If it were up to me, freemium would die a very quick death. It is a very cynical business model, fine-tuned to exploit the weaknesses inherent in the human psyche.
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 Agrees to FTC Terms Over In-App Purchases With $32 Million Settlement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That last part was courtesy of another poster who has stated over and over precisely that.
I am not excusing parents from being responsible. But there are plenty of people here who believe that parents are the only ones at fault and are assuming Apple has zero liability. I think it's somewhere in the middle.
There's no harm in correcting a mistake. Apple isn't being "punished" - any more than someone who makes a purchase in a store and finds out that it doesn't fit well - or doesn't do the job it needs to, or wound up buying two similar items. All bad analogies as well. Point is - for the most part, Apple is responding responsibly on the refund side. The point of contention isn't that for most. The point is that the process should be changed.
I see no fault in requiring Apple and anyone else with an IAP model to not have options defaulted to create this situation.
You know - just like things like data or call roaming shouldn't be on by default.
----------
Let me ask you. Just to throw another bad analogy into the pot..
You assume your drinking water is safe right? In your home? Have you taught your kids that they should ask everywhere they go if the water is safe to drink. Every restaurant you take them to. Do they ask?
I'm guessing not. I'm guessing - some assumptions are made.
That doesn't make your kid bad for not asking nor you neglectful for not instructing them to check every single time they are accepting water from someone's home or restaurant, etc.
I can guess here who doesn't have kids
In an ideal world, perhaps. We were caught out by a kid's app that signed you up to a premium SMS service by double-tapping a colourful ad. There's no way of knowing the app would allow that, and no practical way to have prevented our kid from tapping it. Have you ever tried monitoring what your kid is doing every second while cleaning the house or cooking a meal?
The question I have is why Apple lets them on the App Store given the trouble they cause, especially the ones aimed at young children.
I guess it's a matter of enforceability, coupled with the lack of a demo model for apps on the store which forces honest developers towards an IAP model. The latter is within Apple's control of course.
This happened to me and it could have easily been avoided if Apple put more rules in.
I was able to get a refund but they treated me like a criminal instead of the app developer who obviously put in these gotcha IAPs.
Now I am unable to use that specific card with my iTunes again.
Here is the fix, any IAP over a set percentage (let's say 60%) of the app's costs (let's set free apps base at $1) should have to be double verified.
So if I have a free Smurf app and they want to charge $100 for in game currency, I should have to go through at least 2 walls before it is allowed to be purchased.
You should also have a certain number of no question asked refunds if it is in that threshold, per year.
So, when I got hit with a $20 charge for some bogus unlock thing that I didn't order, I should click on it and get my money back.
No hoops, no explanation.
If you want to charge 90 times the value of the app for a IAP, that is the risk you take.
The problem is, Apple gets 30% of that $100 Smurf berry currency, and they like that.
I was able to get a refund but they treated me like a criminal instead of the app developer who obviously put in these gotcha IAPs.
Now I am unable to use that specific card with my iTunes again.
Here is the fix, any IAP over a set percentage (let's say 60%) of the app's costs (let's set free apps base at $1) should have to be double verified.
So if I have a free Smurf app and they want to charge $100 for in game currency, I should have to go through at least 2 walls before it is allowed to be purchased.
You should also have a certain number of no question asked refunds if it is in that threshold, per year.
So, when I got hit with a $20 charge for some bogus unlock thing that I didn't order, I should click on it and get my money back.
No hoops, no explanation.
If you want to charge 90 times the value of the app for a IAP, that is the risk you take.
The problem is, Apple gets 30% of that $100 Smurf berry currency, and they like that.
I don't think that's what they're supposed to be but I do agree that in many cases, especially when it comes to addictive goods/services, that's basically what it amounts to.
But there are definitely cases where businesses don't try to sell you stuff you don't need (however subjective that determination can be) and those are places that I tend to get back to.
