Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Apple's App Store

Options
  • 15-02-2012 3:33pm
    #1
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭


    This morning I got a nice email from Apple Support UK confirming they had authorised a refund for a non-functioning application I had purchased, as "... issuing a refund for this purchase of xxxxxxxxxxx is an appropriate exception to the App Store Terms and Conditions, which state that all sales are final."

    Now as I'm sure you're aware, applications in the App Store range in price from freebies (some of the most useful I've "purchased" are free) to video production software suites costing several hundred Euro per seat.

    The application I got a refund for cost 1.59 but that's not the issue. The consumer issue here is that apparently, IMHO, the T&Cs a purchaser must agree to prior to purchase are in breach of Irish & EU consumer law, in that they are denying recourse under, for example, the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act 1980. Up front Apple are saying that they refuse to recognise a consumer's legal rights. Surely this is illegal?

    More disturbing for me were the following issues that arose

    • Negative reviews left by me in the App Store were taken down on three separate occasions after attempts to contact the developer failed; positive reviews for other apps I purchased "stuck" instantly
    • Apps sold in the App Store are supposedly subjected to quality assurance tests. This particular application never was because it would have failed instantly
    • Some applications allow a 7-day or x number of transactions trial period or printed outputs contain water-marks etc before a final purchasing decision is made. If all sales are final then there must be consistent "trialling" allowed of the App Store products prior to purchase. This product had to be paid for before downloading to check it out
    • Given what appears to be Apple's scant regard for consumer law and their inability to QA products they sell, isn't this whole are ripe for scamming with "shell" applications that do nothing and are thus very profitable for the developer (and Apple)?
    Comments please.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    aidan_walsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,208 ✭✭✭✭aidan_walsh


    Apps sold in the App Store are supposedly subjected to quality assurance tests. This particular application never was because it would have failed instantly
    What was the issue with the app? Was it an actual technical failure or an expectation failure?
    This product had to be paid for before downloading to check it out
    This is the same as buying boxed software in any real world scenario. Would trials be nice? Sure, and many devs create "Lite" versions that do just that, just like downloadable demos of games or other software.
    isn't this whole are ripe for scamming with "shell" applications that do nothing and are thus very profitable for the developer (and Apple)?
    Yes, and unfortunately sometimes those do slip through the process. By and large however, they don't seem to because there are not many of them there.


  • Options
    #3
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    aidan_walsh wrote: »
    What was the issue with the app? Was it an actual technical failure or an expectation failure? ...
    The application was not "as described", was not "fit for purpose" and was not of "merchantable quality", so it failed all the tests.

    I will not go into great detail but it was built using a well-know database tool, it launched and seemed to shut down in an orderly fashion, but nothing else worked; data entered disappeared while navigating between windows, despite being described as "English" the app was littered with foreign-language words (window titles, dialogue boxes, etc.) and data "saved" was missing the next time the application was launched. That's the thumb-nail version.
    aidan_walsh wrote: »
    ... This is the same as buying boxed software in any real world scenario. ...
    No it's not IMHO. When buying boxed software these days you are not expected to sign away you leagal rights or access to recourse as is currently the case with Apple's App Store model.
    aidan_walsh wrote: »
    ... . Would trials be nice? Sure, and many devs create "Lite" versions that do just that, just like downloadable demos of games or other software ...
    Trials are are a must under this buisness model and the supply of demos (in whatever fashion, time-limited, transaction-limited, water-marking, etc) need to form part of Apple's QA system.
    aidan_walsh wrote: »
    ... Yes, and unfortunately sometimes those do slip through the process. By and large however, they don't seem to because there are not many of them there.
    So Apple's QA isn't perfect but the contracts for consumers seem pretty perfect to me, so why would Apple not agree to work towards aligning them better, for everyone's benefit?

    Would you like to address some of the other questions I asked, for clarity purposes or what ever, and maybe I can elucidate further?


  • Options
    #4
    aidan_walsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,208 ✭✭✭✭aidan_walsh


    When buying boxed software these days you are not expected to sign away you leagal rights or access to recourse as is currently the case with Apple's App Store model.
    But you said yourself that you got a refund, so surely there is a recourse path?
    Trials are are a must under this buisness model and the supply of demos (in whatever fashion, time-limited, transaction-limited, water-marking, etc) need to form part of Apple's QA system.
    http://www.apple.com/feedback

    As I say, at the moment there is a way for developers to release trials as seperate apps, which is entirely optional. If there was to be a Store API for trials, I would imagine this would also be optional. I don't see Apple (or anyone else) mandating that trial versons must be available.


  • Options
    #5
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    aidan_walsh wrote: »
    But you said yourself that you got a refund, so surely there is a recourse path? ...
    No there isn't, not one that recognises consumer law, and, as I already said it's not about my 1.59 but the broader issue. To quote from the email from Lucas H., iTunes & Mac App Store, Senior Advisor,

    "After reviewing your case, I've determined that issuing a refund for this purchase of xxxxxxxxxxx is an appropriate exception to the App Store Terms and Conditions, which state that all sales are final. In five to seven business days, a credit of 1,59 € should post to the credit card that appears on your receipt."

    So my point remains valid. There is no customer recourse embedded in the business policy. The only time a consumer can expect a refund for clearly defective product that should never have gone on sale, is if Apple chooses to make an "appropriate exception". Unless Apple does this all the time then a significant portion of customers who pay for defective product will never get a refund because the T&Cs say otherwise.

    I'm happy I was the lucky "appropriate exception" in this case but what about the next customer who buys some non-functional piece of crud from the App Store, how will he be treated?
    aidan_walsh wrote: »
    ... As I say, at the moment there is a way for developers to release trials as seperate apps, which is entirely optional. If there was to be a Store API for trials, I would imagine this would also be optional. I don't see Apple (or anyone else) mandating that trial versons must be available.
    But why not, pray tell? It seems to be OK for Apple to put T&Cs in place for customers, but not for developers, some of whose products you admit could have circumvented / slipped through QA or are simply scams with zero functionality and no support?

    I am afraid I remain to be convinced that the business model is in any way customer friendly but would welcome your thoughts on issues I raised which remain un-addressed.


  • Options
    #6
    galwayjohn89
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭galwayjohn89


    I would imagine the appropriate exception was the app didn't work and you were entitled to a refund. I really don't see what the fuss is? You bought a faulty app and got a refund. Am I missing something here?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Vuzuggu wrote: »
    ... Am I missing something here?
    Yes, quite a lot.


  • Options
    #8
    Jev/N
    Registered Users Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭Jev/N


    mathepac wrote: »
    the Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act 1982

    That's UK legislation BTW - sounds like UK Ts&Cs


  • Options
    #9
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Jev/N wrote: »
    That's UK legislation BTW - sounds like UK Ts&Cs
    Sorry, I corrected my OP. I should have typed the "Sale of Goods & Supply of Services Act 1980", the Irish legislation. Thanks.


  • Options
    #10
    JimsAlterEgo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭JimsAlterEgo


    does distance selling and 15 day cool off apply?


  • Options
    #11
    ch750536
    Registered Users Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭ch750536


    Have you not yet learnt that if you have an apple device you do what the **** you are told or ship out?

    I disagree with it so got rid of my apple device.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement