MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Aug 08, 08 - 12:20 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

Wow. That's almost enough to pay for AT&T;hidden charges on iPhones.

That look like a dictatorship to me!

MDN word : "Soviet" As in Apple is the Soviet of computer company

How dumb is too dumb?

Sorry MDN, but you (and others) are 100% completely wrong on this issue.

If a retailer is stocking a product with basically scam-like intentions, let's it in the store anyway, and then receives serious complaints from the few customers that actually bought it, they have every right, nay a *duty* to remove said product.

The "I Am rich" app was bought by very few people, purchased mostly by mistake (as the scammer intended), and at least one or two of those "customers" (victims) pointedly asked Apple to remove the app from the store.

Why wouldn't Apple remove it?

I'm going to remind all you idiots of this when Apple refuses to remove some application that *you* find offensive and deceitful later on.

This is retail, not the human rights court, and the customer is always the focus, even when they are wrong.

Aug 08, 08 - 12:24 pm Comment from: Lurker_PC

Agree with MDN's take. Apple should not have removed the app as it does not violate Apple's own guidance. Yes, Apple should refund the customer(s) who accidentally purchase this app.

Peace.

Aug 08, 08 - 12:27 pm Comment from: Andy

How the hell could Apple consider this app a bad deal when they get an easy $2,400 percentage of the sale? Are they going to start censoring artists in iTunes - or excluding them altogether if they aren't up to Apple's standards?

And to those who say Apple has the right to decide what goes in the AppStore - they absolutely do. However, as the saying goes, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

Apple has the power to modify or shut down the AppStore at will, granted, but that kinda defeats the point in providing it in the first place. Obviously exclude apps that break the iPhone, but why touch anything else? Apple may as well provide ONLY Apple made iPhone apps and absolutely, positively nothing else...

Let the buyer decide if it's worth their time and money, and Apple wins too with the kickback, for one.

I Am Rich was an amusing harmless little app. Well done to Mr Heinrich!

I understand your point but there is an issue.

As a full time support professional I can tell you that many many many of my clients allow their kids to buy whatever they want. ( thinking the most damage they can do is a few dollars $100 on the outside )

Also many clients have the auto 1 click buy.

Angry customers for some BS app is something Apple should avoid. Period.

Apple is not the free press right to speech blah bla blah THEY ARE NOT. PERIOD,

GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS

Apple made a good call.

Aug 08, 08 - 12:31 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

Celebrating one's affluence is an american pastime!

Apple makes three-hundred dollars with each sale and for them to pull this app for any reason is absurd. Fire the person who made the call to pull it!

Aug 08, 08 - 12:32 pm Comment from: Demon

Said it yesterday and I'll say it again, the "I am Rich" was offensive and disruptive and Apple has every right to remove and I'm glad they did.

thelonousMac;

Please define "AT&T;'s hidden charges", won't you?

I've owned my iPhone for 6 months, yet haven't paid a single copper more than what AT&T;said they'd charge me.

Why does everyone assume the app was purchased 8 times by mistake? What if there really are excessively wasteful people with money out there who wanted to be able to say "I purchased the $999 app"?

And a stupid app like this makes all us fanboys look bad. If my son or daughter were to click on this app I would really be upset with Apple. Thanks Apple, I for one appreciate it.

Aug 08, 08 - 12:40 pm Comment from: Andy

@Demon

Do you find some music artists offensive? Have you ever contacted Apple to remove them from iTunes, hmm?

How hard can it be - if you don't like the app - don't buy it! How the hell can a color shifting screensaver be offensive? It's not porn, or even nazi propaganda! And if it's the price, well, there's a market for everything, even if you aren't prepared to part with your cash, which is perfectly your right.

Applauding Apple for a move like this is asking for the AppStore to become a real bone of contention with developers the next time they pull this stunt for another innocuous app. What a great way to market your new-fangled store...

It should be called "I Am Dumb"

Aug 08, 08 - 12:41 pm Comment from: Predrag

To MDN_Please:

Obviously, so far, 8 people bought this little app in about 8 days. It is not like a thousand people took the bait, bought it, realised that they were duped and called Apple for a refund. Most surely, this app caused no trouble for anyone involved. Chances are, one of the eight people was pissed that the app didn't to a thing at all and they might even have contacted Apple. As in every retail business, customers who aren't satisfied with their purchase often return the merchandise and get their refund. While with software (especially downloaded kind) this isn't normally done, Apple has a track record with iTunes for having this done occasionally, on an individual basis. Even if every single one of these eight people asked for their money back, this is still by no means grounds for a product recall.

Let's imagine a retail store selling toys. Let's picture a Star Wars light saber on the shelf, and on the box, there is a picture of Luke Skywalker holding it. Unfortunately, the angle and the way he holds it is such that the saber looks very much like an extension of his, well, private part. Customers (parents) begin to complain. How long would it take before this toy is removed from the shelf? Surely, a lot more than eight people and a lot longer than eight days. And clearly, the "I'm Rich!" application is not that offensive.

