Critics To FTC: Why Do You Hate In-App Purchasing Freedom?

jfruh writes The FTC has moved aggressively recently against companies that make it too easy for people — especially kids — to rack up huge charges on purchases within apps. But at a dicussion panel sponsored by free-market think tank TechFreedom, critics pushed back. Joshua Wright, an FTC commissioner who dissented in a recent settlement with Apple, says a 15-minute open purchase window produced "obvious and intuitive consumer benefits" and that the FTC "simply substituted its own judgment for a private firm's decision as to how to design a product to satisfy as many users as possible."

Comments

Because The Children

[Gothmolly]

In the 21st century, people are screaming for the government to regulate their lives in order to protect them, to provide "security", and to "make people feel safe". It's the fag end of the smoldering socialist experiment. Sadly, America's just getting on the end of the demographic tidal wave which will make this impossible, so the golden years where everything is perfect are going to seem really short.

Re:Because The Children

[rmdingler]

Sadly, America's just getting on the end of the demographic tidal wave which will make this impossible, so the golden years where everything is perfect are going to seem really short.

True unless, ironically, the nation can still grow its' population base ahead of the European models... most likely through imigration.

Re:Because The Children

[Capt.Albatross]

In the 21st century, people are screaming for the government to regulate their lives in order to protect them, to provide "security", and to "make people feel safe". It's the fag end of the smoldering socialist experiment.

It has nothing to do with socialism. There are a lot of self-described conservatives in favor of restrictive and intrusive regulation in the name of security.

Re:Because The Children

[Gothmolly]

Consider the concept of "socialism", then consider those who self-describe as "conservative", and you will have the answer to the apparent contradiction.

Re:Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, hey, why not? Not sure where to put that apostrophe, slap it on at the end!!

Re:Because The Children

[Bing Tsher E]

Socialism is democratic worker control of the means of production, you troglodyte.

Way to go! Let one particular brand of 'socialist' define the term in as colorful a language as their doctrine specifies.

Now let's have Josef Stalin tell us what 'communism' is.

Re:Because The Children

[rmdingler]

It seemed safer than leaving it out, what with the growing strength of the punctuation lobby.

Re:Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Must not be from the Midwest. Almost every so called Christian family is big. This will grow exponentially. The model should be slanted for a high population of Christian Fundamentalist Republicans buying games.

Re:Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean by "brand of socialist"? Are you trying to re-define "socialist" as a pejorative rather than a label for a specific system? "Anything which doesn't agree with a particular sort of free market system," perhaps? I understand that "socialist" is sometimes used in the United States like "terrorist" - the latter is a person who inflicts terror on civilians to achieve a political aim, but is commonly re-"branded" to mean "anyone I'm fighting against".

I am not judging socialism - I am merely telling you how its "founding fathers", supporting Parties and every political text identify it. Whether it succeeds is another matter. OK, we could listen to how hypocritical dictator Stalin defines communism, and we could also listen to how he defines capitalism... what is your point? Tell me what you're for. IOW, tell me what you references you accept in your understanding of the definition of "socialism". And, to be transparent, I'm not asking about whether it works, but testing your intellectual integrity.

Re:Because The Children

[MightyMartian]

Socialism isn't a system, it's a class of systems. It encompasses everything from social democratic state on Scandinavia to Marxist-Leninist states.

Re:Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

"so the golden years where everything is perfect" - your golden years ? You don't lead the world in anything except prisoners in some respects your hardly even a civilized nation and your are so polarising your society rich\have not and right wing \ not quite so right you are sleep walking into a complete totalitarian society ,

Everything ok as long as you can mouth platitudes like free equals tax cuts and America #1 !

Re:Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

> Socialism is democratic worker control of the means of production, you troglodyte

Dear Asshole,

Someone as ignorant of political science as you are has no business chastising people, especially as vehemently as you do.

Socialism is also the political movement which AIMS at establishing worker ownership. Actual establishment of such a system is not necessary for a thing to be called "socialist" (as in the "Socialist movement") you retard.

Re: Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

But, y'know, reading up for 30 seconds on Google to learn the right place to put it was out of the question.

Re: Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read more. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Social democracy is a nod in the direction of socialism, and it may have institutions which operate partly according to socialist principles, but it is certainly not socialism. It's not just that the majority of work is conducted through private enterprise, but that state ownership of the commanding heights of the economy tends to be selective, and their organisation tends not to focus on democratic control: a government may merely have a controlling share in a business run as any other capitalist business.

Indeed, capitalism itself is an accommodating system which allows individual organisations to operate according to socialist principles, but this doesn't mean that capitalism is one of the set of socialist systems.

If you want to use the terminology of computer science, socialism may be a "superclass" in that there are various different ways of instantiating a socialist regime, but it is certainly not a "class of systems" in the sense of a spectrum of real-world regimes from centre left to far left.

Marxism-Leninism as it was written about is socialist, yeah. As it was implemented, well, it's as safe to call the US a "free market"!

Re: Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because somebody messes up grammar doesn't give you the right to be an asshole about it. Bullies are bullies even if their aims are admirable from some angle.

Re:Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is less security under socialism than capitalism"
You're certainly not referring to medical care, or welfare, which everyone needs at some point in their life. Oh, wait, you mean the top 1% that get bailouts. Yes, I have to agree then.

Re: Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Another useless reply from the "Is not! Is too!" school of debate. I fucking hate slashdot sometimes.

Re:Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism is also the political movement which AIMS at establishing worker ownership.

You're concurring most angrily, dullard.

Would you feel gratuitously ball-twisting urge to point out the same thing about, say, the Libertarian Party? After all, the LP doesn't actually run a libertarian country, does it? It merely aims at establishing a government run under libertarian principles.

Or maybe your point is that socialism is merely a movement in the opera of Marxist dialectical materialism, in which case you're subclassing socialism as Marxism sees it, but still not substantively disagreeing with me.

Re: Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you people. Its like having someone tell you the sky is green even when your both standing there and looking at it. Hell "You have no idea what you are talking about." is a hell of a lot nicer then how I would have put it. The truth is you're a fucking idiot who has no idea what the word socialism actually means. Go fucking look it up in any dictionary. Stupid mother fuckers.

Re: Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because somebody messes up grammar doesn't give you the right to be an asshole about it.

I don't need anybody to "give" me a "right" to be an asshole - if I want to call a worthless piece of shit like you an illiterate moron, I'll call you an illiterate moron. Your "right to not have your feelings hurt" does no appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States of America; however, my right to free speech is is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution (part of the "Bill of Rights", look it up).

As it has been so eloquently stated: "Political correctness is an effort to abrogate the First Amendment under the assumption that there exists a right to not be offended and that it has priority."

In short, piss off, ya pussy!

Re: Because The Children

[HiThere]

This is a good example of why when there are no consequences, civil behavior deteriorates.

Re:Because The Children

[HiThere]

You clearly don't understand the meaning of EITHER socialism or communism. Communism predates Karl Marx. And Stalinism isn't even Marx-Lenninism. (Note the hyphenated designation, as that which Lenin preached and practiced wasn't what Marx preached.) Also neither is Maoism, which also is only one variety of communism. (Stalinism isn't ANY kind of communism. It's just standard totalitarian dictatorship with an unusually brutal and despotic dictator. Only Idi Amin could claim to practice the same kind of government, though Pot Pol had certain similarities.)

Calling yourself something doesn't mean that the label rightfully applies to you. The North Korean government calls itself a "People's Republic", but it doesn't match the conventional meaning of Republic. (Do note, however, that Republics are normally controlled by an Oligarchy of some sort. It's not the "feel good" term that USians are generally taught it is. Not if you really understand what it means and how it operates. And the constitution guarantees that the states will have a Republican [Things of the Public] form of government, not a Demmocratic [i.e., power derives from the people] kind of government. And in both these cases I grossly simplified the meanings of the terms. In fact I'd need to research a bit to determine precisely what each meant, though basically in a Republic power derives from ownership of things, and in a Democracy power derives from being a "person", for some meaning of person. [E.g., slaves were originally considered to be only 2/3 of a person in the US.] Please note that this doesn't mean that the power belongs to the people, but rather that the government allocates power on the basis of people.)

Re: Because The Children

[MightyMartian]

I have a feeling the only person here that is confused is you.

Re:Because The Children

[HiThere]

Sorry, but you are confusing existing systems which are called Socialist with Socialism. It's not an unreasonable argument, but Socialism isn't necessarily a government. Local laws permitting individual factories can be Socialist. And there is no guarantee that such a facotry would provide those benefits.

OTOH, both countries and factories can fail whether they are Socialist or Capitalist. There's no inherent guarantee that one is more likely to fail than the other. The fact that there are few successful Socialist factories reflects their low rate of formation, and their high infant mortality (because they often come into existence only when the original, run on a Capitalist basis, is going bankrupt...so it is sold to the workers).

I don't find much validity in the GP's argument, but neither do I in yours. Public health measures are not an inherently socialist feature, even though they are more common and extensive in governments called Socialist. They should sensibly be considered as "investment to maintain the health of the social body upon which the government subsists". That they are considered socialist is due largely to the work of the American Medical Association, which had a vested interest in not having the government control their wages and prices. Now that those things are instead controlled by the insurance industry that vested interest has evaporated, but the prejudices instilled have not...and the insurance companies are quite happy to keep those prejudices going.

Re:Because The Children

[sabri]

It seemed safer than leaving it out,

The rules are very simple, and as a foreigner this is how I remember a a lot of these things:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/a...

Re: Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes, free speech. The time honoured license dragged out by assholes since forever.

Re: Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

| "does no appear"

| "free speech is is guaranteed"

Sorry, I don't listen to advice from illiterate morons like yourself.

Re:Because The Children

[ZeRu]

In the 20th century, people feared that Orwellian state will control people by supressing thinking and limiting information.
But the situation become even worse - we have people who don't want to think and instead rely on The Government to decide what's good for them, and information is so widely available that people became saturated with it and no longer desire it.

Re: Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

You're totally correct. Stupidity (including poor grammar) requires consequences. My fellow grammar police and I are available at any time to offer our services in dishing out those consequences.

Their Job

[BitZtream]

Because its their job to hate people who take advantage of others in matters of trade?

Re:Their Job

[jd]

Very true. A wholly free market is actually quite toxic, as a certain Adam Smith noted. Especially when it's dishonest.

In-app purchases are the return of micropayments, but for virtual goods less valuable than Second Life real estate. It is, of course, entirely fair for companies to sell such products and for customers to buy them, but the control system is poor, virtual goods have an amazingly high failure rate for delivery, and prices are often in the small print.

Re:Their Job

[Bob9113]

>> Because its their job to hate people who take advantage of others in matters of trade?

> Very true. A wholly free market is actually quite toxic, as a certain Adam Smith noted. Especially when it's dishonest.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes! Exactly this.

the FTC "simply substituted its own judgment for a private firm's decision as to how to design a product to satisfy as many users as possible."

Because that is what we pay them to do. And there is a very good reason; because private firms measure customer satisfaction through the lens of maximization of profit (fairly short run profit in the case of apps), and the FTC measures it through imperfect objective analysis of the rational self-interest and informedness of the transaction participants. Gee, here's a surprise: Those two measures don't always agree, and sometimes, when they are far enough out of whack, it actually increases GDP in the long run if you limit the freedom of people to engage in inefficienty transactions.

A really good example of such potentially inefficient transactions is children, who do not understand how much time and effort it costs to acquire money, are in the throes of video game passion and a screen pops up saying, "Win More, Only $3.99! Buy Now!"

Joshua Wright, an FTC commissioner who dissented...

A market filled with efficient transactions increases GDP in the long run relative to a market with less efficient transactions. So, tell me, Joshua Wright; do you hate the economy? Do you want a lower GDP? Do you want our corporations to lose money? Do want our wealthiest stockholders to have to buy slightly smaller Gulfstreams? Answer me, Mr. Wright: Do you hate America?

Re:Their Job

[msauve]

A really good example of such potentially inefficient transactions is children, who do not understand how much time and effort it costs to acquire money, are in the throes of video game passion and a screen pops up saying, "Win More, Only $3.99! Buy Now!"

If they can do that, those children have much larger issues than a $4 charge - they have stupid and irresponsible parents, who are not only providing inadequate supervision, but are incompetent at teaching their children life skills.

Those in-app purchases require an account password - that's a parental responsibility. Allowing the kids to know the password is no different than sending them to the toy store with a blank check. Not only are the parents not teaching their children to take responsibility for their actions, the parents themselves aren't being responsible.

Re:Their Job

[Bob9113]

If they can do that, those children have much larger issues than a $4 charge - they have stupid and irresponsible parents, who are not only providing inadequate supervision, but are incompetent at teaching their children life skills.

Your observation, whether true or not, does not make the transactions efficient. Inefficient transactions are bad for the economy, regardless of their cause. Do you want American companies to lose money? Do you hate America?

Re:Their Job

[Bob9113]

I really liked my last snarky response, but I just thought of another one:

Those in-app purchases require an account password - that's a parental responsibility. Allowing the kids to know the password is no different than sending them to the toy store with a blank check. Not only are the parents not teaching their children to take responsibility for their actions, the parents themselves aren't being responsible.

I've long been thinking the same thing about crosswalk signals. Children whose parents fail to teach them to look at the vehicular traffic signals to know when it is safe to cross are not giving their children an important life skill. Spending taxpayer money on crosswalk signals, just to protect the children of a few incompetent parents, is grossly wasteful nanny-stateism. If we don't allow natural car-versus-pedestrian fatalities to punish stupid parents by killing their children, how will they ever learn?

Re:Their Job

[sjames]

Perhaps you haven't educated yourself sufficiently on the issue at hand. The problem was that parents would enter their password to allow a single purchase and then hand the device to a child, unaware that the password would be cached for the next X minutes. They expected that the child not knowing the password would secure them from unauthorized in-app purchases. That is a reasonable expectation, one would think.

Alas, businesses wanted to make impulse buys as easy as possible and so violated that reasonable expectation AND failed to make it clear that they had. That's why the FTC got involved and insisted that they EITHER meet that expectation OR make it very clear that it was violated.

That seems to me to be both reasonable and EXACTLY the sort of thing the FTC should be doing.

Re:Their Job

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're one of those parents who tells his kids to go play unsupervised in the street. You suck as a parent.

Re:Their Job

[msauve]

The 15 minute behavior has been documented for over 3 years. Additionally, every purchase requires confirmation. As I said, this is a parental failure. If you can't raise kids who can be trusted with a blank check, simply don't give them one. If you don't understand how the purchasing system works, don't use it, and certainly don't authorize your kid to do so.

Re:Their Job

[BasilBrush]

The 15 minute behavior has been documented for over 3 years.

Which doesn't mean that you can expect any non-geek to know it. Heck I'm a geek, and I've owned iOS devices since 2008 and if I ever knew about a 15 minute window I've forgotten.

And the attitude that if a kid does something against it's parents wishes, it's a bad parent is just risible. ALL kids find the opportunities available to them to skirt the rules. Even when they're old enough to know what the rules are. And they can be pretty cunning.

Your judgements show a remarkable lack of knowledge of the real world. Not just of parenting but of what people know of technology.

And for what are you protecting the businesses here, in their efforts to fleece the public? They don't need your help.

The FTC are absolutely there to protect consumers from businesses that seek to exploit expected gaps in consumer knowledge. Even more so when the actor is a child.

Re:Their Job

[msauve]

Turn in your phone. You're obviously too stupid to be responsible for it.

Re:Their Job

[BasilBrush]

Turn in your computer. You shouldn't be posting on the internet if that's the best you can do.

Re:Their Job

[Solandri]

More succinctly, an effective free market requires participants to be rational and informed. Product behaviors like keeping a purchase window up for 15 minutes without notifying the customer deliberately try to mislead and misinform the public. That's the sort of thing the FTC is there to crack down on.

I don't see any problem with a pop-up after a purchase asking if you wish to continue to make purchases for 15 min without having to re-authorize. But to silently make it the default behavior is pretty obviously deceptive. I'd even call it a scam.

Re:Their Job

[Anonymous Coward]

And the attitude that if a kid does something against it's parents wishes, it's a bad parent is just risible. ALL kids find the opportunities available to them to skirt the rules. Even when they're old enough to know what the rules are. And they can be pretty cunning.

I agree 100% with this. I don't believe that just because a kid knowingly did something wrong, it's entirely because the parents didn't teach the kid right from wrong.

Re:Their Job

[Anonymous Coward]

[The parents] expected that the child not knowing the password would secure them from unauthorized in-app purchases. That is a reasonable expectation, one would think.

Exactly.
It's true that the 15 minute window can be turned off, but the issue is that the 15 minute window is turned on by default. It's what Steve Gibson calls "the tyranny of the default".

(I am not talking about parents who give their kids their credit card number or the password. I am talking about parents who don't give their kids the credit card number or the password and are charged hundreds/thousands of dollars.
I know there there is an argument that parents shouldn't allow their young kids access to their smartphones, but as long as there are kid's games, there will be parents who will allow their kids access to their smartphones)

Re:Their Job

[sjames]

A LOT of people knew nothing about it and the interface didn't tell. Nor did it offer a confirmation of when the 15 minutes had expired. Ideally, it should have expired instantly unless the user specifically selected a window, and should have offered a way to see if the window was still open and a button to close it immediately.

There is a such thing as an interface that defies understanding. This was such an interface and it seems deliberate.

It was clear this was a source of trouble and confusion well before the FTC took action.

Meanwhile, I'm guessing you have no children, nore have you had any significant interaction with a child.

Re:Their Job

[sjames]

Exactly. It is clear that the default was chosen strategically rather than based on what most people would want or expect to be true.

Kinda like the checkbox hidden in the web form that says "Yes, please spam me constantly" checked by default.

Re:Their Job

[davester666]

Um, I guess you don't really know the problem. The problem is that the DEFAULT for iOS is that when you make any "purchase" [IAP, buy an app or even buy a 'free' app], and iOS asks for a password, for 15 minutes after that, iOS won't ask for a password.

So you download a free kids game [now with small gray print saying "includes IAPs"], and then hand the phone to your kid to play and then your kid has the opportunity to buy a whole bunch of wheelbarrows filled with huckleberrys for the low low price of $99. And the apps are specifically designed to get kids to buy IAPs.

The problem will slowly go away, as more iOS devices get the fingerprint sensor, but for non-fingerprint sensor iOS devices, the default should have been 'ask every time' with the option of changing it to 'valid for 15 minutes'.

But that might cut into profits, both for Apple and for developers...

Re:Their Job

[davester666]

No, it's not like that.

You tell your kid, look both ways, and only cross with the signals, and when your kid gets to the corner, there is an expert child psychologist there, telling your kid, it's ok to cross whenever you want, you don't have to look, how about we make a game of it and see how fast you can run to the other side without looking.

Re:Their Job

[msauve]

" I guess you don't really know the problem. "

The problem is baby-producers, who instead of being parents, depend on technology to babysit their offspring, and who substitute materiality for human interaction (here, kid, get this game and leave me alone). Well, that and they're too dumb to RTFM before handing over control of their bank account to those kids. That's OK. When they're old and feeble, the kids can practice what they've been taught by buying them a big-button remote, so they can drool alone in front of the TV, and the kids will only have to see them on holidays.

Re:Their Job

[Pentium100]

If we don't allow natural car-versus-pedestrian fatalities to punish stupid parents by killing their children, how will they ever learn?

The problem is that the child will dent the car that hit him, causing the driver problems. Even if the driver manage to prove that the child ran out unexpectedly (lets say they have a dashcam video that shows this), there is still going to be a trial costing the driver money and the money needed to straighten out the car. Not to mention the stress and psychological issues for the driver.

Re:Their Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Because its their job to hate people who take advantage of others in matters of trade?

I agree, if this were truly for the consumer's benefit you would think that it would be an option that the consumer could turn on or off at his discretion. But more often, especially in game apps, the fact that additional money being required to continue the game past a certain point is not advertised until after daddy hands the game off to his 10 year old daughter, who only wants to finish the game. This is clearly deceptive and is clearly in the FTC's domain to slap down.

Re:Their Job

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a free market when one entity is in control of the whole market. So Apples' app store is not a free market. And the in app purchases is not a free market either. To make things worse apple allows one entity access to another entity funds. This would be classified as theft of property in a free market. Under no circumstances should one entity be able to freely spend anthers funds even if it's only for a short while. This means that Joe jr. should not be able to spend Joes' funds without Joes' explicit permission for any reason, not even within a 15 minute window that can be easily exploited. If this were all about an app store then several other markets would be under attack by the FTC. The FTC is trying to protect us, from our children relatives and friends effectively stealing our funds. And for this I applaud them, when i go look at an app I don't want to buy it in the same click, or even an accidental double click.

From what i see all the FTC is doing is just telling apple, amazon, and others like them to just require authentication for each transaction. This is just good security, not an assault against the industry. Shopping carts can be used for bulk purchases, yes it's more work on the part of developers, but it's the developer's job to accommodate the user, not the other way around. And it's not hard to implement a list of items in code, most languages already have support for this. (C++ Vector, Java ArrayList, etc...) The biggest part would be improving the UI, but that is a small thing after they have created a good enough UI to properly operate a game with an in app store.

If you don't like this then i highly suggest you attend Defcon this year. Even the security currently in place is nowhere near enough, heck this security is not enough.

Re:Their Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It is clear that the default was chosen strategically rather than based on what most people would want or expect to be true.

Kinda like the checkbox hidden in the web form that says "Yes, please spam me constantly" checked by default.

Of course the original default was to bug you for every purchase, and people complained about that.

Re:Their Job

[AmiMoJo]

In-app purchases are the return of micropayments

The biggest problem with micropayments is that they are not micro. If we were talking 1 or 2 cents to buy an in-game upgrade then children could spend their pocket money on them. Instead we are talking about several Euros/Dollars just to get another turn today.

Re:Their Job

[sjames]

The solution is to move the option selection up in the UI rather than bury it a few clicks deep. Perhaps put an icon in the notification area for the duration of the window so people don't forget.

Re:Their Job

[demonrob]

as if the kid will notice the psychologist whilst crossing the road concentrating on the all important game screen.

Oh yes, hate freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The undisputed freedom of corporations to trick "free" citizen consumers into perpetual debt bondage. That freedom. Such haters.

"Free Market[tm]" isn't the be-all end-all of economics, people.

Capacity & infancy?

[Anonymous Coward]

It causes a lot of issues when children try to enter into contracts, aka buy crap. Generally they aren't even bound at all unless it's a necessity. We don't want to bind children to stuff because holy cow kids are stupid. It's easier to just make it harder for kids to buy stuff inadvertently than deal with all the lawsuits and aftermath of trying to bind parents to their kids voidable transactions.

corrected....

[wbr1]

Joshua Wright, an FTC commissioner who dissented in a recent settlement with Apple, says a 15-minute open purchase window produced "obvious and intuitive consumer benefits" and that the FTC "simply substituted its own judgment for a private firm's decision as to how to design a product to satisfy as many shareholdersas possible."

FTFY

Socialism? ... riiiiiiight

[Jumperalex]

If a 15 minute open refund period produced "obvious and intuitive consumer benefits" just think about what an hour could do. You know, like enough to actually test out the app for REAL. Especially apps that are more complicated than flappy bird and, oh yeah, more expensive.

Mea Culpa: though I will acknowledge that a "free" app with in-app purchase, that works well enough to test it out before spending money, is indeed one way to get around the limited 15 minutes to test the app.

