I thought IAP required a 2nd password input, with current iOS. I buy so few of these I'm not sure offhand.
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.
EU Finds Apple Lacking in Efforts to Address In-App Payment Issues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are a lot of free dictionary apps you might consider....
----------
When my kids are using an app on my phone they can't purchase anything or even leave the app. Guided access has existed since ios 4 or 5 and takes less than 10 seconds to enable the first time and less than 5 seconds after that.
----------
1.2 million apps. Would you say there are over 12,000 apps worth paying for, not poor imitations of another app, or try to trick you into IAPs?
Obviously it wasn't a percentage based on anything, more of an exaggeration, but actually, maybe it's over 99%. Who knows.
There are more than 12,000 apps worth what they charge or more.
Scamalot
In-App purchases that make a "Free" app fully functional is a questionable but common practice. 'In app' purchases are a great gimmick (in terms of revenue) to get people to incrementally unroll functionality in what is often undisclosed demoware. Personally, I preferred 'Lite' versions because they were more up front and honest, but that's a user perspective and In App purchases are preferred by developers being a perfectly legal bait and switch technique. So Caveat Emptor.
And frankly, sometimes the user can benefit by getting an app at a lower price for features they don't want. I can think of one (well, just one) where I thought the extra feature was well worth it and shouldn't have been included in the base price. Few things are black or white.
My biggest beef is with the user experience, which is less than stellar. Perhaps a consequence that it should be totally 'in app'? Some personal reflections for the trolls to shove back in my teeth:
*The Restore process is a PITA, and you need to do it per device. This is PITiful. Apple knows you spent your $ on the upgrade and it just be applied to every device you put that app on. The Restore process shouldn't be needed at all. It should 'Just Work'. Right Apple?
*Granted, it used to be even worse. You had to BUY it again in order to have the purchases restored, trusting that you wouldn't really be charged again. This was a truly terrible process that though fixed really fills me with distaste for the In App purchase process. And having to buy it and TRUST you wouldn't really get charged has left some people open for other misuses of the system (see the next one).
*Rife for scams. I got scammed recently when I redeemed an in app upgrade to the Pro version of an app 'for free'. The app store showed the in app purchase applied but left me guessing how I actually got the Pro version that was promised. The app never uploaded new code; I never got a voucher; the pro version never downloaded; just saw a line item that I had a successful in app purchase and that is all. In desperation, I finally bought the Pro version thinking, as used to be the case when restoring in app purchases, that the credit would only be applied when I bought the Pro version. Nope.
- I appealed to Apple who lectured me that all purchases were nonrefundable but would refund the purchase anyway since I had actually had the 'Pro' in app version applied TWICE in my log, yet clearly never received the Pro version of the equivalent in terms of functionality; in writing, however, Apple put the blame fully on me for trying to figure out how this free in app upgrade actually could be fulfilled, when in fact it could never be fulfilled by anyone on this earth, even though the In App upgrade to Pro capability remains part of the Lite app to this day. When I pointed this out, they told me to talk to the developer. Awesome. Thank you so much.
This means Apple does not have oversight whether their in app purchases are even valid. They interceded for me because it was so clear cut, but there's no promise they will do so for you if things were grayer. So again, Caveat Emptor. While that is always a good rule to follow, it makes for a crappy overall user experience when you realize you cannot trust the purchase is legit.
In-App purchases that make a "Free" app fully functional is a questionable but common practice. 'In app' purchases are a great gimmick (in terms of revenue) to get people to incrementally unroll functionality in what is often undisclosed demoware. Personally, I preferred 'Lite' versions because they were more up front and honest, but that's a user perspective and In App purchases are preferred by developers being a perfectly legal bait and switch technique. So Caveat Emptor.
And frankly, sometimes the user can benefit by getting an app at a lower price for features they don't want. I can think of one (well, just one) where I thought the extra feature was well worth it and shouldn't have been included in the base price. Few things are black or white.
My biggest beef is with the user experience, which is less than stellar. Perhaps a consequence that it should be totally 'in app'? Some personal reflections for the trolls to shove back in my teeth:
*The Restore process is a PITA, and you need to do it per device. This is PITiful. Apple knows you spent your $ on the upgrade and it just be applied to every device you put that app on. The Restore process shouldn't be needed at all. It should 'Just Work'. Right Apple?
*Granted, it used to be even worse. You had to BUY it again in order to have the purchases restored, trusting that you wouldn't really be charged again. This was a truly terrible process that though fixed really fills me with distaste for the In App purchase process. And having to buy it and TRUST you wouldn't really get charged has left some people open for other misuses of the system (see the next one).
*Rife for scams. I got scammed recently when I redeemed an in app upgrade to the Pro version of an app 'for free'. The app store showed the in app purchase applied but left me guessing how I actually got the Pro version that was promised. The app never uploaded new code; I never got a voucher; the pro version never downloaded; just saw a line item that I had a successful in app purchase and that is all. In desperation, I finally bought the Pro version thinking, as used to be the case when restoring in app purchases, that the credit would only be applied when I bought the Pro version. Nope.
- I appealed to Apple who lectured me that all purchases were nonrefundable but would refund the purchase anyway since I had actually had the 'Pro' in app version applied TWICE in my log, yet clearly never received the Pro version of the equivalent in terms of functionality; in writing, however, Apple put the blame fully on me for trying to figure out how this free in app upgrade actually could be fulfilled, when in fact it could never be fulfilled by anyone on this earth, even though the In App upgrade to Pro capability remains part of the Lite app to this day. When I pointed this out, they told me to talk to the developer. Awesome. Thank you so much.
This means Apple does not have oversight whether their in app purchases are even valid. They interceded for me because it was so clear cut, but there's no promise they will do so for you if things were grayer. So again, Caveat Emptor. While that is always a good rule to follow, it makes for a crappy overall user experience when you realize you cannot trust the purchase is legit.
I think that poster very clearly pointed out the difference in certain developers, so was in no way claiming all are greedy. If it is hitting home to you personally that users don't agree with your sales methods, maybe you should change something.
No one forces you to click the pay button. It's not like the app isn't easy enough to disable if the method of selling isn't what you want.
----------
That is a fair point. However, parent's shoudn't be giving their kids their passcodes.
So you can't work to protect yourself? You have to have the government do it for you? And take your device away from your kids. There, you don't need the government to tell you that.
Apple gets a 30% cut of anything sold. They have a big disincentive to making buying anything harder.
This is just like the remote lock on stolen iPhones. Apple makes money every time an iPhone is stolen and had a big disincentive to discourage theft. Same here, they make money every time an eight year o kid buys something. Also because of Apple's 30% cut they LIKE this marketing scam where they get to list an app as "free" even if the app is really just a shell for buying content.
Apple when they decided to take a 30% cut placed themselves in a position where they'd forever be at cross purposes with their customers
This is just like the remote lock on stolen iPhones. Apple makes money every time an iPhone is stolen and had a big disincentive to discourage theft. Same here, they make money every time an eight year o kid buys something. Also because of Apple's 30% cut they LIKE this marketing scam where they get to list an app as "free" even if the app is really just a shell for buying content.
Apple when they decided to take a 30% cut placed themselves in a position where they'd forever be at cross purposes with their customers
trust
Government is often called upon to intercede when business fails to protect their customers. No judgement here, just sayin'.
When you download a regular app, you get something tangible--"an app". You can see it and Apple can verify you received it. Apple screens apps too so there is a measure of protection.
But the in app purchase process is so general it can be used for anything. There is nothing to prevent a developer from putting in 'Purchase a sunny day for $.99" or "Buy a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge for $99". Because these purchases can be used for subscriptions, upgrades to new functions, or virtual money, Apple isn't monitoring whether you got something in return. If you didn't get that Gem Bag in Clash of Clowns, they'd prefer you took it to the dev and complain. There is not the same level of oversight as with out and out purchases of apps.
Government is often called upon to intercede when business fails to protect their customers. No judgement here, just sayin'.
When you download a regular app, you get something tangible--"an app". You can see it and Apple can verify you received it. Apple screens apps too so there is a measure of protection.
But the in app purchase process is so general it can be used for anything. There is nothing to prevent a developer from putting in 'Purchase a sunny day for $.99" or "Buy a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge for $99". Because these purchases can be used for subscriptions, upgrades to new functions, or virtual money, Apple isn't monitoring whether you got something in return. If you didn't get that Gem Bag in Clash of Clowns, they'd prefer you took it to the dev and complain. There is not the same level of oversight as with out and out purchases of apps.
Sure I can, but that doesn't mean companies get free reign to try. I get it, you don't care about anyone else... **** that single mother neighbour who is stuck with a unpayable debt due to IAP, my kids are well...
What monopoly are you talking about? Apple has solved these problems in OS 8, but by what earthly definition is Apple a monopoly?
Ah yes let's continue to make up new laws to protect the lazy. When, oh when will the world stop catering to the stupid and lazy.
So when do we expect people to actually start doing things on their own? No one forced an iPad on a single parent. Just like everything else in life new things come with the responsibility to educate ourselves on their use. Should they not expect people to be responsible individuals with things like credit cards? Should they make rules protecting them from using a credit card to accrue debt? Where does it stop? When does the person using the service become responsible for what they do (and by extension THEIR CHILDREN) with it?
If a child gets hit by a car because they were playing in the street, should the automobile companies be liable for that? Again, where does it end?
So when do we expect people to actually start doing things on their own? No one forced an iPad on a single parent. Just like everything else in life new things come with the responsibility to educate ourselves on their use. Should they not expect people to be responsible individuals with things like credit cards? Should they make rules protecting them from using a credit card to accrue debt? Where does it stop? When does the person using the service become responsible for what they do (and by extension THEIR CHILDREN) with it?
If a child gets hit by a car because they were playing in the street, should the automobile companies be liable for that? Again, where does it end?
Last edited:
No it's not, if someone gives you a free car and you have to pay for gas and oil it's still a free car. You have the option of not putting any gas or oil in it just as you have the option of not doing in app purchases. The app, and car, are still free.
Under-Funded EU Seeks Easy Money from Apple
Having failed to obtain the acquiescence of German brewers to lower their standards to those of other European beer makersremembering Great Britain, Whales, Scotland and Ireland are not Europeanthe EU today turned its eyes toward the monies of Apple, Inc.
Pressing by parents unable to train their children and unable to solve its own financial woes, the European Union today initiated efforts to transfer funds from Apple to its own lagging ledgers.
The EU had previously pressed German brewers to lower their standards because too many suds Euros flowed out of other countries into Germany. Fermenting with frustration, the union has now developed an appetite for Apple.
"We wish to make Apple feel our pain," says spokesperson Adelheid Anastasie Rodrigo. "In the same way we help Greece and Spain, we wish to assist Apple."
Having failed to obtain the acquiescence of German brewers to lower their standards to those of other European beer makersremembering Great Britain, Whales, Scotland and Ireland are not Europeanthe EU today turned its eyes toward the monies of Apple, Inc.
Pressing by parents unable to train their children and unable to solve its own financial woes, the European Union today initiated efforts to transfer funds from Apple to its own lagging ledgers.
The EU had previously pressed German brewers to lower their standards because too many suds Euros flowed out of other countries into Germany. Fermenting with frustration, the union has now developed an appetite for Apple.
"We wish to make Apple feel our pain," says spokesperson Adelheid Anastasie Rodrigo. "In the same way we help Greece and Spain, we wish to assist Apple."
