiction does not make you a great parent.
But that doesn't mean that heroine isn't a horrible drug or these companies' business models aren't deeply deeply evil and its makers aren't rotten to their dark dead soulless cores.

If you're not a fanboi, you're definitely as delusional as one.

Re:Bad parenting

[causality]

It'd be a hell of a lot harder to operate an unethical corporation if people were wiser, more savvy, less naive, and performed due diligence. Really it'd be damn near impossible to be unethical without clearly and obviously breaking criminal law.

We have the same problem in the marketplace that we have in government: the real power does come from the regular people, but they have forgotten that. They have abdicated their own responsibility (due diligence) and are shocked that this leaves room for any bad result to happen. The principle here is really simple: if the average person is willing to reward unethical behavior with profits then you have just incentivized unethical behavior and can expect it to florish. This is a case of the corporations following the lead of their patrons and giving them what they are willing to buy, for better or for worse.

Far from excusing the unethical behavior of the corporations and those who run them, this is in fact the best and most certain way to put a stop to it. There's no way in hell I personally would have ever ended up in this situation because I am willing to learn about a device before sinking hundreds of dollars into it and its associated costs. I'm doing my part. Those who don't think that matters leave themselves open to this kind of problem while at the same time rewarding the very behavior they'll complain when it affects them.

This is the viewpoint of the responsible adult who understands that actions have consequences and that making a purchase is voting with your dollars. The blame game and the victim role is for those who are unable to handle this. It's simply the truth.

Re:Bad parenting

[Bacon Bits]

So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?

No, conscientious parents are suing Apple for preying on children. And they found out about Apple preying on their children by watching what their children were doing.

It's far more likely they're suing because they got the bill and saw how much virtual currency their child purchased, and rather than blaming their child for doing something stupid, or blaming themselves for not actually watching their child, they resort to court action. Because if it's one thing courts are good for, it's fixing problems in ways that make everyone happy.

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

It's far more likely they're suing because they got the bill and saw how much virtual currency their child purchased, and rather than blaming their child for doing something stupid

Is there any behavior so bad that you would not excuse Apple or another big corporation?

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

It'd be a hell of a lot harder to operate an unethical corporation if people were wiser, more savvy, less naive, and performed due diligence.

Please stop blaming the victims.

This is a case of the corporations following the lead of their patrons and giving them what they are willing to buy, for better or for worse.

So you believe Apple's customers asked for applications that had "in-app" purchases and Apple simply acquiesced? That if Apple's customers had not begged Apple to sell programs with in-app purchases there would never be such apps?

Really?

Re:Bad parenting

[T-Bone-T]

Clearly you did not do your due diligence when updating the apps. IAPs didn't just magically appear, you had to update the app and every single app I have made it clear there were now IAPs available within the app.

Re:Bad parenting

[macs4all]

Your username gives you away as the Apple astroturfer that you are. Geeks might understand the difference, but the average consumer doesn't understand how locked in they are until it is too late.

First, if I was an astroturfer, don't you think I would pick a less-obvious username?

Second, there is the little issue that at the very same time Apple first introduced in-app purchases (iPhone OS 3.0), it also added a password-protected global setting to the OS to enable/disable (among other things) in-app purchases. See page 115 of this iPhone OS 3.0 User Guide for the iPod Touch.

So, NOW who's fault is it? Apple's, or the ADULTS?

Re:Bad parenting

[dave562]

No, greedy lawyers are suing Apple, and they managed to get enough people to respond to their mass mailers that they were able to put together a class. Have no doubt about it, those lawyers are the scum sucking bottom of the legal world.

Re:Bad parenting

[T-Bone-T]

How much should they be allowed to spend? Putting everyone into the same box is a bad idea. Some kids have more disposable income than others. Why shouldn't they be allowed to spend it?

Re:Bad parenting

[macs4all]

Are you saying large corporations should be excused from unethical behavior? Are you saying consumers should not assume that everything Apple (and other corporations) does is hostile to consumers' best interests?

Not at all. But in this particular case, the problem lies STRICTLY and PROXIMATELY with the PARENTS.

Why?

Because at the very same time that Apple added in-app purchases (iPhone OS 3.0), they added a password-protected global control for same. Check out this iPhone OS 3.0 User Guide for the iPod Touch, showing the in-app purchase control (among others).

So, was it "unethical behavior", or "sloppy parentlng" that was the PROXIMATE cause of these purchases?

Re:Bad parenting

[dave562]

If those apps prey on children, it's no longer the developers who are to blame, but Apple.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of a "legal guardian", and the responsibilities that they have for their children. The child abusers are the parents who fail to educate their children. The parents are at fault for failing to understand that they are giving their children the power to spend money. If the parents do not want the money to be spent, they need to be smarter about it.

The parents need to learn the hard lesson. If their kid racks up $500 in online purchases in one month, ground the kid. Explain to them how they fucked up.

When I was kid, I played a lot of Sierra games... Kings Quest, Space Quest, et al. There were parts in the games that were pretty difficult for a six or seven year old to figure out. Well, luckily Sierra offered a tip line. It was one of those 976 numbers. Well, after one month of using the tip line, my parents figured out it was time to explain to me what a phone bill was. They didn't freak out and sue Sierra because I racked up a couple of hundred dollars in phone charges (and this was in the 1980s).

Anyone who says this is anyone's responsibility besides the parents who decided to give their children access to a $300+ smartphone is an idiot. You don't get to sue a company because your kid caused you some financial distress.

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

Well, after one month of using the tip line, my parents figured out it was time to explain to me what a phone bill was.

So you're saying that you had bad parents because they had not explained what a phone bill was to you until you got scammed by Sierra?

Does Sierra really not have any culpability in this case? They got to enjoy the profits from the money they made off of the gap between when you were given a computer and telephone and when your parents explained phone bills to you. That's just "no harm, no foul", right?

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

I'll ask you the same question I asked others: Is there any fraudulent behavior for which you would hold a corporation responsible?

Re:Bad parenting

[R3d M3rcury]

If you can show that Apple--or another big corporation--willfully and maliciously did something, sure. If there was someone at Apple saying, "Ha! We'll leave this on so that young children will end up bankrupting their parents and we'll be filthy rich! Mwahahahaha!" I'm all for the case. But I don't see that here.

There was a 15 minute time limit. There's a way to turn off In-App purchases. There's a way to sign out after a purchase. Because some parent was too ignorant to learn these things isn't Apple's problem.

If I let my kid play on the riding mower and he cuts down my rosebushes, I don't blame Toro.

Re:Bad parenting

[DocHoncho]

It'd be a hell of a lot harder to operate an unethical corporation if people were wiser, more savvy, less naive, and performed due diligence.

Please stop blaming the victims.

Not only that, he's indulging in the same kind of wishful thinking as the space nutters. "If only the laws of physics weren't so strict, we could have FTL travel and visit the stars!"

In other words, if people weren't people everything would be A OK. Got it.

Re:Bad parenting

[DocHoncho]

Um, because parents, as ADULTS, are expected to have the requisite judgment to not simply allow unfettered access to their bank accounts by their children?

So what you're saying is that as parents, they should automatically know everything about anything, and automatically understand that the cute game they got their kids for $3.00 has a section which entices them to spend said parents money even before the actual act happens? As a parent, I can only dream of such omniscience that I know what my kids are doing before they do it!

The scum bags who put these stores in the game are the ones to blame. They know fully well that kids don't know any better and will happily rack up huge bills before the parents realize what's going on. But no, blame the parents. They're the omniscient ones.

Re:Bad parenting

[DocHoncho]

Do you have kids? If so, do you hover over their shoulders during every activity they undertake?

If you are a parent, then I'd imagine that getting the kids distracted for a couple hours with a silly game (which you have no idea has these revenue traps built in at the outset) lets you get some stuff done around the house or just a few minutes of peace and quiet.

I'm not arguing that the lawsuits aren't frivolous, but blaming the parents for not being omniscient is just plain stupid.

Re:Bad parenting

[dave562]

That's right. No harm, no foul. Part of having children is the contract that you as a parent have with society. You agree to be responsible for them. You don't pawn off your responsibility on someone else.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for parents who can afford to give their children iPhones, yet "can't" afford some unintended charges.

This whole case just reminds me of what is wrong with our society on a larger level. Nobody wants to accept responsibility for their actions, or the actions of those they are responsible for. From parents who don't want to pay some unintended iPhone charges, to the CEO of Goldman Sachs who doesn't want to be held accountable for the actions of his employees. We live in a culture where very few are held accountable for their actions.

Hell, look at the article on the TSA that was posted here today. Airport screeners whose job it is to find hidden weapons, failed to find hidden weapons five times in five tests. That is a 100% failure rate. They weren't even disciplined, much less fired.

Re:Bad parenting

[UnknowingFool]

I would say the parents have some culpability in the matter. Could Apple have done more than the 15 min setting? Maybe. But parents could have also used a different account in iTunes for the device so that it was not tied to their credit cards or PayPal accounts.

Re:Bad parenting

[UnknowingFool]

No but I have nieces. When I let them play with my iPhone, I sign out of iTunes Store. Their parents do the same when they hand them their iPhones. If in the future they were to ever get iPod Touchs, it would be a good idea to create a separate account for them on iTunes that is tied to a prepaid gift card instead of a credit card. But that's just me doing due diligence.

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope - even if you purchase an app, then log out of the app store, in game purchases still work. Save the sanctimonious BS for something you know about you arrogant prick.

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, what you are saying is..."

No, it wasn't. But thank you for playing the voices in your head for the rest of us.

Re:Bad parenting

[Anubis IV]

Not an option. It's the way it works, period. All of the neglectful parents ruined it for those of us who make up the vast majority of users and used it as intended. If they didn't want their kids making purchases, they could have just disabled it in parental controls, or else actually paid attention to what their kids were doing with a device that likely has vital information on it.

Re:Bad parenting

[binford2k]

If she was 10, there's no way I'd give her an iOS device.

Guess what? My 11 year old has an iPhone. Guess how many dollars she's wasted on in-app purchases? Wait for it. Wait for it... NONE! I guess my kids must be smarter than yours then, ya?

Oh, no. I just don't give her the iTunes password. I teach her how to recognize sneaky adware. And she's now a smart consumer. Guess that must mean that I'm a decent parent then...

Re:Bad parenting

[binford2k]

So what you're saying is that as parents, they should automatically know everything about anything, and automatically understand that the cute game they got their kids for $3.00 has a section which entices them to spend said parents money even before the actual act happens? As a parent, I can only dream of such omniscience that I know what my kids are doing before they do it!

Considering that:

• The very first line in the description on the App Store describes exactly what in-app purchases can be made
• There is a setting on the phone itself that disables all in-app purchases for all apps
• And you cannot make a purchase without entering the iTunes password...

Yeah, I think you should be able to handle it. I sure can.

Re:Bad parenting

[Man On Pink Corner]

Yes, and all of them involve actual harm to innocent people, not loss of small amounts of money by dumbshit parents who can't be bothered to act like parents.

Re:Bad parenting

[Man On Pink Corner]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: this is a children's game. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A CHILDREN'S GAME TO ALLOW ITS PLAYERS TO SPEND $100 ON IN-GAME ITEMS.

Who in God's name is modding all these idiots as "Informative" and "Insightful"?

Do you really want scot4875 on Slashdot to have signoff authority in every game that's developed and marketed on the App Store?

Bozos like this are the reason why ladders are made from 88% wood and 12% warning labels.

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

AC, you must be superhuman.
If being a neglectful parent is anything but struggling to stay awake 24x7x365 while constantly watching and analyzing everything the kids do like some form of sociopath, I don't know anyone anywhere that deserves to breed.
How many $100 smurf-berry wagons do you think a kid can buy while you go to the restroom? How long do you think it will take you to get your bill and find out that it happened? What is the "appropriate" response to that situation?

Re:Bad parenting

[Hamsterdan]

I'm gonna have to disagree... just look at the Smurf Village game. In order to do about anything, you have to use Smurfberries (which you can buy). That game is definitely targeted at children. It's a predatory practice, kinda like those web games asking to dial in a 900 number to buy stuff for your game...

Children won't know the difference between virtual and real money and will ramp up a bill...

BTW, Farmville is no different...

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not want to have to type in my password for every update and every purchase. The 15-minute timeframe is ok. If parents let their kids use expensive smart phones it is their responsibility, not a problem that should effect all customers.
It is like letting kids play with the wallet full with money and then bringing the wallet manufacturer to court because the company did not prevent access of children to the wallet. Smartphones are just *not* a toy.

That said, I think it is wrong to allow such high prices for in-app purchases of games. It is ethically not correct and in some countries illegal. On the other hand, if Apple would reject those apps everybody would cry "censorship" again.

So, maybe parents should just not give electronic devices to their children which have payment information stored. Apple offers gift cards too.

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

So don't play the game then?
If I don't agree with something, I don't watch/listen/read/play it, then it ceases to be a problem. It's called 'personal responsibility'.

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

If I let my kid play on the riding mower and he cuts down my rosebushes, I don't blame Toro.

Don't bullshit. You don't have any kids, do you? Be honest.

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

I have a hard time feeling sorry for parents who can afford to give their children iPhones, yet "can't" afford some unintended charges.

You're OK with unintended charges? Please tell me, what's the dollar amount when an "unintended charge" becomes unacceptable?

Is it a dollar? Five dollars? A hundred? I'm asking you to set the threshold for fraud that is acceptable. And yes, when you design a system to create "unintended charges" it's fraud. When you make a Kirby game that allows the user to make an "in-game purchase" you are preying on children.

It's interesting how easy it is to tell who is and who is not a parent by their opinion on this matter.

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

Oh, no. I just don't give her the iTunes password. I teach her how to recognize sneaky adware. And she's now a smart consumer. Guess that must mean that I'm a decent parent then...

So the conclusion is you are a good parent. I'm a good parent. Apple is a bad company.

I'm glad we settled that.

Re:Bad parenting

[Glock27]

I mean, anyone who doesn't know that iOS is a "closed" platform at this point only has themselves to blame.

A "closed-platform" that the company actively markets to children and turns out to be hostile to their best interests cannot blame anyone but itself when a lawsuit comes crashing down on their head.

With their "walled garden" Apple is saying "these applications are safe. We give our stamp of approval. In fact, you can get no other apps than the ones we approve". If those apps prey on children, it's no longer the developers who are to blame, but Apple.

Your argument comes crashing down, though, given that adults are the only ones with access to the iTunes store, and able to enable payments. So, unless you were in the group of those burned by the 15 minute window after logging into iTunes (since fixed), it is entirely your fault if your child is able to make in-app purchases. Not Apple's.

Further, by not giving your child access to the store, he or she has no way to download apps of which you don't approve - or update the ones already on the device. Sounds like good parenting to me.

I'm fairly sure this lawsuit is a looooser.

Re:Bad parenting

[Entropy2016]

Apple doesn't force developers submitting iPhone apps to have in-app purchases. It's up to the developer of that app. If people aren't happy with how their kid raked up a huge bill buying smurfberries, they need to 1) take personal responsibility or 2) if they must sue, sue the game developer. Suing Apple for simply giving developers an option to code something easily doesn't make sense.

Re:Bad parenting

[a_hanso]

Come on people! Step it up, we're almost there at Godwin

Re:Bad parenting

[dave562]

It's also pretty easy to see who has been raised to be responsible for their actions, versus those who look to others to absolve their responsibilities onto.

I'm sure that you've heard the saying, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Be honest with yourself. Did you ever take a second to look into all of the "Free" apps, or even one particular free app that burned your wallet? Did you ever ask yourself, "How is it that these people can afford to put out 'free' applications?" Did you bother to read a EULA or TOS, or are you like 99% of Slashdotters who feel that those terms are usually so unreasonable that you just dismiss them as unenforceable because that's how you want the world to be?

If you did your due diligence and still got burned, then you have a legal leg to stand on. If you just handed your kid a phone, and some free apps and ended up losing money because you couldn't be bothered to read some fine print, well then life sucks, get a helmet and be smarter next time.

I think the most pathetic thing is that this is being framed as "think of the children" argument. The real headline should have been, "Parents learn that digital free lunches are a myth."

Re:Bad parenting

[Switchback]

Not necessarily "bad" parenting, but certainly lazy parenting. It is completely the parent's responsibility to monitor what their children are doing. Blaming Apple for your kids running up your credit card is like blaming Glock when you shoot someone. It's YOUR responsibility. I have young child who has an iPod Touch and we set up an account for him with no credit card attached to it and only we know the password. If he wants to purchase anything he has to come to us, he pays us with his allowance and we purchase it for him. This serves several purposes:

• 1) It allows us to monitor what he's playing/using and veto power if we don't think the content is appropriate.
• 2) He learns the value of money, since he's spending his own.
• 3) There's interaction between us regarding this device, and he asks plenty of questions.

Can Apple (or other software vendors) do a better job with parental controls, ease of use and understanding of this technology? Of course, but it'll never be perfect and every kid and family is different. It's no different than any other product - if you don't understand it, feel it's dangerous or not appropriate, don't like the company's policies or history, etc. - you don't buy the product.

This "poor me, it's not MY fault" attitude just boils my blood.

YOU bought the product. YOU allow your kid to use it. It's YOUR responsibility.

It's not an electronic babysitter. It's a device that can be used for good or evil - there needs to be guidance.

