It's a tricky one, this. It seems odd that Google have been praised and Apple have been criticised considering the level of control you've historically had over in-app purchases with iOS. But, I suppose Google have given a time frame for when changes will be made.
Still, it seems odd for them to criticise Apple considering:
- You've always been able to turn off in-app purchases in the Restrictions menu
- You've always been able to require the password for every single purchase, including in-app purchases
- You've always been able to see the cost of popular in-app purchases before you even download the app
And recently:
- Apps that offer in-app purchases are now described as such in the App Store
- In-app purchases always require the password or Touch ID
- There's a parents' guide to iTunes and the App Store, covering in-app purchases
- An additional security measure is being added in iOS 8
I'm not convinced that banning the use of the word 'free' is a good thing at all. I have plenty of free apps and games that offer in-app purchases, yet I've never spent any money on them. I realise there are some games that make it virtually impossible to progress unless you use IAP, but there are many, many more games and apps that are fully featured and use IAP as an additional, optional revenue stream. Can a fully featured photo editing app not be described as free because it includes the option of buying additional filters? It seems daft. The app IS free.
App descriptions should have to be explicit about what is included and what is to be purchased at additional cost. I recently saw an app that described five 'core features', but it later transpired that three of them had to be purchases separately. That, in my view, is mis-selling. But describing a fully-featured app as free isn't.
Take the game I have referenced above (watch video), not playable as you would expect a RTS game to operate and as such to play and complete the game properly will cost many hundreds of pounds.
Now there are various games some more playable than others without purchases i concede. However free to play when clearly not as it becomes impractical or useless is not free to play.
Listing a game as free to play but somewhere under saying if all in app purchases for this game a bought the total cost would be £xx is not an issue and provides clarity up front.
The total cost is clear enough if you look at the in app purchase list.
It's a tricky one, this. It seems odd that Google have been praised and Apple have been criticised considering the level of control you've historically had over in-app purchases with iOS. But, I suppose Google have given a time frame for when changes will be made.
Still, it seems odd for them to criticise Apple considering:
- You've always been able to turn off in-app purchases in the Restrictions menu
- You've always been able to require the password for every single purchase, including in-app purchases
- You've always been able to see the cost of popular in-app purchases before you even download the app
And recently:
- Apps that offer in-app purchases are now described as such in the App Store
- In-app purchases always require the password or Touch ID
- There's a parents' guide to iTunes and the App Store, covering in-app purchases
- An additional security measure is being added in iOS 8
I'm not convinced that banning the use of the word 'free' is a good thing at all. I have plenty of free apps and games that offer in-app purchases, yet I've never spent any money on them. I realise there are some games that make it virtually impossible to progress unless you use IAP, but there are many, many more games and apps that are fully featured and use IAP as an additional, optional revenue stream. Can a fully featured photo editing app not be described as free because it includes the option of buying additional filters? It seems daft. The app IS free.
App descriptions should have to be explicit about what is included and what is to be purchased at additional cost. I recently saw an app that described five 'core features', but it later transpired that three of them had to be purchases separately. That, in my view, is mis-selling. But describing a fully-featured app as free isn't.
Totally agree with this. I don't even think this is an apple vs google issue. The reason the EU raise it with Apple is that it achieves publicity, which is what they need.
I also agree that in my experience (which is limited because we as a family do not make in app purchases) are far clearer and better controlled on AppStore.
If an app can be purchased for free and played for free (whether there are time locks or not) why on earth would they have to declare a false price when the in app purchase prices are already listed.
Totally agree with this. I don't even think this is an apple vs google issue. The reason the EU raise it with Apple is that it achieves publicity, which is what they need.
And there ends the sensible debate, didn't take many posts did it.
And there ends the sensible debate, didn't take many posts did it.
Why do you think that?
I haven't asked you to respond to that comment but feel free to.
If you can explain why the EU chose to make a comment like it did when we already know that Apple provides far greater protection than android, then feel free.
You don't seem to like people having a different view to you.
Looking at this a bit more, this is clearly not even an issue with the vast majority of users. The Dungeon Keeper game on the play store has got over 100k 5* reviews.
You would expect far more negative reviews if people felt they were being ripped off.
Totally agree with this. I don't even think this is an apple vs google issue. The reason the EU raise it with Apple is that it achieves publicity, which is what they need.
.
Yes, it's a toss up between EU and Katie Price who needs it more.
I haven't asked you to respond to that comment but feel free to.
If you can explain why the EU chose to make a comment like it did when we already know that Apple provides far greater protection than android, then feel free.
You don't seem to like people having a different view to you.
Nothing to respond to, well in a sensible way, if you have this belief then a conversation with Jamie probably better placed.
Although that will have to wait until he returns from his holiday by the looks of it.
...this is clearly not even an issue with the vast majority of users.......
Apple do not produce stats for in-app purchases but it is apparent that they produce a good proportion of their app income.
It will be be same with Google but unlike Apple, with Google there is no request for credit card details when first choosing any app..
In-app purchases suck you in, that is why they are such a danger to children.
Apple do not produce stats for in-app purchases but it is apparent that they produce a good proportion of their app income.
It will be be same with Google but unlike Apple, with Google there is no request for credit card details when first choosing any app..
In-app purchases suck you in, that is why they are such a danger to children.
There is no request for credit card for Apple either, so I don't know what you are talking about.
edit - http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2534
"If you already created your Apple ID, you need to add a payment method when you first use that Apple ID to sign in to the iTunes Store, App Store, or iBooks Store. But you can optionally remove the payment method after you sign in to the store. You won't be asked for a payment method again until you make your first purchase."
That sounds like a request to me.
And hey, the title of it is 'Create an account without using a Credit Card".
I can't find similar instructions for Google.
:eek:
edit - http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2534
"If you already created your Apple ID, you need to add a payment method when you first use that Apple ID to sign in to the iTunes Store, App Store, or iBooks Store. But you can optionally remove the payment method after you sign in to the store. You won't be asked for a payment method again until you make your first purchase."
That sounds like a request to me.
And hey, the title of it is 'Create an account without using a Credit Card".
I can't find similar instructions for Google.
:eek:
You have an option to add a payment method. One of the options is none.
I currently run 3 iPad airs, none of which have payment cards on them and never had.
However, you can check yourself, you have an iPad.
I really do fail to see how your twisting helps promote Apple. That is all you ever seem to do. You likely even do Apple a disservice.
"'If you’re using the iTunes Store or App Store for the first time'
If you’re using the store for the first time with an existing Apple ID, you must provide a payment method. After you create the account, you can change your payment information to None."
I really do fail to see how your twisting helps promote Apple. That is all you ever seem to do. You likely even do Apple a disservice.
"'If you’re using the iTunes Store or App Store for the first time'
If you’re using the store for the first time with an existing Apple ID, you must provide a payment method. After you create the account, you can change your payment information to None."
Well I did call you the Man from Del Monte because you like to say Yes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28255589
Amazon is getting sued now.
""Amazon's in-app system allowed children to incur unlimited charges on their parents' accounts without permission," said FTC chair Edith Ramirez"
"In its complaint, the FTC used the example of an app called "Ice Age Village", a game designed for children.
The FTC alleged the game "blurred the lines between what costs virtual currency and what costs real money", with "acorns" and "coins" both serving a purpose within the game as well as being available for purchase. The largest quantity purchase available in the app would cost $99.99."
"CPC authorities consider that only apps where in-app purchases are optional can be presented as "free" "
"They want Apple to provide “Clear instructions to the app developers that on-line games involving direct exhortations to children are banned from distribution in the EU market"
"CPC authorities consider that only apps where in-app purchases are optional can be presented as "free" "
"They want Apple to provide “Clear instructions to the app developers that on-line games involving direct exhortations to children are banned from distribution in the EU market"
And as discussed yesterday, if an app requires purchases to complete it, I agree it should not be called free.
However, I'm a little confused about the 'font' argument because both the App Store and the play store use a smaller font. In addition, google have offered to list the prices of all in app purchases, something apple already do.
Having now read the report, I'll stick by my view that the only reason this made the news is because it is about apple.
Well I did call you the Man from Del Monte because you like to say Yes.
Sorry, I don't have a clue what you are talking about. I'm sure it is upsetting for you when posters don't agree with your nonsense, but having seen some of your posting history, I'm sure you are use to it.
Nope, when you need to buy things to carry out basic functions, possibly numerous times the amount is indeterminate.
If you have the option to buy particular things numerous and variable times, then its impossible to give a total cost.
If, for example, a game is free, but offers power ups at 99p per in app purchase, what should Apple say the total cost of the game is?
I'd also agree completely with IslandNiles' post above - exactly the sort of thing that would typically be interpreted as "defending Apple" when of course it is no such thing.
And there ends the sensible debate, didn't take many posts did it.
Perhaps you could post something sensible and articulate discussing the reasons you think Apple and Google appear to have been treated differently on essentially the exact same thing? Is it literally on the use of the word 'free' that they consider inappriate in some cases, and that trumps everything mentioned in IslandNiles' post?
I'll readily confess to not knowing a huge amount about it all, so hopefully you can post something a little more knowledgable about it.
Perhaps you could post something sensible and articulate discussing the reasons you think Apple and Google appear to have been treated differently on essentially the exact same thing?
I'll readily confess to not knowing a huge amount about it all, so hopefully you can post something a little more knowledgable about it.
Thanks.
It isn't a case of Apple being treated differently. The only thing that has actually happened is the EU have made a number of requests to both Apple and Google, and Apple have yet to respond (the report is just an update). This would not have been a story in normal circumstances, but because Apple are involved it makes the press.
The report (and it appears posters here) ignore the fact that google have been far slower to actually do something about the issue and that apple have made a number of changes which in my eyes stops accidentail purchases.
Comments
Still, it seems odd for them to criticise Apple considering:
- You've always been able to turn off in-app purchases in the Restrictions menu
- You've always been able to require the password for every single purchase, including in-app purchases
- You've always been able to see the cost of popular in-app purchases before you even download the app
And recently:
- Apps that offer in-app purchases are now described as such in the App Store
- In-app purchases always require the password or Touch ID
- There's a parents' guide to iTunes and the App Store, covering in-app purchases
- An additional security measure is being added in iOS 8
I'm not convinced that banning the use of the word 'free' is a good thing at all. I have plenty of free apps and games that offer in-app purchases, yet I've never spent any money on them. I realise there are some games that make it virtually impossible to progress unless you use IAP, but there are many, many more games and apps that are fully featured and use IAP as an additional, optional revenue stream. Can a fully featured photo editing app not be described as free because it includes the option of buying additional filters? It seems daft. The app IS free.
App descriptions should have to be explicit about what is included and what is to be purchased at additional cost. I recently saw an app that described five 'core features', but it later transpired that three of them had to be purchases separately. That, in my view, is mis-selling. But describing a fully-featured app as free isn't.
The total cost is clear enough if you look at the in app purchase list.
Totally agree with this. I don't even think this is an apple vs google issue. The reason the EU raise it with Apple is that it achieves publicity, which is what they need.
I also agree that in my experience (which is limited because we as a family do not make in app purchases) are far clearer and better controlled on AppStore.
If an app can be purchased for free and played for free (whether there are time locks or not) why on earth would they have to declare a false price when the in app purchase prices are already listed.
Nope, when you need to buy things to carry out basic functions, possibly numerous times the amount is indeterminate.
And there ends the sensible debate, didn't take many posts did it.
Why do you think that?
I haven't asked you to respond to that comment but feel free to.
If you can explain why the EU chose to make a comment like it did when we already know that Apple provides far greater protection than android, then feel free.
You don't seem to like people having a different view to you.
You would expect far more negative reviews if people felt they were being ripped off.
