Previous 1 23 24 25 26 27 Next 448 Replies Latest reply: Jan 21, 2014 1:58 PM by darcy11072 Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
  • tumbleweed555 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I'm sure I will find plenty of reviews to support thier deceptive practices.  Yes, I am hung up on the $99 because it's upsurd.  No one is complaining about a accidental 4.99, which you are hung up on. 


    So let me make sure I am hearing you correctly.  Charging $99 during the 15 minute window, (or whatever you want to call it), is a moral and ethical way to conduct business according to you?  It's not a some bottom feeding company trying to exploit an area of oppurtunity to get money from unsuspecting customers.  Right?  Because they would probably be making the same amount of money either way, because their game is so popular. 


    This is the incessive rot of a free market economy.  Open commerce with no oversight at all.  I wish we could have completely open commerce and unleash the free market, but we can't because someone will always exploit it for the easy money, while hiding behind disclosures or legalities.  It is our responsibility to seek out this type of exploitation and crush it before it infects all corners of a free market.  Could you imagine if this type of business practice was everywhere.  This is a "Gotcha Sucker" way of doing business.  If that's the open commerce you want you can have it.  Maybe you should have these business professionals managing you retirement fund, your grandchildren college fund, or you could have them handle your next mortgage.  We'll see what completely open commerce does for your investments. 

  • alanfromwickford Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)

    i have not personally been caught out by this, but i look at ut this way.


    you find a wallet or a wad of money in the street. you are legally bound to hand it in to the Police (well - in the UK).


    The fact someone has accidentally lost control of these valuables - carelessly or by accident, is not an excuse for the finder to then spend the contents (usually kept for six months, but if not claimed then returned to you).


    that law is in place to show members of our society what is considered good and fair behaviour, we all make mistakes but ti take advantage, especially financial is immoral.


    legalities aside, is that not a clean and moral way to conduct oneself? or do you simply say finders keepers so hard luck sucker?


    imagine you are a shop keeper and a child walks in and starts buying some of this, some if that then goes to pay with a credit card, apart from under 18's not legally being allowed to own credit cards would you not question how he/she got it, and seek some sort of assurance the owner was happy to allow thus child free reign?


    Now i hear you argue how can the shop keeper properly know it is a child buying swaddled tones via what is an illegal funding source conducted on line?


    to that i say in law - ignorance is no defence! and it is the principal that people who trust their societies rules rely on.


    so what is to understand about that this practice, coupled with titles, and graphics that will attract youngsters interest, using sudo names for real cash masking any realisation of cost in children ir the less able minded - is not immoral?


    i'm absolutely sure their people who are very happy to splash the cash without interest and i respect their rights to do so, but if majority rules in our society (and it has to to defend the rights if the minority) then this is again no excuse to justify it.

  • Csound1 Level 8 Level 8 (45,315 points)

    tumbleweed555 wrote:





    2 new words, thanks.

  • stevejobsfan0123 Level 8 Level 8 (39,435 points)

    imagine you are a shop keeper and a child walks in and starts buying some of this, some if that then goes to pay with a credit card, apart from under 18's not legally being allowed to own credit cards would you not question how he/she got it

    Apple does not know who is using the iPad/iPhone/iPod. But to equate the topic of this thread to your analogy, the owner basically handed the kid the credit card and expected them not to use it.

  • deggie Level 9 Level 9 (51,715 points)

    What deceptive practices? Disney is one of the companies (among many others) that have this type of app. In the description of their app they list the various in-app prices. The top tier is $99.95


    As I've told you more than once I know people who purchase at the $99 level. They do so in order to avoid going into restrictions every week and buying more. They realize it is $99. They are not being duped. They want to be able to buy at that amount. They don't care that YOU think it is absurd. Who are you to judge them and tell them it is absurd? Is it absurd to buy a BMW?


    And as I clearly pointed out you do not have to live with the 15 minute window. It can be changed by the user to require the password every time. But better yet in this case you can go into Restrictions and TURN OFF IN-APP PURCHASES. Period. Now there is no way they can buy any coins, berries, pixie dust, etc.


