Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
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.
... 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.
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.
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!
Lets toss money at this team of lawyers to save our children
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
It can be enables/disabled easily:
Settings>General>Restrictions>In-App Purchases
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.)
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.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Crisis is the rule, not the exception.
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.
+_+
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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...
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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.
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.
Do your kids understand how long-distance works on your phone?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The Admin and the Engineer
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2534
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
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.
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
... 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.
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.
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.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Or do the simple and responsible thing - create a free account.
Now, an iTunes Store also requires you to be 13 or older:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
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.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
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??
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
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
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?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Next time, instead of spreading FUD to all those around you, why don't you become EDUTATED?
Ha-Ha!
Required reading for internet skeptics
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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.
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".
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.
Required reading for internet skeptics
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...
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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. ;-)
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...
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.
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.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein