# 5yr old racks up £1.7k of in app purchases (apparently in 10mins!)



## mrs quoad (Feb 28, 2013)

> Danny Kitchen asked his father, Greg, for his passcode to get the free Zombies Vs Ninjas game but he then went on to download 19 extras costing £69.99 each in just 10 minutes.
> 
> His mother, Sharon, only found out about the huge cost when she checked her emails and saw receipts from iTunes, but now Apple has refused to reimburse them.
> In the game, players throw 'darts' or 'bombs' at zombies that appear on the screen. Once a level is completed there is an option to continue playing or buy more darts and bombs, costing 69p for three of each - or £69.99 for 90,000 darts or 333 bombs.


 
That's 19x£69.99 IAPs 

And, presumably, 1,710,000 darts  Presume you can throw 5 per second (?!), that's 39 _years _of constant gameplay  Not including 'bombs' 

Fuck's sake 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...1-700-extra-charges.html?ICO=most_read_module


----------



## Firky (Feb 28, 2013)

Her fault not the kids though.


----------



## xes (Feb 28, 2013)

apps can cost nearly 70 quid?? 

WTF!

I've never paid for an app, and unless they make one which can suck my cock, skin up and make noises like a 303, I never will.

Greg Kitchen is learning a lesson


----------



## Geri (Feb 28, 2013)

He's five years old FFS. What are they doing giving him the password in the first place?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 28, 2013)

Apparently there was one case where a kid spent 6.5K.

In some cases it's the parents not setting the controls properly, or telling the kids their password (duh) but in others there does actually seem to be a bug which enables in-app purchases to be made even when the timeout should have occurred and the password should need to be re-entered. Or at least that is what I have been led to believe.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

firky said:


> Her fault not the kids though.


 
Apple's fault - she wasn't the one who set up the software to work like that.


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2013)

Apple have just been handed a massive fine over this kind of thing.


> *Apple 'To Pay £66m' Over Kids' App Downloads*
> Apple is set to pay out around £66m ($100m) to settle a US lawsuit which claims children were improperly charged while playing iPad and iPhone games.
> 
> It is alleged that poor safeguards meant kids were easily able to buy extra features for the free games without their parents' knowledge or permission.
> ...


----------



## Firky (Feb 28, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Apple's fault - she wasn't the one who set up the software to work like that.


 
Apple have set the ability up so only the user can be hte one who accesses the phone. I have mine set up to request a PIN after 60 seconds of inactivity. Android, HTC and other phones have this ability too. 

Don't want people fucking around with your phone then make sure it locks it's self.


----------



## Firky (Feb 28, 2013)

Geri said:


> He's five years old FFS. What are they doing giving him the password in the first place?


 
Exactly! Thanks, Geri.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

firky said:


> Apple have set the ability up so only the user can be hte one who accesses the phone. I have mine set up to request a PIN after 60 seconds of inactivity. Android, HTC and other phones have this ability too.
> 
> Don't want people fucking around with your phone then make sure it locks it's self.


 
Agreed. See editor's post though. She should have been more careful but I don't think that makes it her fault - as in she shouldn't have to pay, Apple should refund the charges.

Otherwise anyone conned is always at fault because for example 'ah well you should have been behind a VPN with encryption ...'


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 28, 2013)

The problem is that in-app purchases are legitimate and useful things to have, but these games are evil fucking uses of them. They're designed specifically to attract kids and get them to make IAPs. Savvy parents may be aware of this but others may not be, and the companies know that a certain number will have given their passwords over or not locked purchases down or set timeouts, and the kids will just press the buttons and buy more whatevers.


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 28, 2013)

firky said:


> Apple have set the ability up so only the user can be hte one who accesses the phone. I have mine set up to request a PIN after 60 seconds of inactivity. Android, HTC and other phones have this ability too.
> 
> Don't want people fucking around with your phone then make sure it locks it's self.


On IAPs, I thought it'd been set so's a PW was needed _every single _time. Because of precisely this.

Christ, I think that change came way back - iOS 4?!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 28, 2013)

I mean, the sort of purchase structure in the game in the OP is clearly designed to lure children. There is no reason that you would even allow it except to take advantage of user confusion or naïveté.


----------



## Thora (Feb 28, 2013)

I let my kid play on an iPad, I assume he couldn't buy anything on it though


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 28, 2013)

Thora said:


> I let my kid play on an iPad, I assume he couldn't buy anything on it though


Depends how it's configured. Or if he knows the password. As quoad says, though, I think all recent ones default to needing the password for every in app purchase.


----------



## Thora (Feb 28, 2013)

I don't think there is an password


----------



## trashpony (Feb 28, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I mean, the sort of purchase structure in the game in the OP is clearly designed to lure children. There is no reason that you would even allow it except to take advantage of user confusion or naïveté.


Well exactly. And what right-minded person is going to spend £70 on arrows?

The default on iPhones and iPads is that a password is only required 15 mins after input. So if the parent uses the password to d/l the game and has IAP switched on (again the default), then I can see how this might happen. 

Apple are enabling unscrupulous developers to scam people basically.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 28, 2013)

Important is "Danny Kitchen asked his father, Greg, for his passcode to get the free Zombies Vs Ninjas game but he then went on to download 19 extras "

If it was advertised as free it should be free, and not £1,700 for ten minutes.

'Fault' was an unfortunate choice of words 'mistake' would have been better, but I remarked on it because I don't think people should be at the mercy of large corporations and/or conmen just because they're not technically competent.

It's the equivalent of Apple doing a wee update to its 37-page 6-point Terms & Conditions including the phrase half way through 'I hereby donate my house and contents of my bank balance to Apple with kind affection' with a large 'I agree' button at the top and then saying 'it's your fault you should always read something before you sign it'.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 28, 2013)

Thora said:


> I don't think there is an password


The password for the actual iTunes account, that you need to enter to buy apps.


----------



## Firky (Feb 28, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Agreed. See editor's post though. She should have been more careful but I don't think that makes it her fault - as in she shouldn't have to pay, Apple should refund the charges.
> 
> Otherwise anyone conned is always at fault because for example 'ah well you should have been behind a VPN with encryption ...'


 
Yep, I think in cases like this Apple should refund. 

This reminds me of when I'd sit at the computer with a 3 litres of scrumpy of unknown strength and a 1/4 of skunk. Two days later I'd get a courier at the door with something I bought off ebay and have no recollection of. Amazon's 1 click ordering service is lethal too.


----------



## Thora (Feb 28, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The password for the actual iTunes account, that you need to enter to buy apps.


Sounds like he is more likely to be able to buy things than me then


----------



## weepiper (Feb 28, 2013)

No fucking way any of my kids are getting the iPad password.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 28, 2013)

Apple do often refund in cases where the settings technically allowed the purchases, by the way - I know a few cases even just personally, a friend's son spent a couple of hundred quid on Moshi Monsters, she complained and got the money back, no questions - but they are harder on situations where people have actually _given their kids their passwords_.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 28, 2013)

My dad is 80. He didn't even realise there was such a thing as in app purchases. I have turned them off now on his iPad but I do think the default should be off, not on


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 28, 2013)

Just read this... http://www.merseyremakes.co.uk/gibber/2013/02/parental-controls-on-ios/



> No, really. Before you even consider opening your mouth about bad or dumb parents or anything like this, try and find the least tech savvy person you know and give them an iDevice. Then tell them to turn the parental controls on so that their kids can’t run up massive bills easily. Give them no further prompts, right? Because if they’re smart, they can do this themselves, yeah? Right, go…
> 
> Now, once you’ve waited half an hour, you can interrupt and show them where they are and what they need to do to ensure their kids don’t buy anything in game or do anything too untoward. You know how to do this yourself, yeah?
> 
> ...



And it goes on at some length after that too, and I pretty much agree with it all, particularly the bit about how this is only going to get worse because it will be happening on all the consoles and in all the games everywhere too. (It started some time ago, particularly in MMOs, but it is going to get way worse.)


----------



## weepiper (Feb 28, 2013)

Even my four year old knows not to buy anything without asking though. Because I told him. Also I don't download anything that says it needs in-app purchases to progress.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 28, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Even my four year old knows not to buy anything without asking though. Because I told him. Also I don't download anything that says it needs in-app purchases to progress.


 
I don't think a lot of children realise it's real money. Or that £70 for a few arrows is ridiculous. Your children are very bright - the foal thinks that he has 3 moneys because he has 3 coins - a £2 coin, a 2p coin and a 10p. He doesn't understand they are all different values. He has tried to buy things with in-app purchases and failed because they're turned off but really doesn't realise what he's doing


----------



## weepiper (Feb 28, 2013)

It should of course not be set to default that you can spend money easily, but they're a commercial company and therefore capitalist bastards and not to be trusted as far as you can throw them, like banks. People get mugged by the happy shiny Apple smiley people image into thinking they can trust them.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 28, 2013)

weepiper said:


> It should of course not be set to default that you can spend money easily, but they're a commercial company and therefore capitalist bastards and not to be trusted as far as you can throw them, like banks. People get mugged by the happy shiny Apple smiley people image into thinking they can trust them.


Too true. Even though they wear Birkenstocks 

It's ironic really that it's Bill Gates that has the bad rap when Steve Jobs gave fuck all of his money


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 28, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Just read this... http://www.merseyremakes.co.uk/gibber/2013/02/parental-controls-on-ios/
> 
> 
> 
> And it goes on at some length after that too, and I pretty much agree with it all, particularly the bit about how this is only going to get worse because it will be happening on all the consoles and in all the games everywhere too. (It started some time ago, particularly in MMOs, but it is going to get way worse.)


Not too sure the pw is stored for IAPs. Definitely is for new app purchases. Have a feeling it isn't for IAPs. Not since the iOS 4 or whatever update, unless there've been backwards steps. Don't quote me on that, mind.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 1, 2013)

No, it is, there's definitely a timeout.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 1, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No, it is, there's definitely a timeout.


Yep definitely. I didn't realise about the 15 mins thing until I read a similar article last week. I'm running IOS 6,2


----------



## elbows (Mar 1, 2013)

They refunded it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-21629210

I would guess that its not that hard to get a refund when astronomical amounts are involved. Its the smaller 'accidents' that may be trickier, and over time there may be more of an attitude of 'you parents should be clued up about this stuff by now'. Having said that Apple are mostly still far more interested in people continuing to buy their hardware in future, so its not in their interests to be complete dicks to customers over this sort of thing.


----------



## Voley (Mar 1, 2013)

firky said:


> Her fault not the kids though.