Re:Bad parenting

[Bacon Bits]

Actually, I think Apple is an awful corporation that produces overpriced goods whose quality has an excessively short lifespan. I've never seen an Apple product survive a year out of warranty without problems. Apple also encourages cultural elitism and people use their products to justify arrogance. As much as Gates departure has seriously improved Microsoft, Jobs departing Apple again would be even better. The only possible better event would be Larry Ellison getting out of Oracle.

However, I work for a public school district. I'm exposed to a frustrating number of parents with no sense of responsibility and an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. Additionally, I live in the United States, which has an excessive number of selfish and petty civil court cases. Tort reform is needed, but considering how much that would aid asshole corporations in running roughshod over suddenly powerless citizens, I am not exactly willing to fight for it at the moment.

Re:Bad parenting

[Bacon Bits]

Yes, but his neighbor doesn't have rosebushes anymore, either, and he'd like to stay out of court!

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

THERE IS NO REASON FOR A CHILDREN'S GAME TO ALLOW ITS PLAYERS TO SPEND $100 ON IN-GAME ITEMS.

Uh-oh, it looks like your shouting hurt baby Starshine's ears and she galloped off into the woods. Unfortunately she broke her leg on a tree branch and will have to be put down unless you can pay $25 to make her all better. Click on the Buy It Now button before it's too late to save her!

Re:Bad parenting

[guruevi]

1) Unless you explicitly set the setting to never require the password, you are required to enter the password.
2) You can explicitly disable all in-app and iTunes Store purchases
3) You do not have to link your bank account to iTunes Store, you can also unlink it.
4) You can always refute your charges with the iTunes Store people (who usually don't fuss over it) or with your bank if that doesn't help.
5) After any purchase you get an e-mail with your charges.

Yes, these are neglectful, idiotic parents that basically spoil their child by giving them full access to not only a smartphone or expensive MP3 player that has easy-to-use parental controls but also give them free reign to their credit cards. Kids do stupid shit like that all the time, your job as a parent is to keep track of it and guide or punish them when they do stuff like this. If I would have done that not only would I have gotten a beating but I would have to pay back every cent from my hard earned "good report" and "chores for grandma" money.

Re:Bad parenting

[Man On Pink Corner]

Hey, I'm not the one who demands the right to oversee and approve all App Store releases for "parent safety."

Re:Bad parenting

[macs4all]

I'm gonna have to disagree... just look at the Smurf Village game. In order to do about anything, you have to use Smurfberries (which you can buy). That game is definitely targeted at children. It's a predatory practice, kinda like those web games asking to dial in a 900 number to buy stuff for your game...

Children won't know the difference between virtual and real money and will ramp up a bill...

BTW, Farmville is no different...

I agree that it is a predatory practice... BY THE APP DEVELOPERS, not Apple.

Every. Single. Time Apple "bans" an app from the App Store, a zillion "pundits" and slashdotters cry foul; so, Apple is loathe to "ban" stuff willy-nilly (e.g., "banning" a game because it more-or-less REQUIRED in-app purchases). And no, I don't want to hear a blow-by-blow about how Apple arbitrarily banned this or that. In the end, it's their store; nobody forced you to buy an iOS device (remember that "normal diligence", that I have argued here is incumbent on the user BEFORE buying an iOS device?). But, I digress...

So, back to the actual point you raised: Not only is it incumbent upon the PARENT to give the game a shot BEFORE simply handing their iOS device loaded with an "untested" app to their kid (here's that cool NAMBLA app you wanted. Now go away. Daddy's busy!); but, IIRC, Apple allows PARENTS to establish "Kid's Accounts", where the PARENT can set certain rules and LIMITS ON SPENDING. That way, a PARENT can, in a fashion similar to "Age Restrictions", completely avoid the "sticker shock" that the ignoramuses that have filed this lawsuit (and the even BIGGER ignoramuses, like you, that now DEFEND their position) now claim is somehow APPLE'S fault.

Seriously, man, how in THE fuck can Apple "win" with a mentality that begins and ends with "Apple is Teh Evilz". They must ALLOW every single app (or be raked over the "Walled Garden" coals); but they must SIMULTANEOUSLY be the Nanny for every single whining ADULT that can't be bothered to use the tools that APPLE HAS PROVIDED to help them BE a RESPONSIBLE PARENT?

As I have said before, this lawsuit should NOT be naming Apple; but rather the PREDATORY APP DEVELOPERS.

Period.

Re:Bad parenting

[causality]

Please stop blaming the victims.

It's a shame you choose to trivialize the nature of this discussion instead of appreciating a different point of view, even if you don't ultimately agree with it.

It's not a matter of blaming the victims. It's more like: a genuine victim who suffers through no fault of his/her own is an incredibly rare thing. It's really, utterly, exquisitely simple here: Apple Inc. did not use physical force. Apple Inc. did not use fraud. Therefore, Apple Inc. is not the bad guy in this instance.

If this situation happened to me, personally, not some random Joe Sixpack I never heard of, but to yours truly, I would not call myself a victim. Instead, I'd realize that there were several things I could have done differently to prevent a situation that ultimately required my active participation before it could happen. I could have learned what I was buying. I could have used the global parental controls. I could have understood what the app was and what it did and didn't do before trusting it to run on my hardware. I would have to fail to do all of these things before I could possibly end up in this situation. That would be my failure and no one else's.

If I do everything right, inform myself, take reasonable actions, and there is nothing you could easily point to and say that it was my failure, and I still get screwed, then and only then would I qualify as a victim. That's really quite rare, outside of violent crimes.

I am a responsible adult. When something doesn't turn out the way I wanted it to turn out, I look at how I could have taken control of the situation. I realize that if I don't take control over my own possessions and my own life, someone or something else will. Some people think it's god-awful to have no one else to blame. I think it's a relief to know that having no one to blame means all I have to do is modify my choices and learn from the experience.

So you believe Apple's customers asked for applications that had "in-app" purchases and Apple simply acquiesced? That if Apple's customers had not begged Apple to sell programs with in-app purchases there would never be such apps?

Did you fail to understand my point about the real power coming from regular people? That applies here too.

It's really simple. If apps that tried to offer "in-app" purchases never made any sales, there would be no apps that offer in-app purchases. People want or at least decide to tolerate them. Therefore, such apps succeed financially. If I had a problem with in- app purchases I would never patronize anyone who produces such apps on principle. If others don't have principles because convenience is all they care about, or don't have the backbone to back their principles up with action, then others get the results of their own choices and priorities. Again there is no victim here.

The reality is that most people have no solid principles. They only care about convenience. It is like their god. They will sacrifice nearly anything at its altar. Much of the time this mostly works, simply because most people are decent enough not to exploit the grevious character weakness this actually represents. So people who are like this get comfortable and complacent. Then eventually something comes along where the possibilities left open by this widespread mentality finally inconvenience them. Then they cry bloody murder instead of questioning why they embraced a lifestyle and a mentality that not only made this possible, but actively invited it. I say tough shit. Be a man or be a woman and accept the way you have chosen to be, or change it until you can accept it gladly.

But don't cry foul because you learn that your approach to life that you have chosen does in fact have a downside and isn't always going to produce results you like. That's not so different from a small child throwing a temper tantrum and about as honorable. Instead, deal with that by refining your a

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

Did you bother to read a EULA or TOS,

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe companies design their EULAs to be read?

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

2) if they must sue, sue the game developer.

I quite agree. In a normal market, that would be the way to go, but by Apple requiring that they vet every single app, they are taking the responsibility on themselves. They are saying, "these apps are OK" because they reject some apps. If there was no walled garden, then Apple would not be responsible. When you create a walled garden, you are responsible for what grows there.

Re:Bad parenting

[macs4all]

Please stop blaming the victims.

SAY WHAT?!?

That is EXACTLY what rabid Android fanbois around here do EVERY SINGLE TIME there is an article on Slashdot about some new and even more evil Phishing or Trojan app downloaded from wherever!

"Well, the permissions are clearly stated when they installed the app! It's their OWN DAMN FAULT they got hosed!" I literally can't COUNT the hundreds of times I have read that "defense" from Androids on this very site.

So, why is it any damned different for iOS users?

Re:Bad parenting

[Entropy2016]

Your grocery store "vets" what foods they allow on their shelves. If you're allergic to nuts and the cookies contain nuts but have no label indicating such and it makes you ill, you don't get to sue the grocery store. You sue the cookie manufacturer for medical bills.

A "walled garden" does not suddenly change the rules about who's responsible for what. Responsibility always goes to who manufactured/designed the product regardless of middlemen. Walled gardens are not game changers. Their App Store is no different than any other physical store out there.

Re:Bad parenting

[dave562]

I believe that they write their EULA's to cover their asses. Nice dodge of the question though. It's apparent you aren't the sort of person who believes that parents should be accountable for the actions of their children.

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

Your grocery store "vets" what foods they allow on their shelves.

Still, if food they sell is toxic, the store is responsible.

In-app purchases are toxic. Do you know anyone who likes them?

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

The reality is that most people have no solid principles. They only care about convenience. It is like their god.

Wait a minute. I hate to interrupt you when you were hitting such glorious high notes, but do you realize we're talking about consumer goods here? Of course people care about convenience, they are customers. They are paying for convenience.

Instead, they get "in-app" purchases, which are designed to irritate. I have yet to meet a person who wants "in-app" purchases in their applications.

You're going on about "Principles" and "Courage" and "Approach to Life" but you're not admitting the obvious: Corporations don't have such things. Since iOS, Apple certainly doesn't have such things. The only consumer "Principle" which applies is the one which assumes hostility from a company which includes "in-app" purchases in its products. But since Apple has been showing hostility for most of the 21st century, it's not much of a change.

All of that aside though, I wish you hadn't waited this far into the conversation to release your Icarian rhetorical bent. We could have had some fun.

Please don't take anything I've said as hostile to you, causality. All this "in-game purchase" stuff is just conversation fodder, and you're probably right about everything. You're right of course, that we have to view iOS and in fact anything done by any corporation as if it were a poison pill. But I am so moved by this last symphonic post of yours that I am so moved to declare you a friend this sunny Palm Sunday morn.

Re:Bad parenting

[causality]

I suppose that did sound a bit "lofty" but "As above, so below". By that I mean the same things that would apply to a major, important, significant decision also apply to the purchase of consumer goods. A purchase of consumer goods does not really end at the initial exchange, sort of like the way no man is an island. It's also a vote in favor of the company producing it and their business practices. I am simply aware of that.

I like convenience too, but I don't idolize it to the point that I lose awareness. That's the difference. If I have a real problem with the way a company does business, I won't patronize that company no matter how shiny and alluring the product may be. I call that having priorities. If I think it's a good company run by decent people who at least try to respect their customers, and I can afford the product, then I don't see why not.

I could have much more simply summed it up this way: if something doesn't suit you, don't buy it. I think it was the "blame the victims" comment that made me want to lay a foundation for why I would look at it that way. The only "victims" here are "victims" of their own unwillingness to read a summarized description of a product prior to purchasing it. That would be too inconvenient. Fine with me -- they have their priorities too.

Re:Bad parenting

[Hamsterdan]

"ignoramuses that have filed this lawsuit (and the even BIGGER ignoramuses, like you, that now DEFEND their position) now claim is somehow APPLE'S fault."

Before calling names, I *never* said it was *entirely* Apple's fault. But, If they weren't taking 30% of the profits, you can bet they would ban those games. Besides, Apple *ARE* in a position to demand those companies give more warnings in order to have their games approved. Nowhere in the Smurf's Village does it mention you will ramp up big $$$ on daddy's Visa. That behavior should merit Capcom being banned from the App Store, and all companies doing the same.

Heck, Apple bans applications for nudity, or because they give more functionality (browsers, flash), but can't be bothered to force those companies from preying on children???

As I said, if there wasn't a 30% cut involved, those apps would have been banned a long time ago...

So yes, they are responsible, because at the end, the *only* place you can buy those apps are on the App Store.

The reason they keep this control over your apps is to protect costumers (or so they say), so it might be time they started acting on it.

TBH, the real reason why there's so much control and *we'll tell you what you like* is Steve himself.

Re:Bad parenting

[Entropy2016]

This is wrong. The grocery store are only responsible if the food they sold was toxic because of something they did to it (such as left it on a shelf after its expiration date). An issue like allergen contaminants in your favorite snack is definitely not something the grocery store would be liable for.

And in-app purchases are not toxic. They're perfectly reasonable. People who like them include developers. If Apple didn't give this ability to developers you'd probably be hearing more people complaining about how awful Apple's walled garden is to content makers, further restricting what their apps can do. Furthermore, while some users don't like in-app purchases, many other users enjoy them because it allows them to get additional content without having to get a whole new app. Each app has its own overhead. What takes up more space on your phone? Multiple versions of your favorite game, or 1 version of your game with some in-app purchased plugins?

Re:Bad parenting

[PopeRatzo]

People who like them include developers

But developers aren't the ones paying for them.

Re:Bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed - and evidently Apple agrees too. When I complained to them re: fish bucks, they happily refunded my $50, apologized, but also referred to their T&Cs to let me know they were doing me a favor. Thanks for un-screwing me, I guess.

Re:Bad parenting

[klnh13]

Um why don't you just Disable In-App Purchases in the restrictions setting?

Just a thought?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, better parenting?

Easy Way Out

[Anonymous Coward]

Garen Meguerian and a team of lawyers are taking Apple to task for 'inducing' children to spend hundreds of dollars of their parents' money on in-app game purchases.

I guess taking a multinational corp to court is easier than being a responsible parent these days.

Here's a hint: if they are too young and dumb^H^H^H^Hnaive to be trusted with a toy or device that lets them spend money, a parent who's worth a damn will wait until they're old enough to handle it before giving it to them. A parent who's worth a damn would blame themselves for not knowing what they were giving them too if that was the case.

No, nothing is ever your fault and it's always somebody else who causes every problem you have in life. Kids spent a ton of money using a device you gave them? Blame the company. Can't lose weight because you eat more calories than you burn? Sue McDonalds. War on personal responsibility.

Re:Easy Way Out

[cptdondo]

OTOH I've had my kids' phones "virused" with pay-per-month crap... The invitation is sent as a text, and it's the typical "Hey check this out!" and all the kid has to do is reply. Bang! $10/month for ever for a monthly fortune. I don't know what stuff Apple was pulling, but certainly the texts my kids got were deceiving and not clear. And T-Mobile was complicit in allowing these operators to continue, no doubt getting a big slice of the action. I asked my daughter if she ever subscribed intentionally; she didn't even know she had subscribed. And T-Mobile admitted when I bitched about it that the come-on was often deceptive.

Re:Easy Way Out

[TaoPhoenix]

What if you blocked all incoming X except Whitelisted stuff? Only his 4 friends and say 5 companies can text him?

Re:Easy Way Out

[biryokumaru]

What legitimate reason would a company ever have to text children? And why would you allow more companies than friends?

Re:Easy Way Out

[cptdondo]

This is one of those issues of parenthood.... My daughter sends some 7K per month. Of those, 2 in the last year were bad (resulting in extra charges). That to me is responsible use. (And lest people start yelling at me about her 'excessive' use, we don't have cable TV, she's on the honor roll and carries an A to A+ average in school, blah, blah, blah. She's not a slacker.)

So imposing draconian limits on her use is not the answer. The fault lies with deceptive and fraudulent marketing tactics. teaching her to be more careful, yes. Punishing, no.

Re:Easy Way Out

[Drakino]

I don't know what stuff Apple was pulling

From Day 1, Apple has had parental controls that can disable the ability to make any App Store purchases on the device. And by default the phone would ask for the iTunes password whenever a new app was downloaded. The problem initially is that in app purchases didn't require a password every time. Apple has since corrected that.

Outside of that, Apple has done nothing. App developers are the ones putting in the in app purchases and promoting them in a way that children were getting to them. There may be some liability since Apple does have a curated app store, but it's going to be hard to prove intent that Apple was in any way doing this intentionally.

Re:Easy Way Out

[cptdondo]

OK, that's different from the crap T-Mobile was pulling....

My kids' iPods are hooked to their debit (cash) cards. So if they spend money, it's their own - and limited by the amount of cash they have. They spend wisely. (Amazing how frugal kids get when they're spending their own money.)

Re:Easy Way Out

[TaoPhoenix]

Right, shouldn't all parents do this? It will just give errors "you're out of funds this month until you reload".

Re:Easy Way Out

[macs4all]

OTOH I've had my kids' phones "virused" with pay-per-month crap... The invitation is sent as a text, and it's the typical "Hey check this out!" and all the kid has to do is reply. Bang! $10/month for ever for a monthly fortune. I don't know what stuff Apple was pulling, but certainly the texts my kids got were deceiving and not clear. And T-Mobile was complicit in allowing these operators to continue, no doubt getting a big slice of the action. I asked my daughter if she ever subscribed intentionally; she didn't even know she had subscribed. And T-Mobile admitted when I bitched about it that the come-on was often deceptive.

These were in-App purchases. No "texts" were required; just a kind of "pop-up" IN THE GAME.

Apple wasn't "pulling" anything, dumbass. And PROMPTLY fixed the problem (which was a, in retrospect, stupid usability decision, related, IIRC, to the fact that the App Store remained "logged-in" during a "session", once someone had logged-in to make a purchase (like purchasing that new game to get your kid to STFU)).

Tip: You might want to do some actual research before posting the next time.

Re:Easy Way Out

[macs4all]

This is one of those issues of parenthood.... My daughter sends some 7K per month

I'm curious: Just HOW thick are the callouses on her thumbs?

Re:Easy Way Out

[cptdondo]

oohOohhh OOOOH! Well reasoned and said. I guess Apple doesn't vet and approve each and every item in the App store, and never ever pulls anything it considers offensive to its strict code....

Anyway, I was reacting to the quick draw "blame the parents" crap, not so much the Apple bashing.

Re:Easy Way Out

[cptdondo]

She uses her fingernails, filed to sharp points.

Re:Easy Way Out

[Anonymous Coward]

These are premium texts and I don't know about tmobile but verizon will let you block them. When I complained about they blocked it and refunded our money. Luckily we caught it early so it wasn't much.

Re:Easy Way Out

[causality]

oohOohhh OOOOH! Well reasoned and said. I guess Apple doesn't vet and approve each and every item in the App store, and never ever pulls anything it considers offensive to its strict code....

Anyway, I was reacting to the quick draw "blame the parents" crap, not so much the Apple bashing.

The parents are the ones making the purchasing decisions. That means they are to blame, ultimately, for being naive and trusting instead of knowing what they were buying. Parents like this are why you have companies like this who create problems like this. Is the company doing something bad here? Yes, it is. But take that a step further. What is the ultimate financial foundation that had to be laid down first before the company could dream of doing that? There had to be a market for it.

When I really want to solve a problem, I find its ultimate cause. I don't hack at its leaves and branches. I go straight for its root. If what I find there is not really what I wanted to hear, if it reminds me that we do not have a perfect world where you can invest blind faith in a company and never get screwed, I deal with it anyway. Otherwise I am not responsible enough to start telling corporations or anyone else how responsible they should become. This is doubly true for parents who are additionally charged with the awesome responsibility of nurturing and protecting a human life and gradually teaching it to deal wisely with the world as it is.

Re:Easy Way Out

[AK Marc]

From Day 1, Apple has had parental controls that can disable the ability to make any App Store purchases on the device. And by default the phone would ask for the iTunes password whenever a new app was downloaded.

Well yes, you can completely disable app store purchases. However, they do not now, and never have considered $0 purchases any differently than $1000 purchases. Why not a graduated scale? Or allow $0 purchases without a password (after all, who cares about a $0 purchase?).

And the default of is not to ask for the password for every app purchase. They only ask once every 15 minutes. So you could get one app and not have to reauthenticate again if you immediately got another.

The problem initially is that in app purchases didn't require a password every time.

App purchases didn't "require" a password ever, as long as you had performed any authenticated iTunes login and purchase in the last 15 minutes. So if you don't let your children have the password, and you find a free game, like the Smurf one, download it and hand the phone to them, they have 15 minutes of in-app purchases without authentication. There was no way at all to turn off that functionality. What I'd do was to get the app then put it in airplane mode, start a countdown, and hand over the phone. No calls for 15 minutes, but no charges. When the alarm went off, I could take it out of airplane mode. From what I can tell, that's the easiest way to enforce on in-app purchases.

Apple has since corrected that.

They released a new OS that everyone would have to upgrade to. Because of their choice to never patch an OS, but instead to release new ones, this means that anyone with a 2G or 3G iPhone can never get the "fix." We have two iPhones, and they are the ones that can never get that OS. So it isn't fixed. I don't know the distribution of sales, but I'd guess that the number of iPhones sold which can't be "fixed" exceeds the number that can. And that's apparently ok with you.

Outside of that, Apple has done nothing.

They created a security model that considers the download of a $0 app to require the same security as $1000 of smurfberries, and that authorizing a single $0 app should authorize and infinite amount of other app and in-app purchases. That's a little sloppy. Once it's pointed out and it takes them years to fix it (spending most of that time doing what I see here and blaming parents for their inherently broken security) and then the fix doesn't work for many (most?) iPhones, it's no longer sloppy, it's negligent.

App developers are the ones putting in the in app purchases and promoting them in a way that children were getting to them. There may be some liability since Apple does have a curated app store, but it's going to be hard to prove intent that Apple was in any way doing this intentionally.

It's easy to prove they did it intentionally. How? It happened. People complained. Years passed... If they didn't do it intentionally, they continued the practice intentionally. The "best" fix is to allow users to disable in-app purchases of any kind. However, Apple doesn't want that because they make 30% of errors. They want people to make errors and then not demand refunds because the users feel silly asking for a refund for something they did and know they did, even if it was unintentional. Apple is profiting from these, and they were negligently slow in addressing the issue (and did so in a way that affected the least possible number of phones). And here you are lining up to blame the parents and exonerate Apple. I just don't see it.

Re:Easy Way Out

[UnknowingFool]

Well yes, you can completely disable app store purchases. However, they do not now, and never have considered $0 purchases any differently than $1000 purchases. Why not a graduated scale? Or allow $0 purchases without a password (after all, who cares about a $0 purchase?).

I think that is more of a last confirmation that anything else. Do you really want to install this app even though it's free.

Because of their choice to never patch an OS, but instead to release new ones, this means that anyone with a 2G or 3G iPhone can never get the "fix."

I'm pretty sure that iPhone owners have been able to get patches. With the last major release 4.3, iPhone 3G owners were excluded but considering they went from 2.0-->3.0->4.2 and all minor version in between, they have been getting patches.

They created a security model that considers the download of a $0 app to require the same security as $1000 of smurfberries, and that authorizing a single $0 app should authorize and infinite amount of other app and in-app purchases.

What's to stop a child from making a bunch of non $0 purchases after the purchase of your $1000 app? Nothing?

The "best" fix is to allow users to disable in-app purchases of any kind.

Since 3.0: iPhone/iPod Touch -->Settings --> Store -->Sign out

Re:Easy Way Out

[binford2k]

Yep. My daughter got hit by two of those one month. And I saw it on the next bill. I called AT&T and bitched. They reversed the charges and put a block on her line so those don't work. I don't really see the problem here, though they should have put that block on the line to begin with, since they knew she was a child.

Re:Easy Way Out

[binford2k]

They released a new OS that everyone would have to upgrade to. Because of their choice to never patch an OS, but instead to release new ones, this means that anyone with a 2G or 3G iPhone can never get the "fix." We have two iPhones, and they are the ones that can never get that OS. So it isn't fixed. I don't know the distribution of sales, but I'd guess that the number of iPhones sold which can't be "fixed" exceeds the number that can. And that's apparently ok with you.

I don't know the distribution of sales, but I'd guess that the number of cars sold that can't handle flex-fuel exceeds the number that can. And that's apparently ok with you.

Big hint for you. Those are old phones.

Re:Easy Way Out

[macs4all]

She uses her fingernails, filed to sharp points.

Well, alrighty, then!

Re:Easy Way Out

[AK Marc]

Those are old phones.

The oldest iPhone is 3 years old (almost 4). You could have an iPhone that's 1 year old (almost 2) that was purchased the day it was manufactured (no sitting on the shelf for me to fudge sale dates) and can't upgrade to the newest OS. They didn't even support the OS for two full years from the last made (not sold) phone, and there were new phones that didn't even get 1 year support from the 3G. That's actually illegal here, but I don't think anyone cares because so many people like you think that once a phone is 1 year old it's "old."

Re:Easy Way Out

[Anonymous Coward]

You are complicated. Disable in-app purchases, set up a separate appstore account for your kids without supplying any payment method and use gift card codes for this account.

Re:Easy Way Out

[Lehk228]

Apple acts lie their users should be experts when it's convenient to them while making most of their sales to people who know fuckall about technology.

Re:Easy Way Out

[AK Marc]

I'm pretty sure that iPhone owners have been able to get patches.

I meant actual patches, not new OS versions in a single thread that include patches and functionality grouped and inseparable. I don't consider that patching. I consider it an upgrade.

So I will continue to assert that there are no patches for the iPhone. 4.2.7 is the only out-of order release that is a patch for a previous release because of a security patch. 4.2.7 is a patch of the traditional definition. And in the history of the iPhone, there has been one and only one such move. That's not a history of patches. That isn't even patches. That's one and only one patch in the history of the iPhone. But then, you are considering them patches like a new boxed game for World of Warcraft is called a patch (Burning Crusade was a "patch"). And under that, yeah, they patch the iPhone all the time. But patch like "we found an error in this version of the iOS that isn't the current version and we patched that error in that older version of the iOS" has never, not even once, happened with the iPhone (and if you count when they do that and give it a whole different version number, it's happened once and only once).

Re:Easy Way Out

[Anonymous Coward]

so in your mind Apple actually wants to allow children to rack up huge fees in in-app purchases against their parents wishes, for what purpose?

to add some miniscule amount to their revenue?

Re:Easy Way Out

[UnknowingFool]

I meant actual patches, not new OS versions in a single thread that include patches and functionality grouped and inseparable. I don't consider that patching. I consider it an upgrade.

So basically you want Apple to separate bugs fixes from new functionality and release them instead of packaging fixes and new functionality together. Isn't that rather inefficient? Doesn't that create many more bug patches that users will have to download and install and not know which patch they should apply?

So I will continue to assert that there are no patches for the iPhone. 4.2.7 is the only out-of order release that is a patch for a previous release because of a security patch. 4.2.7 is a patch of the traditional definition.

Did you even read that wikipedia article?

• 1.0.1 Security update
• 1.0.2 Bug fix release
• 1.1.4 Bug fix release
• 1.1.5 Security update
• 2.0.1 Bug fix release
• 2.0.2. Bug fix release
• 2.2.1. Bug fix release
• 3.0.1 Bug fix and security update release
• 3.1.2 Bug fix release
• 3.1.3 Bug fix release
• 3.2.1 Bug fix release (iPad only)
• 3.2.2 Security update (iPad only)
• 4.0.1 Bug fix release (iPhone only)
• 4.0.2 Security update (iPhone, iPod Touch only)
• 4.2.1 Bug fix and security update
• 4.2.6 Bug fix release
• 4.2.7 Security update

But patch like "we found an error in this version of the iOS that isn't the current version and we patched that error in that older version of the iOS" has never, not even once

You mean like 3.1.3 (Final release for iPhone 1st Gen and iPod Touch 1st Gen) and 4.2.1 (Final release for iPhone 3G and iPod Touch 2nd Gen)

Re:Easy Way Out

[sjames]

Indeed, don't you dare sue me for my nicotine lollipops with their thin non-addictive cherry flavored coating and kid friendly unicorn design. If you were a decent parent you would exhaustively test the lollipops before letting the kids have one. Sincerely, Joe Camel.

Re:Easy Way Out

[AK Marc]

Apparently you aren't smart enough to bother talking to. "out-of-order" release (one that patches an OS other than the current version). How many of those? Just one. If you have an older OS because of older hardware, and you are shit out of luck. Apple doesn't patch hardware. So you are left with vulnerabilities on th 2G and 3G phones and are unable to update because there are no patches released, just new versions they prevent from being applied to the older phones.

Re:Easy Way Out

[AK Marc]

As long as people think it's their error and don't get a refund, then Apple makes lots of profit on it. For what purpose? Profit. Is there ever any other purpose?

Re:Easy Way Out

[UnknowingFool]

Apparently you don't understand the term End-Of-Life. It's funny also how you define patch so narrowly as to only satisfy your unreasonable conditions. By your definition no one "patches". So IBM still releases patches for AIX 5.2? MS still releases patches for Windows 3.1, 95, 98, or ME? Linus Torvalds still works on Linux kernel 1.X patches? No, there is a point when people stop issuing patches for an older system. For Apple it is 2 generations ago for their iPhones. Your expectation is that Apple always updates the products for all eternity? In the field of smart phones, you'd be lucky if some Android manufacturers updated once during the 1st year you owned it.

Re:Easy Way Out

[AK Marc]

The generations are so short that the EOL schedule is illegal here. EOL is fine. But EOL at under a year is absurdly short. Some places even give that much warning before they EOL something. Apple would have to announce the EOL before they even release the product to keep up with that schedule.

Your expectation is that Apple always updates the products for all eternity?

How about just one full year? Though even that is illegally short. Something on the lines of 3 years of critical security patches would be about the legal minimum. So I'd go for that. Though a 5 year commitment would be nicer. But since you think less than one year support is already absurdly long, maybe even 3 years is pushing it.

Re:Easy Way Out

[UnknowingFool]

The generations are so short that the EOL schedule is illegal here. EOL is fine. But EOL at under a year is absurdly short. Some places even give that much warning before they EOL something. Apple would have to announce the EOL before they even release the product to keep up with that schedule.

That is a completely different argument than "Apple never patches". If you feel that Apple EOL generations are illegal, sue. I doubt you will get very far considering the rest of industry barely updates Android on a regular schedule and they are not even EOL yet.

How about just one full year? Though even that is illegally short. Something on the lines of 3 years of critical security patches would be about the legal minimum. So I'd go for that. Though a 5 year commitment would be nicer. But since you think less than one year support is already absurdly long, maybe even 3 years is pushing it.

According to wikipedia:

• iPhone 1st Gen:
  Released June 29, 2007. Last OS availble: 3.1.3 February 2, 2010. Time of support: 2 years, 7 months
• iPhone 3G:
  Released July 11, 2008. Last OS available: 4.2.1: November 22, 2010. Time of support: 2 years, 4 months

Apple has supported all their iPhones for more than 2 years. I think your problem is that you think the cell phone is a computer and has to have the same level of support. If you look at the whole industry, 2 years is longer than most. Most manufacturers barely support their smartphones more than a year. Randomly I picked the Blackberry Storm 9530. Release date: November 21, 2008. Last software update (Verizon): October 27, 2009. Barely a year.

You can argue industry wide, 1 year is intolerable. From the industry's standpoint, most people change cell phones every 2 years so their incentive to keep patching them is not there. The main question is why single out Apple for supporting their phones longer than the industry norm?

Re:Easy Way Out

[AK Marc]

Apple has supported all their iPhones for more than 2 years.

The time between the last manufacuring date of a 3G and the date software updates stopped was less than one year. So you are wrong.

The main question is why single out Apple for supporting their phones longer than the industry norm?

Because this article is about Apple. So why would I go into an off topic rant about Blackberry when a similar rant about Apple is on topic? I've made negative comments about RIM, but only in comments on articles about them. You are attacking me for pointing out a valid injustice in a manner that somehow offends your sensibilities.

Re:Easy Way Out

[jrumney]

More people need to complain to government bodies with oversight over the industry about cases like these, or start a class action suit against the companies that profit from these scams (ie the mobile phone companies as well as the scammers). The way mobile phone companies make it so easy to subscribe to premium SMS services over the web, or by replying to a deceptive text message, and then the way they shrug their shoulders and play blame the victim when you phone them to complain demonstrates that self regulation is not an option when the company in a position to put things right has an economic interest in allowing things to continue as is.

Re:Easy Way Out

[UnknowingFool]

The time between the last manufacuring date of a 3G and the date software updates stopped was less than one year. So you are wrong.

I said:
iPhone 1st Gen:
Released June 29, 2007. Last OS availble: 3.1.3 February 2, 2010. Time of support: 2 years, 7 months iPhone 3G:
Released July 11, 2008. Last OS available: 4.2.1: November 22, 2010. Time of support: 2 years, 4 months

Companies define the time of support. Apple does not appear to define it from the last sale date. Other companies may define from the last manufacturing date or last sale. In the case of the 3G, I am not sure of the last manufacturing date. I can only assume that Apple stopped manufacturing the 3G long before they started manufacturing the iPhone 4. I am sure that Apple did sell the 3G after the 4 came out as they were probably selling off their excess inventory. Unless you have more insight on the last manufacturing date, I would guess it was more than a year. Now you might have more of a case that the last sale date should be used; however, that would be hard for Apple logistically. Some of their retailers may have not been able to move their old stock for months if not a year after Apple discontinued a model.

Because this article is about Apple. So why would I go into an off topic rant about Blackberry when a similar rant about Apple is on topic? I've made negative comments about RIM, but only in comments on articles about them. You are attacking me for pointing out a valid injustice in a manner that somehow offends your sensibilities.

No I am pointing out inconsistencies in your statements. You seem to have singled out Apple only for the criticisms when they apply to the whole industry.

Re:Easy Way Out

[AK Marc]

No I am pointing out inconsistencies in your statements.

There are no inconsistencies in my statements. They may not agree with the definitions any particular manufacturer uses, but my statements are factual, true, and consistent.

Never mind that fact...

[Endophage]

... that parents are buying their children (who clearly aren't yet older enough to understand financial responsibility) expensive pieces of technology so that they don't actually have to parent or spend time with their children. IMO it's becoming far to common place for parents to sit their children in front of a TV or video game so that they don't have to keep them occupied. Who told them parenting wasn't hard work?

I'm not saying Apple hasn't been somewhat irresponsible for making it so easy to run up bills but a class action lawsuit is a little extreme for something that the parents are equally, if not more responsible for.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who told them parenting wasn't hard work?

The government.

Or, single mothers who want to show off their amazing independence^H selfishness by raising a bunch of bastard children with no father figure around even though it's well known that children who come from two-parent homes are much more likely to graduate from school, get decent jobs, stay out of jail, avoid becoming teen parents, etc. But those single mothers love their kids so much they think this doesn't apply to them. Course a lot of them are using WIC and other forms of leech^H band-aids for their poor decision-making^H vote-buying programs^H welfare so again government has some involvement.

Single mothers: the most selfish creatures on the planet but they will try to make you feel guilty for seeing the reality. They will say "but look how hard I have to work to make ends meet" ... well yeah, you're doing everything the hard way, of course that's ... hard. What matters is the disadvantage you're putting your kids at not the fact that this isn't convenient for you.

Women have about 14 different forms of non-surgical birth control available to them. Men have precisely one. Do the math. When you meet a man raised by a single mother you can always tell. They're either wusses or they're so insecure that they try to be macho thug gangstas to prove how not-wussie they are cuz they have something they feel a need to compensate for. Seriously, quit doing this shit. This country can't take too many more generations of bastard kids who don't respect anything because they couldn't find a reason to respect you.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

You insufferable bastard. DO NOT BLAME PARENTS. Parents are not at fault. Especially do not discuss parenting in relation to the poor performance of their children at school. That is strictly a funding problem, you incredible fucking jerk.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[superdude72]

I'm assuming the kids are playing the game on the parents' iphone. Nothing wrong with keeping the kids occupied on a long car trip. Would you rather they count out-of-state license plates or something equally mind-numbing?

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Endophage]

I really should have emphasized the sarcasm and personal frustration of "Who told them parenting wasn't hard work?" I agree with everything you've laid out. Too many people don't realize the work required to raise a child. I do infact love that there is a charity that will pay drug an alcohol abusers to be sterilized so that they can't have children. It may be controversial but at least somebody is being proactive about improving this messed up society.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple take a cut of all sales. All sales have to go through Apple. If you've seen the ipod/phone/pad games, you will know they're 99% kiddy shit, and Apple does not provide a password option to prevent purchases from the device. They want this to happen, despite people asking for password/pin protection. You can't even download "free" games without Apple having you complete credit card details. That's obvious a problem, and they want it precisely clock up sales like this.

The parents are buying a toy/gadget and letting the kids play with it. It should come with some form of authentication on as a default to prevent this situation. It doesn't and Apple won't listen to customer requests. Fuck them, I hope they are torn to bits with this class action. There'll be no money at the end of it, but the publicity is going to cost them a fortune in lost sales.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

lolumadbro?

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Duradin]

To get a driver's license you have to pass a written and driving test.

To get a concealed weapons permit you have to pass a written test and proficiency test.

In some cities to have a dog you need a license.

To spawn, all it takes is boredom and ignorance.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[david_thornley]

Parenting is hard work. And sometimes you have a choice between having a whiny and crabby kid or giving the kid something to entertain him or her for a few minutes. If you want to argue that whiny and crabby is better because it doesn't involve electronic diversion, be my guest, but you'll have to be pretty darn convincing before I'll buy it.

So, if I've got a young child, I might download an app to amuse the child for a few minutes. In doing so, I have to enter my password, and the phone is then authorized to buy stuff for something like fifteen minutes. A young child isn't going to understand money as anything other than bills and coins, and I sure don't know that this particular app is designed to suck money out of me if a child plays it.

Fundamentally, it's a trap, since the app relies on me not knowing enough about it to avoid it. It's a trojan - get the user to install this and profit. I'm willing to take my chances with my kid and the real world, but I can't monitor my kid at all times, and wouldn't if I could, and so I'm at a distinct disadvantage against people who deliberately try to entice my kid into things. I can always say no if it's something advertised, but if it's something the kid has control over without my knowledge there's really nothing I can do.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[ackthpt]

... that parents are buying their children (who clearly aren't yet older enough to understand financial responsibility) expensive pieces of technology so that they don't actually have to parent or spend time with their children. IMO it's becoming far to common place for parents to sit their children in front of a TV or video game so that they don't have to keep them occupied. Who told them parenting wasn't hard work?

Problem is most parents don't have a PhD from Parenting University. Junior or little Miss popped out and Mum and Dad have been on a running treadmill ever since, with scarcely a moment to see into the Crystal Ball of the future, to see what mischief their progeny will be up to next. Parents can use a little help from companies. Particularly where there is a sort of precedent.

I'm not saying Apple hasn't been somewhat irresponsible for making it so easy to run up bills but a class action lawsuit is a little extreme for something that the parents are equally, if not more responsible for.

Roll this back about 10 years and it's kids texting an added $5,000 to their parents mobile phone.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[ganjadude]

/s?

Re:Never mind that fact...

[causality]

I really should have emphasized the sarcasm and personal frustration of "Who told them parenting wasn't hard work?" I agree with everything you've laid out. Too many people don't realize the work required to raise a child. I do infact love that there is a charity that will pay drug an alcohol abusers to be sterilized so that they can't have children. It may be controversial but at least somebody is being proactive about improving this messed up society.

Yes, but truth hurts especially when it involves facts we'd rather not admit about things that tend to get idolized like motherhood. Done wisely there'd be no need to put it on a pedestal because it would stand on the merits of its own inherent virtues. Done poorly the damage it does to society is quite real simply because of the awesome responsibility it represents. Personally I am all for adults doing whatever they want to do, up until they allow their bad decision-making to affect others.

Far as the sterilization charity is concerned, it's on a voluntary basis. Someone in that category who does not wish to be sterilized can simply elect not to seek the aid of this particular charity. End of controversy. What is it about adults making decisions for their own lives that would ever be such a big deal?

The only thing surprising me is that the AC wasn't instantly modded "-1 Troll" but I am sure they're getting around to it. How dare someone state an unpleasant truth without first kissing ass, apologizing, begging the reader not to be offended, reassuring us of their benevolence, disclaiming claims that were never actually made to appease the knee-jerks, etc. Doesn't he know that we're living in an age where disagreement with someone makes them the devil and everything they say is automatically malicious?

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Americano]

Apple does not provide a password option to prevent purchases from the device.

Funny, there's a pretty simple way to prevent in-app purchases built right in.

And if you think it's too hard to change a handful of parental control settings on your device, consider whether or not you'd allow a stranger to babysit your child without spending even a few moments getting to know them and finding out their name.

As if purchasing an expensive device to babysit your child wasn't bad enough, you want us to feel sympathy for parents who can't even spend a few moments disabling in-app purchases on that device? Tough shit.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Americano]

Disable in-app purchases across the board. Then your kid will ask you if they can buy something, and you can evaluate each request on its merits.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[pushing-robot]

*sigh*

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2534

Re:Never mind that fact...

[SydShamino]

But if you want to raise a child and don't want to spawn, it takes $25k and two years and you better have no dings on your mental health record.

We have friends who always wanted to adopt, but they are in a different state working for a few years. There's no point in starting the process there, because when they move (and they'll plan to move), they lose all the money and all the progress and would have to start over.

So they just made their own baby. Of course they can take care of their own, but that means there's some un-adopted baby out there who just lost parents.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[causality]

To get a driver's license you have to pass a written and driving test.

To get a concealed weapons permit you have to pass a written test and proficiency test.

In some cities to have a dog you need a license.

To spawn, all it takes is boredom and ignorance.

I think there is actually a sort of logic to that.

If we as a civilization have become so decadent and degenerate that parents are no longer willing to do whatever is necessary to provide their children with a good, stable, loving home so that hopefully their children can have a better life than they did, then we are already so far gone that we have deeper problems than a licensing system is likely to solve.

That's without getting into issues like: has the government displayed such competence and excellence and wisdom in all the other things it tries to handle these days that you could make a compelling case for its worthiness of being entrusted with such an important decision as parenting?

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some books, a walkman, and a pillow worked for me. Maybe bring a ball and hit a rest stop once in a while.

Kids nowadays...

Re:Never mind that fact...

[knarf]

Would you rather they count out-of-state license plates or something equally mind-numbing?

Yes, of course I would rather have my children come up with something to entertain themselves then to have them spoon-fed with commercial drivel. I remember these car trips from when I was younger. Every power line looked like a cable car or railway line, license plates were interesting as well - but this is Europe so they might be more varied than in the US - and the great blue (and all to often gray) yonder was (and is) full of surprises.

And another thing... assuming that there is more than one grown-up in the car, that person could maybe do something with the kids? Try it, it's fun!

No appletainment in this house, thank you...

Re:Never mind that fact...

[macs4all]

I'm not saying Apple hasn't been somewhat irresponsible for making it so easy to run up bills

I am.

Apple put a system-wide configuration option in iOS even BEFORE all this. It is up to the adult to use normal diligence when handing a device linked to their credit card info to their children and simply walking away.

I also believe that it is/was incumbent on the APP DEVELOPERS to limit the number of "smurfberries', or whatever, purchased during a particular time-period.

But, I guess everything is ultimately Apple's fault here in Slashdot-land.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Dishevel]

This is just a natural progression of what we are doing.
When you take away real consequences for an action you get less responsible actions.
When you take care of someones kids not matter what you get alot more people having children they
can not or will not take care of.
If every time your kid drops their laptop you buy them another one within 24 hours. They are going to break a fuckload of laptops.
Rental cars are treated like shit.

These are all things that we know.
We know them right up till this knowledge prevents us from voting for some entitlement for ourselves or "For the Children".
Then we forget.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know plenty of kids who know far better how to enable/disable than their parents do.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Duradin]

A better question, have parents displayed such competence and excellence and wisdom in all the other things it tries to handle these days that you could make a compelling case for its worthiness of being entrusted with such an important decision as parenting?

My answer would be no, so the government couldn't screw it up worse then the DNA donors already have.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[joh]

Apple does not provide a password option to prevent purchases from the device.

Funny, there's a pretty simple way to prevent in-app purchases built right in.

But maybe you don't want to prevent all in-app purchases? Maybe you only want to make sure that your kids don't buy things without your oversight? By keeping the password to yourself and having them ask you to buy things for them?

The trouble is the password caching for 15 minutes. Many parents thought (and still think) that by not giving the password to their kids and requiring them to come and ask to type in the password they would be safe against the kids buying things on their own. What's a password good for if you have to disable in-app purchases altogether just to make sure that your kids can't buy whatever they want for 15 minutes if you have typed in the password once for one purchase? This is like having an ATM give out free money to everyone asking for it out of your account for 15 minutes after you've removed your card.

Not giving your kids your password and typing it in for them if they want to buy something is totally reasonable and surely in no way bad parenting. Being bitten by "convenient" password caching is infuriating. I would sue Apple to hell and back if this would have happened to me. Password caching should be optional and default to off.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[DurendalMac]

Apple take a cut of all sales. All sales have to go through Apple. If you've seen the ipod/phone/pad games, you will know they're 99% kiddy shit, and Apple does not provide a password option to prevent purchases from the device. They want this to happen, despite people asking for password/pin protection. You can't even download "free" games without Apple having you complete credit card details. That's obvious a problem, and they want it precisely clock up sales like this.

The parents are buying a toy/gadget and letting the kids play with it. It should come with some form of authentication on as a default to prevent this situation. It doesn't and Apple won't listen to customer requests. Fuck them, I hope they are torn to bits with this class action. There'll be no money at the end of it, but the publicity is going to cost them a fortune in lost sales.

Yeah...except that Apple required the password for in-app purchases in 4.3, which was before this lawsuit was filed. Yeah, you're right, they WANT this to happen so bad that they put in measures to prevent it! Gee, that kinda nullifies your entire ignorant, flaming, retarded rant, now doesn't it?

Re:Never mind that fact...

[macs4all]

Apple take a cut of all sales. All sales have to go through Apple. If you've seen the ipod/phone/pad games, you will know they're 99% kiddy shit, and Apple does not provide a password option to prevent purchases from the device. They want this to happen, despite people asking for password/pin protection. You can't even download "free" games without Apple having you complete credit card details. That's obvious a problem, and they want it precisely clock up sales like this.

BZZZT! Thanks for ASSuming, troll.

Apple added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. Check out page 115 of this iPhone OS 3.0 User Guide for the iPod Touch.

Or do you propose that they should have had the restriction in place BEFORE the feature was even available? Probably so, with your mentality.

I get really sick and tired of all the Apple hate.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[joh]

Disable in-app purchases across the board. Then your kid will ask you if they can buy something, and you can evaluate each request on its merits.

Parents thought they would be doing exactly this by not giving their kids the passwords, so the kids had to come and ask their parents to type in the password for them. And then had to learn that for 15 minutes the kids could buy things without being presented with a password prompt.

Having to enable and disable in-app purchases over and over just to avoid to be run over by the 15 minute password caching is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. What about just DISABLING password caching, so that you have to type the password for each and every purchase?

Re:Never mind that fact...

[getNewNickName]

After downloading the app, before you give it back to your kid, just go in and turn on the restrictions. You can disable the app store, in-app purchases, etc. It's a bit more work, but it gets around the 15 minute authorization issue.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

Parenting is hard work. And sometimes you have a choice between having a whiny and crabby kid or giving the kid something to entertain him or her for a few minutes. If you want to argue that whiny and crabby is better because it doesn't involve electronic diversion, be my guest, but you'll have to be pretty darn convincing before I'll buy it.

Suggestion: don't have a child then. If you're a bad enough parent to give them whatever they want just so they will be quiet, then you shouldn't be a parent period. It just worsens the situation since they think that whining will getting them what they want (based on past experience).

It's not Apple's fault that some people are 'bad' parents or that their kids are "brats."

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

but that means there's some un-adopted baby out there who just lost parents.

Duh !

Re:Never mind that fact...

[AK Marc]

... that parents are buying their children (who clearly aren't yet older enough to understand financial responsibility) expensive pieces of technology so that they don't actually have to parent or spend time with their children.

Yes, your irrelevant and insane rant is a good way for you to instantly reveal your mental illness, but is unrelated to this. Who owns the device in question, the children or the parents, is irrelevant to the issue. The issue is that if you authorize an app purchase of $0, you authorize an infinite an amount of other purchases for the next 15 minutes. That's not clear and it's essentially impossible to block. Whether you use it to raise your children, or if you just let them play for 10 minutes every 3 years, if you buy a $0 app and hand it to them, they had 15 minutes in which they could buy stuff enough to fill your credit card attached to the iTunes account.

a class action lawsuit is a little extreme for something that the parents are equally, if not more responsible for.

So? If I park illegally and someone breaks in and steals my stereo, should they get to keep it without penalty because I broke the law first? That's silly, and exactly what you are saying. At least the legal system doesn't agree with you. If you harm someone, they can hold you responsible for the amount of harm caused by you, whether 5% of the total loss or 100% of the total loss. So arguing about what the damages should be sounds like you are agreeing they are responsible in the most disagreeable manner.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[DocHoncho]

Or maybe disable sneaky, deceptive in-game stores aimed at users who won't know any better and which require the parent to exhaustively vet each and every thing that comes across the phone.

"Oh no honey, I have to play that My Little Ponies game for at least 3 hours first before I can even think about allowing you to play it. I have to know everything you see, I'm the Parent."

Free market FTW!

Re:Never mind that fact...

[hedwards]

I think the problem is that nobody's come up with a reasonable alternative. What happens when unlicensed parents procreate? Do you take the babby away or do you abort it? If you take the babby away, then what exactly do you do with him or her? They can presumably only be given to licensed parents.

Or do you prohibit men and women from being alone with each other?

For all the problems that result from incompetent parenting nobody has been able to propose a sane way of handling it.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[joocemann]

Apparently, and quite foolishly, you seem to forget that the absence of the father could likely be of HIS own doing. Who are you to judge? You, a parsite to social beneficence as we al are.

Clearly everything in YOUR dim life has gone as planned. Its a shame you lack any realistic regard for those whose lives did not go as planned.

Maybe instead of welfare, those poor moms could start hookin__ that way entitled jerks like you have someon to buy when your wife says no and you still want your way.

Please grow up or shut up.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[UnknowingFool]

You can always sign out of iTunes Store. Settings-->Store-->Sign out.
Sign back in when you're ready to make a purchase.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[UnknowingFool]

Having to enable and disable in-app purchases over and over just to avoid to be run over by the 15 minute password caching is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. What about just DISABLING password caching, so that you have to type the password for each and every purchase?

Judging by your UID, you should know that it's the same behavior as sudo. Maybe that's where Apple got the idea.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[ooshna]

You are absolutely right damn those single mothers with their two jobs and and bastard kids. Who do they think they are. Do they know how many unemployed people could use one of those jobs? Or hell we could employ two people if those women would learn their place and just settle with a husband. How dumb are they struggling for no reason when at anytime they wanted they could just become a house wife. Sure guys have their faults so maybe they beat them a little or are hooked on drugs, but without that man in their kids lives they will grow up to be illiterate thugs. I mean come on with all these guys trying to be responsible fathers and sticking around these women are idiots.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Americano]

Which part of "disable it across the board" wasn't clear? You don't need to vet everything, simply disallow everything by default.

If your kid tries to buy something in game, they won't be able to; this means they will need to ask you, "Mom/Dad, can I buy some eCarrots to feed My Little Ponies?" You can then consider whether this is a wise investment of your money, and set some limits and rules on a case-by-case basis.

And frankly, taking an active interest in the games your child is playing might not make you the worst parent in the world, either. You know, rather than let the device babysit them while you play your own games.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Americano]

Maybe you only want to make sure that your kids don't buy things without your oversight? By keeping the password to yourself and having them ask you to buy things for them?