But of course those apps are not the problem. The problem the government (you know, the supposedly by the people FOR the people) is trying to prevent predatory sharks from bilking people of money through shady practices like kids games that make it very easy to just click click spend a shed load of money.

Re:Socialism? ... riiiiiiight

[aitikin]

If a 15 minute open refund period produced "obvious and intuitive consumer benefits" just think about what an hour could do.

Uhyou misread that. "15-minute open purchase window produced 'obvious and intuitive consumer benefits'" I doubt the FTC would be opposed to an open refund period...

Re:Socialism? ... riiiiiiight

[teg]

If a 15 minute open refund period produced "obvious and intuitive consumer benefits" just think about what an hour could do. You know, like enough to actually test out the app for REAL. Especially apps that are more complicated than flappy bird and, oh yeah, more expensive.

Mea Culpa: though I will acknowledge that a "free" app with in-app purchase, that works well enough to test it out before spending money, is indeed one way to get around the limited 15 minutes to test the app.

But of course those apps are not the problem. The problem the government (you know, the supposedly by the people FOR the people) is trying to prevent predatory sharks from bilking people of money through shady practices like kids games that make it very easy to just click click spend a shed load of money.

"Open purchase window" here does not mean "open refund". It means "you don't have to enter your password again to buy something". Go smurfberries!

Re:Socialism? ... riiiiiiight

[Bing Tsher E]

A 15 minute refund period would be delicious. It would completely destroy the IAP marketplace. I'd be able to again buy high quality games for $5-15 and not be faced with game designers who focus on nickel-and-dime ripping me off. They'd actually have to work on making the game fun enough for me to be willing to pay for the non-trial version. Wolfenstein 3D and later Doom did this well with shareware trial versions. Similarly a whole bunch of games from that era: Jill of the Jungle, Commander Keen, etc.

"Disable In App Purchases" should be a checkbox in the settings for the App Market and it should simply render invisible any games that incorporate In App Purchases, just the way games for the Tablet don't appear in the Google Play market when I open the Google Play app on my cellphone.

How about...

[Torp]

... labeling all games with IAPs as rentals and displaying the average cost of being able to keep playing... per hour or something like that?

Re:How about...

[sqlrob]

I don't know that an average cost would actually show that much. With the articles about "whales", it seems that the average would be fairly low.

Re:How about...

[gnasher719]

... labeling all games with IAPs as rentals and displaying the average cost of being able to keep playing... per hour or something like that?

But most are not rentals. For example, "Candy Crush" with levels 1 to 35 is free. Candy Crush with levels 1 to 50 costs £0.69. Candy Crush with levels 1 to 64 costs £1.38. And so on. There's no rental. Once you paid it's yours. For £1.38 you get a game with 65 levels, which you can download on all your devices and play as long as you like.

Re:How about...

[Bing Tsher E]

A lot of the games that have IAP are 'pay to win' games. One of the most popular games in the market from one of the successful developers is Hay Day by Supercell. It's essentially a 'play to win' game. My spouse plays it and has a lot of fun doing so but has never, ever, made an In App Purchase to do so. The leaderboards are completely meaningless and irrelevant to people who've never paid for 'gems' though, because the 'Top Players' are entitled rich children (one presumes) who've bought their way to the top. In all categories of 'Leader' on that game, the people who spend money are at the top. That's just how pay-to-win goes, and the game has to be fun on the merits of gameplay to be successful. Which Hay Day is. There is some peculiar sociology going on there, because the game's popularity is clearly NOT geared by being on the Leaderboard.

Re:How about...

[Bing Tsher E]

Candy Crush is a massive pig of a game, though. One that is close to collapsing under the weight of the bullshit they've shoved in there. The spash screens, side-game spam and extra garbage that rumbles into your face while you're trying to... well... get to the screens to crush candy, are really annoying. Thank goodness it's such a well-cloned game, because there are many lightweight competitors where you can actually play the game. King, the publishers of Candy Crush Saga, are a Zynga wannabe. Let's hope they die soon, the way Zynga is headed: a company that has grown to the point where they have way too many people trying to chisel money out of the players of their product. When a critical mass develops to the point where they have whole teams working on the splash screens, mini-games and diversions, the cubicle farm needs to be collapsed.

The arcade

[Bender Unit 22]

As the arcades closed I thought that never again people would accept coin-op's.
But the Smurfberries in all their incarnations and the DLC's on PC clearly shows I was wrong. :)

Re:The arcade

[Polo]

I actually think coin-ops were a little more honest. You usually got to play with really cool hardware,
and you physically insert your money one by one.

In some cases the IAP model is like an arcade machine where you don't hand your money over, instead it reaches into your wallet for you and takes out an ambiguous amount.

Real world equivalent

[StripedCow]

You go to a theme-park with your children.
If the kids want to have an ice-cream, they just go to the ice-cream stand, order and say the name of their parents (you), so they get the bill when you leave.

Who thinks this is not a brilliant idea?

(Sorry for not posting a car-analogy)

Re:Real world equivalent

[Ol Olsoc]

You go to a theme-park with your children. If the kids want to have an ice-cream, they just go to the ice-cream stand, order and say the name of their parents (you), so they get the bill when you leave.

Who thinks this is not a brilliant idea?

Meanwhile the park employees are all atwitter about StripedCow's 300 children.

Re:Real world equivalent

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the issue for me--the app companies are doing business sometimes with individuals who aren't cognitively in a position to consent to a financial exchange. E.g., children don't understand what they're doing. It's predatory. Not to sound extremist, but the basic ethical principles are the same as what's wrong with child porn.

The way to handle this would make the app companies responsible for verifying that each in-app purchase is done by a consenting adult, and responsible for all losses in cases where they can't prove that. In-app purchases would dry up I think, or at least decline substantially.

Re: Real world equivalent

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't the parent just say to apple, the credit card company, etc. "I did not authorize this transaction on my account."? If that doesn't fix things then maybe it is time for a different card.

Re:Real world equivalent

[fermion]

I thought of it another way. You go to the store and everything the kids touches goes on your credit card. Remember, most of what occurs in the apps has no real world equivalent. You can't go and return it, or even complain it was faulty or did not meet expectation. At least a theme park if there is bug in the ice cream you might get another one.

In any case,Apple is absolutely wrong here. If this were a convenience feature it would be easy to add in a setting like they do with so many other features. For instance cellular data roaming can be turned off. To make sure that Apps still have an opportunity to waste bandwidth there is an annoying reminder to turn the cellular data back on when accidentally using the App. If Apple wanted go, it could allow users to set the time interval anywhere from zero to 15, or more, and then allow the App to be as annoying as it wanted to get you to turn back to 15. As it is, the protocol is clearly meant to maximize unintentional in App purchases.

Re:Real world equivalent

[Ryanrule]

And if they have the ability to order ice cream for every child in the park on your name? Or to order a 10 year supply shipped daily to your house on your name?

There is a simple solution

[DrXym]

Impose a maximum in-game purchase to the game's rating and impose a maximum spend per account per month. i.e. an E for everyone game may have a max spend of $5. If a user wants to override these settings then they can from the account settings. The power of the default mean the majority won't and thus people will be protected from nasty surprises. Oh and ban more than 1 in game currency that maps onto real world money and require them to show a dollar / euro / pound value against any purchase that uses it.

Aside from protecting users it deters games from being glorified skinner boxes with cow-clicker complexity and micropayments galore and encourages producers to start making actual games again.

Re: There is a simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just have your government make all your games for you, faggot?

Re:There is a simple solution

[rmdingler]

Impose. Ban. Regulate.

Is this where we set the bar of government interference in our private lives?

A very simple solution would be the parents don't allow an irresponsible child to play a game with in-game purchasing. Hell, that might even institute a bit of self-restraint a growing child could use the rest of his life.

Re:There is a simple solution

[Mr. Slippery]

Is this where we set the bar of government interference in our private lives?

Commerce is not your "private life". It is the transfer of "property", something created by government fiat and enforced by government guns. And it in most cases is it the transfer of "property" to or from a corporation, an entity created by government fiat.

