How many iphone users even know what an in-app purchase is?
They know they put their credit card on the device. It takes a huge retard to just give out a credit card number without looking up every way it may be used.
As of 2010, way earlier than this event came to be, apple had parental controls in place to turn off In App Purchases.
Here is an article dated November 23, 2010, that displays screenshots of the In App Purchase parental controls. The article itself does not list this as being a new feature of that version so it may have been then since the launch of version 4.0.
The case that triggered this lawsuit occurred early 2011. This case did make Apple change the default behavior where the first IAP after a purchase would ask for a password even if it occurred within the default 15 minute grace period. At that point Apple also added a setting to remove the grace period entirely and always require a password, but the ability to turn off IAP had been there for a long time.
As a father and uncle, I keep all my devices very well secured with passwords and parental controlls set up to levels I agree with.
Example: I own a Nook Tablet. Picked it over the Kindle Fire knowing it had a smaller software library precisely because it comes with parental controlls to prevent kids from buying stuff, the Kindle didnt.
It's all part of the job of being a parent. Apple can be a bit more proactive, and bloat the setup process with questions like "are you a parent? then fill this parental controlls wizard now!" But to be honest... parents should be more proactive about that kind of thing.
"The plaintiff here filed suit in April 2011, shortly after the issue came to light in the press and after it had already been fixed by Apple."
If that is the case, then this is nothing more than extortion by the plaintiff. If Apple addressed the issue quickly and effectively then there is no "lawsuit" needed nor warranted, especially if it is class action.
If I read right before, the guy even had Apple revert all charges. This guy is suing just in "principle" not actual damaged to himself (other than potential distress and window of bad credit.)
No, it simply means he has no enough knowledge or information to determine the case frivolous, therefore he is giving the plaintiff a chance to prove his point in court, while also allowing the defendant to... well defend himself.
The problem is not in the garden, it's in the flower seeds that are also sold down the street:P
Again, I actually hope this case does bring some changes and don't mind if Apple is hurt in the process (they are big boys, they can take it) but fear this may fall through due to them targeting the wrong party. But right now, Valve, Google and Facebook are equally guilty because all allow free apps/games with IAP.
How did they do it wrong? By default they ask for a password. They also give the parent tools to entirely turn IAP off, or require password on every transaction.
How did Apple did it wrong (that Facebook or Valve did not?)
iOS does give the parent the ability to set up the phone/ipad/ipod to require password every single transaction without wait window. It also provides a way for you to entirely disable the ability to consume In-App Purchases, so you can rest assured the kid is not asking you for the password for anything but the initial app.
Apple is not the one "selling" the apps and then charging with IAP, the software developers are.
It also happens in Facebook, and desktop, heck.... Valve has been doing it for a while with Team Fortress 2.
So why go after Apple?
Don't take me wrong, I really hope this case goes somewhere. I hate the Free2Play model where they take advantage of ignorant kids or people with compulsive behaviors. I just feel this lawsuit is miss-directed, Zynga and it's peers are the ones that should be targeted.
I will not oppose, though, if Apple decides or is forced to remove "consumable" IAP from the app store, or force apps that require them to charge an up-front fee that removes the visibility advantage these pocket predators have by being free up-front.
I love the Greenpeace "response to the response" where they doubt the numbers Apple bring forth:
While Apple is well known for making more expensive consumer products, if Apple’s plans for the $ 1Billion investment only generates 20MW in power demand, that would be taking the “Apple premium” to a whole new level.
So first "we want them to stop cutting corners and spend money to make green energy"
Now: "darn, these fools seem to be spending too much money to save up energy, must mean they are lying!"
Curious how you got rid of the issues non-apple software cause. We have found banning MS Office, Internet Explorer and Visual Studio to not be viable, and they bring enough trouble to keep a rather large support department employed and busy all day long.
Agree. The problem with iTunes is it's one app doing the job of an entire software suite. Rename it to something more proper and distribute it as a group of apps with a centralized console, and perhaps the ability to just open up individual apps without going through the individual chunks.
I think I would like to see more than 3 total modular apps though. I would like:
- iOS App Store - iTunes Music Store - Movie & TV Shows - iBooks store - Mac App Store (for mac only)
Right now it actually is strange I need to buy mac apps from it's independent app but iOS apps from iTunes. This suit consolidation may make things better.
I may also argue to just add a Game Store that split games from other Apps. Games are the only category so specialized that it has it's own sub-category tree in iTunes right now. That should be a hint at it being in need of it's own section.
to monetize is to turn a profit. If Louis CK paid all of the salaries of all the workers (including himself), paid all appropriate fees and whatnot, and sent all of the surplus from the gross proceeds to charity, he didn't monetize. Al Perry is right in saying that he didn't monetize, because there was nobody to turn that profit over to.
Actually, my understanding from wikipediaing is that monetizing is the process of converting some property in some sort of currency. If I dont monetize, lets say, my digitally recorded music, then it's not a crime to copy it because it has no value.
If I do monetize it, then it is a crime to copy it because it's as bad as copying money.
It does not seem to be a popular definition but I think this is indeed how studios see it. They use a word that intentionally sounds luring to creators (we will monetize your stuff!! Does that not sound like you will get money?!) While internally they are telling each other what they actually mean in keywords.
The studios here are just trying to make creators think they would be missing in even more money than CK made if they don't monetize the way they did.
I can see it now: Studio exec talks to creator: Hey Bob, what you rather do... profit of your music... or monetize your music? Seriously, what sounds like would make the most money to you?
The biggest enemies of open web are the wireless carriers, but Google is too afraid of them to say anything about THOSE, instead it just joins the club and helps them further to achieve their controlled-web interests.
One of the claims in the case is that Honeywell patented things that were so obvious that they were simultaneously re-invented within Honeywell itself, by entirely separate and independent teams. These re-inventions that nearly prove the "invention" is too obvious to be patented where hidden and lied to during the patent process to make sure they would be granted.
At least that's Nest's claim. I do am curious how they got their hands on such internal Honeywell information, but if true this is indeed worse than patent trolling. For lack of a better legal term, I’d say this is fraud against the patent office.
If that's the news this article attempts to cover, then they are frigging late. When you download their CSV and sum all their 4:3 resolutions you will find that 16:9 beat it in July 2011.
This seems to be the current distribution for aspect ratios:
16:9 - 32.98% 8:5 - 24.85% 4:3 - 21.47% 5:4 - 7.36% 5:3 - 3.74% 3:4 - 2.05% ?? Portrait mode iPads using desktop browser user agents? They area ll 768x1024. 7.58% Unknown/Other(some may fit in above categories but unidentified in CSV)
Slashdot Mirror
How many iphone users even know what an in-app purchase is?
They know they put their credit card on the device. It takes a huge retard to just give out a credit card number without looking up every way it may be used.
iOS 3.0 introduced In-App Purchases. These still required a Password, but there might have been no other "Restriction".
iOS 3.1 introduced In-App Purchase Restrictions. (See pg. 146 of the user manual PDF).
Nice, was trying to hunt down at what point In-App purchase blocking came in!
As of 2010, way earlier than this event came to be, apple had parental controls in place to turn off In App Purchases.
Here is an article dated November 23, 2010, that displays screenshots of the In App Purchase parental controls. The article itself does not list this as being a new feature of that version so it may have been then since the launch of version 4.0.
The case that triggered this lawsuit occurred early 2011. This case did make Apple change the default behavior where the first IAP after a purchase would ask for a password even if it occurred within the default 15 minute grace period. At that point Apple also added a setting to remove the grace period entirely and always require a password, but the ability to turn off IAP had been there for a long time.
As a father and uncle, I keep all my devices very well secured with passwords and parental controlls set up to levels I agree with.
Example: I own a Nook Tablet. Picked it over the Kindle Fire knowing it had a smaller software library precisely because it comes with parental controlls to prevent kids from buying stuff, the Kindle didnt.
It's all part of the job of being a parent. Apple can be a bit more proactive, and bloat the setup process with questions like "are you a parent? then fill this parental controlls wizard now!" But to be honest... parents should be more proactive about that kind of thing.
"The plaintiff here filed suit in April 2011, shortly after the issue came to light in the press and after it had already been fixed by Apple."
If that is the case, then this is nothing more than extortion by the plaintiff. If Apple addressed the issue quickly and effectively then there is no "lawsuit" needed nor warranted, especially if it is class action.
If I read right before, the guy even had Apple revert all charges. This guy is suing just in "principle" not actual damaged to himself (other than potential distress and window of bad credit.)
No, it simply means he has no enough knowledge or information to determine the case frivolous, therefore he is giving the plaintiff a chance to prove his point in court, while also allowing the defendant to... well defend himself.
A lot of the money goes towards minimizing the need of energy in the first place, not just to generate the needed energy.
The problem is not in the garden, it's in the flower seeds that are also sold down the street :P
Again, I actually hope this case does bring some changes and don't mind if Apple is hurt in the process (they are big boys, they can take it) but fear this may fall through due to them targeting the wrong party. But right now, Valve, Google and Facebook are equally guilty because all allow free apps/games with IAP.
How did they do it wrong? By default they ask for a password. They also give the parent tools to entirely turn IAP off, or require password on every transaction.
How did Apple did it wrong (that Facebook or Valve did not?)
iOS does give the parent the ability to set up the phone/ipad/ipod to require password every single transaction without wait window. It also provides a way for you to entirely disable the ability to consume In-App Purchases, so you can rest assured the kid is not asking you for the password for anything but the initial app.
Apple is not the one "selling" the apps and then charging with IAP, the software developers are.
It also happens in Facebook, and desktop, heck.... Valve has been doing it for a while with Team Fortress 2.
So why go after Apple?
Don't take me wrong, I really hope this case goes somewhere. I hate the Free2Play model where they take advantage of ignorant kids or people with compulsive behaviors. I just feel this lawsuit is miss-directed, Zynga and it's peers are the ones that should be targeted.
I will not oppose, though, if Apple decides or is forced to remove "consumable" IAP from the app store, or force apps that require them to charge an up-front fee that removes the visibility advantage these pocket predators have by being free up-front.
I love the Greenpeace "response to the response" where they doubt the numbers Apple bring forth:
While Apple is well known for making more expensive consumer products, if Apple’s plans for the $ 1Billion investment only generates 20MW in power demand, that would be taking the “Apple premium” to a whole new level.
So first "we want them to stop cutting corners and spend money to make green energy"
Now: "darn, these fools seem to be spending too much money to save up energy, must mean they are lying!"
Then you would be forced to use safari, something that would be a bit monopolistic.
Secondary issue (or primary if you already use safari as your main browser) is that now Safari would be bloated.
The Mac App Store I think shows that we can have a simple and speedy app with a comprehensive UI if it's just handling one type of product.
As for Steam... all they need to do is change to WebKit, not integrate with a browser. I agree their current implementation tends to make my pc cry.
Not as special as the ones that get problems handling a frigging MP3 player!
Looks like someone's feelings got hurt.
Obviously yours, so bad you hide your name. ;)
Curious how you got rid of the issues non-apple software cause. We have found banning MS Office, Internet Explorer and Visual Studio to not be viable, and they bring enough trouble to keep a rather large support department employed and busy all day long.
Agree. The problem with iTunes is it's one app doing the job of an entire software suite. Rename it to something more proper and distribute it as a group of apps with a centralized console, and perhaps the ability to just open up individual apps without going through the individual chunks.
I think I would like to see more than 3 total modular apps though. I would like:
- iOS App Store
- iTunes Music Store
- Movie & TV Shows
- iBooks store
- Mac App Store (for mac only)
Right now it actually is strange I need to buy mac apps from it's independent app but iOS apps from iTunes. This suit consolidation may make things better.
I may also argue to just add a Game Store that split games from other Apps. Games are the only category so specialized that it has it's own sub-category tree in iTunes right now. That should be a hint at it being in need of it's own section.
Computer evolution is a liberal myth! It's time intelligent computer design theories be properly covered in our educative system!
So, it all started with a forbidden apple...
The carriers make a lot of money off those, obviously they won’t ban the premium rate sms themselves.
Google will never do anything to anger or disturb the carrier's revenue stream, so they will never ban all premium-rate SMS on Android.
to monetize is to turn a profit. If Louis CK paid all of the salaries of all the workers (including himself), paid all appropriate fees and whatnot, and sent all of the surplus from the gross proceeds to charity, he didn't monetize. Al Perry is right in saying that he didn't monetize, because there was nobody to turn that profit over to.
Actually, my understanding from wikipediaing is that monetizing is the process of converting some property in some sort of currency. If I dont monetize, lets say, my digitally recorded music, then it's not a crime to copy it because it has no value.
If I do monetize it, then it is a crime to copy it because it's as bad as copying money.
It does not seem to be a popular definition but I think this is indeed how studios see it. They use a word that intentionally sounds luring to creators (we will monetize your stuff!! Does that not sound like you will get money?!) While internally they are telling each other what they actually mean in keywords.
The studios here are just trying to make creators think they would be missing in even more money than CK made if they don't monetize the way they did.
I can see it now: Studio exec talks to creator:
Hey Bob, what you rather do... profit of your music... or monetize your music? Seriously, what sounds like would make the most money to you?
Apple has done notyhing to close the web. They offer an app market, and yes, it's closed, but what does that have to do with the open web?
You know who is closing the web? Every net-neutrality free wireless carrier. Thanks to google.
A company so desperate to take over everything, that they back up Verizon on destroying wireless net neutrality.
The biggest enemies of open web are the wireless carriers, but Google is too afraid of them to say anything about THOSE, instead it just joins the club and helps them further to achieve their controlled-web interests.
One of the claims in the case is that Honeywell patented things that were so obvious that they were simultaneously re-invented within Honeywell itself, by entirely separate and independent teams. These re-inventions that nearly prove the "invention" is too obvious to be patented where hidden and lied to during the patent process to make sure they would be granted.
At least that's Nest's claim. I do am curious how they got their hands on such internal Honeywell information, but if true this is indeed worse than patent trolling. For lack of a better legal term, I’d say this is fraud against the patent office.
That is why it's worse than a patent troll: because it's used to do what patents are supposed to do: co#(block fair competition.
If that's the news this article attempts to cover, then they are frigging late. When you download their CSV and sum all their 4:3 resolutions you will find that 16:9 beat it in July 2011.
This seems to be the current distribution for aspect ratios:
16:9 - 32.98%
8:5 - 24.85%
4:3 - 21.47%
5:4 - 7.36%
5:3 - 3.74%
3:4 - 2.05% ?? Portrait mode iPads using desktop browser user agents? They area ll 768x1024.
7.58% Unknown/Other(some may fit in above categories but unidentified in CSV)