Greebo likes this.


two sheds said:


> Apple's fault - she wasn't the one who set up the software to work like that.


Greebo likes this.

Eh?


----------



## elbows (Mar 1, 2013)

If the like button required an in app purchase, Greebo would have made editor a rich man by now!


----------



## two sheds (Mar 1, 2013)

It's all a hierarchy of faults and likes


----------



## tendril (Mar 1, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Apple's fault - she wasn't the one who set up the software to work like that.


You just don't let a 5 year old loose on your phone with the password. Deffo her fault. Perhaps she would benefit from some parenting lessons.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Mar 1, 2013)

tendril said:


> You just don't let a 5 year old loose on your phone with the password. Deffo her fault. Perhaps she would benefit from some parenting lessons.


I hear there's a good app for that.


----------



## tendril (Mar 1, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> I hear there's a good app for that.


unfortunately it costs £1.7K


----------



## Lord Camomile (Mar 1, 2013)

Only if you go mad on the in-app purch... oh, right.


----------



## tendril (Mar 1, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Apple's fault - she wasn't the one who set up the software to work like that.


 


tendril said:


> You just don't let a 5 year old loose on your phone with the password. Deffo her fault. Perhaps she would benefit from some parenting lessons.


 
In fact I'd go so far as  to say it would be a bit like saying it's a car manufacturer's fault you had an accident just because you don't know how to drive properly


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't think his phones set up to buy apps but dara is on his phone now. Passwords I don't think we even have. Keeping an eye on it tho.

Those blaming the parent is well harsh.

Its also not an iphone


----------



## Enviro (Mar 1, 2013)

It's totally not the parent's fault. In app purchases have become the norm, but I despise them. I play a few games on my phone and there have been a couple which are fantastic to play, but impossible to make any real progress on unless you fork out rather ridiculous amounts for upgrades. 

In app purchases should have a cap of £1.00 on them or something. Every in app purchase should be vetted to make sure that people aren't scammed.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 1, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> I don't think his phones set up to buy apps but dara is on his phone now. Passwords I don't think we even have. Keeping an eye on it tho.
> 
> Those blaming the parent is well harsh.
> 
> Its also not an iphone


People who don't have kids I believe who are always EXPERTS on the subject


----------



## tendril (Mar 2, 2013)

trashpony said:


> People who don't have kids I believe who are always EXPERTS on the subject


despite the fact that they were once kids themselves


----------



## two sheds (Mar 2, 2013)

tendril said:


> In fact I'd go so far as to say it would be a bit like saying it's a car manufacturer's fault you had an accident just because you don't know how to drive properly


 
No it's more like saying that a multinational company advertised a game as being free and then it wasn't free at all but very expensive and taking advantage of young kids to rake in the cash.

If it was the mother's fault then you feel that Apple shouldn't have refunded the money?


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

trashpony said:


> People who don't have kids I believe who are always EXPERTS on the subject


 
Speaking as a child...


----------



## Greebo (Mar 2, 2013)

NVP the parent's fault for not supervising the child with a gadget like that; Apple's fault for making the default setting allow purchases. 

FWIW I was gobsmacked when one of the smaller children at a rather long family gathering was handed his mum's smartphone to play with (and allowed to wander down the other end of the room with it).


----------



## tendril (Mar 2, 2013)

two sheds said:


> No it's more like saying that a multinational company advertised a game as being free and then it wasn't free at all but very expensive and taking advantage of young kids to rake in the cash.
> 
> If it was the mother's fault then you feel that Apple shouldn't have refunded the money?


I'm glad for her that they did, and maybe she has learnt something from the experience. I just get tired of the culture that now leads us to say that 'it's not my fault, it must be someone else's fault' when clearly our actions have an impact upon what happens to us in our lives.

There are of course cases of clear negligence where people have been harmed either physically, mentally or financially by the actions of others, but in many cases fault lies with ourselves. We need to take ownership of our actions. I know this sounds harsh and controversial (and contra U75 general thinking), but it is what I think.

For instance I had a nasty spill from my bike a few years ago where a guy tossing rubbish into the back of one of those caged refuse trucks missed his target and the tossed bag took out my front wheel. Badly busted up knee, 2 weeks off work, but in hindsight, it was entirely preventable if I had been paying attention. The van was parked on my side of the street facing me. I couldn't see him at the back throwing his rubbish into the van. I learnt from this and now give a wider berth to situations that I feel may have harm potential. Since then, no spills or even near misses. That is taking ownership of my cycling.


----------



## tendril (Mar 2, 2013)

Greebo said:


> NVP the parent's fault for not supervising the child with a gadget like that; Apple's fault for making the default setting allow purchases.


I've just got myself a new startrek smart phone. It's a case of RTFM as far as I can see. If you don't understand the technology either a) don't use it, or b) read up and get an understanding of what the potential benefits and pitfalls are.


----------



## Voley (Mar 2, 2013)

Greebo said:


> NVP the parent's fault for not supervising the child with a gadget like that; Apple's fault for making the default setting allow purchases.
> 
> FWIW I was gobsmacked when one of the smaller children at a rather long family gathering was handed his mum's smartphone to play with (and allowed to wander down the other end of the room with it).


Rolleyes to your hearts content. If you hit 'like' all the time it's occasionally going to look odd.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 2, 2013)

NVP said:


> Rolleyes to your hearts content. If you hit 'like' all the time it's occasionally going to look odd.