@ Jeremy

Sorry Jeremy, but you (and others) are 100% completely wrong on this issue.

The App in question did EXACTLY what it said it'd do, in EXACTLY the way the developer said it would, and no matter how many times you deny it, the act of denying a fact doesn't suddenly make it "not true".

I'm going to remind all you idiots of this when Apple removes another application that that does EXACTLY what the author said it'd do later on.

This is retail, not the human rights court, and the customer is always the focus, even when they are wrong.

Aug 08, 08 - 12:46 pm Comment from: ken1w

I wonder if any of those eight customers thought the price was $9.99, only to see their credit cards charged with a cool grand. I realize it was "clear marked" as $999.99, but the human mind can make assumptions and become blind to the obvious.

That's probably why Apple took it off (temporarily). To add a special "are you sure" dialog for purchases costing over certain dollar amount, say $100.

MDN is full of it.

Apple needs to keep some level of control of what goes in the Apps Store.

This kind of scam stuff will draw hundreds of similar shit apps and degrade the store. It will resemble the Fisherman's Wharf down in that shithole San Francisco, with cheap ass T shirt shops and crapy trinkets, filthy scam street performers and scumbag homeless and beggars in tow.

All comes with the territory.

Keep that shit OUT of the Apps Store.

What is this fault of the human mind called that mistakes $999.99 for $9.99? Dyslexia?

Aug 08, 08 - 12:52 pm Comment from: CYxodus

I think that this app is ok as long as Apple placed some safeguards on it. It's a status symbol and I don't see anything wrong with it.

iphone image is now one of ANYONE can afford it

pulling the 1k app is good.

PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What if Apple released any app that cost 999 dollars

And called it I dare you to buy this???

Is that good for Apple?

Perception is everything and Apple not allowing their amazing platform to have an app that is a scam.

fine by me!!!

@Moo
You are exactly right. There are people out there to whom $1000 is pocket change. Again, this is not a scam. Just because you don't like something (Are you listening, Jeremy?) that doesn't give you the right to deny it to others. The programmer didn't violate Apple's rules. This issue here is that Apple cannot arbitrarily remove apps with no cause. If they do, they will rapidly discover that no one wants to develop apps for them anymore.

To anyone who thinks this app is a scam. Please define scam, and explain how this fits that definition. You don't like it? Then don't buy it.

Doofuses

I have no objections to wealth but I can't understand why anybody would want to brag about it. And buying an "application" (really, just buying an icon) to shout to the world that you are rich as about as objectionable as you can get. At least expensive fast cars / big houses / luxury holidays / smart watches have some other main function in life and are not just for the sole purpose of saying "I'm richer than you". It smacks of elitism. Yuk. Maybe those that show off about their wealth deserve to be fleeced of their excessive cash.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:02 pm Comment from: Predrag

I have yet to hear (read) a valid argument for pulling this app. If you took the time to read the text that accompanied the AppStore page for this application, you would have found the following:

I Am Rich
Armin Heinrich
(two out of five stars, from 275 reviewers)
Price: $999.99

Art & Livestyle (sic) - not for everyone

The red icon on your iPhone or iPod touch always reminds you (and othes when you show it to them) that you were able to afford this.

It's a work of art with no hidden function at all.

After pressing the (i) on the main page, a secred mantra will be shown. This may help you to to (sic) stay rich, healthy and successful.

If it's to (sic) expensive for you - check out my other apps - they are all much cheaper.


Besides somewhat poor English (author is a non-native speaker), the description desribes exactly what the application does. There is nothing offensive or deceptive about it.

Can we have some valid arguments now for pulling this app?

Aug 08, 08 - 01:05 pm Comment from: The Other Steve

I disagree with MDN this time. Although I see their point.

Just like Apple's Brick and mortar stores, Apple can decide to not stock items that are of extremely poor quality (has a virus or causes device to crash) or value (let face it, this is a scam)

The difference this time is the developer doesn't have another avenue to sell his item.

It's Apple's reputation, and it's enough to make some people decide to avoid the App store, or prevent their kids from doing so.

This hurts the other developers.

The problem is not the application it is the Apple app approval process. Obviously, Apple is not filtering iPhone apps and is retroactively solving problems based on complaints.

1. The "I am rich" should have never been approved. It makes apple look like one of those TV ringtone shills.

2. Apple MUST actually look at these apps before hosting and posting.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:12 pm Comment from: Journo

Anyone who supports Apple's pulling of "I Am Rich" should immediately turn off their computers, grab their placards, and sprint to their nearest Macy's to protest the sale of Louis Vuitton handbags. Quick, get going! The world needs you to save them from themselves. - MDN

Searing truth. Brilliant!