Never it seems. This is really a first world problem. I know of nobody here that gives kids toys and lets them make random purchases on them. Then again here laws require people to assume responsibility for their actions.
I know this will get a lot of vitriol from the tinfoil extreme Apple fanboy side, but I actually think Google has a great idea on this. Hope that Apple does the same for IAP:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/18/5...-app-purchase-protections-european-commission
Long story short: Stop calling IAP as "Free Apps." Google has the right idea here. Apple should follow suit.
Side note: Apple needs to add in downloadable Demos / timebased Apps in the app store. This will greatly reduce the # of IAP in the App Store.
w00master
http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/18/5...-app-purchase-protections-european-commission
Long story short: Stop calling IAP as "Free Apps." Google has the right idea here. Apple should follow suit.
Side note: Apple needs to add in downloadable Demos / timebased Apps in the app store. This will greatly reduce the # of IAP in the App Store.
w00master
IAPs are just evil.
I can't understand why Apple continues to insist upon them instead of offering real trials for software on the AppStore. The current system is an absolute horrible mess - that you get some subset of the App for free, but with a whole collection of additional paid 'bundles' for unlocking little bits of content.
That's not what happens on iBooks, for example - iBooks gives you a trial with a button to buy the entire book. It doesn't give you odd pages and a 'buy this chapter' button.
Consumable IAP is probably the worst though, and I bet that's where most of the charges come from. Developers have been using some absolutely sick, psychological mechanisms to try and play with your reward system and extract more money from you. It really is quite a cruel thing to do, something that didn't exist before, and kids are especially susceptible to it.
I can't understand why Apple continues to insist upon them instead of offering real trials for software on the AppStore. The current system is an absolute horrible mess - that you get some subset of the App for free, but with a whole collection of additional paid 'bundles' for unlocking little bits of content.
That's not what happens on iBooks, for example - iBooks gives you a trial with a button to buy the entire book. It doesn't give you odd pages and a 'buy this chapter' button.
Consumable IAP is probably the worst though, and I bet that's where most of the charges come from. Developers have been using some absolutely sick, psychological mechanisms to try and play with your reward system and extract more money from you. It really is quite a cruel thing to do, something that didn't exist before, and kids are especially susceptible to it.
Yes, it's very cruel. These poor children, they are being tortured! The holocaust of generation X (or whatever this generation is) will be the "appocaust".
Give me a break ....
If people didn't think they were entitled to everything, perhaps this wouldn't be an issue. Aww, that game you WANT costs money? More so than usual? Now that's just terrible!
Let me make a better example.
A Restaurant puts adverts in the local papers, and social media, We give away free food & Drink, and in their window they have BIG neon signs saying come in, free food & Drink here.
Everyone goes in and yes indeed, they are giving away free food.
Boiled white rice & water
All around the place inside are steaming piles of beautiful currys and other tempting foods.
They keep coming up to you wish price lists, telling you how amazing the food is that can go with your rice, also the wide range of amazing drinks.
The prices are low, for a little of this other amazing food, it smells great and looks great, and they keep guiding you over to see it.
Yes, they are giving everyone free food and drink.
But would this be really false advertising?
Everyone knows full well it's a cheap marketing gimmick to draw people to the store under the impression they are giving away more than just white rice and water.
I don't think such a food place should be able to run marketing campaigns saying come to out new place for all the free food and drink you want.
It's deliberately misleading. they know it, and we all know it.
Others here are saying it's fine, as they are doing what they promise in the adverts.
I just disagree.
I take it in this illustration, that the doors are now locked after you go in and there is no possible way to escape. You now must give in, otherwise you will be tortured, right?
Because you know, why should anyone be expected to have even a measure of self control. If things don't meet our expectations, all bets are off and you can just act however you want now without any regard for the consequences that follow.
Yeah .. that's the way to live!
I'd sleep so much better at night if I knew you guys were trolling .. but it is obvious that you aren't trolls. You HONESTLY believe this nonsense.