Inadvertent $1500 in app purchase Tap Zoo - warning!

How do you know there is little value in these purchases? Do you play these games? Do you play any of the adult Facebook games that charge similar prices? I don't but it is not my place to say what value there is in the purchases. It isn't your place either.

I personally wouldn't put any limit. It isn't my place. Should Apple also be allowed to tell a developer how much they should be able to charge for their paid apps?

Developers want to make money and from experience they know what prices to charge to stay in business and make money. They should be the ones who are setting their prices. If they are too high they will not be able to sell any of their smurfberries, gold coins, etc. Most of them have a range of pricess anyway.

If I decided to develop one of these games I would set my prices according to what I could sell and make money and adjust accordingly based on previous sales. This is the way commerce works. If you wrote to me and said I was charging too much for my deggieberries I would ignore you. Write your own app and set the prices yourself.

deggie wrote:

Orange = $200

Yellow = $350

Purple = $475

Green = $675

Blue = $900

Gold = $1,500 (just to match this topic)

Red = You can't afford it.

2 please, Purple. I have Zlotys to pay for them with 🙂

I have been reviewing this thread and was wondering if I missed any comments on apps targeting adults having the same problems? It seems like it is only happening on apps targeting children.

The FTC has seized and liquidated companies who have reoccuring charges in fine print and appear manipulative. Look up Jeremy Johnson and the FTC. His company took customers credit card numbers for shipping charges of 1.99, and then billed them reoccuring charges of between 59 and 189. He thought it was legal because it was disclosed somewhere in the fine print. He found out the hard way.

Although not excaclty the same, it appears to be similar to what's happening here. I wonder if anyone has notified the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).

It has been quite entertaining to see some people relentlessly defending these developers. Some have spent months on this topic. Others claim they know how to parent children, yet are obviously addicted to their computers and their level ratings, while there children are obviously unsupervised. Maybe they are the developers, because there comments defy all reason yet they are relentless.

Apple's share price has plummeted lately due to alternative devices of equal quality becoming available. Maybe some Apple customers have been burned and are using their purchases as their voice of discontentment. As a shareholder of Apple stock I find this concerning. A friend of mine who runs a hedge fund shorted Apple stock at $700 citing concerns with the way the company's management is making decesions soley based on profit and not customer service and innovation. He has made a small fortune on this trade. Considering the current share price of 453.62, a decline of approximately 35%, this may very well be the case. If this type of practice continues it could lead to the demise of the entire company. Although, considering the loyalty and ignorance of some Apple customers, as seen on this message board, there will always be someone purchasing Apple products. As a shareholder, this does provide some level of comfort.

"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." Warren Buffett

tumbleweed555, How is this any different then say Comcast or Time Warner offering Pay-Per-View services?

Should we all contact the FTC because our children used the remote control to purchase PPV content? I don't see how these two instances differ.

While we're at it, we should also let the FTC know about AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint since they let users text an SMS short code to subscribe to services or to donate money. Why don't AT&T and Verizon enter the spotlight for letting kids use SMS short codes to charge money to their parents family plan?

You could make that comparison if comcast charged a $99 fee in the middle of a free childrens movie. Your really scrapping here Mr. Kearney. What childrens app do you develop?

"Our DNA is as a consumer company - for that individual customer who's voting thumbs up or thumbs down. That's who we think about. And we think that our job is to take responsibility for the complete user experience. And if it's not up to par, it's our fault, plain and simply." Steve Jobs

God I miss Steve Jobs! He'd be rolling over in his grave right know!

Mr. Jobs was still alive and active in the company when in-app purchases were made available, this is not new.

Not all in-app purchases in children's games are $99 and most not even close to it. Many would be $4.99, about the cost of an in demand movie and less than many text donations.

I am not a developer of these games and do not have any of them in my kids games folder on my iPad. When I do let the kids play with the iPad I play with them. I do know parents who have the games that have in-app coins, berries, etc. they love the games but they have in-app purchases restricted. They buy them when their kids need them and they do often buy at the higher end in order to reduce the number of times they have to do so.

tumbleweed555 wrote:

You could make that comparison if comcast charged a $99 fee in the middle of a free childrens movie.

No, that comparison is not accurate either. It would be if the movie paused in the middle and said "Do you want to continue watching this movie for $0.99? Accept or Decline."

Adults understand the concept of what costs real money and what is part of a game. Children seem to think it is all a game and play money. What adults (or at least the ones here) DON'T understand is that when they hand their children the device with their credit card information, the children will continue to assume it is play money. Why they don't understand this, I am not sure. There is a reason one must be 13 to create an Apple ID.