Whoa... MDN goes after Apple! Such editorial courage in the face of frivolity.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:15 pm Comment from: shen

"The "I Am rich" app was bought by very few people, purchased mostly by mistake (as the scammer intended)"

and i am sure you have proof of this claim, and are not just scamming us.

Hey if you can get it... so be it!

Besides those nine buyers saved a bunch... they ended up with a all most one of a kind application and they don't have spend the money to have there iPhones gold diped and encrusted with stones... in there minds it's a bargin! <GRIN>

People of wealth thinking is more often thaan not a little off... after all most of them are fascist republicans and voted for Bushism more than once!

Aug 08, 08 - 01:18 pm Comment from: Fred Mertz

Jake,

Frivolity often masks matters of importance. Especially to the less bright among us.

MDN asked, "Which app will Apple decide they don't like next?"

That's hardly a frivolous question.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:23 pm Comment from: TexasAg03

If a retailer is stocking a product with basically scam-like intentions, let's it in the store anyway, and then receives serious complaints from the few customers that actually bought it, they have every right, nay a *duty* to remove said product.

From the dictionary:

"Scam
–noun
1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, esp. for making a quick profit; swindle. "

Explain to me how the "I Am Rich" app was a con game or fraudulent in any way. The author clearly described what the app did and there was no attempt at deception on the price.

Is it a silly app with no usefulness whatsoever? Yes, but that doesn't make it a scam. Learn what words mean...

Aug 08, 08 - 01:23 pm Comment from: Andy

@The Other Steve

You are largely correct - but on the same token, you're using your definition of 'scam' to apply to other people. Do you believe a Ferarri is a scam because a Toyota gets you from A to B as well?

As MDN says, the point is that Apple is only hurting itself with this practice of retro-actively vetting apps - and harmless ones at that. For someone, I Am Rich might be the best app they've ever bought, and others may find it an overpriced scam, as you essentially value it.

See, in a free market, the consumer is the ultimate arbiter of whether a product is a success or failure. Equally, the market allows provision of all manner of products to suit tastes on the individual level.

How does Apple hope to retain developers with this sort of behavior? The least they could do is provide a simple explanation of why this app offended them so much.

Then we can all move on.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:26 pm Comment from: TexasAg03

Maybe those that show off about their wealth deserve to be fleeced of their excessive cash.

Maybe, but it's not Apple's place (or anyone else's) to determine upon what they spend their money.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:29 pm Comment from: TexasAg03

Apple has pulled the "Slasher" and "PhoneSaber" apps now. Apparently they have "objectionable content."

Actually, it is so easy to buy this software I think it was a good thing (pulling the software from the app store)... I could see my mother accidentally buying this thing and getting a bill for $1000! She has actually done this twice already... remember not all folks that use the iPhone are savvy.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:32 pm Comment from: Ferf Muckmeyer

WTF is happening at Apple? The Apps Police are in full swing? Heck, I don't know any fool that would spend this kind of money for an app, but if it's selling, why take it down? Now there is talk of Apple having the ability to remove apps from our phones?

This is absolute bullshit. It's something I would expect out of Redmond, NOT Cupertino. Apple should not have the right to determine what apps should be removed, let alone have access to our iPhones to disable apps. They are moving down a a very slippery slope. A huge disappointment to say the least.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:37 pm Comment from: TenaciousDNA

Pet rock.

Mr. Jobs.... tear down these walls!

Sorry, MDN is right on this one. Apple does not stop you from installing MS office on your Mac and that is an even BIGGER rip off than this app.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:39 pm Comment from: KingMel

MDN, you have argued yourself into a circle. Especially in the days before Intel Macs and Bootcamp, you repeatedly stated that it didn't matter how many apps were available for Windows, the best of class were available for the Mac. So you didn't have to wade through a bunch of garbage apps just to get one that worked well. Now you are whining about Apple pulling a garbage app from distribution.

Since Apple completely controls the store, there is valid concern regarding how Apple intends to exercise its right of 'censorship' with respect to publicly available apps. At the same time, Apple does have the right to choose what it sells and what it doesn't through its store. Apple has undoubtedly elected not to host many applications on its app store, but it didn't become an issue until Apple pulled one useless app that could result in ridicule and long-term damage to its reputation. In addition, what detrimental effects might the proliferation of numerous garbage apps have on the usefulness of the app store? Maybe Apple should create an exclusive 'novelty' category to group all of the useless apps that few will ever buy.

By the way, your arguments about watches and cars is not relevant. Regardless of its cost, a functioning car or watch does something useful. And an expensive model often offers enhanced functionality, materials, workmanship, warranty, service/support, etc. that provides added value to the customers. This app seems to have no redeeming qualities along those lines. You might very well be able to come up with better examples, but expensive cars and watches is not your best choice.