If it doesn't directly involve government issued land and resource deeds (the root of all physical property), copyright and patents and trademarks (the root of all so-called "intellectual property"), or corporate charters, and doesn't involve government-enforced contracts, then you can maybe complain about government interference in your "private life".

Re:There is a simple solution

[Jartan]

Your idea falls apart when ALL the games have in-game purchasing.

Re:There is a simple solution

[cob666]

Apple already has most of these restrictions and more.
The ability to turn off in app purchasing and / or making purchases. The also have 'allowances' which once reached the user can't spend pass that unless they provide an additional form of payment. iDevices also allow you to turn OFF the 15 minute window and specify that a password is required for every purchase.

Parents really have NO right to complain if their children are racking up purchases on their iDevice because they have the ability to limit that spending.

Re:There is a simple solution

[Drethon]

How many of those games have obvious in app purchasing before you get the bill?

Re:There is a simple solution

[dkman]

No, the much easier solution is adding a damn dropdown to the login page. The login is for "how long do you want to be remembered?" If you select "forget me immediately" you will get prompted at the next in app purchase. Or you can select 1,2,5,15,30,60 minutes. That would solve a hell of a lot of problems and still allow a ton of use cases.

If Tiger Woods wants to let his kids blow $2,000 playing some game that's fine. If my kid blows $200 on in app purchases her ass is grass.
 
The onus is, and should be, on the parent/user. But deceptive business practice is a problem, and should be dealt with swiftly. It just needs to be done in a way that doesn't penalize people who aren't be deceptive.

Re:There is a simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The words "simple solution" when used with anything involving human social activity make me want to smack the moron responsible speechless.

Because they've already demonstrated that they have no idea what they are speaking about if they think any such thing is "simple" and would be better off silent.

Re:There is a simple solution

[DrXym]

Thanks Ayn for completely understanding the problem.

Re:There is a simple solution

[DrXym]

I'm sorry but parents DO have a right to complain. Apple / Google / Microsoft are facilitators of a system which not only encourages but profits from games charging money for in-app purchases. It means that the controls are begrudging implemented and usually flipped to off position by default. And it is not hard to find games aimed at young kids where the game encourages the player to purchase $50-100 bundles of coins, skins or whatever. They don't want to tip the applecart so to speak.

And yeah parental responsibility does come into it but so does the power of the default. The default for kid rated games should be purchase restrictions. If the account holder wants to flip it the other way they can do so, but that should be the default. And in being the default it would change the landscape of these games for the better since they'd have to focus on engaging game play instead of skinner box random rewards for cash as they do now.

Re:There is a simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Imagine the uproar if users were routinely paying some other company or person to obtain 100% of said virtual goods at a flat $5/month--with all you collect in the month you keep indefinitely? Hell, that'd be commerce and competition, right? No, no. Only one company gets to create the virtual goods because they're the IP holder, born entirely out of government enforcement. That the FTC should in some fashion restrict to the benefit of the consumer? Must be some sort of communism. Because to a lot of companies, there's the only binary options of communism or fascism.

*sigh*

Re:There is a simple solution

[david_thornley]

For any problem, there's a solution that is simple, and wrong.

It's reasonable to download a kid's game, and to hand the phone to a kid to keep him or her amused. In doing this, one would normally assume that that was the extent of the transaction, and that the kid wouldn't be able to spend one's money while playing the game. Apple certainly didn't warn people of this, and apps weren't warning parents of in-app purchases. Instead, they did their best to get the kid to spend large amounts of money without making anybody suspicious.

One thing we've got here is information asymmetry, and apps that try to exploit it. We also have deceptive advertising, in that it is not made clear that kids are spending significant amounts of money. (Even so, the kids may not recognize it as money. I'm pretty smart, and I was probably six or seven before I realized that money was numbers in a bank as well as bills and coins.)

I have no idea what self-restraint not playing an app with in-game purchases would instill. We taught the kid the value of money by giving him an allowance and telling him to buy his own stuff out of it. He made some mistakes, and learned from them. He learned quickly that, if he didn't spend money on little things, he could buy good stuff when it became available. (If I wanted an app to teach him things, well, he got Pokemon games on birthdays and Christmas, as well as the ones he bought himself. Budgeting one's money is important in these games, even if it isn't real money.)

Untrue statements

[Anonymous Coward]

When companies take advantage of customer addiction tendencies, it's predatory, and causes long-term suffering, for short-term satisfaction.
Since the companies can't regulate themselves, the government must do it for them.

Coke is without coke these days as well, and that is a good thing (coke causes the brain to become psychopathic over time).

Re:Untrue statements

[rmdingler]

I see the Pepsibot is up and running.

Re:Untrue statements

[f16c]

He was referring to cocaine, which was once a component of the soft drink. That version is no longer sold because it would be illegal.

Laws tend to change due to both public knowledge and awareness changing over time. This is likely the reason why the extreme conservatives are doing their best to limit access and affordability of education for the middle and working classes and consolidation of the media. You can't really vote rationally without a universally efficient education or even awareness that a problem exists. It's hard enough to catch the news when you work 60+ hours to make ends meet. Calling this a "Democracy" is a bit of a stretch under such circumstances. As long as this remains the case the American Dream is just another big lie from the corporate big-shots and hangers-on.

I was born in the US and I don't recognize the country I grew up in. I grew up in the sixties and seventies and started a family in the eighties. I don't think the country I grew up in really exists any more. Both political parties had plenty of people I had great admiration for. Both had the fringe but they were a tiny minority. Back then I think both parties realized the damage to the country if we followed the path that politics is on now. The country no longer seems to matter as much as the power and wealth that accompany it for those chosen by the parties to participate in the political arena. A country in decline no matter how you choose to measure it.

The FTC is hardly without a flawless record. It also does pretty well considering the meager resources it brings to it's mission. The article reminds us that they do go after those that are blatant about their greed, customer antagonism and deception when they have the ability to do so. They tend to try to follow a reasonable middle ground, which is very difficult in today's political environment.

Re:Untrue statements

[f16c]

I meant it hardly has a flawless record...

Back to the fray.

Re:Untrue statements

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprised that got modded insightful, as there are quite a few pro-drug people around here who don't seem to be in favor of keeping it illegal due to the violent resistance to our laws by gangs.

This convenience bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate the whole "for your convenience" bullshit. I do not trust having my payment information on file. What prevents an app from just making purchases without your consent?

Or saying something is free when it isn't like some of the Roku channels. I can't tell you how many times I went to look at a "free" channel only to have a message pop up that my account will be billed every month. Fortunately, I bitched to Roku's customer service when signing up about their requirement to supply payment information for "my convenience".

And the bank will not back you up if you dispute the charges. The vendor just says "They clicked on the accept button" and your out the money.

Re: This convenience bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody gives a shit about the opinion of someone who doesn't know what the difference between "your" and "you're" is.

Re:This convenience bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not trust having my payment information on file. What prevents an app from just making purchases without your consent?

If Apple is the only one having your payment information, then an OS-generated dialog for every purchase would prevent the problem you mentioned.

Re:This convenience bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

> I hate the whole "for your convenience" bullshit. I do not trust having my payment information on file.

Neither do I. That's why I don't give my info to such apps, and I don't let random apps have network access permissions.

Problem solved.

Re: This convenience bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the capitalist makers should be in charge of your money.
You gave apple your card number and your kids the password. Your not responsible.
Corporate America will use the increase share holder value rule to create rules that benifit the customer like they alwAys have.

Re: This convenience bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

That is EXACTLY how purchases in iOS work RIGHT NOW. The App has to ask the OS to have the user approve and Apple sends the developer a receipt of the purchase.

