Inadvertent $1500 in app purchase Tap Zoo - warning!

Hi. Thanks for your reply and for your decent tone. Nice change :-)

I agree - it was a stupid oversight not checking if the inn-app purchases were disabled after the reset - a mistake I'm now paying dearly for. I mean £500/$800 is a ridiculous amount run up by a child in an hour or so. It's a lot of money to be wasted like that on.....nothing.

My point is that there is something not right, if not downright immoral, about these apps charging ludicrous amounts by enticing children to feed a dragon or whatever. These apps are specifically designed for and target children and it is very, very easy to run up a HUGE bill if the parent falsely thinks that every purchase requires authoristion (after all even an upgrade requires your password to be entered). Yes, it is easy to disable in-app purchases, once you know how, but many are just not aware of the need to do this, because they think....well, every purchase requires a password or authorisation - especially when it comes to children. It just leaves a bad after-taste. I can't put it better than numerous people have before me in this thread.

I understand Apple is being sued over this matter and it will be interesting to see what the verdict will be.

Evjorenoliv wrote:

Hi. Thanks for your reply and for your decent tone. Nice change :-)

I understand Apple is being sued over this matter and it will be interesting to see what the verdict will be.

Can you attribute that, or is it a rumor?

So the Ts & Cs make it perfectly clear that in-app purchases cost real money. Congrats to the developers and iTunes for their transparency.

But how many circumstances are there in which restrictions may be disabled? Let's see now:

* New purchase within past 15 minutes,

* System restore,

* Doing an "Erase All Content"

* OS upgrade.

Are we all supposed to just know that all these actions will re-set the restrictions? Are there other situations in which I have to check that restrictions are enabled? Should I just check the settings every single time I want my child to play a child-friendly app, just in case Apple has found yet another devious way to revert to the default setting of unrestricted in-app purchasing?

Yes, we obtained a refund for our mistake, but I have every sympathy with Evjorenoliv. It could happen to anyone (except those self-righteous, tech-savvy, childless, know-it-alls of course).

BTW, can anyone introduce me to one single genuine, willing purchaser of a $100 chest of jewels in a kids game?

Used to love Apple wrote:

BTW, can anyone introduce me to one single genuine, willing purchaser of a $100 chest of jewels in a kids game?

Where do you think that data may be found?

There are people who spend $100s of dollars per month and games like this. look at Farmville. Zynga who made Farmville admitted that they had people who did this and those were the people that they targetted to keep them going. They called them whales. Look it up yourself. Yes, people spent $100s per month to plant imagnery strawberries.

Thanks for being the first to make me feel a little bit less terrible about not having checked the restrictions after the reset!!!

Like you, I cannot imagine anyone happily wanting to blow hundreds of dollars on these kids games - we're not talking young children who don't know what they are doing.

However, if some individuals - these so called whales - want to spend their money on these games, fine, so be it. Each to their own liking. But why on earth can't the default setting be a restriction on in-app purchases, so that it is these super keen & most willing purchasers of imaginary strawberries, jewels, dougnuts or whatever dying to spend money that have to enable automatic purchases in their settings rather than the other way around?

http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html

the thing i take Overal from this thread is the lowering of moral standards - at least over my lifetime it seems!

in my younger years had i been taken advantage by a retailer seemingly simply because i was a child, my parents could easily approach that local retailer to remonstrate. Usually that would be bad news for such a loth-sum retailers tactics (fearing the threat of the local press etc.) as the word would soon spread about their dubious conduct and destroy their 'reputation'.

in this age of remote click and buy, by the time the mud hits the fan the retailer is several millions to the good, and still building, so why would they care?

i just wish Apple would apply the same diligence as they do to their excellent products, it is annoying to ave to enter your password for updates, oh very easy to switch to the '15 minute option' - then forget it.

As i don't play phone games so i leave it a 15 minutes, as i have (at the last count) five grandchildren, while fairly tech savvy, i am possibly an easy even a prime target for such vendors behaviour.

in all truth i'd be more likely to offer a devoted marriage promise to my mother-in law, than pay 99$ for any form of game enhancement. have and will by DLC for xbox games, and so yes while i agree some will pay these extraordinary fee's, and i do not want to impinge on their rights, i suggest they are seriously in the minority of willing users.

It would be just so easy for Apple to insert your personal spend limit in tHeir profile, box your spend limit on DLC

I agree 100% with alanfromwickford. Apple is hiding behind their terms of service, protecting developers who market ridiculous in-app purchases in children's games. Why are these developers limiting themselve to only $100 for a "smurfberry" or a "bucket of coins"? Why not really up the ante and charge some unspecting five year old $25,000 for a "pot o' gold" or "100 extra kicks".

Every app that is submitted to the App Store is reviewed by Apple. They should shut this nonsense down. It's one thing to make a lot of money developing great products that have real value, like the iPad and MacBook. It's quite another to make a lot of money taking a percentage cut of some digital nonsense that kids are buying either unwittingly or by begging until their parents give in.

Eli in Raleigh wrote:

I agree 100% with alanfromwickford. Apple is hiding behind their terms of service, protecting developers who market ridiculous in-app purchases in children's games. Why are these developers limiting themselve to only $100 for a "smurfberry" or a "bucket of coins"? Why not really up the ante and charge some unspecting five year old $25,000 for a "pot o' gold" or "100 extra kicks".

Every app that is submitted to the App Store is reviewed by Apple. They should shut this nonsense down. It's one thing to make a lot of money developing great products that have real value, like the iPad and MacBook. It's quite another to make a lot of money taking a percentage cut of some digital nonsense that kids are buying either unwittingly or by begging until their parents give in.

That has been the business model (think Toys R Us) for a long time, because it works. Opting out of consumerism is a task for the consumer, not the provider.

sorry Sound1, but i fail to see how Toys R Us is a business model on how to leech serious funds from parents credit cards without them knowing until it us to late?

tbh this 'business model' has evolved after Steve Jobs sad demise, i think he would have had the moral fibre and compass, as well as the desire to protect Apples unassailable reputation that he help first salvage then build in his time, to ruthlessly step on this imho odorous and seemingly Apple sanctioned practice.

Apple has already lost the worlds 'most valuable company share' tittle, Samsung are seemingly making inroads to being the handset/pad in many eyes (not mine though ;) ).

customer confidence is key to any business, Apple has roved price is no bar to wanting quality, i hope they realise a big part the quality concept held by many a customer base, is their impeccable behaviour!

Alan

alanfromwickford wrote:

sorry Sound1, but i fail to see how Toys R Us is a business model on how to leech serious funds from parents credit cards without them knowing until it us to late?

First it's Csound1,

To each their own opinion, I see a direct parallel between Toys R Us marketing methods and App developers, only the App developers are targeting the parents who are unwilling to exert the small amount of control a brick and mortar store may afford, so they let their kids do the shopping unattended.

As a marketing strategy it is brilliant, effective and profitable, and you are the target.

Csound1,

If an app offered an in-app purchase of say a smurfberry for $25,000, and some 5 year old purchased that item, do you think the holder of that debit or credit card should have any recourse? Or should it be basically, tough luck here's a link to our terms of service. Should Apple, which was up until this week the biggest company on earth (by market-cap) do some basic policing of what's being sold in it's own iTunes store? I cannot belive this was Steve Jobs vision how how his company was to remain profitable.

What makes you think an app with a $25,000 Smurfberry would be approved?

Lots of people purchase download these apps and let their kids play them. And many of them have lots of reviews and are generally positive. But lots of parents, guardians read the manual for their expensive device and take the necessary precautionary steps before handing them an item that has a built in link to their credit card.

As far as I know Apple and all of the developers of these games have approved a refund the first time a child purchase happens. They do not do so if it happens a second time.

Eli in Raleigh wrote:

Csound1,

If an app offered an in-app purchase of say a smurfberry for $25,000,

That is too ridiculous to bother with.