    Sorry, but I am a believer in the free market economy. And not a supporter of prohibition. If some socialist/communist government wants to ban Disney from putting out these apps they can do so and the app makers will pull them from that app store. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Disney marketing this and neither do responsible parents/guardians that allow their children to play them. They don't need a nanny state to tell them how to live their life.

  • tumbleweed555 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Csound1 - Thanks for editing my post.  I always have a hard time editing my own work.  I'm not sure what the thanks was for, but I assume it was a dig.  But I don't want to make any assumptions. 


    alanfromwickward - Thank you!  You obviously see the value in ethical business practices and how it's necessary for a free market economy to flourish. 


    stevejobsfan0123 - Your wrong.  You should read his post more thoroughly.  Metaphors and analogies are never perfect, but help to illustrate.  One can always twist it to your point of view, which you have recklessly done. 


    deggie - Maybe we should also do away with referees in sports.  Can you imagine a basketball game with no referees.  It would destroy the game.  A free market must also have referees who can call foul on deceptive practices and fraudulent behavior from bottom feeders.  This is very far from socialism and communism.


    I haven't heard a complaint from Disney ripping off customers.  I believe they would correct it asap if there was a problem.  Their reputation is valuable and any press on targeting children to rip off their parents would not be worth it. 


    Why don't we just do away with all laws in general.  Who needs law enforcement anyway.  One should have to defend oneself from others who would rape and pillage ones family.  Totally free societly just sounds better doesn't it.  Because people are honest and good and would never exploit anyone.


    And just to make sure we all understand what this thread is about.  The title is inadvertent $1500 in app purchases.  It's not inadvertent $4.99 in app purchase.  So we are talking about extremes here and were not talking about Disney.  Let's not minimize the subject. 


    I applaud Apple for taking the ethical and moral approach here by refunding the charges.  I understand they now have ways to prevent this, but why would apple still set the default settings on all devices to be susceptible to this?  It would seem more appropriate and responsible to require the customer to change the settings to allow for easier purchases if you wanted it.  Which is how they do it at online retailers, which was referenced earlier.


    So I need a direct answer to my question.  You think $1500 in app purchases, all transactions completed within the 15 minute window, linked to children's free games is an ethical and moral moral way to conduct business? 


    Csound1 - Would you mind editing this post.  I am getting tired and had to of made several mistakes.  Thanks buddy.  You could also post something insightful and enlighted us all, but no pressure.   

  • stevejobsfan0123 Level 8 Level 8 (39,435 points)

    One can always twist it to your point of view, which you have recklessly done.

    Oh, stop. You're making me blush.

  • deggie Level 9 Level 9 (51,715 points)

    What is with this "ethical and moral"?


    You do go off on rants, don't you. Who said anything about not needing referees or laws?


    Let me get you straight on this, Apple has exactly 0 kids apps that have in-app purchases.


    Disney has several. Here is one: While the top 10 in-app purchases only go up to $9.99, they offer packages of pixie dust and whatnot up to your favorite, $99.99, which seems to be the top individual purchase you can make in any of these games.


    If you look in the description of that app you will not that it states there are items for sale that cost real money and if this is a problem you should turn off in-app purchases (a point you can't seem to undersand).


    So is Disney lacking in ethics and morals by selling these games?


    And the original post was $1500 AUD, and it consisted of multiple purchases.


    You have yet to show me how selling items as in-app purchases is unethical and immoral. All you've shown me is you think $99 is absurd and you think the law should make that price point illegal. What other prices out there do you think should be made illegal?


    Sorry, but I do believe in personal responsibility. There are also stories about parents who have set up one-click on their Amazon app, handed the iPad to their children and walked away. So the kids opened the app and bought many things using one-click which was tied directly to their credit card. Is this unethical and immoral on Amazon's part?


    Why should parents who want to purchase $99 packets of pixie dust not be able to do so? Because youl said so?

  • tumbleweed555 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    deggie - You still didn't answer my question.

  • stevejobsfan0123 Level 8 Level 8 (39,435 points)

    Didn't see a question buried in your rant. If there was, it was probably off topic.

  • deggie Level 9 Level 9 (51,715 points)

    Yes, I think all of these games that sell in-app items are ethical and moral.


    I think my DirecTV selling on-demand movies, sporting events, concerts, wrestling specials (one of these was your favorite price, $99.99 which I'd never spend) ethical and moral.