And maybe you also want to steer your car with your feet and never stop for a red light! Just because you want to do these things doesn't mean you'll find the exact functionality you're demanding.

There is a way to accomplish your stated goal of "making sure the kids don't buy things without your oversight," and it's implemented right now in the phone. By all means, offer suggestions for a better way to accomplish this if you have a brilliant idea - go submit a suggestion to Apple, I'm sure they'd love to hear real feedback from real customers about how their technology could be improved. But let's drop this whole "I will SUE YOU TO HELL" e-Tough rhetoric as a pointless waste that's entirely irrelevant to the point.

If your goal is "Make sure that your kids don't buy things without your oversight," then disabling all in-app purchases is a completely trivial way to do this. It's turned off; if they want it turned on so they can make more purchases, they come to you and say, "Gee Dad, I really want some blah for my blahblah game." If you think it's an allowable expense, you enable in-app purchases, let the purchase go through, then disable further purchases. While you're at it, you can spend the 2 minutes it will take you to do this to have a conversation with your kid! Or not, I know that kids can be a bother, which is why we buy expensive toys to babysit them in the first place, amirite?

You have the oversight you're demanding. Your only issue seems to be that Apple implements it in a different way than YOU would, and that this makes you angry for some reason.

Re:Never mind that fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask again after you've finished cleaning up the vomit your game playing kid ejects when he gets motion sickness from keeping his eyes in his lap instead of out of the window where his observations would agree with the movement his inner ear is registering.

Although I do find this business model stupid

[Derekloffin]

I can't really say Apple is doing anything wrong here. They have not only the option to disable said purchases available, they also went the extra step of modifying their password handling. Seems just like another case of stupid parenting to me.

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[LWATCDR]

The business model is far from stupid. It is in fact brillant. It is the exact same model as Magic the Gathering used and many other games and products. It is in fact the old give away the razor and sell the blades model, or the cheap printer and expensive ink model. It makes lots of money and provides a reoccurring revenue stream. As business models go it is great and very successful.
As a consumer I have no interest in a video game where I winning will come down to how much I am willing to spend. But that is just me. I also didn't buy into the whole Magic the Gathering thing. Now buying expansions and extra levels isn't that bad of deal if you really enjoy the game.

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[ackthpt]

I can't really say Apple is doing anything wrong here. They have not only the option to disable said purchases available, they also went the extra step of modifying their password handling. Seems just like another case of stupid parenting to me.

Yes... but have you ever had a child in a public school? A child who is failing? Who do you blame? Parents or school?

There is a logic here, but it escapes me.

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[xMrFishx]

Until the password handling changed it was a bit of an issue. Having a "live" password for 15 minutes was like holding a ticking grenade. i.e. once you'd entered your password to download the free game (fine) it was also valid for in app purchases until the cooldown wore off. That I think was the major source of this issue, as you've said, now fixed (I think?).

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't really say Apple is doing anything wrong here. They have not only the option to disable said purchases available, they also went the extra step of modifying their password handling. Seems just like another case of stupid parenting to me.

Yes... but have you ever had a child in a public school? A child who is failing? Who do you blame? Parents or school?

There is a logic here, but it escapes me.

In the case of a child having difficulty in school, I blame the parents more than the school because I believe in personal responsibility. So--in the case of whether to blame Apple or parents, I think I will also blame parents. You were being facetious, right?

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on the situation. Sometimes the child, sometimes the parent, and sometimes the school.

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on the situation.

It's a funding problem. It is always a lack of funding. How many times do the teachers unions and their senators have to tell you people?

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[eh2o]

The dynamics of in-app purchases change the basic nature of game play, that much is certain. I think those dynamics present a conflict of interest or at least a moral dilemma of some sort. For example developers are motivated to create exceedingly frustrating and/or impossible "scenarios" that can be by-passed with a purchase, where those scenarios don't crop up until the user is sufficiently invested in the game-play to consider making the purchase. Its one thing to sell add ons / extra levels, its another to manipulate user behavior through what is essentially a form of false advertising. In the razor/blades scenario, we can at least say that the blades have a concrete value and the user can estimate the total cost of using that platform over time. Not so with a game that may require some unknown number of additional purchases to play. Its more like the neighborhood crack dealer "first hit is free" promotion.

Apple should revise the app-store policy to include consideration of how in-app purchase mechanisms are used. They already have a plethora of criteria based on what are essentially moral grounds, which is already a key value proposition of their app store vs the competition. Since they are presumably already benefiting from in-app revenue it might take a bit of convincing before they see the light (such as a class action lawsuit?).

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[joh]

Until the password handling changed it was a bit of an issue. Having a "live" password for 15 minutes was like holding a ticking grenade. i.e. once you'd entered your password to download the free game (fine) it was also valid for in app purchases until the cooldown wore off. That I think was the major source of this issue, as you've said, now fixed (I think?).

Apple just did a PR stunt with the changes they did. Now you have two independent 15 minute windows, one for app purchases and one for in-app purchases. So you can still keep the password for yourself, type in the password for your kid to buy a game for a buck, give the iPod/iPhone/iPad back to your kid and the brat can continue to spend a fortune by buying a dozen more expensive games without ever seeing a password prompt. Same with in-app purchases: Type the password once for an in-app purchase, allow 15 minutes of password-free smurfberry buying. So you still have to wait 15 minutes after buying anything until you can give the thing back to your kids. Insane.

The more simple and more sane solution would have been a simple option to disable password caching altogether, so that each and every purchase requires the password no matter what. This way things would be clear and easy: Keep the password to yourself and your kids can't buy anything without asking you to type the password. As it should be.

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[macs4all]

Until the password handling changed it was a bit of an issue. Having a "live" password for 15 minutes was like holding a ticking grenade. i.e. once you'd entered your password to download the free game (fine) it was also valid for in app purchases until the cooldown wore off. That I think was the major source of this issue, as you've said, now fixed (I think?).

Kind of like that sudo timeout, eh?

Usability vs. Security is always a tradeoff. At least Apple fixed the problem when it was brought to their attention.

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[Bake]

And for those of us who don't have a stupid brat to max out our credit cards with "accidental" purchases?

Why should we be forced to enter our password each and every single time we want to buy something?

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[david_thornley]

Who do I blame? Who's falling down on the job?

As a parent, there was very little I could do about bullying. I wasn't present. We considered moving the kid to a different school, but there were reasons we decided not to (it wasn't a simple decision). I can blame the bullies' parents, but that doesn't do any good. The school has the moral responsibility to provide a safe environment for my child while my child is in legally mandated education, and they failed. (We were able to remove him from the school bus system after he got hurt awfully close to one of his eyes.)

On the other hand, there are parents who don't care to get involved in their child's problems and who will blame the schools for their own failings. It can go both ways.

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[narcc]

Why should we be forced to enter our password each and every single time we want to buy something?

The horror!

That aside, you failed to comprehend the parents suggestion:

The more simple and more sane solution would have been a simple option to disable password caching

Option. A choice the user can make.

I know how much you Apple folks despise options and would prefer that Apple made all those complicated decisions for you, but options aren't always bad.

Re:Although I do find this business model stupid

[LWATCDR]

I guess I feel that it odd that people have such an odd sense of entitlement. A law suit? Over a video game? Just don't play the ones that use in game purchases. I mean really it is a game which is something one doesn't really need. If enough people don't play them then they fail. If enough people do buy and play them then they will keep making them.
A class action lawsuit? Yea that is great it will make a lot of money for the lawyers.

Slimy

[__aazsst3756]

Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model. For Apple to allow it is atrocious. There are much better alternatives, such as a short window to allow returns. I have kids with iOS devices, and thus hoping they win. Bad parenting? I don't have time to play every game to know its business model, but do try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.

Re:Slimy

[causality]

Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model. For Apple to allow it is atrocious. There are much better alternatives, such as a short window to allow returns. I have kids with iOS devices, and thus hoping they win. Bad parenting? I don't have time to play every game to know its business model, but do try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.

I agree with you about the business model. That's why I don't buy iPhones. That's why I wouldn't buy them for anyone else, especially someone too young to be expected to understand financial responsibility. Problem solved. If Apple starts feeling lost sales they can do something about this -- they certainly have enough control over the platform and the App Store. If Apple doesn't care about that and feels satisfied with their sales figures, I can continue using and recommending something else.

One way or another I'm not going to end up in this position. If I somehow did anyway, I'd chalk it up to another lesson learned. It wouldn't occur to me to run to a lawyer hoping he could bail me out of it. I might do that if force or fraud was involved, but me making a bad decision when I should have informed myself does not constitute fraud on the part of the other party.

Re:Slimy

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you don't have time to teach your kids not to be strippers. Because the world needs more of them, thank you.

Re:Slimy

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Do your kids understand how long-distance works on your phone?

Re:Slimy

[shutdown -p now]

Newsflash: if you give your kids the ability to spend your money, they will, generally speaking, spend it on "flashy things".

A simple answer to that is not to give them the ability to spend money. Last I checked, all purchases on iPhone require entering the Apple ID password. So you can create an account for them and tie the card to it so that you can buy apps for their phone, but you only need to not tell them the password.

Alternatively, open an account for them at the bank, and tie a debit card from that account to Apple ID. That way they can only spend as much as you deposit into their account. It's probably even better, because it teaches to manage money.

Re:Slimy

[tycoex]

Simple solution that doesn't even require you paying attention to your kids. Buy them a Nintendo DS instead a phone. Now you have your electronic babysitter, and they can only use the games you buy for them.

When you feel like they obsoletely can't survive without a cell-phone buy them a cheap-o one that can make phone calls and text at the most. When they have their own job at 16 and can pay for their own phone, THEN they get a smartphone.

Re:Slimy

[MartinSchou]

Or do the simple and responsible thing - create a free account.

Now, an iTunes Store also requires you to be 13 or older:

REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF THE SERVICE

  This Service is available for individuals aged 13 years or older. If you are 13 or older but under the age of 18, you should review this Agreement with your parent or guardian to make sure that you and your parent or guardian understand it.

Many parents just take the easy way out and give their kids access to their own full account, meaning that they themselves have been in breach of the terms of service for iTunes Store.

Another point is access. Sure, your 17-year-old kid might enjoy access to your iTunes Store account. So he uses it on the computer in the living room. And you also use it on your office computer. And laptop. And iPhone. And your wife's iPad.

But next year the kid's moving out, and your account is already tied to five devices (living room, office, laptop, iPhone, iPad) - now all the stuff the kid bought can't be used by him/her. Be it music, movies, apps or books. Or you have to give up accessing it on one of your devices. Get the kid a free iTunes Store account instead.

But - my point remains. No need for a debit card. Once the kids have a free account, they can still use the freemium games, this time without being able to buy stuff for ridiculous amounts of money. You can gift them purchases, like music or apps, or even give them a gift certificate for iTunes Store.

Hell, if you INSIST that the kids have access to your credit card enabled iTunes Store account, at least learn how to disable in-app purchases.

And if you don't know any of this stuff, why haven't you called Apple's help line? They give you 90 days free phone support to get to learn the product.

While I find the whole notion of freemium apps disgusting, as they are pretty much all designed to siphon money from kids of irresponsible children, it's not like there aren't ways to prevent the abuse on your own.

I seriously do not understand why people are so irresponsible with stuff that can access their credit cards. iTunes Store can access it. What can access iTunes store - computers, iPhones, iPods, iPads. Sounds like the perfect thing to give to a child then.

Re:Slimy

[shutdown -p now]

The idea with debit card is to give some money for them to spend, but a limited amount, so that they learn to manage it on what they actually want (and not just every shiny thing they see). I.e. controlled spending where the kid can still choose what to buy for himself.

Re:Slimy

[macs4all]

Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model. For Apple to allow it is atrocious. There are much better alternatives, such as a short window to allow returns. I have kids with iOS devices, and thus hoping they win. Bad parenting? I don't have time to play every game to know its business model, but do try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.

Um, Apple first allowed in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. At the very same time, they instituted a global preference to disable in-app purchases (see page 115 of the PDF).

I believe your ire SHOULD be directed to the "slimy business model" of the app DEVELOPERS; who put absolutely ZERO restrictions or "reasonability tests" into the APP to prevent this, and then laughed all the way to the bank. Which one of THEM has stepped up to the plate and offered a REFUND?

Re:Slimy

[macs4all]

I agree with you about the business model. That's why I don't buy iPhones. That's why I wouldn't buy them for anyone else, especially someone too young to be expected to understand financial responsibility. Problem solved.

Next time, instead of spreading FUD to all those around you, why don't you become EDUTATED?

Apple first added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. AT THE VERY SAME TIME, they added a global lockout on that ability (see page 115 of the linked PDF for the User Manual for iPhone OS 3.0). Just exactly how is that "slimy"?

It's a good thing for you that Apple has better things to do that sue people like you for libel and slander.

Re:Slimy

[Fnord666]

Last I checked, all purchases on iPhone require entering the Apple ID password. So you can create an account for them and tie the card to it so that you can buy apps for their phone, but you only need to not tell them the password.

That's all well and good, but as others have pointed out, this doesn't work. iOS will cache your password for 15 minutes after you enter it (whether you know it does this or not) and will not reprompt you. You child finds an interesting free game they want to play. They come to you to enter your password and the app installs. They play their new game and end up feeding 50 cookies to their new whatever at $1.00 each. Not once will they be told that those cookies cost real money, nor will they be prompted for the password.

Once again it often comes down to a poor choice in the default behavior. Apple could have required you to "opt in" to password caching and tell you the risks so that you could make an informed choice. They thought differently.

Re:Slimy

[DocHoncho]

NO NO NO! It comes down to an unethical business model relying on causing young children to spend their parents money without ever knowing they're doing it.

And don't try and pull the "what about gamers who know better?" If you think there is even a slightly significant percentage of mature gamers playing these stupid games you're insane. These games are developed with the explicit intention of separating "fools" from their money, even if the "fool" in question is too young to know better. But hey, that's the American Way! A sucker is born every minute, amirite??

Re:Slimy

[david_thornley]

As a parent, I actually do spend a fair amount of time interacting with the kid. I don't have time to examine every innocuous-looking thing in the immediate environment to see if it has changed in a way I'm apparently supposed to realize is dangerous, and come up with the right countermeasure the instant it becomes necessary. Nobody does.

Apple has put more R&D into computer-human interactions than anybody else, possibly everybody else put together. If they produce products that are dangerous given normal use, they have less excuse than anybody else.

Re:Slimy

[narcc]

Next time, instead of spreading FUD to all those around you, why don't you become EDUTATED?

Ha-Ha!

Re:Slimy

[causality]

First off: an opinion isn't libel. I never represented a single thing I said as indisputable fact. Maybe armchair lawyer wasn't your strong suit.

For another, you are making my point for me. The global lockout means I am right: if I ever ended up in this situation it would be MY FAULT. Maybe you would like to re-read that portion I put in caps. MY FAULT. That's why I would not end up with this problem in the first place. That's why I wouldn't cry foul if I somehow did.

Even if there were no global lockout, it would still be MY FAULT if I ever ended up in that position. The only option here is whether it would be my fault for failing to understand what I was spending a significant chunk of money on, or whether it'd be my fault for not using the global lockout. Either way, what I said, to those who can comprehend what they read, is that Apple does not deserve legal liability in this situation. So you can rest assured, I have not bashed the company that is obviously so precious to you that you will start foaming at the mouth the moment you falsely think someone said something bad about it.

Take a breath, pull your head out of your ass, and try actually understanding what I said. You'll feel less stupid that way. You're welcome. Now go find another way to demonize me because you don't give up so easily even when it's a completely lost cause.

Re:Slimy

[macs4all]

First off: an opinion isn't libel. I never represented a single thing I said as indisputable fact. Maybe armchair lawyer wasn't your strong suit.

Sorry! You are dead wrong.

Part of the definition of "defamation of character", which covers libel (printed) and slander (spoken), only requires that it be a STATEMENT made. In order for what you said about "opinion" (which is true) to be an avoidance to suit, you must CLEARLY point out that you are stating an opinion; which you most assuredly did not do. I agree that you would likely ultimately prevail, but not before the defamation suit was filed.

But that's not the point.

I actually agree with what you have said in your reply to my response to your comment. There is no way that APPLE should be held liable for these idiots' failure to exercise due diligence. I admit that, by the time I got to your comment, I had read about ten too many comments that bent over backwards to call the parents "victims". If they were "victims" of ANYONE, it was the APP DEVELOPERS (which are not even named in this suit?); not Apple.

Apple has put about as many safeguards in place as they can without totally making in-app purchases a royal PITA. At some point, it's up to the ADULTS to be, well, ADULT.

So, despite your snarky comments about me not backing down, I hereby admit that we are pretty much on the same side on everything, as long as your "Slimy Business Model" agreement was directed at the App Devs, not Apple.

Re:Slimy

[macs4all]

Next time, instead of spreading FUD to all those around you, why don't you become EDUTATED?

Ha-Ha!

Whoosh!

The spelling was intentional. Although in retrospect, I supposed I should have used the "correct" Bushian spelling of "Edumacated".

Re:Slimy

[narcc]

You'll have to forgive me for not getting your "joke". When your post contains gems like this:

It's a good thing for you that Apple has better things to do that sue people like you for libel and slander

It makes it really easy to assume that the error was unintentional.

Re:Slimy

[macs4all]

As a parent, I actually do spend a fair amount of time interacting with the kid.

And, your dismissive term "the kid", clearly points out that you consider this a chore, rather than a DUTY. First "parenting" strike.

I don't have time to examine every innocuous-looking thing in the immediate environment to see if it has changed in a way I'm apparently supposed to realize is dangerous, and come up with the right countermeasure the instant it becomes necessary.

Really? So, when you take "the kid" with you over to someone else's house (especially someone without small children), you don't do a quick visual scan around the room to see if there are any hazards that aren't so obvious to them; or, to be more specific, even if you DO do that the first time you take "the kid" over, you don't do that on subsequent visits? Afterall, it was safe once; so it should be safe FOREVER, right?

Nobody does.

No. YOU don't. You have clearly stated that it is too much of a bother to keep "the kid" safe.

Apple has put more R&D into computer-human interactions than anybody else, possibly everybody else put together.

Which is exactly one of the biggest reasons their products "Just Work".

If they produce products that are dangerous given normal use, they have less excuse than anybody else.

But they actually instituted a "safety net" at the VERY SAME TIME they introduced the "danger" (see my numerous posts in this thread regarding the global in-app control introduced in iPhone OS 3.0; the same time that the in-app purchase capability was added). WTF else could they do?

At some point, you're going to have to learn that being too much of a bother to be a conscientious parent simply isn't an excuse.

I only hope it's BEFORE "the kid" does something REALLY dangerous...

Re:Slimy

[causality]

So, despite your snarky comments about me not backing down, I hereby admit that we are pretty much on the same side on everything, as long as your "Slimy Business Model" agreement was directed at the App Devs, not Apple.

Long as it's appreciated that Apple retains enough control over its platform and its App Store that it could choose not to allow this type of business model to happen within its branded storefront. Which means that there's no meaningful distinction here between Apple devs and Apple Inc. in this matter.

Giving the following conditions, if all were true, I would agree that there is a meaningful distinction between Apple Inc. and the Apple devs: 1) Apple has a TOS or equivalent for anyone putting anything up for sale in the App Store that does not allow this business model; 2) Apple takes real and reasoanble action to enforce this TOS; 3) Developers who insist on retaining this business model are forced out of the App Store and create their very own "black market" or "underground" scene for unauthorized Apps that implement this business model.

Until then, here's how I view the situation: so long as it doesn't become too much of a controversy and make them look bad, Apple would rather accommodate as many developers as possible and rake in its cut of as many App sales through its stores as possible and would rather make that money than sanction developers over their choice of how to do business. That means they're teammates.

I still don't really blame them for responding to a market where this is the way to make money. I don't want shame or government or anything like that to prevent this. I want people to stop buying things they don't really want and wouldn't have bought if they fully understood what they were buying. That's voluntary. It doesn't rely on anyone pressuring anyone else to change their behavior. It just creates a different market for companies to respond to. Unfortunately the few minutes at a time to educate oneself about what you vote for when you vote with your wallet seems like too much to ask.

Re:Slimy

[macs4all]

You'll have to forgive me for not getting your "joke". When your post contains gems like this:

It's a good thing for you that Apple has better things to do that sue people like you for libel and slander

It makes it really easy to assume that the error was unintentional.

My "Whoosh" stands. ;-)

Re:Slimy

[macs4all]

1) Apple has a TOS or equivalent for anyone putting anything up for sale in the App Store that does not allow this business model; 2) Apple takes real and reasoanble action to enforce this TOS; 3) Developers who insist on retaining this business model are forced out of the App Store and create their very own "black market" or "underground" scene for unauthorized Apps that implement this business model.

1. How would Apple draft language that would a)Be flexible enough to allow for a zillion different apps; b)(Assuming "a"), make that language also strong enough to be not just be full of weasel-words and stupid "limiting" terms like "reasonable"? There was a REASON that the Shelliac Corporate insisted on the thousands of conditions in their treaty with the Federation. Terran languages (especially ENGLISH!) are chock-full of ambiguities!

2. (Assuming that #1 can even be satisfied), how does Apple keep every single dev. that Apple "enforces" its terms against, from bitching up a storm (with every single rabid Android fanboi joining the chorus) about how Apple UNFAAAAAIIIIIRRRLLLLYYYYY "singled them out" for ARRRRRRBIIIITRRRRRAAAARRRRRRYYYYY "enforcement"?

3. Creating a "black market" is EXACTLY what Apple is trying to AVOID. That suggestion is just brain-dead stupid.

Apple has tried to pick a middle-ground; where it doesn't want to be too restrictive regarding apps, lest all the Androids start their shrill chorus of "WALLED GARDEN! JOBS IS TEH EVILZ! I ***OWN*** MY PHONE!" et FUCKING cetera, and INSTEAD, has given PARENTS the TOOLS to make INTELLIGENT, and, dare I say it, PARENTAL, decisions as to just how "restrictive" THEY want to be with THEIR kids. Global restrictions on app installation, in-app purchases, browsing and iTunes content restrictions, "Kids' Accounts", and about 10 more "Parental Controls" are baked into iOS to allow PARENTS to do JUST THAT.

Now, let's compare that to Android...

Re:Slimy

[david_thornley]

And, your dismissive term "the kid"

Affectionate term, actually. If you ever become a parent you'll know what I mean. In the meantime I doubt you know how arrogant and stupid you sound to actual parents.

Really? So, when you take "the kid" with you over to someone else's house (especially someone without small children), you don't do a quick visual scan around the room to see if there are any hazards that aren't so obvious to them;

Of course I looked for possible dangers when he was younger. That doesn't mean danger didn't lurk in unexpected places, and there's really nothing I can do about that except keep an eye on the kid and try to educate him. Parents tend to do that. However, it is impossible for a parent to check out everything, particularly stuff that looks innocuous.

There's a saying in security about defending against Murphy as opposed to defending against Machiavelli. I can deal with most natural dangers, or dangers from negligence in others. I can't necessarily deal with people who are attempting to do something nefarious.

But they actually instituted a "safety net" at the VERY SAME TIME they introduced the "danger" (see my numerous posts in this thread regarding the global in-app control introduced in iPhone OS 3.0; the same time that the in-app purchase capability was added). WTF else could they do?

Strange thing about that. I just looked at my iPhone. It took me a long time to find the setting. It wasn't actually obvious. It was set to "on", and I've never touched it. In other words, Apple added a feature that was dangerous, turned it on by default, and put the setting two menus deep, where I had to scroll down to find it. That isn't cool. Nor do I remember any clear warning that the iOS update, whichever one it was, would do that.

So, you expect me to snake-check every iOS upgrade, and anticipate any danger? And if I make one little slip-up it's my fault? When I could be spending that time with my child, doing something actually good for him?

If you ever have a child, I really hope you drop all the false ideas you have about what a parent should be doing, and go with the practicality of the moment.

Re:Slimy

[macs4all]

Affectionate term, actually

I'll grant you that it was unnecessarily snarky of me. I apologize.

However, it is impossible for a parent to check out everything, particularly stuff that looks innocuous.

I agree; however, how is Apple to avoid getting yelled at by every Android fanboi for being "control freaks", vs. simply throwing the doors open, a-la the Android model?

It was set to "on", and I've never touched it.

Hmmm. That does seem to be a bit of an oversight. The marketing team unfortunately too often wins over the security team in nearly every high-tech company. Apple has a better track-record than most; but I agree that it probably needs that default "flipped".

put the setting two menus deep, where I had to scroll down to find it

Not every setting can be at the top of the first screen. It was probably put there because it was a "less-often adjusted" setting; but that's just a guess.

If you ever have a child, I really hope you drop all the false ideas you have about what a parent should be doing, and go with the practicality of the moment.

Actually, another hat I wear is as a member of a family-advocates group, who helps families who have had their lives unfairly and wrongly torn-asunder by our state's ridiculously overzealous "Child Protection" rack... er, System. One of the arguments I have made numerous times in meetings and other dealings with these horrid little creatures, is that no one gets an instruction manual before being a parent, and that there is a very wide "bell curve" of what SHOULD constitute "acceptable parenting". So I do, in fact, "get it".

But, in this particular case (where no one is taking the draconian step of removing a child from one's home, or even more sickeningly, terminating their rights as a parent), I still submit that it is the parent and the app devs. that share the blame exclusively, and further, that Apple has indeed placed the proverbial child-resistant-caps on this particular jar of candy.

But, I would agree that there really ought to be a similar setup to the "Location Services" setting, where the default is "off", each app is given the chance to ask (with a password, of course) the first time it wants to do an in-app purchase, etc. Maybe even a selectable per-app limit on purchases. OTOH, this means additional database space on the device (admittedly probably not that much); but, more importantly, MUCH more of a PITA for the parent to manage (discouraging further, the parent "being bothered" to manage the settings).

So, as you can see, your stated guideline of "defending against Murphy as opposed to defending against Machiavelli", applies to OS design choices as well as to parenting. ;-)

Re:Slimy

[david_thornley]

I still submit that it is the parent and the app devs. that share the blame exclusively, and further, that Apple has indeed placed the proverbial child-resistant-caps on this particular jar of candy.

When I pick up pills from my pharmacist, there is a child-proof cap in place when the meds are handed over to me. I can ask for a child-proof cap, and some caps are two-sided so you can pick child-proof or not. If Apple had set the in-app purchases blocked by default, the analogy would be accurate.

However, Apple set in-app purchases to "on" by default, and buried the setting to turn it off fairly deep. This is analogous to having child-proof caps not visible, but available with some inconvenience on request.

I'm not saying that Apple set this up deliberately, but they did set it up. They were therefore enabling app writers to create something analogous to an unfenced swimming pool - and that will get you in legal trouble if a child goes over to it and is endangered.

Re:Slimy

[causality]

3. Creating a "black market" is EXACTLY what Apple is trying to AVOID. That suggestion is just brain-dead stupid.

You have repeatedly displayed this general tendency. This one is a simpler example. The general tendency is to play "hostile audience" and try to use everything I say against me. No complaint there, it's par for the course, except that it makes a constructive discussion nearly impossible and prevents you from seeing my point. That wouldn't be a problem either, except you insist on refuting what you clearly do not understand. Seems like you'll never know the satisfaction and certainty of truly understanding something before deciding whether you're against it. So be it.

Now for a concrete rebuttal. I wasn't suggesting that Apple should create a black market. See how I never said that? You are reading things into my words that are simply not there. You are then passionately responding as though I said them. You don't need me for that. You can do that with a mirror. Of course then it would be difficult to pretend that you're doing anything other than mental masturbation.

I was saying that if a black market existed, and people were getting apps through it that implemented this business model (because none were allowed in the App Store per Condition 1), then the case that Apple has no part in the current situation would be much stronger.

I can't tell if you are really that dense or if you just single-mindedly decided to twist everything I say instead of making at least a token attempt to understand what I said. People tend to do that when they decide ahead of time that the other guy is wrong/stupid/a moron for disagreeing/etc. therefore everything he says must be interpreted according to that prejudice. That doesn't make it real or an accurate reflection of what I was saying, however. Honestly it's rather childish of you.

Anyway, here's what it boils down to: are you positively claiming that a company which controls the storefront, controls the platform, and retains the right to selectively approve/refuse Apps bears 0.00% responsibility for the nature of those Apps? Yes or no?

My answer to that is an emphatic yes. Thus, I conclude that there is no meaningful distinction between the devs and the company in this specific instance. I even went so far as to say it's understandable and that I don't want anything other than customer choice to stop it. Despite your attempts to distort what I say I believe I am being quite reasonable here.

Deny them their goodies? OH NOOOO

[cry0g3n]

the nanny statehood marches on...
of course parents CAN'T do that, they would be HARMING their poor precious bobbles by denying them their (CR)apple product that everyone must have..
to quote Homer, "Can't someone else do it?"
cryo

Clarify this for the non-iOS users...

[dingo_kinznerhook]

So when you purchase something inside an iOS app, that app has the ability to use your current iTunes login to charge money to your iTunes account? Is this a permission that's specifically noted when you download an iOS app that has this ability or can all apps do this without notification? I get that kids would probably just click through any 'You are about to be charged" notices.

Re:Clarify this for the non-iOS users...

[Anonymous Coward]

So when you purchase something inside an iOS app, that app has the ability to use your current iTunes login to charge money to your iTunes account?

As long as you are logged in, yes. Otherwise you have to enter your password. A login expires after ten, fifteen minutes.

Is this a permission that's specifically noted when you download an iOS app that has this ability or can all apps do this without notification?

You can't toggle it on an application basis but you can block in-app-purchases completely.

Re:Clarify this for the non-iOS users...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So when you purchase something inside an iOS app, that app has the ability to use your current iTunes login to charge money to your iTunes account?

No. You have to put in your password.

Re:Clarify this for the non-iOS users...

[joh]

So when you purchase something inside an iOS app, that app has the ability to use your current iTunes login to charge money to your iTunes account?

No. You have to put in your password.

Once you have put in your password to buy an app (even a free one) you can now buy things for 15 minutes without having to type your password.

Many people here don't seem to understand that exactly this is/was the problem for many parents: They did not give the password to their kids. They required their kids to ask nicely to buy/download an app and the parents then typed the password for them. And THEN the kids tapped around in the newly bought app and could spend huge sums of money without even knowing that they were spending money -- the app didn't ask for a password after all.

Password caching is evil. There's no point in acting reasonably and not giving the password to your kids when they then still can buy things just because the password YOU typed in to buy ONE app is cached for 15 minutes and for all purchases a kid may try now. Evil.

Re:Clarify this for the non-iOS users...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Many people here don't seem to understand that exactly this is/was the problem for many parents:

We do understand, we just don't agree that it's a big issue.

Re:Clarify this for the non-iOS users...

[macs4all]

Apple first added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. AT THE VERY SAME TIME, they added a global lockout on that ability (see page 115 of the linked PDF for the User Manual for iPhone OS 3.0)

Re:Clarify this for the non-iOS users...

[UnknowingFool]

Password caching is evil. There's no point in acting reasonably and not giving the password to your kids when they then still can buy things just because the password YOU typed in to buy ONE app is cached for 15 minutes and for all purchases a kid may try now. Evil.

Let me frame your argument in another way. You have administrator rights to your computer. You've locked down everything to protect yourself from all sorts of security problems. You have even created a separate account for your everyday usage so that you're not always administrator. What if you want to do a bunch of administrative things in a short time period. Well in Unix, that's why they created sudo. What parents don't understand is that by unlocking their iDevices and then handing that device over to their child, their child becomes an administrator for 15 mins. Sudo like all things can be misused. It was created for convenience for admins. Same with this feature. So in this context, would you hand over your computer to your child so they could be administrator and then blame sudo when something went wrong? Or would you recognize the situation and take other security steps?

Re:Its really is very bad

[Anonymous Coward]

And before you cry "bad parenting", you can't disable that feature. You/your kid just figures out you can slide to unlock your Android phone now, and then when you are absent, he jacks up the phone bill by calling China. Yes, the phone bill, no CC needed.

Bad parenting. You wouldn't let your kid drink Windex; why the fuck do you think you're not responsible for securing your phone? Because it's a phone? Come *on* - you *know* usage can cost ridiculous charges, even without the use of fancy-schmancy smartphones and apps!

Re:Its really is very bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't buy anything on an iphone without a CC

Re:Its really is very bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore the goatse link in parent.

Protect the Children!

[Haedrian]

Lets toss money at this team of lawyers to save our children

Re:Protect the Children!

[ackthpt]

Lets toss money at this team of lawyers to save our children

You mean, let's point this team of lawyers at Apple and see if they can draw money out of them and then possibly share the remaining 30% with us.

Re:Its really is very bad

[Anonymous Coward]

here is a thought, why the fuck is the kid granted untethered, un monitored internet access on a 600$ phone dipshit

hope the little fucker saw some snuff films on there as well, do us all a favor

parents

[fermion]

I don't normally say this, but one must really ask why the parents need to buy kids these things or why parents need to let kids buy things in games. If a parent is responsible enough to get the money to buy an iToy, then makes a decision to buy an iGame, then makes the decision to provide the kids to the credit cards to buy iJunk, Why is it Apple fault that the parents then get a huge iBill. You don't see McDonald's getting sued because parents take their kids to the store and buy them McPoison. The kids were induced by propaganda just like in the case of Apple.

It was like the uproar over Beavis and Butthead many years ago. Even though parents were evidently responsible enough to get a tv, pay the electricity and the cable bill, they were not deemed responsible enough to monitor what the kids watched. Therefor MTV got in trouble when Beavis and Butthead tortured animals of set them afire. Evidently the kids would do the same and it was TV, not the parents fault.

So yes children are impressionable. Parents have to set limits on what kids are and are not able to do. But when parent make an explicitly decision to allow kids access to something, either by driving them there, or ordering a product, or giving access to a credit card, or whatever, it is no longer the companies fault. We saw this when kids were racking up huge phone and texting bills. I don't know what the issue was. If the kid can't use the phone, they don't get one, or have a prepaid.

Re:parents

[mlingojones]

Actually, McDonalds *has* been sued because parents buy their kids McPoison. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2502431.stm

Thankfully, it ended up getting thrown out, but still...

