People buy the $999 iPhone app(i35.tinypic.com)
i35.tinypic.com
People buy the $999 iPhone app
http://i35.tinypic.com/vfeo5.png
13 comments
Are you secretly Steve Jobs? :) Because your post does a lot to explain why Apple's initial position on third-party apps was "no, thank you".
I don't think the gatekeepers' primary role is to keep apps out of the store. It's to make sure there's an easy way to yank apps back off the market, and issue a recall notice to every single affected user, after trouble strikes. Kind of like what's happening to this app right now.
If Apple weren't just rubber-stamping applications, the process would be even slower, and we'd be hearing even more complaints from the long list of people who are still waiting for their applications to go live.
As for the "horrible engrish descriptions"... can you imagine the firestorm if Apple were to reject apps on the basis of the quality of their ad copy? Not every iPhone developer writes fluent English, after all.
It is annoying that approved apps appear and disappear more than once. What other examples of this are there, besides the tethering app?
(I can well imagine why the tethering app might appear and disappear... it raises the question of whether Apple is allowed to sell an app which is explicitly disallowed by some customers' service contracts, but perhaps not by all of them. They've probably got AT&T lobbying on one side, the app's authors, Apple's marketing department, and every self-respecting developer lobbying on the other, and lawyers from several countries in the middle. Perhaps the availability of the app depends on which of these parties is shouting the loudest on any given day.)
I don't think the gatekeepers' primary role is to keep apps out of the store. It's to make sure there's an easy way to yank apps back off the market, and issue a recall notice to every single affected user, after trouble strikes. Kind of like what's happening to this app right now.
If Apple weren't just rubber-stamping applications, the process would be even slower, and we'd be hearing even more complaints from the long list of people who are still waiting for their applications to go live.
As for the "horrible engrish descriptions"... can you imagine the firestorm if Apple were to reject apps on the basis of the quality of their ad copy? Not every iPhone developer writes fluent English, after all.
It is annoying that approved apps appear and disappear more than once. What other examples of this are there, besides the tethering app?
(I can well imagine why the tethering app might appear and disappear... it raises the question of whether Apple is allowed to sell an app which is explicitly disallowed by some customers' service contracts, but perhaps not by all of them. They've probably got AT&T lobbying on one side, the app's authors, Apple's marketing department, and every self-respecting developer lobbying on the other, and lawyers from several countries in the middle. Perhaps the availability of the app depends on which of these parties is shouting the loudest on any given day.)
If the gatekeepers aren't keeping apps out of the store, then they're not offering a useful service for users or developers. Instead, all they're doing is preventing users from getting at applications they might want and preventing developers from getting their applications (and updates) out.
If they'd have a better approval process, they wouldn't have to yank applications at all. It's one thing to simply not allow an application that nobody has ever seen and it's entirely another to make them just disappear after they've been bought. Which do you think is better for PR?
"can you imagine the firestorm if Apple were to reject apps on the basis of the quality of their ad copy?"
Firestorm? From who? Apple is vetting the applications, so I expect a higher quality experience. The ad copy might be written by the developer but it's part of the store. You don't expect bad ad copy on Amazon or Dell and you shouldn't expect it on Apple's store either. I'm expecting Apple to reject applications based on their quality. If users and developers have to jump through hoops, there should be a real tangible benefit.
If they'd have a better approval process, they wouldn't have to yank applications at all. It's one thing to simply not allow an application that nobody has ever seen and it's entirely another to make them just disappear after they've been bought. Which do you think is better for PR?
"can you imagine the firestorm if Apple were to reject apps on the basis of the quality of their ad copy?"
Firestorm? From who? Apple is vetting the applications, so I expect a higher quality experience. The ad copy might be written by the developer but it's part of the store. You don't expect bad ad copy on Amazon or Dell and you shouldn't expect it on Apple's store either. I'm expecting Apple to reject applications based on their quality. If users and developers have to jump through hoops, there should be a real tangible benefit.
You don't expect bad ad copy on Amazon or Dell
You've never read bad ad copy on Amazon? You fortunate soul.
It's true, Apple could choose to run their platform more like Dell runs its third-party outlet, or Sony runs Playstation: With a relative handful of very strictly quality-controlled apps. We know they could do that if they wanted to, because they did so all last year... and they were met by an army of jailbreakers and lots of complaints from developers and advanced users. So now Apple is trying something else.
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's approval policy tightens up in the future. Right now I believe they're still working through an enormous backlog. The easiest way to get through the backlog is to release apps unless there's an obvious reason not to.
In the meantime, why not develop a third-party rating service to pick out quality iPhone apps? If such a service is as valuable as you believe it is, and Apple's leaving that money on the table, why not pick it up?
You've never read bad ad copy on Amazon? You fortunate soul.
It's true, Apple could choose to run their platform more like Dell runs its third-party outlet, or Sony runs Playstation: With a relative handful of very strictly quality-controlled apps. We know they could do that if they wanted to, because they did so all last year... and they were met by an army of jailbreakers and lots of complaints from developers and advanced users. So now Apple is trying something else.
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's approval policy tightens up in the future. Right now I believe they're still working through an enormous backlog. The easiest way to get through the backlog is to release apps unless there's an obvious reason not to.
In the meantime, why not develop a third-party rating service to pick out quality iPhone apps? If such a service is as valuable as you believe it is, and Apple's leaving that money on the table, why not pick it up?
"We know they could do that if they wanted to, because they did so all last year..."
How is Apple not allowing any 3rd party applications like how Sony runs the Playstation?
"they were met by an army of jailbreakers and lots of complaints from developers and advanced users. So now Apple is trying something else."
...And they're still met with an army of jailbreakers and lots of complaints from developers and advanced users.
What we have now is the worst the both worlds: a closed platform without any closed platform benefits. I'd be just as happy if they opened the whole thing up. Or providing a tighter app store while opening the whole thing up.
And yes, they have enormous backlog but it's never going to go away because every update of every application also needs to go through the process. Every app that has been approved today will have to be approved again and again and again.
How is Apple not allowing any 3rd party applications like how Sony runs the Playstation?
"they were met by an army of jailbreakers and lots of complaints from developers and advanced users. So now Apple is trying something else."
...And they're still met with an army of jailbreakers and lots of complaints from developers and advanced users.
What we have now is the worst the both worlds: a closed platform without any closed platform benefits. I'd be just as happy if they opened the whole thing up. Or providing a tighter app store while opening the whole thing up.
And yes, they have enormous backlog but it's never going to go away because every update of every application also needs to go through the process. Every app that has been approved today will have to be approved again and again and again.
BoxOffice was an awesome App. It aggregated freely available information in a useful way. It was attractive. The description is well written. None of the sites it aggregated information from objected to it. Yet they pulled this one. Something is definitely wrong!
The guy has released the source code openly under GPL on code.google.com. That might be what made Apple angry since that is (apparently) a violation of the NDA.
Another sign that something is definitely wrong!
Ahh that explains it. I too agree it was an amazing app. The competition is pure crap. Elements of the interface aren't centered, padded, etc... just simple things like that were thrown out the window and the app is disgusting to look at and use.
But now I know why :)
But now I know why :)
I believe Apple is a bit more concerned with the "does this app drain the battery" and "is this app secure" kind of 3rd-party app issues.
"...I... clicked 'buy'...and it really bought this app...the App Store...It's not being run well...beware!!!" Does this make sense to anyone? Don't click buy!
> "..I... clicked 'buy'...and it really bought this app"
Gee really? What else is clicking "Buy" supposed to do?
Gee really? What else is clicking "Buy" supposed to do?
