Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases New App Store Review Guidelines with Updated Rules for Kids Apps, Gambling Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My guess is that someone got caught laundering money thru a "gambling" app which makes Apple legally liable since it went through them. Makes me wonder about all those smurfberries.
Disagree totally.
So if Apple had a shop that sold hand guns and they sold a gun to an 8 year old, but their defence was "Well he ticked the box on our electronic sales register than he was 18 (or whatever age you can buy guns legally" then you feel they should be ok using that as a defence?
Or perhaps they should rather demand to see submitted some official proof of age, and not just allow anyone to tick a box and think that clears them of any responsibility.
I wonder if my app, which requires users to bash their phones into their faces, will be rejected? C'mon, Apple!
I think this is to make sure apps like this don't show up on iOS
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.carrotpop.www.smth&hl=en
For those who don't want to click the link, it's an android app called "Send Me to Heaven," where the object is to throw your phone as high as you can. It uses the accelerometer to determine how high the phone goes.
I love the disclaimer they have:
"SAFETY FIRST: Be careful not to injure yourself or others. Be always aware that there is enough space above you and around you.
WARNING: Throwing a smartphone high into the air may result in both damage to the smartphone, property and/or personal injury. Author and distributor of S.M.T.H. is not liable for any damages or injuries arising out of playing the S.M.T.H. game."
Oh please. Then have some tinfoil hat wearing nut jobs claim Apple is invading their privacy? Thank god apple hires people with experience instead of overreactive macrumors readers. Smh
Hey Apple, why not do this?
Destroy FREEMIUM.
I mean true, I get tired of hearing about some parent shocked when they get a $30,000 credit card build because their 2 year old was pounding on an iPad for the past month buying Smurfberries. If a parent hands a device to a child without protecting in-game purchases with a password I don't believe they should be entitled to getting a refund and learn a hard lesson.
But the problem with freemium in general is they make for a really crappy game.
Was playing Jurassic Park Builder for a bit, and I mean every aspect of this game wants to drive you to buy in-game money to move the game along faster. Buildings take 24 real world hours to build, or spend 75 in-game bucks? Dinosaurs cost 200+ in-game bucks which translate to $40+ real world bucks! The problem is that you only get 1 - 2 in-game bucks for free when you complete missions, meaning you can never do anything in the game just by completing missions. You can get free in-game bucks, but you have to download countless other crappy freemium games to clutter your home screen. And on top of it all the game crashes 15 times a minute.
When a game was designed around in-game purchases then it ceases to be a game and turns into an interactive Ad tied directly to your credit card.
But in general Apple needs to do more to protect children from the instant kind of gratification that occurs when they start needing to buy in-game content. It sets a bad message to children that they just need to throw money at something to make it nicer or to get it faster, not a good life lesson to be promoting to the young. We already have a culture of people that are in massive debt, but imagine now children raised on the idea of overspending and the kind of instant gratification that spending money has. If you thought 2008 was a rough year for the economy, you haven't seen anything yet.
I think Apple should end the Freemium model on their platform. I know it might drive away a large segment of content but in the end if they actually care about kids and the quality of content on their platform, continuing to allow the Freemium model is an affront to those efforts.
Destroy FREEMIUM.
I mean true, I get tired of hearing about some parent shocked when they get a $30,000 credit card build because their 2 year old was pounding on an iPad for the past month buying Smurfberries. If a parent hands a device to a child without protecting in-game purchases with a password I don't believe they should be entitled to getting a refund and learn a hard lesson.
But the problem with freemium in general is they make for a really crappy game.
Was playing Jurassic Park Builder for a bit, and I mean every aspect of this game wants to drive you to buy in-game money to move the game along faster. Buildings take 24 real world hours to build, or spend 75 in-game bucks? Dinosaurs cost 200+ in-game bucks which translate to $40+ real world bucks! The problem is that you only get 1 - 2 in-game bucks for free when you complete missions, meaning you can never do anything in the game just by completing missions. You can get free in-game bucks, but you have to download countless other crappy freemium games to clutter your home screen. And on top of it all the game crashes 15 times a minute.
When a game was designed around in-game purchases then it ceases to be a game and turns into an interactive Ad tied directly to your credit card.
But in general Apple needs to do more to protect children from the instant kind of gratification that occurs when they start needing to buy in-game content. It sets a bad message to children that they just need to throw money at something to make it nicer or to get it faster, not a good life lesson to be promoting to the young. We already have a culture of people that are in massive debt, but imagine now children raised on the idea of overspending and the kind of instant gratification that spending money has. If you thought 2008 was a rough year for the economy, you haven't seen anything yet.
I think Apple should end the Freemium model on their platform. I know it might drive away a large segment of content but in the end if they actually care about kids and the quality of content on their platform, continuing to allow the Freemium model is an affront to those efforts.
Apple's focus and response to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a very positive thing that I think differentiates themselves from the competition but isn't techie enough for most people to care. If you want a good educational tool that you can also use to keep your children safe on the Internet as much as possible, are you going to pick a random Android device or an iOS device? Seems pretty obvious to parents I bet if they focus on this type of thing and not just the price tag.
Well, first, it's not about what I "feel should be OK", it's about whatever laws or privacy acts Apple is trying to comply with (I imagine COPPA). I'm not intimately familiar with the wording of COPPA but I'm pretty sure it is the reason why most sites (like Facebook) explicitly state "nobody under 13 allowed". Yet, I bet all of us can name a kid under 13 who's using Facebook. They lied about their age to circumvent the "system". Apparently COPPA either doesn't mandate a burden-of-proof system, or the consequences for failing to implement one are so weak that nobody really cares.
Personally, I would not be opposed to a system where if a young child wants to sign up for Facebook, YouTube, Apple ID, etc. they would need proof of age and permission from parents. But boy, what a paperwork mess that would be, and people would complain about the privacy ramifications of faxing/emailing IDs to all kinds of different places. We've already got a poster above comparing it to PRISM.
Second, the gun scenario is totally different because of the safety ramifications, moral implications, as well as the fact that there ARE already strict laws in place regulating the sale of weapons, so saying "well, I asked, and he said he was over 18" would be a huge downgrade from the existing process.
And how are they going to achieve that. Simple check through, entrust that parents didn't tell kids the password to their own account, something else
This is yet another reason for why I think the idea of kids sub accounts is a better way than this whole 'school asks for permission'. Allows for account level permission setting by the parental account including banning all link at that go outside of the app, all IAP etc. Or simply requires parental approval which could be 'signed' by the parent putting in his/her id
----------
Likely. Many of those accounts are set up for iCloud so that Junior is not deleting dad's address book.
If he's now 13 otherwise only if his school is using iOS devices and then it will likely have to be a totally new account. MobileMe had family accounts so it amazes that iCloud doesn't, which would solve this issue
----------
Unlikely.
The particular purpose thing they are taking about it likely going to be more specific than just fee apps (which really should be a built in section in the store).
----------
Bed example. They can see the customer and know that it is a child
That is basically the reason why they looped schools into the system. Make the schools responsible for getting paper saying its cool for the kids to have an id. Because the schools have the parties present etc. Hopefully there will be some built in filters in those accounts to keep them from getting into trouble downloading stuff way above their age etc or Apple could still be at fault
He's still under 13. I'll be changing it anyway, though, with the hopes that he would be able to download free apps on his own, and that I can limit them based on his age range. Initially, though, I set up his own account so he could use iMessages and text the rest of the family.
MobileMe was also a paid service. It made some economic sense to provide a family account at a discount. Now the only distinction between a free and paid iCloud account is extra storage space.
NC17 Game for Kids 4+
Checkout "Place My Face"
My letter to Apple:
Apples response:
So Apple would do nothing about it. I guess it is a lawyer thing? If they judge one app, and make a mistake, this raises their exposure to lawsuits? I dunno. I do know Lemondo.com has NO incentive to raise the age from 4.
Checkout "Place My Face"
My letter to Apple:
Apples response:
So Apple would do nothing about it. I guess it is a lawyer thing? If they judge one app, and make a mistake, this raises their exposure to lawsuits? I dunno. I do know Lemondo.com has NO incentive to raise the age from 4.
Okay.. could someone here explain how this would work? From the new guidelines:
So what would that mean for someone who wanted to bet on ports played outside of their home country? For example, someone who wanted to bet on matches in the AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union (if that still exists), cricket, etc.?
Say someone was in the US, and wanted to bet on this week's AFL match between Essendon and North Melbourne, but they live in the US? According to the guideline above, either the sportsbook would have to be licensed in the US, or only restrict their App to the location relative to where the game is played, and must release the App to that particular country's App Store.
Would that mean that someone would have to have an account in that App Store?
Let's turn the tables around. What if someone in New Zealand wanted to bet on, say, the Dallas Cowboys/Minnesota Vikings game when they play sometime this season?
Would that mean that that someone would have to have an account in that App Store? or would it mean that the sportsbook would have to be licensed to do business in that particular country? I just don't see how someone who is interested in a sport played outside of their home country wouldn't be able to place a bet on a game in that sport without going through some major obstacles or paying some serious money for licensing to get around this restriction.
BL.
So what would that mean for someone who wanted to bet on ports played outside of their home country? For example, someone who wanted to bet on matches in the AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union (if that still exists), cricket, etc.?
Say someone was in the US, and wanted to bet on this week's AFL match between Essendon and North Melbourne, but they live in the US? According to the guideline above, either the sportsbook would have to be licensed in the US, or only restrict their App to the location relative to where the game is played, and must release the App to that particular country's App Store.
Would that mean that someone would have to have an account in that App Store?
Let's turn the tables around. What if someone in New Zealand wanted to bet on, say, the Dallas Cowboys/Minnesota Vikings game when they play sometime this season?
Would that mean that that someone would have to have an account in that App Store? or would it mean that the sportsbook would have to be licensed to do business in that particular country? I just don't see how someone who is interested in a sport played outside of their home country wouldn't be able to place a bet on a game in that sport without going through some major obstacles or paying some serious money for licensing to get around this restriction.
BL.
I think the location restriction is regarding where the sportsbook is licensed. So, for example, a sportsbook that was licensed in the UK could have an app that allowed use only while in the UK. That's different from what games the sportbook can offer, so if they can legally offer bets on US games to their UK customers, then the app can be used by people in the UK to bet on a game taking place in the US.
it's a good thing they're working on this, i was always worried about this thing, good work, apple, keep it up.
You probably wouldn't let your kid hang out by themselves in a room where the majority are adults (think parties), so why would you let them sit in a chatroom where the majority of people are 17+? Age is just a number, but it's still inappropriate to be a kid and sitting amongst adults and chatting casually. You're not at the same emotional level, and while there is *some* common ground, you still don't know people online. And no matter how "grownup" you are, you're still only the age you are.
The internet is huge, but it's primarily a place for adults to communicate. Adults pretty much run the place too, and ANYONE including me and you can run a successful website and forum.
Saying that, it's easy enough to exploit people through websites. Whether it be for fake money making opportunities, stealing credit card info, and getting their information to sell to whoever else. Some crazy/creepy person will only take that one step further.
It's not just about privacy, it's about keeping children safe on the internet. Sure, they can lie about their age, I did it when COPPA was passed because I had to for at least three years since I wasn't 13. But no 7 year old is going to go and buy cigarettes or whatever online, you don't lie for that reason. You lie to get into all the "cool" places.
I'm glad that Apple is getting involved in gambling apps. I think they need to happen, and they need to be fronted by a company who actually has control.
The internet is huge, but it's primarily a place for adults to communicate. Adults pretty much run the place too, and ANYONE including me and you can run a successful website and forum.
Saying that, it's easy enough to exploit people through websites. Whether it be for fake money making opportunities, stealing credit card info, and getting their information to sell to whoever else. Some crazy/creepy person will only take that one step further.
It's not just about privacy, it's about keeping children safe on the internet. Sure, they can lie about their age, I did it when COPPA was passed because I had to for at least three years since I wasn't 13. But no 7 year old is going to go and buy cigarettes or whatever online, you don't lie for that reason. You lie to get into all the "cool" places.
I'm glad that Apple is getting involved in gambling apps. I think they need to happen, and they need to be fronted by a company who actually has control.
why dont they make a special ID just for kids, which covers all these things, so we (the parents) dont have to worry about anything.
that's a good idea. have an ID just for kids, so the limitations are already implemented, so parents don't even need to go through parental control. if the kid wants something, they could add it to some sort of a "wish list" that will notify the parents about what he wants and they can purchase it from their account.