In addition, in responses to criticisms of Apple, MDN Takes ® have often stated that Apple has to make choices that best serve their customers, and sometimes those choices are not popular with subsets of their users (say professionals seeking high end graphics cards or enterprise support). Well, Apple made this choice, too, and you do not have to own an iPhone or iPod touch or shop at the app store if you not choose to do so. Apple has broken no promises of which I am aware regarding the content of the app store or the functionality of apps that would become available to users.

Unless/until the restrictions on iPhone/iPod touch application distribution are loosened, Apple controls that game. Vote with your dollar, but don't go overboard with the MDN Takes ® to the point that they become MDN Rants. That detracts from your credibility.

How many times have you promoted the idea that th

Aug 08, 08 - 01:42 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

Jeremy,

As one of the "idiots" here who is "100% completely wrong on this issue", I was wondering. By your reasoning, shouldn't the sale of those exorbitantly priced gas guzzling SUVs have been prohibited? After all, a lot them are simply status symbols.

Shouldn't the government have done like Apple and protected the public from this "scam"?

Apple has every right to pull any app it wants to for any reason because it's a private store. They're not the government and have no duty to provide anyone with anything that they don't want to.
That said, as someone who values freedom of choice and personal responsibility, I strongly disagree with their decision. Yes, the app is incredibly gauche, but people do distasteful things with Apple products all the time and I don't see them trying to stop people from searching for porn on their macbooks or playing Brittney on their iPods.
However: MDN's take is pisspoor reasoning. From what I've heard, this app serves no purposes but showing off, while MDN's other examples can have gradients of quality that may be worth money. While there are status symbols, a more expensive watch or car will almost certainly provide benefits (speed, comfort, durability) that cheaper alternatives won't. It's for each customer to decide whether the benefits are worth the cost. I'm personally offended by ostentatious displays of wealth that serve no purpose other than showing off, but that doesn't mean I hate all nice things. If you spend the dough on an M3 because you really love to drive and utilize capabilities beyond those of a Kia,then more power to you. If you dropped the dough on a Porsche with auto transmission, you're probably just a dick with security issues, and there's a big difference between the two.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:47 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

Bruce,

"And a stupid app like this makes all us fanboys look bad. If my son or daughter were to click on this app I would really be upset with Apple. Thanks Apple, I for one appreciate it."

Just curious Bruce, but if you have bought iPhones for your kids, couldn't you have an iTunes Store allowance set up for them that would preclude them being able to do this? I mean, if a child is that irresponsible should they even have an iPhone? No disrespect intended.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:50 pm Comment from: MacBill

APPLE AND STEVE JOBS:

STOP ILLEGALLY CENSORING APPS ON THE APPS STORE!!

That guy is so lucky. I wish I'd have thought of it to make a few quick bucks. Such a great premise that humans are both the stupidest and richest animals on the planet.

On another topic, maybe Apple should write up a document that gives a clear definition of what type of apps are subject to removal at the App Store. I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. Recalls happen to toymakers, appliance makers, auto makers, etc. What's the big deal if a one or two apps out of a thousand gets removed. I do think there should be an explanation as to why, so other developers don't make the same mistake, but that's about it.

Aug 08, 08 - 01:53 pm Comment from: Andy

Nathan,

Although you too are largely correct - you are applying your own views and prejudices upon other people's choices. It is your right to spend your money as you wish - but not to dictate how others may spend theirs.

The point is, Apple endeavored to provide iPhone users with a store full of apps, and with that, comes the responsibly to let the consumer decide the app's worth. Apple absolutely have the right to vet apps, but unless it's an app that intentionally screws with their iPhone - what's the harm, exactly?

Otherwise, Apple ought to simply lock out developers unless they are Apple's own inhouse teams, right?

@Nathan

"If you spend the dough on an M3 because you really love to drive and utilize capabilities beyond those of a Kia,then more power to you. If you dropped the dough on a Porsche with auto transmission, you're probably just a dick with security issues, and there's a big difference between the two."

Thanks Nathan, I'm glad you cleared that up about who should be able to own a performance car. Apparently 'yes' if you utilize the capabilities (good luck to driving over 100 mph with impunity in the U.S.) and 'no' if you can't drive a stick (like if you have a disability from a war wound). Those darn "dicks".

"STOP ILLEGALLY CENSORING APPS . . ."


Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Aug 08, 08 - 02:17 pm Comment from: nekogami13

Wow, some of you are really getting your panties in a wad over a stupid app.
Claiming it is a scam(even though nothing fraudulent was done) to it is illegal for Apple to control the content of it's app store.

Wow, just wow-the number of dumb people posting here has shot through the roof.

Time to stop reading the comments and just use the site as a plain aggregater of content.