EU Finds Apple Lacking in Efforts to Address In-App Payment Issues

[Toltepeceno]

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 have seen signs for buffet's 7.99 (price example). You pay extra for the drink, that is typical in the US.

Your example is not a good one as "free food" is much more vague than a "free app". In fact I have never seen anything like that in any of the countries I have been to. With a free app, the app is indeed free.

On the other hand.

I also agree with the above poster, it's a ridiculous argument. As long as they let you know that the other food costs when you ask for it (as with in app purchases) there is really nothing wrong. In fact I know plenty of people that would be more than happy with free rice, it's a first world problem to complain about ANY free food.

 

[springsup]

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!

You should read up on the kinds of tactics these games employ in order to extract more money from people.

I find this blog post from Gamesutra is good at explaining some of them.

A game of skill is one where your ability to make sound decisions primarily determines your success. A money game is one where your ability to spend money is the primary determinant of your success. Consumers far prefer skill games to money games, for obvious reasons. A key skill in deploying a coercive monetization model is to disguise your money game as a skill game.

 

[639051]

You should read up on the kinds of tactics these games employ in order to extract more money from people.

I find this blog post from Gamesutra is good at explaining some of them.

But, the result is you're forced to buy right? I mean, the game literally forces you to buy, you have no will or self control as they have been extracted from your body.

Because otherwise, it's all just giving the OK to just give in and not exercise self control. Again, just paving the way towards people never having to actually carry the weight of their bad choices.

 

[KanosWRX]

I think Parents should be held responsible for what they give their kids.. but on the other hand I had IAP. Do whatever you can to kill it!!!

 

[Piggie]

It's funny and shameful how some people here seem to be happy to support pretty much misleading statements simply because they are Apple related.

I am positive 100% in other walks of life if these same people experienced other similar things themselves, where they were not forced to spend money, but the implication was something was free, but when they got there it was obvious it was a marketing ploy to attract customers, they would feel annoyed.

They won't admit this as they will always see this company in a good light irrespective.

Never mind.

 

[Ironduke]

Nanny state hard at work.

whats wrong with that?

 

[SusanK]

I have seen signs for buffet's 7.99 (price example). You pay extra for the drink, that is typical in the US.

Yes, this is very common. The purchaser appears at a cash stand money in hand to purchase drink. Transaction is face to face. I have never seen a cashier accept a credit card transaction from a child.

I am not aware of any buffet restaurant that requires a customer to provide credit card information to be kept on file before the customer is permitted to walk in the door.

 

[sk1wbw]

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...

Control your kids. It's that simple. The government is not and should be your damned babysitter.

 

[Plutonius]

That is not the point.

It's a manipulation of the meaning of free.

I'm happy those apps that try and tempt you to buy things remain there, or the ones that make the free? game very hard unless you buy the extras.

But let's not pretend they are genuinely free.

We all know what FREE means, they are pushing the boundaries of this term.

There should be three categories of Apps.

They aren't manipulating anything. You paid nothing for the app when you downloaded it (it was FREE). If you don't feel it's useable without the in app purchases, you can delete the app and it has cost you nothing.

 

[sk1wbw]

The whole IAP thing is blown way out of proportion to begin with. That newest podcast app is a free purchase but if you want extra features, you pay for it. If you don't then don't pay for it. How freaking hard is this concept to grasp?

 

[springsup]

But, the result is you're forced to buy right? I mean, the game literally forces you to buy, you have no will or self control as they have been extracted from your body.

Because otherwise, it's all just giving the OK to just give in and not exercise self control. Again, just paving the way towards people never having to actually carry the weight of their bad choices.

Not at all - but it's important to realise that it prays on human weaknesses. Gambling does the same thing, which is why it is heavily regulated and even banned in many places. Human beings are not perfect; they can be manipulated and misled rather easily by those wishing to take their money.

That is especially true in the case of children, which is what this issue is mostly about. Most of the most egregious IAP abusers are games which appeal to children. They might not fully understand the consequences of what they're doing, or appreciate the value of money.

Shifting all of the blame on to the parents isn't really much of a solution. The parents have to fight the power of marketing, which is specialised and tuned to appeal to children. Children may see their parents' passwords and buy these things themselves. Shifting the blame to the children also isn't an answer - courts treat juveniles differently because society accepts that they can not take full responsibility for their actions. Being a parent can be very challenging, and giving them a huge amount of additional responsibility over these corporations which pray on their childrens' lack of self control is not the way a mature society behaves.

The USA is extremely pro-corporate, so I don't expect anything to change there. The EU, on the other hand, actually understands what the role of Government is: it is to advocate on behalf of the actual, living human beings who elect it. Corporations have to live within the rules that the people set for them, not the other way around. In this case, they work for the parents trying to raise their children, not the corporations praying on them.