What has been up for discussion is the timer feature. By default, once you approve a purchase Apple Assumes you want to CONTINUE purchasing for 15 minutes. For most things that's enough.. Except those g'damn kids games that deliberately keep throwing up the "buy more" buttons. Apple has a feature to force EVERY SINGLE purchase through manual approval, but then you have to turn on other "kid settings". I think people would rather the DEFAULT FEATURE be to ALWAYS ASK with the OPTION to turn it down under "safety settings"

Re: This convenience bullshit

[Xenx]

Or, people could start using their brain and actually learn how to use their devices that they feel that HAVE to have. As long as the option is there to ask every time, it's in the user's court. I'm tired of everyone being too dumb to even try.

Re: This convenience bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about brain power, this is about the fact that children use a lot of those games and there is no visible countdown timer to indicate how long before you can give the device back to the kid without any unexpected charges.

These convenience features aren't about convenience, they're about exploiting our finite amount of willpower for profit.

Re: This convenience bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll let my 85 year old Grandmother know just how you feel.
Where can she send her reply?

Re: This convenience bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You gave apple your card number and your kids the password.

A lot of times, the parents *didn't* give the kids the password, and the 15 minute password window allowed the kid to (unknowingly) spend the parent's money. That is the issue here.

Re: This convenience bullshit

[ultranova]

I'm tired of everyone being too dumb to even try.

And this should affect regulations... why?

Re: This convenience bullshit

[Xenx]

Because consumer laziness isn't (shouldn't be) enough of a reason for the government to spend time and money on the issue.

Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wall it off!

Require a special wallet to be used for in-app purchases. Kind of like how you load credit to Skype to make out-going calls without a subscription... something like that.

Imagine loading $20 and then it being empty. Then you have to manually reload money into the special wallet.

Also, make it illegal to call it a free app if in-app purchases are possible.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called free app because you don't have to shell out the money up front. At least most of them have the decency to warn you about in app purchase before downloading.

Re:Here's an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I should have put it another way.

It's like prepaid cell phone service. It's not free cell phone service. You pay as you go. The same can be said for in-app purchases provided said purchases advance the gameplay.

Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism is democratic worker control of the means of production, you troglodyte. That's all it is. There is less security under socialism than capitalism, because nobody is allowed to rely on invested capital. This minor controversy has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

All that's going on here is a few rich guys whining that they want ways of taking money from people using a technological loophole - the ease with which a child can use mom's credit card - rather than directly as a result of a contract formed between two adults providing informed consent. If anything, the capitalist position would run contrary to TechFreedom's argument because capitalism strives for informed, rational agents, necessarily treating children as a special case. To be clear, children usually cannot form contracts, but nobody owns children, therefore they cannot be entirely responsible for their actions.This reflects their status as developing humans.

So get off your high horse and stop worrying that the sky is falling. Every dull member of every new generation speaks like the "golden days" have come to an end because xyz minor thing that they don't really understand means the end of the world.

Draw Your Own Conclusion

[Anna Merikin]

"Fascism is the marriage of government and business."
                                                                              --Benito Mussolini

Re: Draw Your Own Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is different from socialism how?

Re: Draw Your Own Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascism is a bit like the GOP, it's run on fear, xenophobia and corporatism. Socialists don't normally involve themselves in that, in fact it would be very hard to run a socialist campaign where you were trying to scare the crap out of people to get them to persecute their neighbors.

Re: Draw Your Own Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

In fascism the corporations control the government. In socialism the government controls the corporations. You may claim there is no difference but you'd be very wrong. Go read a social studies book.

Re:Draw Your Own Conclusion

[HiThere]

As the originator of the term, he had the right to define it. But the definition that he created was based not only on his words, but also on his actions.

Under the control of Mussolini the government tried to use minimal force to get its way (i.e., to satisfy the business interests), but if minimal force wouldn't work, he was quite willing to use more.

N.B.: He also created the term "egghead" to describe intellectuals, because his thugs found it so easy to break their heads.

Re: Draw Your Own Conclusion

[kwbauer]

So the corporations were controlling Hitler? Go read a history book!

Re: Draw Your Own Conclusion

[david_thornley]

In classic Fascist states, the government was totalitarian, but tried to keep industrialists and businesses happy. The economic system remained capitalist. In Nazi Germany, there was one labor union, and it was rendered pretty ineffective. Theoretically, the government could order the businesses to do anything, but as a matter of practice they tried to stay hands-off. (The US War Production Board controlled businesses in WWII more tightly than the typical Fascist state.) Money is important.

In Socialist states, the government normally owns the businesses, and the factory heads and such are government functionaries, to be promoted, demoted, or replaced by the government. There is a strong tendency for central planning, and money often becomes much less significant. It remains important to the worker, but it doesn't necessarily drive the economy as it would in a capitalist society.

There are theoretically other forms of socialism (worker-owned factories, etc.), but those don't tend to be economy-wide.

just who are these "critics" anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps those affiliated with 'app stores' that rake in around 30% off the top for in app purchases? perhaps those who rake in big bucks from in app purchases (or have dreams of doing so)? misinformed users addicted to (and thus spending lots of money) an app just doing what it or its developers say?

no informed *user* of an 'app' is going to side with the greedy fucks on the other side wrt in app purchases and steps taken to make it a little more difficult to run up huge charges.

Freedom Hater?

[Bing Tsher E]

Why is this phrased from the extreme viewpoint of one of the sides in the issue? The phrase "Why Do You Hate In-App Purchasing Freedom?" could be rewritten "Why Do You Hate Me Exercising My Freedom To Steal Your Kid's Cellphone By Trading It For a Cheap Toy He Wants?"

I'm sorry. The issue concerns In App Purchases that are engineered to allow gullible kids to rack up charges on their parent's phone.

Re:Freedom Hater?

[msauve]

So, how do they engineer forcing the parents to provide a credit card to the kids? My understanding is that no purchases can be made unless an account password is entered - that's a parental responsibility. They're not preying on gullible kids, they're taking advantage of stupid and irresponsible parents. Such stupidity should be painful.

Re:Freedom Hater?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many places want keep my credit card on file for convenience. Some I even let do it.

How long do sessions stay open? Buy something at noon and kid plays with the phone at 2:00 are you still logged in? They have an inventive for you to stay in an authorized session, why log you out at all?

Re:Freedom Hater?

[bill_mcgonigle]

They're not preying on gullible kids, they're taking advantage of stupid and irresponsible parents

Or parents who think that they can just let the kids do what they want now, to shut them up, and dispute the charges later with the credit card company. That way they don't "have to be the bad guy" with their kids either, by saying "no".

It's really screwed up, and I've seen it most in broken families.

My kids both have Android devices, and once in a while they'll get a gift card for a holiday, but by and large they just find stuff to do that's free. Do they have to earn their way up in games? Yep, just like we did as kids (here I'm willfully ignoring turning my paper route money into quarters at the arcade).

Re:Freedom Hater?

[Jiro]

Whoosh.

"Why do you hate freedom" is a phrase which, at least on Slashdot, is used only ironically. It means "this is the kind of thing which is pushed on the basis that everyone who hates it hates freedom". It doesn't mean that the person writing those words himself makes that claim.

Re:Freedom Hater?

[Austerity Empowers]

My understanding is that no purchases can be made unless an account password is entered

That wasn't always the case, and also a 15 minute window for "convenience" is clearly a loophole waiting to happen.

If this isn't a scam, that window needs to pop up every single time the app is hitting the user up for money. I do not give my son my password, and I've already told him I don't pay for in-app purchases ever (because individually I hate the practice), so he either needs to be able to play without, or find another game. However before all this became a big deal and the apps could hit the market without a password, there'd be lots of charges for crap that were purchased in game. Now that the awareness is out, there has to be the fear of God in app developers that they're going to lose their ill-gotten money if they don't play fair. I think the FTC has done that adequately.

If the app requires a password every time it racks up a charge (and iTunes/Play/Amazon stores do as well), then customers have no legitimate complaint about the charges. Either they gave their kids the password (idiots), or they authorized the charge. I have no sympathy for this crowd.

