Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Karma*Police

macrumors 68030
Jul 15, 2012
2,505
2,830
Do you not think it is silly that if I download a game for my child I have to wait 15 minutes before they can play it for fear they will buy in-game perks?

The solution is to add profiles! Android has this on the nexus tablets....I just choose what they can and cannot have access too. Why profiles do not exist on apple tablets...

I download a game on the nexus tablet on my profile and then on the "childs" profile I enable that game. They have zero access to the play store or anything where they can accidentally make purchases.

Profiles/user accounts on iOS is just a matter of time. Apple has patents on how multiple users can access iPads using face recognition and the like which I believe predates even the first Android tablet.

As always, Apple is probably looking to put its own spin on how it's done. My guess is they'll use Touch ID to enable user account switching. It just seems like a very quick and easy way to do it... no menus or passwords required.
 

mattopotamus

macrumors G5
Jun 12, 2012
14,666
5,879
Profiles/user accounts on iOS is just a matter of time. Apple has patents on how multiple users can access iPads using face recognition and the like which I believe predates even the first Android tablet.

As always, Apple is probably looking to put its own spin on how it's done. My guess is they'll use Touch ID to enable user account switching. It just seems like a very quick and easy way to do it... no menus or passwords required.

I know it is just a matter of time, but it is shocking they haven't added it since they really started the tablet craze. They have to know parents are mostly letting their children use their tablets/iphones versus buying a 6 year old their own ipad.

I tried to give my GF's child my old ipad and quickly realized it is useless b.c I constantly have to enable and disable the restrictions.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
My guess is they'll use Touch ID to enable user account switching. It just seems like a very quick and easy way to do it... no menus or passwords required.

My guess is if that is how they do it (the sole way) - it won't happen for about 3-4 years. Because they would have to wait for legacy devices to be a minority.

Too many non-touch ID devices out there.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
So are they going after Google now too??? They should shouldn't they? I would think Android apps are guilty of the same thing.

Something seems so wrong with this whole thing. Apple really seemed to do the right thing and is still being punished (again).

Perhaps not on this issue (someone has to bring it the FTC's attention) but the FTC has sued Google over a number of issues.

----------

Wal-Mart discounts from retail, but does not sell below cost. Cost after considering retail margin and subsidies is about -40%. Just like most retail products in this world.

Selling below cost isn't illegal anyway.
 

B4U

macrumors 68040
Oct 11, 2012
3,558
3,975
Undisclosed location
Freemium games that charge you $100 for something that will benefit you for a few minutes or hours are evil. Those are the things to get rid of. Personally, I despise the freemium model. It's designed to get customers to spend more on a game than they would have been willing to spend on an outright purchase. I'm not a big fan of the subscription model either (yes, I know, that's a whole other discussion), but I think that the freemium model is FAR worse.

IAP, IMO, are not a bad thing. As an example of a good implementation of them, there is an app that I work with that has several modules that offer expanded functionality. By breaking up the functionality, they allow me the flexibility to only buy what I need. It works quite well. Also, IAP can be used in games to enable free trial and pay to enable the full game (as a 1 time purchase). I've seen a number of games follow this approach, rather than having separate free versions that are limited, and I think it works better and makes it more likely that a customer buys the full game.

As for the whole parental question, my son succeeded in using an IAP in a game on my iPad. I was right there. He found a game that he wanted, so I downloaded it. We launched it, and there was something that he wanted (it was the option to fly a particular plane), so he clicked on it, a little dialog popped up, and he touched the OK button, all in a moment when I was answering a question my wife had asked me. BAM! A $10 purchase. Wrote to Apple and they refunded the purchase, but it drove home how quick and easy it was for my son, who occasionally plays on my iPad or my wife's iPad, to make a purchase if we've recently had a reason to enter the password.

The steps we took to deal with this were straightforward. At first, I tried setting the option to always ask for a password. This became an issue primarily because this meant that the password was required for every update, in addition to new downloads and IAPs. So, that was switched back. The final solution was to turn off IAP, in the premise that, if my wife or I want to make an IAP, we know how to turn it back on so we can do it. This has worked quite well. There have been a couple of instances where my son has accidentally (or intentionally) hit a button that would have lead to an IAP, but it was quite promptly blocked.