Not all the time, sweetie.


----------



## tendril (Mar 2, 2013)

Greebo said:


> NVP the parent's fault for not supervising the child with a gadget like that; Apple's fault for making the default setting allow purchases.
> 
> FWIW I was gobsmacked when one of the smaller children at a rather long family gathering was handed his mum's smartphone to play with (and allowed to wander down the other end of the room with it).


nice edit


----------



## Voley (Mar 2, 2013)

It's making you look stupid, as is this 'sweetie' nonsense. Entirely up to you if you're cool with that.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 2, 2013)

tendril said:


> nice edit


The child in question isn't even 5 yet.  In addition to what could have happened if the wrong bit was touched, snot ended up smeared over it.  How waterproof are those things anyway?


----------



## tendril (Mar 2, 2013)

Greebo said:


> The child in question isn't even 5 yet. In addition to what could have happened if the wrong bit was touched, snot ended up smeared over it. How waterproof are those things anyway?


they're not really 5year-old friendly. Delicate pieces of technology and the parent should have been more careful. Child could have dropped it, spilt a drink on it, lost it etc etc.


----------



## tendril (Mar 2, 2013)

Situations like this always remind me of Bill Hick's from his Revelations tour and the 'war on drugs speech'




			
				Bill Hicks said:
			
		

> Always that same LSD story, you’ve all seen it, “Young man on acid thought he could fly, jumped out of a building. What a tragedy.” What a dick! Fuck him, he’s an idiot. If he thought he could fly, why didn’t he take off on the ground first? Check it out. You don’t see ducks lined up to catch elevators to fly south – they fly from the ground, ya moron, quit ruining it for everybody. He’s a moron, he’s dead – good, we lost a moron, fuckin’ celebrate. Wow, I just felt the world get lighter. We lost a moron! I don’t mean to sound cold, or cruel, or vicious…but I am, so that’s the way it comes out. Professional help is being sought.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 2, 2013)

No on reflection you're right. Same with those people who get food poisoning and die. What a tragedy. What a dick! Fuck him, he's an idiot. If he wanted to eat food, why didn't he get it tested for poison first. Check it out."

I had a near miss when I was on my bike years ago. Someone opened their car door right into me. As luck had it I saw the door open and leant over and shut it before it went into the bike. If I hadn't noticed and the door had opened into me it wouldn't have been my fault it would have been his fault for opening the door without checking. I did for quite a while leave more room between myself and cars but that could have been just as dangerous with cars coming up behind me and knocking me off. Would that have been my fault too?

You read all the Software Agreements you agree to then? Right the way through.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 2, 2013)

My 5 year old uses my smartphone all the time. He's been using my ipod touch since he was 3. He's never dropped it or damaged it in any way. It's only as he's got older than the issue of in app purchasing has arisen - so it wasn't something I've traditionally had to worry about.

And apple don't ship manuals with any of their products and unless you know about in app purchases for ostensibly free games I can see how easy it is to be caught out. Obviously this POV means I'm incapable of taking responsibility for anything my son does


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

I dunno, I just think if you're going to give kids a device that can lead to things like this or arguably worse: coming across some of the less pleasant stuff you find on the internet (man sticking broken jar up his arse), parents should take an interest in what their kids get up to and put safe guards in place. I appreciate that this isn't always practical or even possible but I do think a certain amount of vigilance is needed.

Firky,

Age 5 and 3/4.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 2, 2013)

Greebo said:


> NVP the parent's fault for not supervising the child with a gadget like that; Apple's fault for making the default setting allow purchases.
> 
> FWIW I was gobsmacked when one of the smaller children at a rather long family gathering was handed his mum's smartphone to play with (and allowed to wander down the other end of the room with it).


Its not uncommon - in fact its the norm for little kids to want to play with what their parents do
I'm waiting for them to invent a convincing but cheap child ipad/ phone thingie that doesn't have costly 'apps' in it. Kids know when they're being fobbed off.














eta: fuckin laptop shit


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 2, 2013)

half my post went  missing mobiles Rjust new versions of 
kids wrecking the stereo in days of old


----------



## trashpony (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> I dunno, I just think if you're going to give kids a device that can lead to things like this or arguably worse: coming across some of the less pleasant stuff you find on the internet (man sticking broken jar up his arse), parents should take an interest in what their kids get up to and put safe guards in place. I appreciate that this isn't always practical or even possible but I do think a certain amount of vigilance is needed.
> 
> Firky,
> 
> Age 5 and 3/4.


 
That's different. I don't know any parents who allow their children unfettered access to the net and I would really judge someone who did as failing as a parent.

This is different:

They are free apps aimed at children
The price of in-app gems/coins/unicorns & fairies is vastly out of proportion to their value 
apple products default is to not require a password for 15 minutes after it's been entered
Having said all that, now this has got so much publicity, I hope the scamming bastards' income plummets

ps the foal is older than you


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 2, 2013)

at the moment all dara wants to do is look at pictures of trucks and go ongoogle maps to  find nanas  house

so  as long its within our sight thats ok, the day he wants more we@ll have to be more careful


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

Oh aye, it's a con and setup in a way to rip people off but even I don't have my card details saved on any website because I can't trust myself 

I didn't know about the 15 minute time limit until today. The only apps I buy are for Android and again I don't let google store my card details. Not because I don't trust them... but because I don't trust myself. I once bought Lily Allen's album, ffs!

I can't believe foal is older than me! I remember when you had that lush house in Kilburn and he was only a prospect 

My dog f'ing stinks, I gave him some raw eggs (a dozen) last night and he's still farting :s


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> I dunno, I just think if you're going to give kids a device that can lead to things like this or arguably worse: coming across some of the less pleasant stuff you find on the internet (man sticking broken jar up his arse), parents should take an interest in what their kids get up to and put safe guards in place. I appreciate that this isn't always practical or even possible but I do think a certain amount of vigilance is needed.
> 
> Firky,
> 
> Age 5 and 3/4.


 

tbf, the jar was intact when he rammed it up his poo chute then broke while in there. An important distinction I feel


----------



## two sheds (Mar 2, 2013)

Yes I agree. Parents have a responsibility - but the greater responsibility is still for the multinational company not to advertise a game as being free to children and then charging £1700 for it. If there's a 'fault' here it was Apple's, and her being let off the charges is just. If it had been the parents' fault then they should have paid the charges.


----------



## Firky (Mar 2, 2013)

firky said:


> I dunno, I just think if you're going to give kids a device that can lead to things like this or arguably worse: coming across some of the less pleasant stuff you find on the internet (man sticking broken jar up his arse), parents should take an interest in what their kids get up to and put safe guards in place. I appreciate that this isn't always practical or even possible but I do think a certain amount of vigilance is needed.
> 
> Firky,
> 
> Age 5 and 3/4.


 
I just read this back to myself and it doesn't sound like me of old.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 2, 2013)

What's annoying about it is they give the base game away free but it basically hamstrings the player (child) unless they spend a disproportionate amount greater than what the game is actually worth to unlock stuff. It's very underhand marketing.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 2, 2013)

It's fucking evil, that's what it is. What I'm finding very frustrating at the moment is that I'm trying to get work in game development but so many of the jobs are for companies producing "casual mobile games" which do exactly this. A few IAPs are okay if they provide significant extra content and the base game is big enough, but the Farmville types make me grind my teeth.

It particularly takes the piss when AAA titles which cost forty quid in the first place decide to carve off a load of content and charge extra for it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 2, 2013)

Like £69 for some extra titbits for some crappy app that makes it functional. SimCity Deluxe costs less than that and it's had millions in investment ploughed into it and has depth and replayability. And that's at the extreme pricing end of PC gaming.


----------



## tendril (Mar 2, 2013)

two sheds said:


> No on reflection you're right. Same with those people who get food poisoning and die. What a tragedy. What a dick! Fuck him, he's an idiot. If he wanted to eat food, why didn't he get it tested for poison first. Check it out."


 
I think you're missing the point of the quote. It was about blame. The guy who took acid and died because he thought he could fly and jumped out of the window. Acid doesn't make you do anything that is not latent, so why blame the acid?

and I already said that there are clear cases of negligence:



tendril said:


> There are of course cases of clear negligence where people have been harmed either physically, mentally or financially by the actions of others, but in many cases fault lies with ourselves. We need to take ownership of our actions. I know this sounds harsh and controversial (and contra U75 general thinking), but it is what I think.


 


two sheds said:


> I had a near miss when I was on my bike years ago. Someone opened their car door right into me. As luck had it I saw the door open and leant over and shut it before it went into the bike. If I hadn't noticed and the door had opened into me it wouldn't have been my fault it would have been his fault for opening the door without checking. I did for quite a while leave more room between myself and cars but that could have been just as dangerous with cars coming up behind me and knocking me off. Would that have been my fault too?


 
If you know how to use the road properly whilst cycling you would know to leave a good distance between you and a row of parked cars. You have eyes, you can check in wing mirrors to see if those cars have occupants. You can take ownership of your road use. It still doesn't mean the person opening their car door without looking isn't a twat, but you yourself can ensure that their twattery isn't gonna effect you.

And as for cars coming up behind you and knocking you off because you're leaving a door's width between the parked cars and yourself..... Not gonna happen unless you are riding at night on a black bike, wearing black and with no lights, in which case that would clearly be your fault. There is nothing wrong with defending your road space as a cyclist, you are within the law and your right as a legitimate road user to do so.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 2, 2013)

Skylanders, that's an evil con.  Full priced console game that requires kids to buy figurines to unlock characters.  20 characters at about 8 quid each.  Bastards.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 2, 2013)

fractionMan said:


> Skylanders, that's an evil con. Full priced console game that requires kids to buy figurines to unlock characters. 20 characters at about 8 quid each. Bastards.


I love skylanders 

Good presents for relatives to buy that in theory they can't get wrong (except for my dad)


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 2, 2013)

My children spend a hell of a lot on mulch and on dosh, which are the virtual currency on binweevils. Still, keeps them off the streets.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 2, 2013)

Greebo said:


> FWIW I was gobsmacked when one of the smaller children at a rather long family gathering was handed his mum's smartphone to play with (and allowed to wander down the other end of the room with it).


My daughter isn't 2 yet and she uses my iPad and HTC phone all the time. She can already tap icons to select stuff, drag items around the screen and so on. There's loads of great early learning games and apps - shape sorters, colouring books and so on. As far as I'm concerned she's learning to use a tool that will be more important for her than a pen and paper.

The iPad access control built in, for my phone I use Kids Place


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 2, 2013)

Children under 5 not only use iWidgets effectively but have a lot of games and apps designed specifically for them.

There are apps for cats too.


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2013)

While we're talking about free apps, it's worth noting that they're all busy collecting your data on Android and iOS.



> *iOS Apps collect more data than Android apps in bid to make money, report*
> A study by Appthority claims that the free apps in Apple's iOS App Store collect more data than free apps available from Google Play, and this poses a privacy risk.
> 
> The Appthority App Report for February 2013 "provides an overview of the security risks behind 100 free iOS and Android apps". It focuses on free apps because "free apps are more inclined to collect data on the user and share it with outside parties." The report suggests that more data is shared by iOS apps because there are so many apps on the App Store that developers have to look for extra revenue streams.
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 2, 2013)

Apps do collect way more data than you think they do. It's quite absurd - anything that's not nailed down is frequently sent back to base. It's got better recently I think but I have no reason to believe it's got all that much better.

This however


> According to the data, 100% of iOS apps sent unencrypted data to ad networks


is not true and makes me doubt either the methodology or the analysis of the study (or both).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 2, 2013)

Another one that has just come up on the subject: http://kotaku.com/5988036/kids-reveal-the-real-flaws-of-free+to+play-games



> Are lax parents who give their kids their iTunes passwords to blame? I don't think so.
> Take the case of a friend of mine. When he was younger (think high school freshman) his impulse control wasn't quite what it is today. As a result he wound up charging hundreds of dollars to his parents' credit card in one free-to-play game or another. You'd think a 14-year-old could be trusted with that sort of power—I carried around a credit card for emergencies at that age—and at that point you can't plead ignorance. There are typically no refunds for microtransactions, and his parents had to swallow that bill.
> 
> What I'm saying is that certain games are designed in a way that I consider to be exploitative. They draw you in, and before you know it you've amassed a massive bill full of just-one-more transactions.


----------



## editor (Mar 3, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This however is not true and makes me doubt either the methodology or the analysis of the study (or both).


Do you have any sources to back that up, please?


----------



## elbows (Mar 3, 2013)

I read the actual report rather than relying on macworld to make a pigs ear of explaining the findings.

50 free iOS apps were tested. 100% of them sent/received data without encryption, but macworld mucked up their explanation by conflating this stat with one about sending data to ad networks. Duh.

https://www.appthority.com/appreport.pdf


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2013)

editor said:


> Do you have any sources to back that up, please?


I've written an iOS app. It does not send any data to ad networks. Therefore that 100% figure is bullshit.

Even if I hadn't I refuse to believe that every app tested sent information to ad networks at all, regardless of encryption.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2013)

In fact the general idea that every single iOS app sends unencrypted data to ad networks is just such obvious bullshit. I suppose maybe they may have meant "out of _all of the apps that send data to ad networks_, 100% of them send it unencrypted" - I could believe that maybe, at least on the basis of the ones surveyed.


----------



## elbows (Mar 3, 2013)

Like I said, the 100% figure in the report is completely separate to their ones about ad & analytics networks, macworld mucked it up.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 3, 2013)

I literally have no idea what anyone is on about on this thread...got a feeling that may change in a few years..


----------



## editor (Mar 3, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I've written an iOS app. It does not send any data to ad networks. Therefore that 100% figure is bullshit.
> 
> Even if I hadn't I refuse to believe that every app tested sent information to ad networks at all, regardless of encryption.


I kind of thought that they were talking about the free apps that they'd tested, not every single app that had ever been written.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2013)

elbows said:


> Like I said, the 100% figure in the report is completely separate to their ones about ad & analytics networks, macworld mucked it up.


Doh, didn't read your post. Well that explains that.


----------



## elbows (Mar 3, 2013)

Looking again at the crap Macworld interpretation of the report, I've found another problem.

The article says "_The report suggests that more data is shared by iOS apps because there are so many apps on the App Store that developers have to look for extra revenue streams.__ " _I can find no such claim in the report. They state the obvious that free apps are more likely to obtain user data in order to generate revenue. And they warn that on both iOS and Android they think this trend will increase, as devs seek to monetize free apps even more. These are different points, and the fact they analysed apps that were already in the top ten in various categories further mangles the wrong claim macworld tried to make.

One criticism I have with the actual report is its emphasis on the perils of sending unencrypted data. In my opinion this is actually secondary to the ethics and competence of whoever the data is being sent to - it is far more likely that the intended recipient of the data will misuse it or store it insecurely and have it nicked, than it being intercepted in transit. But App authority cant measure that.

Personally I'm not a fan of free or freemium apps, as a user or developer, for I loathe advertising and am no fan of the in-app purchase model. But its easy to see how we reached this point.


----------



## Firky (Mar 3, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> I literally have no idea what anyone is on about on this thread...got a feeling that may change in a few years..


 
It has turned geeky TBF.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2013)

_angel_ said:


> I literally have no idea what anyone is on about on this thread...got a feeling that may change in a few years..


I understood it up until ed's 1st post and then it was whoooooosh over my head


----------



## Sunray (Mar 7, 2013)

These type of games are becoming like viruses, they are noticeable by using gambling psychology on players. 

A good example of this type of game is one that is ranking high in the app store called CSR racing.  The game play boils down to hitting the screen at the right time to change gear, but actually not really.  If you lose, it slags you and your crappy car off.  I say not really because if you have the correctly souped up car when you press the screen is largely irrelevant you will win the race. 

Souping up your car can cost you in game purchases or grinding out side game after side game.

I want more out of a game than to hit the screen at the correct time, its beyond shit.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2013)

tendril said:


> I think you're missing the point of the quote. It was about blame. The guy who took acid and died because he thought he could fly and jumped out of the window. Acid doesn't make you do anything that is not latent, so why blame the acid?


 
So doing business with Apple is like taking acid. Well yes with your interpretation doing business with *anyone* is going to be like taking acid if they can slip anything into the contract as long as they can get it by you without you noticing. Of course we have to take responsibility for our actions but we were specifically talking about Apple advertising a free game and then charging a child £1700 for it. If it was the mother's fault as you have claimed then she should have paid.

You've not replied to the couple of times I've asked whether you read all the terms and conditions each time you update the software. I'll answer for you - of course you don't because if you did you'd be spending half your time reading terms and conditions. You assume that these terms and conditions are going to be fair and if they put in a term like "I agree to pay Microsoft £3000 for this software" down in the small print, then you're going to be able to fight it because it's not fair.

But by your argument, if you agree to the terms and it *does* say that you agree to pay Microsoft £3000 then it's your own 'fault' and so you should have to pay.You don't act like this, so I take it that you don't actually believe it.

What you are saying goes against the Consumer protection laws that have been fought for and I'd imagine that huge multinationals like Apple, Microsoft et al would love the idea of people not being 100% technically savvy meaning that it is their 'fault' for agreeing to terms without realising it and therefore them being liable for any amount the company wants to charge by conning them.



> And as for cars coming up behind you and knocking you off because you're leaving a door's width between the parked cars and yourself..... Not gonna happen unless you are riding at night on a black bike, wearing black and with no lights, in which case that would clearly be your fault. There is nothing wrong with defending your road space as a cyclist, you are within the law and your right as a legitimate road user to do so.


 
It was a narrow road with a fair amount of traffic coming both ways. Yes I would have been within the law to cycle in the middle of the road - like I was within the law driving as closely in safety as I could to the left - but your argument above would allow a person knocking me down to say that it was my fault because I was cycling in the middle of the road. They could just as well say I should have had the road awareness to know what was behind them.

Yes I agree you should develop road awareness but if someone suddenly pulls out in front of you from a sideroad without warning, for example, it's their fault for pulling out, not your fault for not having predicted that they are going to pull out.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 7, 2013)

I don't think the father gave the password to the kid. I think the kid said "can you enter the password so I can download this free game", the dad checked it, saw it was free and entered the password. And then thr kid proceeded to buy loads of £70 nonsensepacks.


----------



## tendril (Mar 7, 2013)

two sheds said:


> So doing business with Apple is like taking acid. Well yes with your interpretation doing business with *anyone* is going to be like taking acid if they can slip anything into the contract as long as they can get it by you without you noticing. Of course we have to take responsibility for our actions but we were specifically talking about Apple advertising a free game and then charging a child £1700 for it. If it was the mother's fault as you have claimed then she should have paid.
> 
> You've not replied to the couple of times I've asked whether you read all the terms and conditions each time you update the software. I'll answer for you - of course you don't because if you did you'd be spending half your time reading terms and conditions. You assume that these terms and conditions are going to be fair and if they put in a term like "I agree to pay Microsoft £3000 for this software" down in the small print, then you're going to be able to fight it because it's not fair.
> 
> ...


 

No you are correct, I don't regularly read all the T&Cs for software I use but then I don't use much in the way of saftware, very few apps on my dog (and then only free ones). As I said I am glad that the lady got her money back and maybe that case will have judicial impact on how apps and software in general is marketed, which is a good thing. I still think it is stupid to let a kid loose with a phone and not to monitor what that child is doing.






			
				daily mail article said:
			
		

> Danny had asked his father for a passcode to download a game called Zombies v Ninja, which involves touching the iPad screen to aim ninja-style weapons at cartoon zombies.
> His parents then left him occupied while they entertained friends at their home.


 
clearly the parents didn't understand how the game worked and what was involved, but a good parent would have supervised their child whilst it played the game first to see what was actually involved, not just given the kid the pad and password whilst they were otherwise occupied. I'm still laying a goodly amount of blame on the parents for not supervising their child's use of the game. FFS I wasn't allowed to even watch telly unsupervised when I was a kid.

If you need a password to play a game from apple then there is most likely gonna be a cost involved. The parents should not have given out the password without supervision, despite it saying it was a free game.

As I have said before, either understand your technology or don't use it. Clear case of Caveat emptor.



two sheds said:


> It was a narrow road with a fair amount of traffic coming both ways. Yes I would have been within the law to cycle in the middle of the road - like I was within the law driving as closely in safety as I could to the left - but your argument above would allow a person knocking me down to say that it was my fault because I was cycling in the middle of the road. They could just as well say I should have had the road awareness to know what was behind them.
> 
> Yes I agree you should develop road awareness but if someone suddenly pulls out in front of you from a sideroad without warning, for example, it's their fault for pulling out, not your fault for not having predicted that they are going to pull out.


 
there is no law that says you must cycle at the left.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71






			
				Highway code said:
			
		

> *67*
> 
> You should
> 
> ...


 
There is no way a driver could argue that it is your fault that they hit you from behind because you were cycling in the middle of the road.


eta:

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/road-junctions-72-to-75






			
				Highway code said:
			
		

> *72*
> 
> On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.


----------



## tendril (Mar 7, 2013)

kabbes said:


> I don't think the father gave the password to the kid. I think the kid said "can you enter the password so I can download this free game", the dad checked it, saw it was free and entered the password. And then thr kid proceeded to buy loads of £70 nonsensepacks.


Caveat emptor innit.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 7, 2013)

There was no emptor.  It was supposed to be free.


----------



## tendril (Mar 7, 2013)

kabbes said:


> There was no emptor. It was supposed to be free.


well clearly it wasn't free. The base app may have been free, but it neeeds money to actually play it.  But then there is a good reason I don't use apple products, and this just highlights and reaffirms my reasons for not doing so. I don't even use I tunes for my ipod nano (which was a gift) as it is seen as an external drive by my PC and I load what I want on it not what apple thinks I want to hear.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 7, 2013)

tendril said:


> well clearly it wasn't free. The base app may have been free, but it neeeds money to actually play it.  But then there is a good reason I don't use apple products, and this just highlights and reaffirms my reasons for not doing so. I don't even use I tunes for my ipod nano (which was a gift) as it is seen as an external drive by my PC and I load what I want on it not what apple thinks I want to hear.



If it says it's free, without even any small print saying otherwise, and there are lots of free aps around, a reasonable buyer would think it was free.


----------



## elbows (Mar 7, 2013)

If you think this is an Apple only problem then you are out of date. They popularised it but others are running with the freemium ball.


----------



## tendril (Mar 7, 2013)

elbows said:


> If you think this is an Apple only problem then you are out of date. They popularised it but others are running with the freemium ball.


And that is the reason no-one except me (and especially no kids)  are getting their mitts on my new lumia.


----------



## tendril (Mar 7, 2013)

scifisam said:


> If it says it's free, without even any small print saying otherwise, and there are lots of free aps around, a reasonable buyer would think it was free.


a reasonable buyer would download the app, have a quick play and quickly suss that it needs more money to keep playing and then make a choice to either cough up the dough or uninstall the app. A 5 year old boy is not a reasonable buyer, and as for his dad taking his word that it was free.... my dad wouldn't have taken my word when I was 5, 15, or if he were still alive now, at 45!. Yes apple employ shady marketing policy but letting a 5 year old loose on your technology whilst you are busy with your friends just reeks of idiocy.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 7, 2013)

As I said earlier, you're talking from the perspective of someone who has never been in that situation. Your theory is based on very sound logic but interactions between parents and children rarely are.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2013)

It also reminds me of the tendency of people who are technically proficient to treat people who are not technically proficient as being stupid and deserving all they get.

I don't even think you can say that the woman was one tenth responsible because that would suggest she should pay £170 for the same worthless game add-ons. It's the decision of Apple to try to take advantage of people in this way, they're trying to make exhorbitant profits out of of people's weaknesses. Fuck em.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 7, 2013)

I think  some sort of   reasonable in game cap should be in place.   set it  to something like $30.   anything more than that is getting crazy


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 7, 2013)

Afaik, £70 IAPs were v popular c.2008, when some clever Chinese bods cracked iTunes gift cards' codes and began churning out £50 cards for a few quid a pop. There were some v basic MMO games that had people who seemed to've spent bazillions. (Storm8, I'm looking in the direction of your games  )


----------



## Firky (Mar 7, 2013)

From spoilt kids, to shit parenting and acid trips.


----------



## tendril (Mar 8, 2013)

trashpony said:


> As I said earlier, you're talking from the perspective of someone who has never been in that situation. Your theory is based on very sound logic but interactions between parents and children rarely are.


oh that's right, I was born an adult 

I can remember being a know it all as a young boy, doesn't mean I did, just that I thought I did, and I was lucky enough to have parents that knew this as treated me accordingly.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 8, 2013)

My family are better than your family.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 8, 2013)

tendril said:


> a reasonable buyer would download the app, have a quick play and quickly suss that it needs more money to keep playing and then make a choice to either cough up the dough or uninstall the app. A 5 year old boy is not a reasonable buyer, and as for his dad taking his word that it was free.... my dad wouldn't have taken my word when I was 5, 15, or if he were still alive now, at 45!. Yes apple employ shady marketing policy but letting a 5 year old loose on your technology whilst you are busy with your friends just reeks of idiocy.



It wasn't the kid saying the game was free - the game WAS free. It really is not unreasonable to think that a free game is free. I have a few myself, so they do exist.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Mar 8, 2013)

tendril said:


> Situations like this always remind me of Bill Hick's from his Revelations tour and the 'war on drugs speech'


 
I'm actually impressed just how irrelevant this analogy is.

Best contribution to this thread was Fridgemagnet's link to this article: http://www.merseyremakes.co.uk/gibber/2013/02/parental-controls-on-ios/

It's spot on.  I'm a professional geek of many years standing, and it still took me a good old rummage about to find and test the settings for how long the password is stored by default, change it to always required for in app purchases, etc.  Now either Apple are huge fans of Douglas Adams and did this as a touching homage to his _locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"_ sketch, or they're deliberately making it easy for kids to make in app purchases, whilst hard for parents to disable it.


----------

