Italian Regulators Investigating Apple and Others Over 'Freemium' App Pricing Model

Arndroid · May 18, 2014

This is not still a legitimate concern.

Also the game industry on all platforms is expanding this model rapidly so it is becoming pretty standard.

I understand when things first changed but that is no longer the case and I know apple identifies games pretty clearly that have in app purchases.

The thing is there are no damages. If I download a game and play it for a while then find I could pay to play more, I have not lost anything.

It is one thing when kids unknowingly run up bills, it is another to complain something that is free might eventually ASK for money.

Arndroid · May 18, 2014

inscrewtable said:
I do not make use of any apps that require continuous payment however as part of my work I have made myself aware if their existence and while I understand that this is what some people freely choose to do, to me it is a blight that taints the app industry with a greed that targets the weakness and lack of knowledge of younger persons. Not unlike the porno industry free websites.

I understand that Apple is now owned by investors and has sold its soul and its sole voice of reason SJ is brown bread. So nothing is going to change but it must be said that the path Apple has embarked upon with an ever growing portfolio of gadgets, consumer nick nacks, and other purely moneymaking ventures with zero redeeming value to humanity is going to gradually tarnish the truely marvelous improvements to the quality of life thus far attained.

Tim Cook really does need to take stock of Apple and ask himself the question in his heart of hearts "what direction would Steve wish to steer the company". Of course this will not and probably cannot happen.

This is the future of the entire game industry and the future is pretty much now.

Compared to a model where people pay $50 for crappy games they can not return this new model is actually better for the discerning customers. They can choose when and where to spend money in a game. The smart companies have already moved past the pay to win model and the result is a model better for consumers and game makers.

Your diatribe seems to be born out of total ignorance. The only thing slowing this down is the new console's continued reliance on mostly physical media. On pc's and mobile devices where games can inexpensively be distributed for free it is the market going forward.

I used to have issues with it but most of those have been worked out. Your argument is like if cable channels finally were available ala carte and you arguing that bundling them for a large monthly fee is awesome instead of consumers being able to choose what they pay for.

The best part is game developers find different players find different aspects of a game more important. Thus you have different groups of people focused on different revenue areas of the game. It also leads to continued development in order to generate more revenue.

petsounds · May 18, 2014

Klae17 said:
3. Steve started the portfolio of gadgets, consumer nick nacks, and other purely moneymaking ventures with zero redeeming value to humanity.

4. Tim has done a lot for humanity and charity while Steve refused to.

3. To be fair, when allowing 3rd-party apps on iOS was first discussed internally, Steve only agreed on the basis that Apple would curate what would be on the store. Why this later changed is unknown; perhaps the desire to compete with Android.

4. Tim has done a lot more publicly, and though you're probably correct, we don't know how much Steve did anonymously during his life.

rmatthewware · May 18, 2014

Xenc said:
Like a lot of what the EU does with new technologies, the Italian government is attempting to make pricing clearer and ultimately protect us, the consumer. That can only be good in the long run!

In-App purchase prices are pretty clear. In the App Store you can scroll down to see all the in-app options with prices. I think the issue was it wasn't easy enough to keep kids from buying stuff. Now you can put in a restriction that requires a password every time you try to buy something.

Italy is just trying to grab some more money. Their finances are pretty rough right now.

dampfnudel · May 18, 2014

Some ideas for dealing with IAP

Apps with in-app purchases should be moved away from the free category and placed into its own separate category, maybe called 'Freemium'. Anytime you enter this category, a message should pop up warning you that these apps have in-app purchases and IAP may be necessary to get the full experience. Proceed with caution. Truly free apps with no IAP would remain in the 'Free' category. Allow the option to hide the new 'Freemium' category. Allow timed buyer's remorse (maybe an hour) so if I pay $50 for a 'box of diamonds' and feel like a sucker right after, I can get my money back, only losing any progress made thanks to the IAP.

furi0usbee · May 18, 2014

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, please kill IAP. I don't even look at apps with IAP, thanks Apple for adding that little line below the price. There are so many games I won't play anymore, PVZ being one, because they went to this stupid model. Let's hope they kill it here in the states.

maflynn · May 18, 2014

[MOD NOTE]
~~Closed for moderator review.~~

The thread is reopened. Enough with the US vs. EU discussion. Its not about what the US produces vs, the EU. Stay on topic and discuss Italy's investigation of the 'Freemium' App Pricing Model

inscrewtable · May 18, 2014

aristobrat said:
There are quite a few articles that make mention of Steve absolutely not wanting Tim and the rest of the company to ever think "what would Steve do".

Yes, I know that and I agree with the sentiment. But I'm not referring to decisions about particular directions on products or services, I am referring to the much more encompassing overall philosophical standpoint that is the bedrock of what Apple wants to be.

djgamble · May 18, 2014

Sanchez25 said:
Yeah there's quite some games that work this way. You have to kill a zombie. In order to kill that Zombie, you must use a special weapon, because otherwise you won't be able to beat it. To get the weapon, you need 5000 coins. To get 5000 coins you've gotta pay 1,49 or play 9947462920184 matches.
But to be honest, it makes the longevity of the game longer

I'm not really a game player, but I do have some games for here and there in between work sometimes. I had this one called Ski Safari. Very cool game, but it made me an addict at some point. Sadly I bought everything I could at some point, which ruined the game for me. The thing that sucked: I deleted the game after that (because I no longer played it), without knowing I would also loose everything I had won and bought before when I would reinstall it on the iPhone the next time I guess this was a lesson for me haha!

They are not and they are right not to be; Apple does so many things that are wrong on so many levels.

Or (like with me and Tapped Out) you get jack of it, jailbreak, cheat, build a massive city and get bored of it very quickly.

GregAndonian · May 18, 2014

inscrewtable said:
Tim Cook really does need to take stock of Apple and ask himself the question in his heart of hearts "what direction would Steve wish to steer the company".

Steve wouldn't want him to do that. At least not too often. I remember reading somewhere about how Steve recalled the atmosphere at Disney after Walt Disney passed away and said that everyone was always asking what Walt would have done, and they were hesitant to do anything that they didn't think he would have approved of. Steve didn't want the same thing to happen at Apple- so when Tim became CEO Steve gave him this advice:

"Never ask what I would do. Just do what's right."

bpcookson · May 19, 2014

I think the freemium model is fantastic. If they want to sue anyone, they should sue the developers who abuse the model.

Silly John Fatty · May 19, 2014

djgamble said:
Or (like with me and Tapped Out) you get jack of it, jailbreak, cheat, build a massive city and get bored of it very quickly.

Actually on Mac I had a small game for in between where you had to build some sort of city as well (some sort of Sim City rip off). At some point I was wondering if I could cheat, so I tried a method. Suddenly I had unlimited money and skipped all levels. Haven't touched it anymore after that and deleted it a week after I did this. Too bad because it ruined it for me.

Gasu E. · May 19, 2014

fredaroony said:
When Apple keep ignoring the laws of other countries it tends to piss them off...

In this particular case, the countries are making up the law as they go... their existing law did not anticipate all the changes brought by new technology.

----------

mojolicious said:
I suspect that the WSJ article was simply naming the big players in the (generic) app store market, and the Italians intend to investigate the model as a whole rather than declaring that they're going after company X, Y and Z.

Almost certainly true; this is a good counterpoint perspective to those "Apple broke our laws" robots.

babadook · May 19, 2014

If a USER signs into the app store and downloads an app that says FREE, the USER receives the app on his phone at no cost to the USER. So, yes the app was FREE! Now if that USER then decides he doesn't want the banners or they want to unlock new weapons in game and if selected and confirmed mind you, he will then be charged for the said upgrade. So, again the app is FREE unless there is an in-game purchase at which point the USER will be charged. Its not rocket science.

bpcookson · May 19, 2014

babadook said:
If a USER signs into the app store and downloads an app that says FREE, the USER receives the app on his phone at no cost to the USER. So, yes the app was FREE! Now if that USER then decides he doesn't want the banners or they want to unlock new weapons in game and if selected and confirmed mind you, he will then be charged for the said upgrade. So, again the app is FREE unless there is an in-game purchase at which point the USER will be charged. Its not rocket science.

Agreed. However, many officials fear that it may indeed be rocket surgery, in which case their admitted confusion provides plausible concern for amending their embarrassment.

bsolar · May 20, 2014

Gasu E. said:
In this particular case, the countries are making up the law as they go... their existing law did not anticipate all the changes brought by new technology.

The investigation is for "unfair commercial practices". I think the European directive is from 2005, but Italy most likely has local laws and regulations which predate that. Basically they are not making up new laws as they go, they are testing new commercial practices to figure out if they comply with the existing law or not.

Ironduke · May 20, 2014

robbyx said:
IKEA is the only real innovator on that list. Otherwise, hmmm, big dirty oil companies and one of the worst big food companies on the planet. I guess VW makes pretty good cars.

apples designs are by an englishman who everyone recons he copied another europeans style lol and vw cars are better then any of you're 4 wheeled bombs

dazed · May 20, 2014

First thing I do when deciding to buy a game is look to see if it has In App Purchases and then if so, what type. If it's buying coins,gems,tickets etc I simply move on.

Apple do make it relatively easy to find out.

What we need to do as consumers is stop download this crap. Only then will games like dungeon keeper, FarmVille etc go away.

Maxipeg · May 22, 2014

Stupido

Italy, like many other countries is in desperate need for $$$. So like the US makes Swiss Banks pay ridiculously high fines, which most likely exceed any loss by tax evasion, Italy sues Apple and other companies because of stupid users. Free is free and if you pay then you know, if you claim that you didn't you either lie or you are really nuts. If you let your kids play with your I device that is linked to your credit card then god help you...

Maxipeg · May 22, 2014

dampfnudel said:
Apps with in-app purchases should be moved away from the free category and placed into its own separate category, maybe called 'Freemium'. Anytime you enter this category, a message should pop up warning you that these apps have in-app purchases and IAP may be necessary to get the full experience. Proceed with caution. Truly free apps with no IAP would remain in the 'Free' category. Allow the option to hide the new 'Freemium' category. Allow timed buyer's remorse (maybe an hour) so if I pay $50 for a 'box of diamonds' and feel like a sucker right after, I can get my money back, only losing any progress made thanks to the IAP.

If you did listen (read) more and talk (write) less you would see that IAP are being declared. I think it's not so bad. You test the app with limited functionality and if you like it then you pay. Still better than paid apps that turn out to be junk.

Klae17 · May 22, 2014

petsounds said:
3. To be fair, when allowing 3rd-party apps on iOS was first discussed internally, Steve only agreed on the basis that Apple would curate what would be on the store. Why this later changed is unknown; perhaps the desire to compete with Android.

4. Tim has done a lot more publicly, and though you're probably correct, we don't know how much Steve did anonymously during his life.

4. a. We also do not know what Tim has done anonymously. Steve was not a charitable person. Period.

dampfnudel · May 22, 2014

Maxipeg said:
If you did listen (read) more and talk (write) less you would see that IAP are being declared. I think it's not so bad. You test the app with limited functionality and if you like it then you pay. Still better than paid apps that turn out to be junk.

There's a good reason why the practice is being scrutinized. A little more regulation by Apple could prevent some people from turning into IAPholics. As for paid apps that turn out to be junk, I usually relied on reviews to avoid them so I don't think that's a valid argument.

djgamble · May 23, 2014

babadook said:
If a USER signs into the app store and downloads an app that says FREE, the USER receives the app on his phone at no cost to the USER. So, yes the app was FREE! Now if that USER then decides he doesn't want the banners or they want to unlock new weapons in game and if selected and confirmed mind you, he will then be charged for the said upgrade. So, again the app is FREE unless there is an in-game purchase at which point the USER will be charged. Its not rocket science.

Yeah and I think consumers are well aware of freemium tactics. Boggles me that there are still complaints.

Joe HS · May 24, 2014

The only In-App purchases I think Apple should permit should be one time purchases. I.E. To unlock an ability in a game, to remove advertisements throughout an app, or to purchase a functionality/level expansion (perhaps released at a date after the app was released).
The "buy x coins for £4.99" trend has got to stop.

fredaroony · May 24, 2014

Gasu E. said:
In this particular case, the countries are making up the law as they go... their existing law did not anticipate all the changes brought by new technology.

Proof?

Italian Regulators Investigating Apple and Others Over 'Freemium' App Pricing Model

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502

macrumors 601

macrumors 68000

macrumors Haswell

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68000

macrumors 603

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68000

Suspended

macrumors 6502a

macrumors member

macrumors member

macrumors 65816

macrumors 601

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

Our Staff