I appreciated the fact that Apple refunded that one mistaken purchase. But, having seen the potential issue, any future failures are on me. Knowing that my son is capable of doing this, it's up to me to make sure that there are reasonable safeguards against it. Eventually, those safeguards will include him having his own iPad with the setting to always ask for the password enabled.

To pu it another way, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

You sir, have my great respect as a responsible parent. We need more parents that will act like you.
 

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,741
153
Parents should be more involved with their kids and know what they are giving them access to on devices.

Perhaps but I know someone who was affected by this and though the kid played a game sitting right next to him, he didn't realize when she said she wanted to upgrade her player with coins that it meant buy coins (in-app purchase) then upgrade.

So while it is easy to say parents need to do this and that from the comfort of your desk chair, it is not always the case where parents failed.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
so I guess parents now have no responsibility when it comes to what their kids do... Apple is the new baby sitter...:mad:

Who is saying that?

I've maintained for the last year or so when this came to light that Apple's "default" setting is mostly to blame.

So Apple isn't the new baby sitter - but they should definitely be liable much like the parents you're pointing a finger at.

Unlike you, there are many people who use smart phones who don't know every setting or where to find them. That doesn't make them stupid. It makes them ignorant. And that's not ignorant in the derogatory way.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
7,005
3,343
I guess the FTC where running low on funds.

Apple doesn't seem to be paying the FTC anything. If they are it's not mentioned in the article.

Why? This is the parents responsibility. How many more flags will Apple be forced to place before the experience of using the Apps becomes frustrating. What about the competitors in-app store? Where is the FTC for those companies? Hello???

You may consider that not all parents even understand the technology. They are asked to confirm the first. Subsequent purchases are not confirmed within 15 minutes. How is it overreaching to require explicit notification of this? The argument here seems to be that the risk was not explicitly communicated. They could have just made the default to require confirmation each time. I suspect this was supposed to be a convenience for online purchasers, but it did not have to be the default mechanic across all apps.
 

unplugme71

macrumors 68030
May 20, 2011
2,827
754
Earth
Freemium games that charge you $100 for something that will benefit you for a few minutes or hours are evil. Those are the things to get rid of. Personally, I despise the freemium model. It's designed to get customers to spend more on a game than they would have been willing to spend on an outright purchase. I'm not a big fan of the subscription model either (yes, I know, that's a whole other discussion), but I think that the freemium model is FAR worse.

IAP, IMO, are not a bad thing. As an example of a good implementation of them, there is an app that I work with that has several modules that offer expanded functionality. By breaking up the functionality, they allow me the flexibility to only buy what I need. It works quite well. Also, IAP can be used in games to enable free trial and pay to enable the full game (as a 1 time purchase). I've seen a number of games follow this approach, rather than having separate free versions that are limited, and I think it works better and makes it more likely that a customer buys the full game.

As for the whole parental question, my son succeeded in using an IAP in a game on my iPad. I was right there. He found a game that he wanted, so I downloaded it. We launched it, and there was something that he wanted (it was the option to fly a particular plane), so he clicked on it, a little dialog popped up, and he touched the OK button, all in a moment when I was answering a question my wife had asked me. BAM! A $10 purchase. Wrote to Apple and they refunded the purchase, but it drove home how quick and easy it was for my son, who occasionally plays on my iPad or my wife's iPad, to make a purchase if we've recently had a reason to enter the password.

The steps we took to deal with this were straightforward. At first, I tried setting the option to always ask for a password. This became an issue primarily because this meant that the password was required for every update, in addition to new downloads and IAPs. So, that was switched back. The final solution was to turn off IAP, in the premise that, if my wife or I want to make an IAP, we know how to turn it back on so we can do it. This has worked quite well. There have been a couple of instances where my son has accidentally (or intentionally) hit a button that would have lead to an IAP, but it was quite promptly blocked.