While I haven't used the AppStore myself, I'd expect the Buy process to take at least two user steps -- a good rule of thumb for an interface action with permanent effects, to guard against accidental clicks.
Maybe the user was expecting one more level of confirmation than the AppStore actually had?
Maybe the user was expecting one more level of confirmation than the AppStore actually had?
Does your email program have a confirmation step after its "Send" button?
Confirmation steps, in practice, don't really help. After a few uses, people build up the muscle memory that "action, confirmation" is the action. Then the one time in a hundred they want to cancel, they don't realize until too late.
One approach to try would be, for any purchase over $5, make a "confirmation step" that looks like a restaurant bill, and require the user to sign it (with their finger). Perhaps "sign name next to a big number" would be enough to jar them.
But really, the solution is to make it undoable/refundable. No matter what barriers you put up, somebody will do it by mistake (guaranteed), and is going to want their money back. If I can return a $1000 jacket in real life, I should be able to return a $1000 no-op app.
Confirmation steps, in practice, don't really help. After a few uses, people build up the muscle memory that "action, confirmation" is the action. Then the one time in a hundred they want to cancel, they don't realize until too late.
One approach to try would be, for any purchase over $5, make a "confirmation step" that looks like a restaurant bill, and require the user to sign it (with their finger). Perhaps "sign name next to a big number" would be enough to jar them.
But really, the solution is to make it undoable/refundable. No matter what barriers you put up, somebody will do it by mistake (guaranteed), and is going to want their money back. If I can return a $1000 jacket in real life, I should be able to return a $1000 no-op app.
The really fun part is that Apple's policy states the developer must reimburse refunds 100%. Apple's 30% cut stays with them.
Any money the dev got through "accidental" purchases is likely going to fly away again with interest.
Any money the dev got through "accidental" purchases is likely going to fly away again with interest.
Hmm, keep the $1000 and get kicked off the App Store, or lose $300 to stay on? I'm pretty sure the guy is just going to keep the grand.
[deleted]
When I hit Control-Enter to send, it actually does confirm with me that I want to do that; however, it does not when I use the mouse... (Thunderbird)
But I still completely agree with you.
But I still completely agree with you.
This is the common behaviour in most ecommerce sites so is a reasonable assumption. When money is changing hands, verification should be standard practice.
By default, all iTunes store purchases are verified. Only if the user specifies that they don't want to have to confirm again does the store allow one-click purchasing. Though it would be nice if there were a big-ticket override, i.e. every item over $25 must be explicitly approved.
Please, read the article, examine the photo, do something before you comment. It clearly says in the review referenced that the guy in this case forgot that the buy confirmation was disabled (this is a preference).
The app store has one more level of confirmation- this guy just "forgot" that he had it turned off.
The app store has one more level of confirmation- this guy just "forgot" that he had it turned off.
I did read the article but -- as I said in my comment -- I haven't used AppStore before, so I have no idea what "iclick" is or why something done on his laptop would affect his iPhone... I assume from your comment that it is the option to turn off confirmation?
If so, it strikes me as bad design that another user on another device can affect whether or not you get a buy confirmation on yours.
If so, it strikes me as bad design that another user on another device can affect whether or not you get a buy confirmation on yours.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Normally: prompt the user for a password, then purchase.
unless you've purchased something else recently
It's bad if the user interface for something this important depends on hidden state that the user might not remember.
[deleted]
Yes, point taken.
However, I can imagine people seeing "$999" and some pattern recognition firing in their brain interpreting it as "$9.99" because that would be a more reasonable price for an iPhone app, and clicking "Buy" before the rational part of the brain realized the error.
So I imagine that the whole point of setting an iPhone app price at $999 was to scam people in exactly this way.
Maybe a modification to one-click would be a "are you really, really sure" dialog for suspiciously high prices.
This person, of course, does not have this excuse, because they did correctly interpret "$999", and clicked anyway.
