Apple Reportedly 'Scrambling' to Make Required Changes to In-App Purchase Policies

[Tech198]

Scrambling is never good....

No one wants to scramble........

This tells me, Apple may botch it up like they did with the go-to-fail SSL thing..

The changes seem good, and should give consent...

However, allowing them to disable it..... is a major joke... I'm killing myself laughing....

If your gonna introduce a "security" measure for anything, never give control by the user to disable something they see "annoying"..

That defeats the whole purpose of introducing it in the first place. It's basically saying "We didn't do anything."

It's good Apple's doing this, but giving a "option" to disable it by users.....

Apple's been doing allot of this as of late haven't they. If you wanna do something, do it right..

Of course, coming from a tech, i'd say this wouldn't I

 

[Munimula]

Perhaps it would be nice for the initial device setup to include a question about IAP restrictions, or to have these restrictions turned on by default, but there are a couple of problems on the user-end anyway.

First, and I deal with this with coworkers quite often, when people buy a new device from a carrier store, the clerks tend to 'set it up for me' and they just click 'skip' past all the setup stuff without the customer seeing it. When I have coworkers that get a new iPhone, one of the first things I usually end up having to do for them is Reset/Erase Content and let them start fresh with the experience Apple intended. Personally, I had to reach over the counter when I got my 5S and take the phone out of the clerk's hand because he didn't even bother to ask if I already had an AppleID, etc, even though he Knew I was upgrading from an iPhone 4.

Secondly, and this should be obvious, While these devices are certainly Marketed to (mostly) school-aged children, and are great for even preschoolers and toddlers given age-appropriate software, the plain fact is KIDS DO NOT HAVE A CREDIT CARD TO BUY THESE DEVICES IN THE FIRST PLACE. Sorry for the Caps.
My point is, the devices are Designed for and Sold to Adults. Remember everyone's complaints with the last few versions of Windows ridiculously asking for permission for darn near Everything on initial use? I don't want this from my Apple products. My kids' iPads have restrictions turned on. Mine, and my wife's, do not. I don't want Apple, or anyone else, to treat me like a child. It's my job to be the parent, not theirs. Of course, opinions vary.

 

[simonmet]

In-app purchases are annoying anyways. I try to avoid apps that employ them (or worse, require them).

Most developers abuse the system. It's criminal that it's possible to spend hundreds if not thousands within minutes on completely useless in-game trinkets or currency to even permit ongoing play in games such as simulated poker machines.

Evidence suggests only a small proportion of people fall victim to IAP predation but those that do are greatly impacted by it. The developers and apps that do this are a blight on the App Store.

There are however a minority of developers that do the right thing and use the system to offer meaningful and significant expansions to games at a reasonable price where the expansion can be bought only once and these good developers shouldn't be penalised. One example is the iOS game Carcassonne that offers I think three expansions for a couple of dollars each and these offer significant new content.

I don't think IAP needs to be banned entirely but there are some simple changes Apple should make to save the model and the Store.

The most significant change is that Apple should ban unlimited in-app purchasing. To prevent developers from abusing this by constantly changing their IAP options Apple should place limits on the frequency with which changes to IAP options can be made.

 

[C DM]

Scrambling is never good....

No one wants to scramble........

This tells me, Apple may botch it up like they did with the go-to-fail SSL thing..

The changes seem good, and should give consent...

However, allowing them to disable it..... is a major joke... I'm killing myself laughing....

If your gonna introduce a "security" measure for anything, never give control by the user to disable something they see "annoying"..

That defeats the whole purpose of introducing it in the first place. It's basically saying "We didn't do anything."

It's good Apple's doing this, but giving a "option" to disable it by users.....

Apple's been doing allot of this as of late haven't they. If you wanna do something, do it right..

Of course, coming from a tech, i'd say this wouldn't I

Not sure anyone is scrambling, just how some reporter decided to phrase it simply because there's a deadline (which can/might even get moved as many legal things often do) that is coming closer.

 

[Tech198]

Most developers abuse the system. It's criminal that it's possible to spend hundreds if not thousands within minutes on completely useless in-game trinkets or currency to even permit ongoing play in games such as simulated poker machines.

Evidence suggests only a small proportion of people fall victim to IAP predation but those that do are greatly impacted by it. The developers and apps that do this are a blight on the App Store.

There are however a minority of developers that do the right thing and use the system to offer meaningful and significant expansions to games at a reasonable price where the expansion can be bought only once and these good developers shouldn't be penalised. One example is the iOS game Carcassonne that offers I think three expansions for a couple of dollars each and these offer significant new content.

I don't think IAP needs to be banned entirely but there are some simple changes Apple should make to save the model and the Store.

The most significant change is that Apple should ban unlimited in-app purchasing. To prevent developers from abusing this by constantly changing their IAP options Apple should place limits on the frequency with which changes to IAP options can be made.

Let's not forget that charge where Apple agreed to pay back a large sum because of their kids made "multiple" purchases..

I don't mind in-app purchases, but secure the purchases first if you think your kids gonna go nuts.

It's a money maker for Apple anyway, so it's not going anywhere..