When you read your post out loud stevejobsfan123, do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Comcast wouldn't be caught dead doing something like that. If they did, they would expect be out of business. Which is the direction Apple is headed with these policies. I bet you don't own any Apple shares. If you did, you would have to think reasonably!

deggie - At least there is some agreement on the $99 in app purchase being ridiculous. You apparently do have the ability to reason. Now get off your computer and go actually spend time with your children. Since you apparently watch everything they do while on the computer. Do you even have children?

Csound1 - That was a direct quote from Steve Jobs typed verbatim. At least your arguing about grammer and not defending these silly policies. I can respect that!

That's stevejobsfan0123 to you. Yes I do own Apple shares. But when Apple does something I do not like a do not come to an Internet forum and rant about it.

tumbleweed555 wrote:

When you read your post out loud stevejobsfan123, do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

On a bit of an ego trip, eh? You purported that Apple is doing something illegal and hiding behind "fine print," when in reality no one gets charged without pressing "OK" to the charges. Now, do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

tumbleweed555 wrote:

When you read your post out loud stevejobsfan123, do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Comcast wouldn't be caught dead doing something like that. If they did, they would expect be out of business. Which is the direction Apple is headed with these policies. I bet you don't own any Apple shares. If you did, you would have to think reasonably!

deggie - At least there is some agreement on the $99 in app purchase being ridiculous. You apparently do have the ability to reason. Now get off your computer and go actually spend time with your children. Since you apparently watch everything they do while on the computer. Do you even have children?

Csound1 - That was a direct quote from Steve Jobs typed verbatim. At least your arguing about grammer and not defending these silly policies. I can respect that!

Post a link to the quote.

I have no problem with Apple's policy on the matter, I do have considerable problems with adults who want Apple to get involved with parenting their children.

Guess I just lost the respect, but had to state my position in response to any assumptions being made.

I didn't say the $99 was ridiculous. In fact I said I knew people who purchase at that level. They don't consider it ridiculous at all. Re-read what I said.

I'm long since the child-rearing stage, I get to play with them and hand them back. And I didn't say I did that while they were on the computer, I said while I let them play with my iPad. It's fun and I tend towards educational games. Or GarageBand. (these are young kids).

And I don't really care if you think I'm reasonable or not or whether I should get off the computer. I can allocate my time without your help.

I noticed a pattern while reading these comments and wanted to see if I was correct. Every time someone posts something even close to negative about this ridiculous subject, a few loyal subjects respond to defend it. It's mostly the same individuals. So, either your compensated by Apple, the app developers, or are the most uneducated, unreasonable, morons to have ever posted anything.

I don't think Apple would ever consider compensating anyone for posting positive comments, nor does it appear you are uneducated or morons, although you are unreasonable. So how much compensation do you get from the developers?

In the case against Jeremy Johnson vs FTC, which is current, his iWorks company gave out free informational products about Grants and only charged 1.99 in shipping. However, in the fine print you had to opt out of the reoccuring charges of 59 -189 a month. If you did not do your due diligence and read all of the fine print you were charged these reocurring fees. Mr. Johnson made approximately 275 million after refunding 75 million to disgruntled customers. He made hundreds of millions of dollars with deceptive practices. The FTC seized all his assests and auctioned them off to pay back customers. At least his company wasn't targeting children!

This case closely resembles what is happening with these apps. By your reason this should be legal and the FTC should not have done anything? Do you also believe cigarette companies should be able to target children with marketing of cartoon characters and prizes for smoking more? I guess parents should be watching their children 24-7. It's always easier to blame the parents!

Buyer beware with no restrictions on deceptive practices? Come on, how much are they paying you?

The Johnson v FTC is not even remotely related to this topic. There is are no regular on-going charges in these games, the purchases have to be initiated by the user. You don't purchase $49.95 of deggieberries and have a recurring charge for them each month or a hidden processing fee you have to pay. If you want $79.95 of coins you select that and purchase them. Same thing applies to all apps that have in-app purchases (and I have bought additional components for some adult apps I have).

When this topic first appeared there was no available in-app purchase restriction available. It was quickly added. If in spite of these tools you hand your device to a child and they buy $450 of coins you can go through the App Store and get it cancelled. Once. Second time is on the person who has the account. What is unreasonable about this?

deggie wrote:

If in spite of these tools you hand your device to a child and they buy $450 of coins you can go through the App Store and get it cancelled. Once. Second time is on the person who has the account. What is unreasonable about this?

I don't think he even understands the topic of this thread.