However, I can imagine people seeing "$999" and some pattern recognition firing in their brain interpreting it as "$9.99" because that would be a more reasonable price for an iPhone app, and clicking "Buy" before the rational part of the brain realized the error.
So I imagine that the whole point of setting an iPhone app price at $999 was to scam people in exactly this way.
Maybe a modification to one-click would be a "are you really, really sure" dialog for suspiciously high prices.
This person, of course, does not have this excuse, because they did correctly interpret "$999", and clicked anyway.
The price, of course, was $999.99, which isn't deceiving at all.
In what sense was this a scam?
Obscured, hard to find or misleading price? Nope. False or misleading promises of what the program does? Nope.
So what's the scam? That you think it's overpriced? That he bought it and now doesn't want it? That the author created it with the sole intention of making money?
Caveat Emptor, and all that. Yes, I think there should be an "undo" option, a cooldown period, right to cancellation and money back no questions asked - but there's no wrongdoing here - he has no right to feel outraged or hard done by about the situation.
Obscured, hard to find or misleading price? Nope. False or misleading promises of what the program does? Nope.
So what's the scam? That you think it's overpriced? That he bought it and now doesn't want it? That the author created it with the sole intention of making money?
Caveat Emptor, and all that. Yes, I think there should be an "undo" option, a cooldown period, right to cancellation and money back no questions asked - but there's no wrongdoing here - he has no right to feel outraged or hard done by about the situation.
Or possibly it was done because it was the highest possible price you can sell your app for. And since the whole point was to show off your wealth, its likely $999 was picked for this purpose.
Doesn't Amazon hold a patent for "one-click shopping"?
Or is this "one-touch" shopping?
;)
Or is this "one-touch" shopping?
;)
Yes, and Apple licensed Amazon's patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Apple_Computer
WTF? Unreal. It was a joke the day is was born. My god, I'm going to patent sitting on one ass cheek, cuz, you know, nobody's actually patented it yet. Think of the license fees!
WTF? Unreal. It was a joke the day is was born. My god, I'm going to patent sitting on one ass cheek, cuz, you know, nobody's actually patented it yet. Think of the license fees!
A far, far better thing to patent is "One more click buying," -- sell it to Amazon, and they have a monopoly by induction.
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
- Thomas Tusser
People try to use this excuse on eBay a lot too.
No they don't. Ebay doesn't have one-click ordering that I'm aware of.
You must not sell a lot. I get the "oh, I didn't realize Buy It Now means I bought it" excuse a lot. eBay instituted a secondary screen explaining that bidding is entering into a contract for a reason. I still get complaints when I sell, everything from "oh, I entered the wrong price" to "oh, I didn't read the item description".
The point is when he clicked that buy button he entered into a contract. The one-click aspect is just his way of trying to weasel out of it.
The point is when he clicked that buy button he entered into a contract. The one-click aspect is just his way of trying to weasel out of it.
This looks fake. Notice the AT&T logo in the top left. There IS no AT&T logo on the iPhone. It just says AT&T in caps on the phone, not lower case.
It could be a jailbroken phone.
Or an ayePhone, which is quite popular among the Scottish demographic.
I thought that be for pirates. Mayhaps that be the arrPhone?
This was the first thing I noticed too.
Yep, mine too.
the app was pulled from the apple store yesterday. it was reported that no sales went through, and if so will be canceled.
not hacker news.
not hacker news.
4 sales in 14 hours:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/06/the-worlds-first-luxury...
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/06/the-worlds-first-luxury...
morons...they get what they deserve.
I'm disappointed that they don't have a try-then-buy option. There are plenty of sub $10 apps that I would love to try out and wouldn't mind paying for if they are good. But I don't like payng the money first and then learning that I don't like something about how they work. The "lite" version works, okay, but I'd rather just one version that I could try for free for a week to see if it sticks with me.