Even better lock the system after so many purchases, and is required to then a phone call to Apple, and verify their account before a possible unban. Hence, this would be server side, not client side.. and no way to change it.

 

[lesferdinand]

Even better lock the system after so many purchases, and is required to then a phone call to Apple, and verify their account before a possible unban. Hence, this would be server side, not client side.. and no way to change it.

That seems rather unfriendly to people making genuine purchases. I know I really hate it when my bank gets overzealous with its fraud prevention and starts blocking genuine charges, which can only be resolved by calling a number, entering your CC number, being put on hold, having to answer security questions, having to go through the last few charges, confirming that everything is alright, having to interrupt them when they start their cross selling message and finally hanging up. But perhaps that's just me.

I'd prefer something like a grace period. Make sure people get notifications and/or emails for IAP's that are >$0 and give them time to dispute the charges, say 4 hours.

That could put an end to the horrible system of consumable IAP's, while allowing for models with added functionality. If you dispute related charges, you get your money back and the functionality will be taken away again.

The system could work with hardly any human intervention: just a web page with a 'dispute' button. And some people monitoring to check for potential abuse.

 

[jimbobb24]

Seems like a good idea

But why in the earth is it any business of the FCC?

 

[C DM]

But why in the earth is it any business of the FCC?

FTC actually.

 

[Infinus.gold]

Does it mean that 7.1 is delayed until May??

Think other way...
you will get more stable and better OS.
More thoroughly tested and more defect fixes.

 

[MikhailT]

But why in the earth is it any business of the FCC?

You mean FTC? It's an agency created in US to protect consumers against stuff like this since consumers themselves don't have the power to fight the system to improve itself.

 

[fertilized-egg]

I can agree to literally everything you say, seriously. But come on? are some of these parents not to blame? I mean personally, whenever I have to fill in creditcard info, I would be apprehensive towards anyone I would have to hand the device/computer to next.

I absolutely agree. I never give my kid the iPad when I'm not sure if the password has expired. I tell my kid to wait 15-20 minutes until we can bring out the iPad, and I've done it enough times that we all wait with some other play things until the iPad time comes.

Being a parent myself I do have sympathy for those who get labelled "lazy" because I know how hard it can be to say no to a child demanding something when you're absolutely exhausted. However I made sure through many fights that my kid understands yelling out means no iPad time and my wife has been supportive enough through the efforts. At the end it made everyone happier and we still get to play and watch stuff on our iPad together.

 

[WallToWallMacs]

you've never had a 2 year old, have you?
there are silly games for little kids and there is no way you can explain to them not to click outside So, you let them play so you can either cook them a meal or do any necessity you have to do so its simply impossible to supervise your child all the time. (and by supervising I mean staring over their should and watching them play the game and making sure they don't click outside of their territory)

Don't have your credit card loaded onto your account - it really is that easy. If I want to purchase something I'll add the credit card and after I purchase what I want I'll then remove it as to avoid accidentally purchasing something on a whim or impulse. Honestly, is it really that hard for parents to take responsibility for their children?

 

[C DM]

Don't have your credit card loaded onto your account - it really is that easy. If I want to purchase something I'll add the credit card and after I purchase what I want I'll then remove it as to avoid accidentally purchasing something on a whim or impulse. Honestly, is it really that hard for parents to take responsibility for their children?

Can a payment method be just added and removed like that? It seems at the very creation of Apple ID they almost require you to put in some payment method that should always be there.

 

[Curun]

Can a payment method be just added and removed like that? It seems at the very creation of Apple ID they almost require you to put in some payment method that should always be there.

Once account is created, you can go remove, set to none.

 

[samcraig]

Don't have your credit card loaded onto your account - it really is that easy. If I want to purchase something I'll add the credit card and after I purchase what I want I'll then remove it as to avoid accidentally purchasing something on a whim or impulse. Honestly, is it really that hard for parents to take responsibility for their children?

I don't know. I'm just curious though whether you and some others are arguing about parenting style or if you really don't see value in having better precautions when it comes to security. After all, we're not just talking about a child who might grab your iPad or iPhone.

My point is (and I've made it before) I don't argue that there's a level of responsibility for everyone (not just parents) to maintain control of their information/devices. However I DO think that companies (in this case, Apple) should default security measures to be on the high side instead of having an "all in" as default.

 

[XtraSmiley]

The more options the better, as long as Apple buries them down a bit and keeps it simple on the surface. Honestly many other features should be added by now!

 

[seecoolguy]

lol, well it doesn't matter if it was an accident or not. The 14 year old was irresponsible, because he's a 14 year old. He should not be able to spend £4000 just by playing one game. Every transaction should go through whoever owns the debit card.

very true, I have two kids each with iPhones/ and iPads, I do not have my appleid on their device, and they don't know my password, I created each account with a gift card and set each with a few dollars so they could get an app, of their choice. the deal i have with them is that as long as they have good grades I gift them more $ to their appleid at the end of the semester to buy what they want on the app/itune store. it's great because they quickly realize that they don't want to blow away their entire itunes allowance in in-app purchases

 

[kdarling]

I can agree to literally everything you say, seriously. But come on? are some of these parents not to blame? I mean personally, whenever I have to fill in creditcard info, I would be apprehensive towards anyone I would have to hand the device/computer to next.