Entitlements vs. consumables

[tepples]

"Disable In App Purchases" should be a checkbox in the settings for the App Market and it should simply render invisible any games that incorporate In App Purchases

It would also render invisible any games that use your suggested shareware model. There are two distinct kings of IAP: "entitlements", which are purchased once and stay with the user as long as the use continues to use the platform, and "consumables", whose purchase can be repeated. Purchases of paid apps are essentially an entitlement inside the App Store app, and registering shareware is the same as buying mission packs, which are entitlements. Most of the IAP ire comes from consumables like "smurfberries". What you appear to want is a way to hide apps that use consumable IAP while keeping those that use entitlements.

Re:Entitlements vs. consumables

[Bing Tsher E]

Nope. It would enable games with a 'trail' shareware version, and a 'paid' full version. There are many games that are distributed this way in the App Store. In particular, one of the market leaders, Minecraft Pocket Edition, is distributed this way.

The 'entitlements' model for 'upgrading' are just an alternative path. With a 'block IAP' checkbox, it would cease to exist.

Re:Entitlements vs. consumables

[sjames]

They could always offer the non-shareware version separately in the App Store. That would be better anyway since it would assert control over the purchase and avoid deceptive in-app interfaces.

Entitlement based shareware style IAP

[tepples]

What would it display for "price per hour" in the case of games that ship with one episode and use a one-time in-app purchase to "register" the game and unlock the entire rest of the campaign? Historical examples include Doom, which had "Knee-Deep in the Dead" without charge and two mission packs called "Ultimate Doom" and "Doom II".

Obvious and Intuitive

[PopeRatzo]

What the fuck are these so-called "benefits" of a "15 minute open purchase window" that are so obvious and intuitive?

Forget about "the children". Who is so badly damaged as a person that they feel that it's currently just too hard to buy stuff online?

You know, I'm starting to think those kooks over at Adbusters might be on to something. We are one fucked-up society, and it looks like the marketing/industrial complex is in large part to blame.

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[gnasher719]

What the fuck are these so-called "benefits" of a "15 minute open purchase window" that are so obvious and intuitive?

Forget about "the children". Who is so badly damaged as a person that they feel that it's currently just too hard to buy stuff online?

Let's see... I want to spend £10 on some music. So I go to the iTunes Store. Find a song that I like, click on buy, and I'm asked to enter the password for my AppleId. The song downloads. I go on looking for other stuff to buy. Find another song, click on "Buy", and I have to type in my password again. Bugger. I go on looking for more songs. Click on "Buy", and again I have to type in my password. Fuck that.

Maybe it's hard to understand, but the same feature that allows _your_ bloody kids to spend _your_ hard earned money allows _me_ to happily spend _my_ hard earned money on things I like.

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn off password requirement. You can do it. The problem with 15 minutes window was that parent turned ON password and there was nothing to indicate that the kid has 15 password-less minutes.

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

So you had to enter your password 2 additional times. This takes, what, 1-3 seconds each time? Great! You saved about 5 seconds of your time! What a fucking huge benefit! /sarcasm

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[PopeRatzo]

Find another song, click on "Buy", and I have to type in my password again.

Jesus wept.

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[hibiki_r]

It takes you 3 seconds to type a secure password on a tablet? You are pretty fast. 10-12 characters, many of which require a mode change... 18 taps or so. It takes me 15 seconds to type what it'd take 2 on a real keyboard.

At the same time, I would much rather type the password every time in the tablet that my son uses than have to police the darned tablet for 15 minutes after I type my password.

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I ever plan to use in-app purchases but I would find it exceedingly annoying to type my app store password, something like: sio*()#UI@*(SDF*hjejk23589we every time I wanted to use the feature.

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[Uberbah]

Let's see... I want to spend ã10 on some music. So I go to the iTunes Store. Find a song that I like, click on buy, and I'm asked to enter the password for my AppleId.

That's what online Shopping Carts are for. Or when buying stuff on Newegg do you click the "Checkout" button for each individual item?

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[Dutch Gun]

A fifteen minute purchasing window is not something that is obvious to most people, but it's reasonable for adults and their own accounts, since it's just a convenience feature, and... well, they're adults. Hell, it can be even on by default. If you can't control your own purchases, no rules the government sets will make much of a difference as you destroy your own life.

Where these companies crossed the line is by not requiring an authorization password each and every time a purchase is made from a dependent's accounts. This seems like such a no-brainer to me that I have a hard time believing this was inadvertently overlooked. And good heavens, even if they thought this was a good idea in the store, they even extended the fifteen minute window to in-app purchases? I'm fine with the FTC bringing down the hammer on these practices, because it smells as sleazy has hell to me.

My fear, though, is that the choice of this option will be taken away from rational and responsible adults like you and me. I'm not a big fan of nannystate-ism that's run rampant. However, the balancing factor is that we need to give people reasonable protection with the advent of incredibly complex technologies that they may only have a tentative grasp on. And there's nothing nanny-state about requiring a password for each purchase a dependent makes using their parent's account. That's common-sense to me.

I don't see why this should be difficult. Disable this convenience feature for dependent's accounts, and leave it for adults.

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[Dutch Gun]

Thinking about this further, if I had a choice, I think I'd like to see separate options to allow or disallow that fifteen minute convenience window from crossing over to in-app purchases. For myself, I'm fine with trusting myself or the app store with that convenience. But it seems like giving an app blanket permission to charge my account whatever it wants for a limited time is a really, really bad idea. Call me paranoid, but I'd like tight security when it comes to what apps can take from my wallet *at all times*.

One way to deal with these permissions would be (for adult accounts) to have these options off by default. Only when the user attempts to make a purchase twice within the given window would a dialog pop up that explains this option and allows them to turn it on, after entering their password of course. It can then explain exactly what the option means and what ramifications it has. If it was simply off-by-default, it's likely many users would not even know it was available. The nice thing about this solution is that the option remains safely off until the user actually has need of it, and the company can ensure that people who would like that convenience can make use of it (and since it enables more frictionless purchases, obviously the company would prefer this option be ON).

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was simply off-by-default, it's likely many users would not even know it was available.

And here is the reason why kids rack up thousands of dollars in IAPs.

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[dkman]

this is what shopping carts were invented for. i'm not sure if itunes has those or not though.
on a website i generally have the option to logout, most in app purchases don't have a log out option so i'm stuck with that 15 minute vulnerability window.

Re:Obvious and Intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Google have now taken close to the right approach. When you purchase, it tells you there is a time window and provides a link to the settings to turn it off. Obvious and straightforward.

Twitter (disambiguation)

[tepples]

Meanwhile the park employees are all atwitter about StripedCow's 300 children.

But once management finds out about their tweets, watch them end up fired for spilling the beans, like Nicole Crowther in this BI article, in favor of people who can keep their mouth shut. Then watch management find people like twitter, who can do the job of a dozen people.

Re:Twitter (disambiguation)

[Ol Olsoc]

Meanwhile the park employees are all atwitter about StripedCow's 300 children.

But once management finds out about their tweets, watch them end up fired for spilling the beans, like Nicole Crowther in this BI article, in favor of people who can keep their mouth shut. Then watch management find people like twitter, who can do the job of a dozen people.

Consider that "atwitter" does not necessarily mean "tweeting", or whatever social that people use to destroy their lives.

My point was that StripedCow seems to think that kids telling an ice cream vendor that they are his kids, so they can buy their munchies at the park was a good idea. Then suddenly everyone becomes StripedCow's children. It's like in-app purchases gone wild.

Re:Twitter (disambiguation)

[Bing Tsher E]

I'm certain the park would issue bar-coded or electronic armbands to each child, so that the consumption could be tagged to a specific parent.

Re:Twitter (disambiguation)

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm certain the park would issue bar-coded or electronic armbands to each child, so that the consumption could be tagged to a specific parent.

And hopefully medical restrictions, like Suzy who is diabetic, who really has a craving for ice-cream, of maybe some kids with religious food bans, or Bruce with the peanut allergy who wants to commit suicide by park vendor.

There are just so many things wrong with the idea. Perhaps the parent might make a sensible judgement and be around their children.

