As of 2010, way earlier than this event came to be, apple had parental controls in place to turn off In App Purchases.

Here is an article dated November 23, 2010, that displays screenshots of the In App Purchase parental controls. The article itself does not list this as being a new feature of that version so it may have been then since the launch of version 4.0.

The case that triggered this lawsuit occurred early 2011. This case did make Apple change the default behavior where the first IAP after a purchase would ask for a password even if it occurred within the default 15 minute grace period. At that point Apple also added a setting to remove the grace period entirely and always require a password, but the ability to turn off IAP had been there for a long time.

As a father and uncle, I keep all my devices very well secured with passwords and parental controlls set up to levels I agree with.

Example: I own a Nook Tablet. Picked it over the Kindle Fire knowing it had a smaller software library precisely because it comes with parental controlls to prevent kids from buying stuff, the Kindle didnt.

It's all part of the job of being a parent. Apple can be a bit more proactive, and bloat the setup process with questions like "are you a parent? then fill this parental controlls wizard now!" But to be honest... parents should be more proactive about that kind of thing.

If I read right before, the guy even had Apple revert all charges. This guy is suing just in "principle" not actual damaged to himself (other than potential distress and window of bad credit.)

No, it simply means he has no enough knowledge or information to determine the case frivolous, therefore he is giving the plaintiff a chance to prove his point in court, while also allowing the defendant to... well defend himself.

A lot of the money goes towards minimizing the need of energy in the first place, not just to generate the needed energy.

The problem is not in the garden, it's in the flower seeds that are also sold down the street :P

Again, I actually hope this case does bring some changes and don't mind if Apple is hurt in the process (they are big boys, they can take it) but fear this may fall through due to them targeting the wrong party. But right now, Valve, Google and Facebook are equally guilty because all allow free apps/games with IAP.

How did they do it wrong? By default they ask for a password. They also give the parent tools to entirely turn IAP off, or require password on every transaction.

How did Apple did it wrong (that Facebook or Valve did not?)

iOS does give the parent the ability to set up the phone/ipad/ipod to require password every single transaction without wait window. It also provides a way for you to entirely disable the ability to consume In-App Purchases, so you can rest assured the kid is not asking you for the password for anything but the initial app.

Apple is not the one "selling" the apps and then charging with IAP, the software developers are.

It also happens in Facebook, and desktop, heck.... Valve has been doing it for a while with Team Fortress 2.

So why go after Apple?

Don't take me wrong, I really hope this case goes somewhere. I hate the Free2Play model where they take advantage of ignorant kids or people with compulsive behaviors. I just feel this lawsuit is miss-directed, Zynga and it's peers are the ones that should be targeted.

I will not oppose, though, if Apple decides or is forced to remove "consumable" IAP from the app store, or force apps that require them to charge an up-front fee that removes the visibility advantage these pocket predators have by being free up-front.

I love the Greenpeace "response to the response" where they doubt the numbers Apple bring forth:

So first "we want them to stop cutting corners and spend money to make green energy"

Now: "darn, these fools seem to be spending too much money to save up energy, must mean they are lying!"

Then you would be forced to use safari, something that would be a bit monopolistic.

Secondary issue (or primary if you already use safari as your main browser) is that now Safari would be bloated.

The Mac App Store I think shows that we can have a simple and speedy app with a comprehensive UI if it's just handling one type of product.

As for Steam... all they need to do is change to WebKit, not integrate with a browser. I agree their current implementation tends to make my pc cry.

Not as special as the ones that get problems handling a frigging MP3 player!

Obviously yours, so bad you hide your name. ;)

Curious how you got rid of the issues non-apple software cause. We have found banning MS Office, Internet Explorer and Visual Studio to not be viable, and they bring enough trouble to keep a rather large support department employed and busy all day long.

Agree. The problem with iTunes is it's one app doing the job of an entire software suite. Rename it to something more proper and distribute it as a group of apps with a centralized console, and perhaps the ability to just open up individual apps without going through the individual chunks.

I think I would like to see more than 3 total modular apps though. I would like:

- iOS App Store
- iTunes Music Store
- Movie & TV Shows
- iBooks store
- Mac App Store (for mac only)

Right now it actually is strange I need to buy mac apps from it's independent app but iOS apps from iTunes. This suit consolidation may make things better.

I may also argue to just add a Game Store that split games from other Apps. Games are the only category so specialized that it has it's own sub-category tree in iTunes right now. That should be a hint at it being in need of it's own section.