I appreciated the fact that Apple refunded that one mistaken purchase. But, having seen the potential issue, any future failures are on me. Knowing that my son is capable of doing this, it's up to me to make sure that there are reasonable safeguards against it. Eventually, those safeguards will include him having his own iPad with the setting to always ask for the password enabled.

To pu it another way, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

There are iOS games out there that can easily total $1000 or more just to play if you want all the little add-on stuff. It's completely insane. Most iOS games keep me entertained for a few minutes at best and the very few that can keep me longer I end up deleting in a week anyway.

I'm sure the devs could make more money by unlocking a few dollars for the entire game vs charging so much per item. Even Xbox and PSx are getting bad - I spent $79 on Forza Limited Ed and they want another $49 to unlock more cars. Seriously? No game is worth that much more just to unlock cars.

No wonder PC games are starting to pick back up in sales..
 

Bare

macrumors regular
Jun 17, 2008
182
6
Area codes can span entire states. Back when I was a kid, calling family an hour drive south, was 'long distance'.
I suppose so, but I'm talking about a city that currently has four area codes that are all exclusively associated only with that city. At the time, our city had at least two area codes, and again, I was calling the area code that was the same as our own area code. I think, given that this was probably before I had hit my teens, it's understandable that I would make such a mistake.
 

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
870
1,115
Thanks for quoting my entire post. Reply back being more clear, please.

My bad.

There's a reason why Apple "settled" for $32million folks...and that letter does not describe the real reason....which is likely that Apple violated a bunch of laws, were going to easily be found guilty, and hence be penalized boatloads of fines worth far more than $32mill and obviously far more than $370k.

Bold, and particularly the underlined.
 

vampyr

macrumors regular
Aug 29, 2008
204
38
Good for the FTC.

How Apple even allowed this to happen is beyond me. Last I read, it was illegal to have a gambling game that uses real money on the App Store... and ALOT of these game apps are nothing more than games wiht a type of hidden 'slot machine' that want you to buy something else to increase your odds of winning the game.
 
Last edited:

wmkim

macrumors member
Nov 22, 2010
34
3
Atlanta, GA
Parenting Fail

So the government is decreeing that being an idiot parent is not the parents' fault... wow.

Age of my child when getting the first iPhone (6 years later...on her 3rd upgrade)... 10.
Number of apps/purchases made without approval in all that time.... 0.

Setting boundaries on your kids...it's not rocket science...
 

Menel

Suspended
Aug 4, 2011
6,351
1,356
I suppose so, but I'm talking about a city that currently has four area codes that are all exclusively associated only with that city. At the time, our city had at least two area codes, and again, I was calling the area code that was the same as our own area code. I think, given that this was probably before I had hit my teens, it's understandable that I would make such a mistake.

Certainly, not blaming you. Telecom industry does all kinds of ****ed up confusing ****.

I remember having to ask mom and dad, which cousins, or grandparents I could call or not free. Many same area code, some long distance, some not.
 

V.K.

macrumors 6502a
Dec 5, 2007
716
466
Toronto, Canada
Freemium games that charge you $100 for something that will benefit you for a few minutes or hours are evil. Those are the things to get rid of. Personally, I despise the freemium model. It's designed to get customers to spend more on a game than they would have been willing to spend on an outright purchase. I'm not a big fan of the subscription model either (yes, I know, that's a whole other discussion), but I think that the freemium model is FAR worse.

IAP, IMO, are not a bad thing.
I'm confused by your terminology. what is the difference between freemium and in-app-purchases? they are exactly the same thing so far as I understand.
As an example of a good implementation of them, there is an app that I work with that has several modules that offer expanded functionality. By breaking up the functionality, they allow me the flexibility to only buy what I need. It works quite well. Also, IAP can be used in games to enable free trial and pay to enable the full game (as a 1 time purchase). I've seen a number of games follow this approach, rather than having separate free versions that are limited, and I think it works better and makes it more likely that a customer buys the full game.

As for the whole parental question, my son succeeded in using an IAP in a game on my iPad. I was right there. He found a game that he wanted, so I downloaded it. We launched it, and there was something that he wanted (it was the option to fly a particular plane), so he clicked on it, a little dialog popped up, and he touched the OK button, all in a moment when I was answering a question my wife had asked me. BAM! A $10 purchase. Wrote to Apple and they refunded the purchase, but it drove home how quick and easy it was for my son, who occasionally plays on my iPad or my wife's iPad, to make a purchase if we've recently had a reason to enter the password.

The steps we took to deal with this were straightforward. At first, I tried setting the option to always ask for a password. This became an issue primarily because this meant that the password was required for every update, in addition to new downloads and IAPs. So, that was switched back. The final solution was to turn off IAP, in the premise that, if my wife or I want to make an IAP, we know how to turn it back on so we can do it. This has worked quite well. There have been a couple of instances where my son has accidentally (or intentionally) hit a button that would have lead to an IAP, but it was quite promptly blocked.

I appreciated the fact that Apple refunded that one mistaken purchase. But, having seen the potential issue, any future failures are on me. Knowing that my son is capable of doing this, it's up to me to make sure that there are reasonable safeguards against it. Eventually, those safeguards will include him having his own iPad with the setting to always ask for the password enabled.

To pu it another way, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I agree with this sentiment. the knee-jerk reactions by many others in this thread blaming parents in such situations are just silly. having to wait for 15 minutes before handing an ipad to your kid every time you enter your password is not exactly convenient. The best way to handle this going forward IMO is to get rid of the 15 minutes window altogether, include touch ID on future ipads and use it to authorize in-app-purchases.
 

tongxinshe

macrumors 65816
Feb 24, 2008
1,064
651
Umm, what improvements and additional steps were implemented? AFAIK the 15-minute thing still exists and is ON by default (yes there is a setting for this that was added to iOS at one point, but the default is still WRONG) ....

The default is not intended for ill-behaviral kids, since they are definitely not the majority of the customers. If you know your kid is not a well-behaved one, you should know to turn on parents guide before giving the device to him/her. My kids only do things after they learnt from trustable sources that those are safe things to do.

It's the parents job to train the kids well before they reach the trouble-making age!
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Setting boundaries on your kids...it's not rocket science...

Kinda hard to set boundaries when you don't know you even need to until its too late.

When the worst of this was happening, not every parent in the country knew or had even heard of in app purchases. They just bought an innocent looking game off the app store, handed the iPad to their kid, and thought nothing more of it. At least not until they saw their credit card bill, and saw that little Timmy had racked up $400 on buying coins for that innocent looking game they bought for him.

I can understand the necessity of due diligence, but no one is capable of being able to account for EVERY SINGLE THING that could possibly go wrong in every and all situations. Apple's setup, while convenient, did make it a little too easy for things like this to happen. And some developers willingness to exploit IAPs all but guaranteed it'd happen sooner or later.

It's the parents job to train the kids well before they reach the trouble-making age!

Because if you do a good enough job, YOUR KIDS WILL LITERALLY BEHAVE 100% OF THE TIME! IT'S SCIENTIFIC FACT, YO!
 
Last edited:

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
The default is not intended for ill-behaviral kids, since they are definitely not the majority of the customers. If you know your kid is not a well-behaved one, you should know to turn on parents guide before giving the device to him/her. My kids only do things after they learnt from trustable sources that those are safe things to do.

It's the parents job to train the kids well before they reach the trouble-making age!

Absolutely ridiculous assertion. Trouble-making kids? Ill-behaviral [sic]
 

tongxinshe

macrumors 65816
Feb 24, 2008
1,064
651
Freemium games that charge you $100 for something that will benefit you for a few minutes or hours are evil. Those are the things to get rid of. Personally, I despise the freemium model. It's designed to get customers to spend more on a game than they would have been willing to spend on an outright purchase.

Hey, how about getting rid of all of the luxury brands at all, e.g. Giorgio Armani, Swarovski, Burberry, Louis Vuitton, etc.

Come on, there are people don't give a blink about spending hundreds or even thousands, but at the same time can be easily irritated by the slightest hassle. There are also people don't mind at all walking dozens of miles just to save several dollars.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.