This app would go nicely with one of these: http://www.extraordinary-i-phone.com/
Though if you buy a $50,000 diamond studded iPhone you don't really need a $1000 app to tell people you're rich...
Though if you buy a $50,000 diamond studded iPhone you don't really need a $1000 app to tell people you're rich...
People is plural. This is one dumb guy. Small difference, but with big implications.
More alarming than the fact that someone bought the 'I Am Rich' app is that at least 20 people here thought this possibly-fake and definitely-trivial issue was 'Hacker News'.
CNBC just reported that 8 people bought this app...
That's just sad
Call up credit card company.
Say that you didn't make the order.
They fix it.
Say that you didn't make the order.
They fix it.
While you should definitely report transactions you actually didn't make, I don't recommend lying about transactions you actually made. You have to swear in writing you didn't make the purchase. And the merchant has the opportunity to prove you did actually do this.
You have to swear in writing you didn't make the purchase
No, you don't. And my suggestion was a fail-safe one. Realistically, he should 1) Demand a refund, then 2) See apple's policies about refunds and complain through them, then 3) See if his credit card allows chargebacks through "buyer's remorse" and if not, 4) Say you didn't buy it.
Obviously, this guy made a mistaken purchase, and if it was a physical store it would never have happened.
No, you don't. And my suggestion was a fail-safe one. Realistically, he should 1) Demand a refund, then 2) See apple's policies about refunds and complain through them, then 3) See if his credit card allows chargebacks through "buyer's remorse" and if not, 4) Say you didn't buy it.
Obviously, this guy made a mistaken purchase, and if it was a physical store it would never have happened.
Unless you had to type your password right before ordering (which I'm assuming wasn't the case in this instance) I think making an argument that it was you that pressed the button is pretty hard for the merchant.
You are wrong. This may be the case if it is directly from a bank account, but not from a credit card.
Regardless, the way that the Apple store tricked his muscle memory by not having a confirmation page borders on fraudulent. If they would not reverse this honest mistake when you present the situation to them, then I would have no problem perusing this by other means.
Regardless, the way that the Apple store tricked his muscle memory by not having a confirmation page borders on fraudulent. If they would not reverse this honest mistake when you present the situation to them, then I would have no problem perusing this by other means.
The apple store HAS a confirmation. If you had read the "review" in the attached image, you'd see that the purchaser "forgot" that he disabled the option to prompt before buying.
Why is no one paying attention to this?
I, too, think this app sucks... but "caveat emptor" doesn't still apply?
Check out Kottke (who I also am not especially fond of) for a reality check on why it's not apple's place to remove the app...
http://www.kottke.org/08/08/the-1000-iphone-app
Why is no one paying attention to this?
I, too, think this app sucks... but "caveat emptor" doesn't still apply?
Check out Kottke (who I also am not especially fond of) for a reality check on why it's not apple's place to remove the app...
http://www.kottke.org/08/08/the-1000-iphone-app
I hope I can use "honest mistake" more in court. That's the two magic words people should put more faith into.
Making an Internet purchase is different then walking into a store and buying something.
If you clicked on a link that says "Buy Now" and for whatever reason it ran your card on file and you didn't expect it to then that is good enough reason to get a refund from the merchant and if not from the merchant then put in a dispute.
If you clicked on a link that says "Buy Now" and for whatever reason it ran your card on file and you didn't expect it to then that is good enough reason to get a refund from the merchant and if not from the merchant then put in a dispute.
Having been on the other side of this, while you do sometimes "get the opportunity", these things generally go against the merchant in the vast majority of cases, especially for electronic goods.
They might catch on since he said he's already called them and told him he made a mistake
But the quality of approved applications isn't any better than what's available on the average Pocket PC software site. They're just rubber-stamping applications. Some applications have horrible engrish descriptions. Approved applications disappear and reappear depending on the whim this week. Updates to applications take forever.
Apple has dropped the ball on almost everything related to iPhone apps, from the app store to the fking NDA.