No one was filling in credit card info. Nor was parenting style the issue, nor user stupidity.

The original problem was that many casual iDevice users are accustomed to getting a password prompt every time they bought something.

After buying a new app, there was no warning, nor any reason for these users to suspect, that more purchases could be made afterward for a quarter hour without again requiring a password.... much less in-app purchases.

Simply put, it was a UI/UX issue. It was bad design, because it went against the mental model that most users had. It's like using your card at a grocery checkout. They would not expect that anyone else in line would be able to use their account afterwards. People are taught to expect one purchase per password.

The only users who would know about the timeout, would be those who had already experienced and remembered the timeout sequence themselves. Kids and people who play a lot of games might know, but it's not what everyone expected.

 

[Antares]

For instance, if a developer releases a great and complete game, then later wants to develop and sell 20 more levels for it--this is a great way to do that. Or a useful limited app, even for free, that you can then pay to unlock additional "pro" features or upgrade to a full game. These are very fair business models, and they help developers eat while making it so users don't have to download (and nobody has to maintain) two different versions of an app.

Yes, I agree. In theory, that would be great. But the developers who do this are being overwhelmed by the developers who charge for every piecemeal portion of the game. They gimp the game so you “have” to buy the downloadable content if you want to play a “complete” game. They leave out content from a “full price” game so they can charge you for it, later. This is also starting to be a complaint in the console market.

Of course, pricing is out of whack on the app store. $1.99 for a game that would be perfectly fair to charge $9.99 or $19.99 retail for. But the race to the bottom has required developers to come up with some other way to make their money. That is the real driver behind all these micro transactions. People have become used to free and cheap content in mobile. When a developer tries to make a more elaborate, high quality, fully-developed game, they are put in a tough spot because a lot of consumers see $19.99 and go, “no way,” regardless of how high quality that game is. But when you add up the cost of the in-app downloads of some games and it totals $100 for a game that would traditionally cost no more than $30, something is very wrong.

I and many other consumers would be fine with $20 or $30, etc. games, paying for all the content at once. That is why I propose that Apple require 2 versions of a game. A full version with all the content included and, if the developer chooses, a freemium version with all those in-app purchases for consumers to buy the content, piecemeal. Then it would be fair to charge $30 for the full game and $100 if buying content piece by piece. The other option is to make the prices of in-app downloads, cheaper, so that the price of buying all the content is much closer to the $30 “fair retail” price rather than ridiculous $100 or more.

 

[yanki01]

i'm a real parent and i keep the password a secret and type it in when my kid wants a new game. and i have it set up where all IAP require a password

this is nothing different than my friends ordering pay per view porn and mainstream movies in the 80's and 90's without parent's permission and then swearing it was an accident

oh the good ole days.

 

[BaldiMac]

The original problem was that many casual iDevice users are accustomed to getting a password prompt every time they bought something.

Not really. The iTunes (Music) Store did not require a password for every purchase. (Same 15 minute window?) There weren't any significant complaints for more than a decade.

The real problem is exactly what Apple has been responding to. IAP education. Parents would purchase a new game and let their kids play. Trusting them not to switch to one of the store apps to make purchase, but unaware that the kids could make purchases through the app.

Apple has provided more info about IAP and new tools for parents to deal with the issues it raises.

 

[\-V-/]

There's nothing more annoying than the arrogance of the tech-savvy in demeaning those for whom digging through configuration settings is a daunting task.
We're in an age when anything designed with that paradigm is a fail.

Nothing is more annoying than someone making baseless assumptions and then going on a rant. I wasn't demeaning anyone. I'm saying those safeguards should be set in place by default because many users will not know what to do in that situation, but if it were me... and my credit card was being racked up by my kid making endless IAPs... I would, like most people, try to find the root of the problem and not just let it continue on in ignorance. It doesn't require technical prowess to address that kind of situation. I'd be calling Apple, at the very least... and I'm sure Apple would give the appropriate help. Yes, digging through settings is a PITA and that's why Apple is trying to address the situation. It is currently a glaring flaw in the App Store infrastructure.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

I know enough to know a 2 year old shouldn't be allowed to hold, and especially not left unattended, with a device made of glass and thin metal. Sounds like a family and children services, shattered glass and lacerations, neglect case waiting to happen.

They have this brand new invention called plastic! It's been put to all sorts of crazy uses... I even saw this thing the other day made from it. It was a plastic iPad cose. No, that's not right... it was a plastic iPad case.

 

[Retired Cat]

"Scrambling" makes it sound like Apple was caught flat-footed by new requirements close to release.

I find that difficult to believe.

 

[catchesbass]

I recently upgraded to the paid version of an app from within the app instead of buying it through iTunes. When I tried to install it on my iPad, it wasn't listed in the purchased apps. Apparently I'll have to buy it again if I want it on my iPad. That blows.