Re:parents

[ackthpt]

Perhaps is nothing more than whether a service should by default be enabled or not.

I'm a great one for a loud outburst of swearing every time I get a new computer with Microsoft Office on it, because I have to spend hours going through and turning off all the enabled by default options which I hate (and they are so clever at hiding the on/off buttons for.)

Where a purchasing ability is enabled by default, I can see that being a problem, particularly when they can't possibly be convincingly daft enough to believe kids won't have their hands on these devices and have access.

Re:parents

[mosb1000]

If the kid can't use the phone, they don't get one, or have a prepaid.

Or get an unlimited plan.

Re:parents

[david_thornley]

The answers are that the parents were likely hoping to find an inexpensive way to amuse the kid for a few minutes, and that they had no intention of letting the kids buy things in game. They may not have realized that in-app purchases were possible. They may not have realized that the iPhone would continue allowing purchases for fifteen minutes after password entry. In other words, there's no reason to think the parents made an explicit decision to allow kids access to in-game purchases. There's no reason to think the parents made the decision to allow the kids to buy Smurfberries or whatever.

You seem to think that I should preview every TV show my kid's going to watch. Unfortunately, I can only monitor the shows to a limited extent, and can't watch everything in advance. If a show suddenly starts having things that I consider unacceptable, the only thing I can do is react by forbidding the kid to watch the show again, and talk to the kid about the show. I can't stop the kid from seeing things that other people dupe him into seeing.

In parenting, I have to make certain assumptions about the world, that it won't suddenly turn hostile on me. I can't be on the watch for every possible threat my kid might face. Those who take advantage of that for profit are beneath contempt.

Re:Its really is that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be enables/disabled easily:
Settings>General>Restrictions>In-App Purchases

Apple is the responsible party

[Animats]

From the complaint: "The sale of an App and/or Game Currency is a transaction between Apple and the consumer. There is no privity between the user and the developer of the App...."

They're so right. Remember how Apple won't approve apps which do transactions that don't go through Apple? This is where that bites Apple. Apple is the seller, and the developers are its suppliers. There's no contractual relationship between the consumer and the developer. ("Privity" refers to the legal concept that if A has a contract with B, and B has a contract with C, A does not have a contract with C.)

Re:Its really is that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you can disable it. Set Settings->General->Restrictions->In-App Purchases to "Off".

Apple Faces Class-Action Suit For In-App Purchases

[infiniphonic]

Do people really plug in their credit cards into iTunes and then let there kids just do what they want with a device that has access to that resource? There is no way i would even leave a credit card attached to that kind of account, let alone let a child have unrestricted access that device. I have two iPod touches that my kids play with. At this point they are too young to grasp the concepts of accounts or passwords, but that day is coming. I only do iTunes cards so that there is no way that any financial damage can go beyond the amount i have already pre-paid (usually in the $15 to $25 range). A little common sense goes a long way in this world, but i guess that's asking too much.

Press the Big Shiny Button for a Suprise!

[ackthpt]

Would you like to buy a cookie for your pet?

o_o

It's a really good cookie!

O_o

With chocolate and stuff!

O_O

Your pet will wuv oo!

@_@

You bought a cookie!
It was nummy!
Your pet wuvs oo!
 
Buy another?

@_@

Yay! Your pet weally, weally wuvs oo!

[repeat n times]

Thanks for buying all the cookies for your very happy pet!
Charging $483.75 to account.

+_+

Re:Press the Big Shiny Button for a Suprise!

[Sponge Bath]

Would you like to buy a new Macbook?

o_o

It's a really good Macbook!

O_o

With Thunderbolt and stuff!

O_O

Steve Jobs will wuv oo!

@_@

Re:Press the Big Shiny Button for a Suprise!

[Maow]

Already modded +5, so I'll add a comment: that was brilliantly illustrated.

A lot of commenters here have assumed that the folks bought their kids an iPhone, where as many of them probably downloaded a free app and let the kids play with the parents' phones, thinking the worst that could happen would be a damaged phone, where in fact they might have received a bill for in-app purchases disguised as a game play that totaled as much as a new phone, or more.

Anyway, very clever: kudos.

Re:Press the Big Shiny Button for a Suprise!

[LodCrappo]

lol.. well done

Better than Android

[yogidog98]

At least Apple allows you to set a password that has to be entered before any app store purchase. That's one of my biggest frustrations with my Android phone is that there's no way to set an market purchase password. My kids hit a couple of buttons in pop-up while playing angry birds, and whoop, I've just spent $10.

Re:Better than Android

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Apple allows you to set a password that has to be entered before any app store purchase. That's one of my biggest frustrations with my Android phone is that there's no way to set an market purchase password. My kids hit a couple of buttons in pop-up while playing angry birds, and whoop, I've just spent $10.

Blasphemy! This is Slashdot! Google good! Apple bad!

Re:Better than Android

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got my wife an iphone and I was thinking the opposite. At least for free downloads. I'd just want it to let her download it unless it costs something, in which case we'd want to put a password in as a requirement. It seems like there should be a really easy middle ground here.

Re:Better than Android

[indiechild]

I see you've already been modded down. Remember, this is Slashdot, Apple is always evil and everything Google does is always good. Don't break the groupthink.

Re:Its really is that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

under settings/general/restrictions/allowed content. there is the option to turn on or off In-App purchases..so it can be disable, parents just need to look for it.

Re:Its really is that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know what iDevice you have, or if you even own one, but if you go to general then restrictions there is a place to turn off in app purchase, please check in future before posting incorect statements.

Re:Its really is that bad

[pclminion]

And before you cry "bad parenting", you can't disable that feature.

The feature you disable is the "child has access to smartphone which is capable of making purchases" feature. You see, what you do is you walk over to the child, and you take the phone out of the child's hands...

Yes there is

[SuperKendall]

There's no contractual relationship between the consumer and the developer.

Yes there is, because with an in-app purchase the consumer is saying they wish to give the app writer money in exchange for something.

What you are doing is like trying to sue the cash register maker because a kid bought something they shouldn't have.

Re:Yes there is

[Animats]

Yes there is, because with an in-app purchase the consumer is saying they wish to give the app writer money in exchange for something.

But they're saying it to Apple. As the complaint points out, the app developer never sees the customer's payment data.

Now, if Apple's system let third parties collect payments directly, there would be a contractual relationship between the end user and the app developer. But Apple doesn't allow that. All the money passes through Apple's hands, and they take a cut. So they get hit with the liability if the transaction is illegal.

Re:Yes there is

[jrumney]

Which cash register maker takes 30% of turnover, and keeps hold of the parent's wallet for 15 minutes after a legitimate purchase while allowing the kids to help themselves to everything shiny they see on the shelves?

Questionable Business Practices

[Adrian Lopez]

I'm not sure that Apple should itself be held responsible for the slimy practices of third-party developers (except that they do review all apps and should therefore be aware of questionable business practices), but I still think what some of these developers are doing is pretty screwed up. Games specifically designed to get as much money from kids who don't know how much money they're spending are borderline unethical. Their practices are similar to those of companies that sell ringtones designed to appeal to children but which require an expensive monthly subscription fee that's disclosed only in the ad's fine print.

Re:Questionable Business Practices

[jedidiah]

> I'm not sure that Apple should itself be held responsible for the slimy practices of third-party developers

They are a platform tyrant.

They have chosen to make themselves responsible.

Now that there are consequences, they should own up to them.

Now web games do the same sort of thing. Although it's more difficult to get carried away with it.

The iTunes approach to in-app purchases is kind of like a slot machine that takes credit cards.

Re:Questionable Business Practices

[jo_ham]

Yes, and they changed their policies and password mechanisms in response to this, putting the onus back on the person who owns the credit card.

Alternatively you can set the account up with no credit card and then whatever the kid spends (if you give him your password) is limited to whatever is in the account from gift card top ups.

Re:Questionable Business Practices

[scot4875]

Borderline unethical? What would it take for you to call it outright unethical? Developers using the GPS to locate the child, track them down, and mug them?

Call a fucking spade a spade. The developers are scam artists, plain and simple.

--Jeremy

Re:Questionable Business Practices

[Anonymous Coward]

> like a slot machine that takes credit cards.

Without the gambling, of course

Re:Its really is that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. iOS apps are tied to the iTunes account, not the carrier billing. Remember there are millions of iOS devices sold that are not iPhones -such as iPod touch & iPad.

I fail to see why Apple REQUIRES a CC

[spiffydudex]

This has perplexed me since I first bought an IPod 4th gen. Why on earth are you required to attach a credit card to an account? I fail to see the need for it. As far as kids racking up bills...That would immediately solve the problem. All the kids would have access to are the free apps. Heck, even something similar to the way Android handles app purchases.

I've owned an iPhone 3GS and now I am using a Samsung Captivate. Personally, I know iPhones are "Hip" but, if I were buying a phone for my kid I'd take the Android system. Simply because of the way Google handles app purchases and transactions.

Re:I fail to see why Apple REQUIRES a CC

[jo_ham]

It doesn't require a credit card. You can have an iTunes store account without a credit card and fund it entirely through purchased iTunes gift cards that you can buy with cash in a store.

Details on setting up are left as an exercise to the reader with access to google and about 15 seconds of spare time.

Re:I fail to see why Apple REQUIRES a CC

[joh]

This has perplexed me since I first bought an IPod 4th gen. Why on earth are you required to attach a credit card to an account? I fail to see the need for it. As far as kids racking up bills...That would immediately solve the problem. All the kids would have access to are the free apps.

Well, Apple requires a CC to set up an accout so that you can buy things. If you don't like that you can easily remove your CC data after the accout setup is finished. You can still buy things with ITMS gift cards then.

Still: If you have an iPod/iPhone/iPad and give it to your kids now and then it's actually a quite reasonable thing to have CC data on file and just keep the password for yourself. If your kids want to buy/download an app you can still type the password for them if you allow them this app. This is totally wrecked though by the fact that your password is now cached by iOS for 15 minutes and your kid can buy happily app after app and smurfberry after smurfberry for 15 minutes without any password prompt popping up and as such even without knowing that money is being spent.

These parents aren't idiots. They were lured into a trap, that's all. Relying on the fact that buying requires a password typed in and NOT giving your kids that password is totally reasonable and in no way bad parenting. Caching that password for 15 minutes is a very bad idea and Apple had this idea.

Re:I fail to see why Apple REQUIRES a CC

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Uninformed

Re:I fail to see why Apple REQUIRES a CC

[macs4all]

This has perplexed me since I first bought an IPod 4th gen. Why on earth are you required to attach a credit card to an account? I fail to see the need for it. As far as kids racking up bills...That would immediately solve the problem. All the kids would have access to are the free apps. Heck, even something similar to the way Android handles app purchases.

I've owned an iPhone 3GS and now I am using a Samsung Captivate. Personally, I know iPhones are "Hip" but, if I were buying a phone for my kid I'd take the Android system. Simply because of the way Google handles app purchases and transactions.

So, I guess having a global control over in-app purchases (among other things) isn't a good way to solve this? See page 115 of this PDF for an iPhone 3.0 device (the same version Apple first allowed in-app purchases).

I feel sorry for your kid. You're like Ballmer, making his kids use the much-inferior Zune, just because YOU can't be bothered to do normal diligence before assuming a device isn't thoughtfully designed.

Borderline unethical? Its fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

there is nothing borderline about it, its fraud pure and simple

Re:Borderline unethical? Its fraud

[macs4all]

While I agree that the APP DEVELOPERS are mostly to blame, it is really the brain-dead parents that are ultimately responsible. Why?

Apple added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. Look at page 115 in this User Guide for an iPhone OS 3.0 device. Note the global setting for enabling/disabling in-app purchases.

NOW who's fault is it, really?

As a developer using in app purchases ...

[perpenso]

Although I do find this business model stupid ...

What is stupid about in app purchases? Admittedly I have a technical product rather than a game, Perpenso Calc, but if works along the freemium model. The free version offers scientific functionality including fractions, complex numbers and metric conversions however advanced features like RPN come in from in app purchases. Also this app is really five calculators in one. Rather than offer separate calculators for scientific, statistics, business, hex and bill tip I allow the latter four to be added via in app purchase. Another alternative would be putting all five calculators in one paid app at a high price point. Personally I prefer the in app purchase approach. It allows customers to customize the app and only pay for the functionality they actually want?

If you have an alternative to in app purchase I'd be happy to hear about it.

Re:As a developer using in app purchases ...

[narcc]

Translation:

I find that I earn more money by charging users for individual features than I would if I only offered a 'free' and 'premium' version of my app. You know, that App I wrote. I advertise it in my Slashdot sig. It's a calculator. You should buy it. I mean, no one else have ever written such an awesome calculator app! It literally took me an entire Saturday to write.

I'll even pretend that paying separately for each feature is *great* because it allows the end user to "customize the app" by giving me more money. It's the Apple way. Apple is awesome, therefore, my calculator app is awesome. You should totally buy my app, then a bunch of features. It's really like 5 calculators in one, once you buy all the add-ons. My app is so great.

While I doubt the parents question was asked sincerely (it was just an excuse to pimp his app), I'll answer it anyway.

What is stupid about in app purchases?

In your case, it doesn't benefit the end-user in any way. Apps like yours just make it more difficult to buy the 'full' app. In app purchases are good for things like new content, which is not what you're selling.

Imagine if Documents To Go were broken up this way so that individual features needed to be purchased separately. Right now, for <$20 or whatever I can buy the full premium suite with all the features. In your model, I'd get the trial, and pay 5 or 6 times before I managed to get the whole suite with all the features -- possibly per application. Send as email? That's a buck. Spell check? $1.99. Want those for presentations and spreadsheets and not just word docs? Pony up again. Total cost in the end? Could easily end up $50 or more -- and it took lots of extra steps.

In app purchases for features may be good for the developer, but it isn't good for the end user at all.

Re:As a developer using in app purchases ...

[perpenso]

You are mistaken that in app purchases would cost more than full priced apps. In various configurations the app would have been priced equivalently to the sum of the relevant in app purchases.

A single full priced app with everything doesn't make much sense. Few would need the combined functionality of scientific, hex and business calculators. A more realistic scenario would be to have three different full priced apps, one for each of these diverse topics: scientific=sci+stat, hex=sci+hex, business=sci+stat+bus. Note that this is precisely what you see in the actual handheld calculator market. In this scenario a user who was interested in more than one topic would actually pay more since there would be redundant scientific and statistics functionality. So in app purchases do save the user in this type of product.

You are right that it takes some effort to make each in app purchase, but these are trivial one time events. Also this seems offset by the convenience of having the diverse topics in a single app rather than three separate apps.

WORKAROUND AVAILABLE

[catmistake]

Apple has already released a workaround for this issue:

iOS Settings/Store/AppleID/Sign Out

Also, it appears NYC is also helping out with the issue.

I fail to see that Apple REQUIRES a CC

[pushing-robot]

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2534

Re:Its really is that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious?

  "Lookie, you can stop your kids from doing stupid stuff, all you have to do is dig through four levels of menus, starting in the correct place. It can only take a little longer if you have no idea that the setting exists or is needed, or start looking in the wrong place. And you'll only have to do this anti-scumbag check for each and every little silly game your kids have access to!"

Yep, sounds exactly like that famous Apple "user-friendliness".

Long car trip?

[Penguinisto]

You could always do what my parents did when I was a kid.

Talk with them. Teach them things you think they should know. Discuss your family history. Bring some books along that they can read aloud and *discuss* with you. Ask them stuff. Sing songs - and make a few up while you're at it. Talk about what makes the weather they see outside, or teach them the different kinds of trees/cacti/mountains/etc they see passing by the window. If you have more than one kid, supply a couple of notebooks and pencils, and hold an impromptu art contest. Make up debates, and always take the other side, forcing them to use logic and reason (hell, *teach* them logic and reasoning while you're at it).

Even if the kid(s) are too young to be all that articulate - you can use the time to help them improve their vocabulary, pronunciation, and to teach them things - even if they're sitting in the back seat and you're up front.

Long story short, teach them to engage their minds and become creative, not just ignore them into becoming passive consumers of entertainment.

As a bonus, by doing this you help make your kid into someone that wants to talk to you first when it really matters later on.

Re:Long car trip?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the parent is the driver of the vehicle and single adult present, then this option is not really an option. A few senteces here or there can help break the trance of the drive. But trying to have any kind of sustained conversation can lead to accidents. It's just as bad as talking on the phone and driving.

Re:Long car trip?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people would use every possible excuse to avoid being a good parent. Really.

Re:Long car trip?

[causality]

If the parent is the driver of the vehicle and single adult present, then this option is not really an option. A few senteces here or there can help break the trance of the drive. But trying to have any kind of sustained conversation can lead to accidents. It's just as bad as talking on the phone and driving.

Actually there is something particular about talking on a cellphone. It affects driving in a way that conversing with a physically present passenger does not. That's why it has been noticed as a problem, laws have been passed against it, controversies have arisen, studies have been made, etc, when no such effects have arisen out of having more than one person physically occupying a vehicle.

There's even been some interesting speculation about whether the microwave radiation might affect the brain in ways we have not yet realized, causing an effect something like impairment. There's definitely something missing from the picture because study after study keeps showing that talking on a cell phone, even on hands-free mode, affects driving in a way that chatting with a passenger doesn't. The only thing we don't know for sure is the reason why.