Restrictions>Require Password>Immediately
I don't understand why this is a deal. Set this and you're done. Requires a password every single time you buy something. It's a hassle, I can see why it's not the default but it wasn't very hard to set and I have never worried about my kids buying anything on the iPad. This was available in iOS 6, I can't recall if it was in iOS 5, but at any rate it's been available for a while. I have no sympathy for anyone who can't be bothered to take a passing interest in the configuration of a device that remembers their credit card number.
I've got my own opinions about the freemium market, but that's neither here nor there.
I don't understand why this is a deal. Set this and you're done. Requires a password every single time you buy something. It's a hassle, I can see why it's not the default but it wasn't very hard to set and I have never worried about my kids buying anything on the iPad. This was available in iOS 6, I can't recall if it was in iOS 5, but at any rate it's been available for a while. I have no sympathy for anyone who can't be bothered to take a passing interest in the configuration of a device that remembers their credit card number.
I've got my own opinions about the freemium market, but that's neither here nor there.
Isn't that what sales in general are supposed to be?
$$$
There are unethical ways to make money and this is one of them - the amount of bad publicity Apple is getting and the fact that it's refunding many people, me included, suggests that this is is not a business model a reputable company should use. Also, I expect the money is a tiny part of its profits.
What a load of rubbish. It is the parets responsibilty ! There are steps you can take to monitor child purchasing and restrict it. If your to dumb or ignorant to take an interest in what your child is doing then you deserve all you get.
If I had a child who had a tablet or phone there would NEVER be a card attached. Itunes/app store cards only. Feel so sorry for Apple this is a screw job.
Add option to get rid of 15 min eindow if using touch Id.
If I had a child who had a tablet or phone there would NEVER be a card attached. Itunes/app store cards only. Feel so sorry for Apple this is a screw job.
Add option to get rid of 15 min eindow if using touch Id.
Or does it mean people really are stupid and though their devices may be smart people are thick.
People make mistakes even if they have initimate computing knowledge - I did.
A good analogy is mislaying your phone to find that someone stole it and has cranked up $2000 in international roaming charges.
----------
Even the smartest person can have one forgetful moment in a lifetime. Being taken for a few thousand dollars is not accepatable.
Handing your kids a device with your credit card wide open is not akin to having your phone or wallet stolen.
When will Apple realize that the government is not its friend?
Maybe theyre being extorted to hire another high-profile friend of the President, like they did in Lisa P. Jackson.
Maybe theyre being extorted to hire another high-profile friend of the President, like they did in Lisa P. Jackson.
It's similar when you look at the exploitation of kids by freemium games providers.
It may be, but it is also a guarantee that Apple does not get my money without my knowledge. I guess you could call it my parental controls or parenting. I then don't have to fight Apple to get my money back either. I can not think it would be easy to fight Apple to return my money.
A triumph for Irresponsible Parenting. Not only do they get away with it, the FTC (through Apple's money) is rewarding them with cash! Oh yeah! The moron parents are going to get rewarded because their little tykes had been downloading IAPs (via parent credit card account) without their knowledge.
Dear Apple,
I have no desire to monitor my child's activity online. It's your fault.
Love always,
The American Parent
I have no desire to monitor my child's activity online. It's your fault.
Love always,
The American Parent
My biggest beef with this is that the likelihood that the kids who racked up 'thousands' of dollars in app purchases did so in fifteen minutes is pretty small... Which means that a lot of parents out there aren't taking the necessary precautions with their devices, and that's not a good thing.
As you expected, really a bad analogy, for your argument. I've been always teaching them that "no tap water can be assume safe for direct drinking, except for the drinking fountains in public business locations with good traffic of population".
In fact, even for the drinking fountains, I've been always teaching them to first carefully check the sprout and environment around, then, let the water run 1-2 seconds before drinking.
----------
And that should not be the responsibility of the table where you left your phone on. You hit a bad luck or you were careless, you take the hit yourself!