 

[Plutonius]

Actually in some cases it can be. There are apps that are just viewers which are listed as free, implying that the service is also free, but it's not. That is the sort of thing that the EU is balking about. If you have to pay for a service to have any content in the app then it is not free and should not say fees. I rather agree with that point. Not sure what it should say but they could come up with something. Perhaps just 'install player' and a pop up that says that is just the viewer app and using it requires a subscription etc and has folks confirm they want it. By a similar token when the whole iOS 8 parent permission request thing kicks in it could require permission for downloading even free games that have IAP and let parents know this. Perhaps when bar IAP on an account level rather than device level.

I can agree 100% with this. If a service is required, it should say so in the description / download button. Otherwise, the app is still free and you can delete it (it has cost you nothing).

----------

Courts/Governments don't like to get into design since then they get the blame if the feature is implemented is a stupid way, e.g. browser choice.

Then they shouldn't complain.

----------

The whole IAP thing is blown way out of proportion to begin with. That newest podcast app is a free purchase but if you want extra features, you pay for it. If you don't then don't pay for it. How freaking hard is this concept to grasp?

and you can even delete it at anytime and it still hasn't cost you anything.

 

[Toltepeceno]

Yes, this is very common. The purchaser appears at a cash stand money in hand to purchase drink. Transaction is face to face. I have never seen a cashier accept a credit card transaction from a child.

Bingo!!!!!!! It's parents that give children access to their cards. I have never seen a credit card issued to a child, parents that give their child access to their card should not whine if they make purchases with it.

----------

The whole IAP thing is blown way out of proportion to begin with. That newest podcast app is a free purchase but if you want extra features, you pay for it. If you don't then don't pay for it. How freaking hard is this concept to grasp?

Another Bingo. Some people think the sky is falling if they are held responsible for their actions.

They also want to make kids but not have any of the responsibility that goes with it. Give your card an expensive toy with YOUR credit card on it then YOU are responsible for their purchases.

 

[639051]

It's funny and shameful how some people here seem to be happy to support pretty much misleading statements simply because they are Apple related.

I am positive 100% in other walks of life if these same people experienced other similar things themselves, where they were not forced to spend money, but the implication was something was free, but when they got there it was obvious it was a marketing ploy to attract customers, they would feel annoyed.

They won't admit this as they will always see this company in a good light irrespective.

Never mind.

Assume much?

My statements do not fall under any particular stand for a company. In fact, I don't care if Apple sinks or swims. People these days feel so entitled to everything, as if the fact that they were born here on earth means that they should get everything just because. People have been trained from infancy to believe that THEY are special and that THEY deserve whatever they want, irregardless of the negative impact those choices may bring.

Life is about choices. Choose poorly and you suffer the consequences. No amount of legislation is going to take that FACT away.

Not at all - but it's important to realise that it prays on human weaknesses. Gambling does the same thing, which is why it is heavily regulated and even banned in many places. Human beings are not perfect; they can be manipulated and misled rather easily by those wishing to take their money.

That is especially true in the case of children, which is what this issue is mostly about. Most of the most egregious IAP abusers are games which appeal to children. They might not fully understand the consequences of what they're doing, or appreciate the value of money.

Shifting all of the blame on to the parents isn't really much of a solution. The parents have to fight the power of marketing, which is specialised and tuned to appeal to children. Children may see their parents' passwords and buy these things themselves. Shifting the blame to the children also isn't an answer - courts treat juveniles differently because society accepts that they can not take full responsibility for their actions. Being a parent can be very challenging, and giving them a huge amount of additional responsibility over these corporations which pray on their childrens' lack of self control is not the way a mature society behaves.

The USA is extremely pro-corporate, so I don't expect anything to change there. The EU, on the other hand, actually understands what the role of Government is: it is to advocate on behalf of the actual, living human beings who elect it. Corporations have to live within the rules that the people set for them, not the other way around. In this case, they work for the parents trying to raise their children, not the corporations praying on them.

So, parents should not retain responsibility then. Check. Understand totally.

Done with this thread.

 

[makitango]

It's funny and shameful how some people here seem to be happy to support pretty much misleading statements simply because they are Apple related.

I am positive 100% in other walks of life if these same people experienced other similar things themselves, where they were not forced to spend money, but the implication was something was free, but when they got there it was obvious it was a marketing ploy to attract customers, they would feel annoyed.

They won't admit this as they will always see this company in a good light irrespective.

Never mind.