    I think the Mac App Store selling applications that include in-app upgrades, etc., is ethical and moral.


    P.S. We had one situation where I live where the kids ran up over $2,000 in on-demand purchases in less than a month at their house on cable.

  • tumbleweed555 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I guess I need to clarify.


    I do believe in app purchase features are great and serve a purpose.


    I do have a problem with targeting free children's apps, knowing that most users have the default setting, and programming the app to have multiple pop ups for in app purchases within the standard 15 minute default settings.  This is predatory in nature and is targeted towards unsuspecting customers.  There should be automatic safegaurds in childrens apps to prevent this.  So I am specifically speaking of extraordinarily high in app purchases in the first 15 minutes of childrens games. 


    You keep avoiding that question directly and try to make it about all in app purchases, communism, and on demand purchases.  So let's try and narrow your focus. 

  • deggie Level 9 Level 9 (51,715 points)

    I narrowed the focus for you. The incident you referred to happened because a child clicked on a $149 AUD purchase 10 times. That was over two years ago.


    All apps with in app purchase now carry a disclaimer stating that are items within the game that are purchased with real money and that the buyer should turn on the in-app restriction. It also lists the in-app purchases available. You can also restrict app purchases.


    If anyone is going to give a $500 or more device that has direct access to their credit card to a child they should at least read the description of the game they are purchasing. Also is a good idea to read the manual since children can also wander to places on the internet where they shouldn't be.


    It is not predatory in nature and is not targeted to unsuspecting consumers anymore than any other application, software, hardware, televisions, Netflix, DirecTV, etc. It is not anymore predatory than the Magic Kingdom at Disney World displaying souvenirs so kids can ask for them. iPads, iPhones, etc. are not little children toys. Before gaining access to them children are relying on parents being reliable before letting them use it.


    Personal responsibility. And for the far vast majority who let their kids play Disney Fairies Fashion Boutique there is no issue whatsoever. Just like most people's cable TV, Satellite hookup, computers, etc.


    So I will narrow it for you: there is no ethical or moral issue. There is the issue of parents/guardians/adults being responsible. Period. If you think Disney is being unethical or immoral with their games go on their website and complain to them.

  • alanfromwickford Level 1 Level 1 (10 points)

    so you do not agree with a very fundamental point of UK law  i.e."to that i say in law - ignorance is no defence! and it is the principal that people who trust their societies rules rely on." ?


    lets try this, to keep my home safe i close the front door - was a time i as a child i would have not or needed to bother.


    i invite a good friend Mr A over who i have known quit a while, and is in my close circle, he decides to invite his friend along who i do not know. They turn up perhaps i'm surprised but as it is someone he trust's and i trust his judgement i let them both in.


    having let them both over the threshold based firmly on that trust, i would not expect the new acquaintance to rummage my home or wallet watched by my trusted friend, just because i needed to leave the room and make the tea.


    so ok, i made a bad stupid call but this act would still be theft, the defence other's will allow this to happen willingly may be true and i say  fine for them - but not for me and i'd suspect i am in the vast majority so i'd don't hold water - try it in front of a judge as i'm no lawyer.


    £0.99 or £9,9999.00 it is still stolen if i do not give my express permission,  the principle is still the same. Even had this new aquantance pleaded i or our mutual friend had let him do this before without it would still be theft - and a gross abuse if my trust.


    i feel society in general has been desensitised, £0.99 is i minor amount so people might say it is petty to moan, so when will £4.99, £9.99, £19.99 become 'acceptable'?


    this whole sorry mess could easily be avoided in the same way PayPal operate with Ebay vendors, any purchase is text to you to accept Before it is transacted - why do Apple not save a lot of hassle and angst using that as a model, or at least allow us to choose this as a default or not?

  • Csound1 Level 8 Level 8 (45,315 points)

    alanfromwickford wrote:


    so you do not agree with a very fundamental point of UK law  i.e."to that i say in law - ignorance is no defence! and it is the principal that people who trust their societies rules rely on." ?

    That's not even a sentence, ignorance of what is ignorance no defence to, the offence? the law?


    Try again, use a subject in your sentence.

Previous 1 23 24 25 26 27 Next