Credit card companies require that customers attempt to remedy any complaints with the merchant directly prior to initiating a charge-back. The customer clearly made no claim as to their concerns regarding the product, they just said they weren't the one that bought it, based on the claim of a fraudulent charge.
I see this much like purchasing a home. You have the opportunity to inspect the home during the closing (read code review). This is designed to provide a certification as to the quality of code without making the closed source code visible to you directly. If you don't utilize this, and the app complies as the same app that exists in the app store, it is hard to make the argument that you didn't know what you were getting. Unlike your example, as an app buyer you have the opportunity to use the app prior to purchasing ownership of the asset, so there is much more transparency than in a traditional app store software download example.
Looks really interesting. From my experience monetizing with ads can be a real grind. IAP has a lot of complexity as well though. Curious to hear how many people are using a service to manage IAP and how many are doing it all in house.
It is going to make a huge difference whether dealerships work to set up accounts for customers. If ford apps try to survive on ad support it is going to turn into a pile of garbage apps and irritating ads.
Totally agree that a great design cannot overcome poor functionality, and that it is too frequently a distraction from the core mission, but I think the bigger takeaway in this article is the need for/benefit of iterative testing during the development process and the establishment of proof of concept based using a minimum viable product to see how users actually interact with and respond to your apps. Design also shouldn't be an afterthought, as form and function must work together in order to deliver a compelling user experience. If you're curious, the app she talks about (DrawChat) was listed on Apptopia.com