^This. Even if prior statements stand true in nature that this just how it is these days, people cannot ignore that the overall quality and polish of apps severely lacked over the last few years, and IAPs are a nice tool to elevate more core content and even the most basic functions, even in paid apps, to a ridiculous level. There are a lot of exceptions, we cannot deny that, but we cannot either look away from the majority of apps and especially games which are just screaming for children to hit the $99 IAP. Most importantly, these are big name apps such as Angry Birds. IAPs mostly aren't balanced around the app, the apps are now balanced accordingly to IAPs.
I just try to ignore these kind of apps/games like everybody concerned should do as well, but again, apps were better in the past. Devs kept an eye on app size, traffic, performance and UI design. Nowadays most apps are just about style (=/= design) which is why so many "iOS 7 redesign"s failed at every level. Remember these days when Shazam was in fact the quickest way to find music with its 800KB (now 50+MB?) app, and Facebook was just 2MB (now it's 60-ish?)and apps were rarely ever sluggish or buggy? Looking at the functions, the app sizes should never have exceeded so drastically.

Well I guess I lost it here. Still I think IAPs make sense in terms of newspaper subscriptions, truly optional content DLCs (e.g. which were truly developed after release!) and the likes. Consumables in games just give you a feeling that you are underperforming in comparison to the guy next to you throwing a-round with his credit card.

 

[Toltepeceno]

I am not aware of any buffet restaurant that requires a customer to provide credit card information to be kept on file before the customer is permitted to walk in the door.

I am not aware that people were allowed to give their child access to their credit card, isn't it only supposed to be the person with the name on it that uses it?

 

[AdonisSMU]

I think Apple should just change the labeling. They should add an additional category or IAP apps so they have a Top Charts etc.. The fact that for pay apps disguised as free apps are blocking apps that are actually free is annoying. Apple needs to be more transparent. I don't understand why they fight this stuff so hard. This is a gimme. Just label the app correctly and in an obvious way.

 

[Toltepeceno]

It's funny and shameful how some people here seem to be shocked to support pretty much parents having any responsibility at all because they are Apple related.

Fixed that and it has nothing to do with apple. It's whiney kids making more whiney kids.

 

[gnasher729]

But give a kid a piece of tech, and you can sure expect they will use it fully. If you can't understand the technology enough to control your kids, and can't talk to them to make sure they understand the consequences of buying little gems or whatever in the games they're playing... you're failing on multiple levels.

Letting them buy little gems and suffer the consequences while keeping an eye on it so the consequences are not too bad is a good learning experience and good parenting. "You spent your pocket money for the week on smurfberries? Well, that's just tough. You'll have to wait for next week, and better be more careful. "

 

[macsmurf]

Just require password/fingerprint for in-app purchases every time. Problem solved.

Why is this so hard, Apple?

 

[SusanK]

I am not aware that people were allowed to give their child access to their credit card, isn't it only supposed to be the person with the name on it that uses it?

If a child attempts to use a credit card the adult on the other end of the transaction is responsible to not do the deal.

If a merchant accepts a credit card from a child the transaction is not legally enforceable.

----------

I am not aware that people were allowed to give their child access to their credit card, isn't it only supposed to be the person with the name on it that uses it?

Does Apple still require a credit card to be on file to use the iTunes or App stores? I opened mine a long tie ago and I think I had to provide a card.

Not being contentious. Asking for info.

 

[inkswamp]

Has anyone here ever been confused when an app prompts you to pay for something? If I'm not mistaken, there's a cancel button. You're never forced to pay for anything.

Who's so brain-dead that they can't figure out how to avoid an in-app purchase? Seems like a non-issue to me, or perhaps a way for European bureaucrats to wedge themselves into the bank account of a very large, American company.

 

[JAT]

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.

If consumers are your enemy, you have a problem as a creator of products. I have nothing to contemplate about this relationship today, do you?

 

[AdonisSMU]

If consumers are your enemy, you have a problem as a creator of products. I have nothing to contemplate about this relationship today, do you?

Who said anything about consumers being the enemy? Where did you get that from? People are calling developers greedy for wanting to eat. They aren't working for free any more than anyone else is. Please don't blame us. Everyone thinks they should never have to pay for anything.

I agree that Apple's labeling of their IAP Apps is misleading. That isn't the developers fault. Stop blaming us. It's Apple's fault for not correctly labeling the apps as IAP. I've said that more than once already.

Secondly, don't put words into my mouth. I am more than capable of speaking up for myself. I don't need you misrepresenting my posts. You want to argue about Apple's dishonesty with the labeling of their apps. Your are here being dishonest yourself trying to label me as someone who views the consumer as the enemy when Ive said nothing of the sort.

 

[SusanK]

Does Apple permit users under 18 to have an account with the App store?

If Apple does than there is no problem. Kid can have his own Apple ID/password and no method of payment linked. Kids could only use free apps.

----------

Bingo!!!!!!! It's parents that give children access to their cards. I have never seen a credit card issued to a child, parents that give their child access to their card should not whine if they make purchases with it.

Children cannot legally enter into a contractual agreement. If a merchant accepts a credit card form a child the transaction is void. Onus is on the seller not the buyer if the buyer is a kid.