Yes, it's a toss up between EU and Katie Price who needs it more.
Nothing to respond to, well in a sensible way, if you have this belief then a conversation with Jamie probably better placed.
Although that will have to wait until he returns from his holiday by the looks of it.
It will be be same with Google but unlike Apple, with Google there is no request for credit card details when first choosing any app..
In-app purchases suck you in, that is why they are such a danger to children.
There is no request for credit card for Apple either, so I don't know what you are talking about.
edit -
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2534
"If you already created your Apple ID, you need to add a payment method when you first use that Apple ID to sign in to the iTunes Store, App Store, or iBooks Store. But you can optionally remove the payment method after you sign in to the store. You won't be asked for a payment method again until you make your first purchase."
That sounds like a request to me.
And hey, the title of it is 'Create an account without using a Credit Card".
I can't find similar instructions for Google.
:eek:
You have an option to add a payment method. One of the options is none.
I currently run 3 iPad airs, none of which have payment cards on them and never had.
However, you can check yourself, you have an iPad.
"'If you’re using the iTunes Store or App Store for the first time'
If you’re using the store for the first time with an existing Apple ID, you must provide a payment method. After you create the account, you can change your payment information to None."
Go try it and prove yourself wrong.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28255589
Amazon is getting sued now.
""Amazon's in-app system allowed children to incur unlimited charges on their parents' accounts without permission," said FTC chair Edith Ramirez"
"In its complaint, the FTC used the example of an app called "Ice Age Village", a game designed for children.
The FTC alleged the game "blurred the lines between what costs virtual currency and what costs real money", with "acorns" and "coins" both serving a purpose within the game as well as being available for purchase. The largest quantity purchase available in the app would cost $99.99."
http://www.tgdaily.com/mobile/120061-apple-dragging-feet-on-in-app-purchases-by-kids
The EU do not like the use of the word Free, nor the use of the smaller font for in-app purchases below the FREE.
"CPC authorities consider that only apps where in-app purchases are optional can be presented as "free" "
"They want Apple to provide “Clear instructions to the app developers that on-line games involving direct exhortations to children are banned from distribution in the EU market"
And as discussed yesterday, if an app requires purchases to complete it, I agree it should not be called free.
However, I'm a little confused about the 'font' argument because both the App Store and the play store use a smaller font. In addition, google have offered to list the prices of all in app purchases, something apple already do.
Having now read the report, I'll stick by my view that the only reason this made the news is because it is about apple.
Sorry, I don't have a clue what you are talking about. I'm sure it is upsetting for you when posters don't agree with your nonsense, but having seen some of your posting history, I'm sure you are use to it.
If you have the option to buy particular things numerous and variable times, then its impossible to give a total cost.
If, for example, a game is free, but offers power ups at 99p per in app purchase, what should Apple say the total cost of the game is?
I'd also agree completely with IslandNiles' post above - exactly the sort of thing that would typically be interpreted as "defending Apple" when of course it is no such thing.
Perhaps you could post something sensible and articulate discussing the reasons you think Apple and Google appear to have been treated differently on essentially the exact same thing? Is it literally on the use of the word 'free' that they consider inappriate in some cases, and that trumps everything mentioned in IslandNiles' post?
I'll readily confess to not knowing a huge amount about it all, so hopefully you can post something a little more knowledgable about it.
Thanks.
It isn't a case of Apple being treated differently. The only thing that has actually happened is the EU have made a number of requests to both Apple and Google, and Apple have yet to respond (the report is just an update). This would not have been a story in normal circumstances, but because Apple are involved it makes the press.
The report (and it appears posters here) ignore the fact that google have been far slower to actually do something about the issue and that apple have made a number of changes which in my eyes stops accidentail purchases.
As I said, the publicity is good for the EU.
Google have responded to the EU, but not done much.
Apple have made some changes, but haven't responded to the EU.
And Apple are the bad guys in getting all the attention?
I wonder how this would have played out had that been the other way around.