Arcades had their place

[rsilvergun]

and often weren't bad value for the money. You got to play games on far more advanced hardware than you could afford at the time and the operators maintained a public space you could play others in.

DLC's & free to play are the same. You can do them right and wrong. I've generally heard good things about Warframe and League of Legends. On the other end of the spectrum you've got Dungeon Keeper and Candy Crush Saga. And right in the middle you've got stuff like Mechwarrior tactics.

Heck, if you want a real world example look at the stuff Games Workshop is doing recently where Expensive high value models that used to belong in specific rule expansions have been introduced into the main game to sell more of them. I expected a backlash but instead the fans were happy they could justify the purchase of a $300 model kit with the knowledge they could use it in game :P, go figure.

Re:Arcades had their place

[sjames]

DLC's & free to play are the same.

How so? They don't upgrade your phone/tablet hardware in any way and they don't provide a place to hang out with friends.

one thing i don't get

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone give their credit card info to some random app?

I've never done that, and have never had a problem with behind-the-scenes "purchases", because the apps don't have my purchasing info to begin with!

Seems like a problem with a trivial solution. "It hurts when I do this". "So... don't do that."

Re:one thing i don't get

[itsdapead]

Why would anyone give their credit card info to some random app?

They don't. "In-App purchases" are charged to your Apple Store/ Google Play/Amazon/whatever account. There are APIs to enable this.

You usually have to give your password for this to happen... but there are various gotchas such as a 15-minute window during which you don't have to re-enter your password and other design flaws e.g. asking for your password even for free apps.

So, scenario: Little Johnny asks Daddy to enter password to install free, or maybe 50c game. Daddy checks that game is, indeed $0.50 and enters password, 10 minutes later, Daddy has left the room and little Johnny is asked if he wants to buy 1000 magic berries for $10... and doesn't need a password.

Then, you've got games which mix in-app purchases with real money and an in-app imaginary currency just for good measure...

Re:one thing i don't get

[Anonymous Coward]

For situations like this, in which a kid doesn't know the parent's credit card or the password but is able to charge the parent's credit card, I can completely understand why the parent would be upset at Apple for making the "15 minute open purchase window" the default setting.

Their Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Trade works because A's and B's goods are more valuable to the other party than to the owner. The exchange actually generates wealth and both people (and their society) are richer because of it.

Fraudulent trade, i.e. an exchange that would never have happened if both parties had complete foreknowledge of the situation, has the opposite effect. It destroys wealth and makes society poorer. A business that could not make a sale while being honest is just as much a drain on society as a common thief.

"consumer benefits"

[Anonymous Coward]

What? There's zero benefits to those in-app purchases... they are just there because the devs gimped their apps so that you would be forced to buy some junk to make things faster instead of say, take 24 hours to "build" something.

wank tank

[Lehk228]

free market think tank

pretty sure you mean wank tank

How would the player move saved progress?

[tepples]

It would enable games with a 'trail' shareware version, and a 'paid' full version.

If the trial version and the full version are separate apps, then how would the player move saved progress from the trial version to the full version? Or would the player be forced to restart the campaign?

Redownloading under cap; migration of saved games

[tepples]

Cellular ISPs in the United States charge roughly $1 per MB. If the player spent 100 MB of data to download the free version, the player will have to spend another 100 MB of data to download the paid version, a few MB of data to upload the player's saved progress from the free version to the Internet, and a few MB of data to download the player's saved progress from the Internet to the paid version. IAPs save the player money on his data plan.

Re:Redownloading under cap; migration of saved gam

[sjames]

Or they could use WiFi for that like sensible people. They could even download an upgrade from the app store, a tiny app that just sets the appropriate flags and goes away.

No Brainer

[JimSadler]

Companies are probably breaking all kinds of laws when they sell things to an 11 year old without parental consent. So who needs the protection? How about dad discovering that his 16 year old has racked up $1,500 in one month on cam girls? One answer to many problems is a strong, national ID card. A simple computer check could contact the card holder anywhere at any time in such a way a wayward child would be detected right away.

Re:No Brainer

[david_thornley]

The problem is not the 15-year-old spending $1500/month on cam girls. The solution to that one is simple: don't let the 15-year-old use your credit card without supervision. Ideally, you'd keep some sort of tabs on his internet use, but teens are very adept at concealing behavior their parents would disapprove of. Moreover, a 15-year-old will know what he's doing and that he's spending money.

Moreover, a national ID card would be pretty well useless in this. The child in either case is using the parent's credentials, and adding a national ID to a credit card won't make that any more secure.

Re:Redownloading under cap; migration of saved gam

[tepples]

I thought iOS isolated apps from one another, not letting apps "set flags" in other apps. It's not like Android, which has more general forms of inter-application communication like the ContentProvider.

State Level

[Tablizer]

I suspect states will have to form their own regulations because the federal government is fucked up by infighting and extremists.

Some may feel letting states deal with it is a good thing, but it would also mean that app makers have to consider the rules of many different states.

Eye tracking

[viperidaenz]

It would make to so much easier for so many people if you could allow them to make purchases by simply looking at the buy button. It's one step past one-click!

What about debiting the listeners credit card $1.99 for the full music track if they don't click stop within 30 seconds of a preview?

It would benefit so many consumers.

Re:Eye tracking

[viperidaenz]

Wait a minute.... no it wouldn't benefit a single consumer. It would benefit the company doing the selling and nobody else.

My bad.

Dicussion?

[Anonymous Coward]

No comment.

Re:Redownloading under cap; migration of saved gam

[Belial6]

My phone shows that I have used ~1.95GB of cellular data since July 7th. You can be sure that I am not going to be paying anywhere near $1,950 for this month's phone bill. If you are paying $1 per MB, you have been conned.

It might be a extra step.

[Anonymous Coward]

But why not enable 2 factor authetication? If you purchase a amount above 5 dollars in x amount of minutes, a email is sent requesting your approval with a link. I'm really hoping your children don't have access to your email and it still allows people choices.

Because The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not screaming for the government to regulate our lives. However I do ask the government to regulate the corporations that are using their money and influence to rape and pillage this country.

These mega corporations are taking more and more from the people and giving back less and less. They are becoming a leech on society that we need to limit before they suck us dry.

I should work for Verizon

[tepples]

Egg is on my face. I meant 1 cent, not 1 dollar.

Re:Redownloading under cap; migration of saved gam

[sjames]

Read here, the section Share Data Among Apps.

Only haters hate, for the most part...

[servant]

FTC et all don't hate in-app-purchases. They hate getting hassled by parents that are upset because their kids purchase without their knowledge and get stuck paying. FTC is only concerned because they are considering it 'not fair' to the parents. My suggestion is to have a 'parental override password' to do ANY purchases, or don't put in-app-purchases in apps oriented to kids or gaming that under 17 (or 21, or 35, pick your poison) might be interested in. The easy choice is to say 'no in-app-purchases allowed'. The right answer is to have kids respect their parents and do what they are requested and not do in-app-purchases without permission. Our culture has moved to the point that isn't going to happen. Come up with a reasonable solution, get the industry AND FTC to listen, you can be a multi-billion-dollar-hero!

Re:Only haters hate, for the most part...

[T-ice]

Or another option would be to be able to disable IAP on your phone completely. Or on a per app basis. I use android and wish I could individually revoke permissions from any app. There are MANY apps I've chosen not to download because of required permissions. So many that it's become somewhat of an inconvenience. And in addition to that, after I made my last purchase in the app store (It's not very often) I deleted my CC info from my account. I try to make a point to do that. That way if I do slip up, the IAP will fail. I dislike the entire concept of having payment information stored online. I dislike the ability for an entity withdraw money from my account without my knowledge. I dislike the bank systems that do not require a mechanism for my approval for individual transactions. I feel that doing things the way normal people do them is giving these organizations more control of my assets than I have. My bank has the ability to stop transactions(like when my wife tried to use her card while traveling). When I tried to stop a transaction I didn't authorize, I was told to contact the merchant. When I'm given the options to give up control or don't play, I choose the latter.