If I had to choose between sharing a highway with a driver who has a BAC of 0.08 and a driver who is talking on a cell phone, I'm not so sure I wouldn't choose the driver who's been drinking. At least he *knows* he's impaired and should be using extra caution, giving himself more distance/time to react, etc. I'm not really interested in intensely emotional reactions to that previous statement; there are MADD meetings which would be happy to accommodate those.

Re:Long car trip?

[DocHoncho]

There's even been some interesting speculation about whether the microwave radiation might affect the brain in ways we have not yet realized, causing an effect something like impairment. There's definitely something missing from the picture because study after study keeps showing that talking on a cell phone, even on hands-free mode, affects driving in a way that chatting with a passenger doesn't. The only thing we don't know for sure is the reason why.

As long as we're speculating, I tend to think that it has to do with the mental model we have with regard to communication. During face to face conversation, you have the other party next to you, with all the non-vocal communication cues that involves.

When you're on a phone, the same mental model is being used, except your brain is forced to simulate the other, and thus must work harder than if the other party was next to you. We tend not to think about the myriad of non-vocal communication that takes place when we talk to another person. All you have on a phone is the verbal part. The rest has to be filled in by your brain, in order to fit the ingrained mental model.

Just my two cents.

Re:Long car trip?

[Journe]

I find driving with a cellphone to be a lot more distracting than talking to passengers. One problem is that you're, y'know, holding something to your head. Bit of a difficulty to turn your head at a moment's notice, etc. Another problem is that (at least for me) using a cell phone puts my brain into that "this is a very urgent matter, FOCUS NOW" mode, thus severely limiting my concentration on driving. And that's my two cents there.

Back to the Apple issue: I find it rather hard to deny that this is bad parenting. Personally, I won't be giving my daughter anything more powerful than a tracfone until I'm certain she's old enough to make good decisions. Even then, her app purchasing will be tied to her own separate bank account.

As far as letting your child play games on your phone:

In case you haven't noticed, smartphones are rapidly becoming closer and closer to actual computers. Given that, you should really be having a talk with them about these sorts of things before letting them use it in any way that doesn't involve you watching over their shoulder the entire time, the same as you would before allowing them to use computers.

Bottom line, blame the parents before blaming the company. I'm sure there are cases where this isn't the case (decide for yourself whether that was intended), but I'd eat my hat if they were the majority.

Paid apps also do in app purchase

[perpenso]

... try to stick to pay only games just to try my best to avoid them.

I have an app that is available in both paid and free versions, both offer in app purchases to expand functionality.

Lets face it, this is a really slimy business model ...

My app, Perpenso Calc is five calculators in one: scientific, statistics, business, hex and bill/tip. I could have one high priced paid app that offers all five calculators. Or I could have five separate low priced calculators. However I think the freemium model works well for my case. The scientific calculator is part of the free app but advanced features like RPN and the statistics, business, hex and bill/tip calculators are all available via in app purchase. In app purchase avoids paying for functionality you don't need in the single app scenario and it avoids paying for redundant functionality in the multiple apps scenario. If you have a better idea I'd love to hear it.

Admittedly my app is not a game but I don't see what is inherently slimy about making new levels and optional item available via in app purchase. It seems to be an improvement over the old model of having to have a free lite version for trial purposes and a paid version with a complete set of items and levels. In app purchase also handles the expansion pack issue.

Now I admit that Apple had a hole in their implementation of in app purchase in that the authorization for the purchase/download of the app itself would also authorize in app purchases for some relatively small number of minutes but they have fixed that. Plus in Apple's defense in app purchases could have been disabled on a particular device.

Re:Paid apps also do in app purchase

[scot4875]

Your app isn't targeted at children. Your app doesn't allow them to accidentally spend $100 on an in-app purchase that's right next to stuff that is bought with in-game currency. The developers of this game are slimy, trying to cash in on ignorance while they can.

--Jeremy

Re:Paid apps also do in app purchase

[DocHoncho]

what you should do is charge $0.50 cents for certain operations. Like if I want to calculate sin^2(x) it costs $0.50, but 3+3 is free. Hell, throw some modulus in there and charge for operations which have results evenly divisible by 42. Just think of the money you could make! Ethics? This is America son, we don't believe in ethics.

Nuisance Lawsuit.

[amper]

1. You cannot buy anything from the App Store without having entered and stored a credit card account with Apple.
2. IOS has always had the ability to disable App Store purchases, both for apps, and for In-App Purchases.
3. Children should not be given such things without proper supervision.

Apple should countersue these stupid people for being such a nuisance.

Re:Nuisance Lawsuit.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Is wrong. You _can_ buy anything from the App Store without having entered and stored a credit card account with Apple.

Do slashdotters reproduce?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it.

There is a big difference between giving your kid a credit card in Toys R us and (or handing them a beer) and downloading an apparently "Free" game only to discover hundreds of dollars of charges that you neither approved of (willingly) nor even knew about until after the fact. You can criticize the parents for being technically incompetent, since they obviously didn't understand how the instant transactions were going to be billed, but calling it irresponsible parenting merely demonstrates the ignorance of the average slashdotter when it comes to reproductive matters.

How to handle consumable in app purchases?

[perpenso]

Your app isn't targeted at children. Your app doesn't allow them to accidentally spend $100 on an in-app purchase that's right next to stuff that is bought with in-game currency. The developers of this game are slimy, trying to cash in on ignorance while they can.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that some developers as being slimy. However I am very curious to hear how people think options within a game should be handled. I hope to avoid becoming a slimy developer in the future. :-)

For instance lets say a game is freemium. Enhanced ammunition is optional. Additional levels are optional. Levels would be a non-cunsumable in app purchase, a one time thing, like the app itself they could always be re-enabled at no additional cost should the app be removed/reinstalled, the device upgraded, etc. However the enhanced ammunition could be non-consumable or consumable, in the later case the in app purchase delivers some number of units to be consumed during play. My inclination would be to *not* allow *multiple* consumable purchases, a second consumable purchase would not be offered until all the units from the first consumable purchase had been used up. I think this would be reasonable behavior given that Apple has plugged their hole that allowed the app purchase/download authorization to also authorize in app purchases for a few minutes. I've love to hear the opinions of others.

And Apple is completely faultless?

[hellfire]

There are huge numbers of problems with the singularly minded idea that there is only one person at fault here.

1) On a moral level, as the old saying goes, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
2) Technology, even Apple's is complicated. One might be an expert in construction, art, cleaning, accounting, or teaching, but I'll be damned if I continue to see people who can't figure out their super cool iPhones and the apps that go along with it.
3) Parents aren't perfect. Sometimes a parent needs to learn more, but kids are annoying, obnoxious, pesky creatures. Sometimes you have to compromise. Being a parent isn't easy.
4) Apple's technology, despite being complicated technology, is still pretty simple compared to everything else out there. Apple tries to balance security and ease of use and that's hard, but frankly they didn't have to create this in app purchase system. It's to easy to get someone to buy a free app, then get them emotional and try to get them to buy something in the app on an impulse, or tap on something that looks shiny and fun and it turns out to be something you have to buy. Get worked up enough and you'll go past any warning.
5) Apple created the walled garden that they control, and they created the relationship between the iOS device user and them. If App developers want to restore to less than moral tactics to get money, then Apple has to provide the best experience and protect it's customers, so it an App developer is doing something sleazy, Apple has to own up to it.
6) Who's to say Apple isn't working with developers to scam a little money out of people? A class action suit isn't designed necessarily to get money for the plaintiff but rather to punish the defendant if they do something they should not do. Yes the defendants get the money, but where should it go? Laws mandating it to go to charity or government seem kind of hamfisted and of course could be exploited.

I absolutely support the idea that parents need to do their part and deep deep down I'm a technology snob and if someone buys something they better damn well learn how to use it properly. At the same time Apple markets the hell out of their products, like any company. They bear some responsibility. Civil lawsuits are not about saying you are 100% responsible beyond a reasonable doubt, that's a criminal lawsuit. Civil lawsuits look for about at least partial responisibility and who's more responsible.

And finally, lawsuits are not entirely bad. The law sometimes has to work these things out to find out who would be at fault here. You think it's obvious, others disagree. We have to go thru a logical and thought out process to find out who's right. And then it's worked out for the time being.

Password is required for every purchase

[Anonymous Coward]

Password is required for every purchase. It is just like buying songs from iTunes.

Re:Its really is very bad

[macs4all]

One parent got 10,000$ bill for this. And before you cry "bad parenting", you can't disable that feature. You/your kid just installs some innocent and free game, and then when you are absent, he jacks up the phone bill. Yes, the phone bill, no CC needed.

Wrong.

Apple instituted a global lockout for in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0, the very same time the feature was first available.

Re:Its really is very bad

[macs4all]

You wouldn't let your kid drink Windex

Some parents would.

Curiously enough, that set has a nearly 100% overlap with the set of parents now participating in this lawsuit, and whining at Apple (yet again!) here on Slashdot.

Re:Its really is that bad

[macs4all]

And they have ALL offer a global restriction for in-app purchases (as well as other things). See this User Manual for the iPod Touch.

Apple first added in-app purchases in iPhone OS 3.0. AT THE VERY SAME TIME, they added a global lockout on that ability (see page 115 of the linked PDF for the User Manual for iPhone OS 3.0)

not bad parenting

[u19925]

Lots of people are blaming parents. I wonder how many of them are actually parent. I download different sets of programs for my two kids who share the same iPod touch. One of them is 3 years old. Once you give your ipod to the kids, there are no controls to restrict what they can or cannot do. Here are few things Apple can do, but it is not doing:

-- Separate password for downloading free stuff: Why do I have to give my password tied to my credit card to download free stuff? I can give that password when doing in game purchases if I want to.
-- Password restriction on apps: Apple provides restrictions on pre-insalled apps such as youtube. But not for downloaded apps.
-- Disable in-game purchases: No, you can't do that
-- 15 minute window to purchase all you want without password: Fixed only recently.

iPhone has few more issues:
-- 3G restrictions: Once due to a bug in iphone, my wifi stopped working. After rebooting, it started working. I didn't care at that time. However, next day I got an SMS from ATT that I had exceeded my data limit and they have already charged me extra for this.
-- No way to block specific SMS offender: I used to get too many junk SMS and there was no way to block. Once you get it, you have to pay even if you don't read.

I love my iPhone but I have to accept that it requires great care to avoid extra charges. I don't think alternatives are much better either.

Re:not bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

I have two kids, ages 2 and 6. We got an iPad at the beginning of the year and of course, they wanted to play with it. I let them goof around on it a little bit (there are some really nice apps for kids out there!) and after five minutes of watching them play with it, I grabbed it out of their hands, turned on the parental restrictions and blocked all purchasing (as well as deleting apps, etc.). It took me two minutes to do that.

Re:not bad parenting

[Seraphim1982]

Once you give your ipod to the kids, there are no controls to restrict what they can or cannot do.
Maybe you should set it up correctly before handing it over to the kids.

-- Separate password for downloading free stuff: Why do I have to give my password tied to my credit card to download free stuff? I can give that password when doing in game purchases if I want to.
You don't have to. I don't have a credit card tied to my app store account and I download things all the time.

-- Password restriction on apps: Apple provides restrictions on pre-insalled apps such as youtube. But not for downloaded apps.
You can disable apps based on ratings, but AFAIK that's it. So no real help there.

-- Disable in-game purchases: No, you can't do that
So what does turning "In-App Purchases" off in the settings do?

-- 15 minute window to purchase all you want without password: Fixed only recently.
You can disable both in-app purchases, installing apps, and accessing itunes (buying music) in the settings menu. What's left to purchase?

The solution is licensing!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the best solution for all parent related outbursts against society. Hire the licensing team at Microsoft to deal with existing and potential parents. One child, you're going to have to purchase a license for that child that you have in production. Children in development are free until born, at which time you must purchase a child license. To integrate your child into society you must purchase CAL's (Child Access License). One license is required for each product your child may interact with. Standard licenses apply to items such as foods, computers, toys, school books etc... with a value under $500. Enterprise licenses apply to items valued more than $500 such as iPhones, PC's, motorized vehicles etc... If you choose to sue a company you must upgrade to a Enterprise Child License, at a cost of $100K / child / license. Enterprise Child Licenses are sold in 10, 50, or 100 packs.

Maybe then parents will actually PARENT their children, set rules and enforce them.

Most "blame the parents" don't have kids

[swb]

Unless you actually have kids, your opinion about what is right and wrong involving raising kids means less than nothing. It's a bunch of assumptions glued together with logic that has absolutely no bearing on what it's really like to raise children.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of bad parenting out there -- but knee-jerk reactions saying "BAD PARENTS" is so naive it's almost not worth the trouble to respond to.

Re:Most "blame the parents" don't have kids

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unless you actually have kids, your opinion about what is right and wrong involving raising kids means less than nothing."

Damn right! And until you have a million dollars, your opinion about the appropriate uses of that money are meaningless. Likewise, until you are in charge of a country of hundreds of millions of citizens (or more), your opinions about how to run such a country are of no value whatsoever. And until you actually have your head up your ass, you have no worthwhile ideas regarding what to do about it.

Re:Most "blame the parents" don't have kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I do have kids that have their own touches, use my old imac and powerbook with itunes and they even get on my ipad. I have alway made sure they understand the rules when using apps, going online, and even crossing the street. Apple obviously saw it "screwed up" in the 15 minute grace period setting from parents complaining so much. I have no issues having to enter the password every time. Since that update I would like to know how a kid without the password can spend hundreds of dollars (or even $10) without the parent knowing. I get an email on every purchase I make on itunes from any device.

But aside from that, the suit isnt about the grace period. It is about that fact that people have been given the option to make purchases after the initial download. So there should be no option for a company to make residual income on their work. I am wondering how this same lawyer has not sued every toy manufacturer that does not include a lifetime supply of batteries with the toy. I think I could have had a chance with how many batteries I sank into my original gameboy.

Re:Most "blame the parents" don't have kids

[drinkypoo]

Unless you actually have kids, your opinion about what is right and wrong involving raising kids means less than nothing.

That is a bunch of shit. For one, I can remember what it was like to be a kid. For two, I can see the results of different parenting styles, and draw conclusions based on what I've seen.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of bad parenting out there -- but knee-jerk reactions saying "BAD PARENTS" is so naive it's almost not worth the trouble to respond to.

Let's just be clear on this, most parents are not worth the CHON they're made from. Most people have no fucking business having children. They lack the emotional maturity to deal with them on a rational basis and they lack the social support structure to raise them without subjecting them to all manner of bullshit and abuse from a system designed not to help people, but to maximize profit for its actual constituents. Someone who recognizes that they have no business being a parent and elects not to be one is better qualified to make comments on parenting than many parents.

I've had more opportunities than I wanted to become a parent. I've dodged several baby-shaped bullets, I think maybe it's up to four or five of my exes who had a kid with me+1. I can see with vivid clarity where my parents failed and I can see equally clearly that I would fail in many of the same ways and possibly some new ones if I tried to raise children of my own. I can make a contribution to the world without replicating my genetic material, which I think is pretty decent but ultimately not that fantastic. Indeed, if I can dissuade one poor potential parent from breeding, or explain to one actual parent that something they are doing to their child is harmful when they believe it to be helpful, then I've probably done more good in this world than I could do by breeding.

Adults create the world children live in. Adults set the key for children and children only play within what they are handed. Children cannot be held responsible, that's what makes them children. Most parents have a totally skewed idea of what is important because most people have a totally skewed idea of what is important. The proliferation of Rent-A-Centers in poor neighborhoods is proof of that.

Re:Most "blame the parents" don't have kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you actually have kids, your opinion about what is right and wrong involving raising kids means less than nothing.

And if you think that's even remotely true, then you're a complete fucking retard.

Re:Its really is very bad

[DocHoncho]

Here's another thought, why is it OK for game developers to include features in their game which are intended to deceive kids into spending their parents money without knowing they're doing it?

Yet another Social Darwinist. No wonder you posted AC.

How is this any different than...

[tlambert]

But they're saying it to Apple. As the complaint points out, the app developer never sees the customer's payment data.

How is this any different than someone buying gift certificate at a mall office using a credit card, and taking it to a store in the mall and not giving the inbformation to the store?

I'm not understanding why you belive a payment processing gateway should be responsible for anything other than reasonable diligence against outright fraud.

-- Terry

Re:How is this any different than...

[Animats]

I'm not understanding why you belive (sic) a payment processing gateway should be responsible for anything other than reasonable diligence against outright fraud.

Because Apple is acting as a merchant here, not as an agent of the app developer. Apple, not the app developer, even collects sales tax. See the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2.

Re:Apple Faces Class-Action Suit For In-App Purcha

[Anonymous Coward]

A little common sense goes a long way in this world, but i guess that's asking too much.

Apple and common sense do not go together for some reason though ;-0

Re:Apple Faces Class-Action Suit For In-App Purcha

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad news, you can't use the App Store (which is what this article is about) without having a credit card on file. That is to say, even if your only intent is to purchase wholly "free" apps, you can't, until you enter your credit card number.

LCD

[Anonymous Coward]

See what happens when you market to the lowest common denominator now, Apple?

Or just add restrictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Settings > General > Restrictions and disable the relevant options.