Nothing stops people from gold plating their iPhones or putting it in a jewel encrusted case - if you drop it better then gems take the blow then your phone, right? I’ve heard stories of überrich kids dropping $36k so they can rule on Clash of Clans, and grade school kids blowing their college funds on smurfberries to get ahead in whatever game uses those, and for the most part Apple is happy to let that happen but will step in with refunds to head off any media frenzy.
Has anyone tried to play Blackjack on an iPhone recently? It is almost impossible to find an app that lets you play any casino games without -buying chips- to play. Who is spending $99.99, $19.99, or $9.99 of real money to gamble X amount of fake money with real reward except being on a scoreboard for a day? If you just want to play just for fun you have to go onto web sites.
$1000 isn't enough to charge to establish that someone is meaningfully wealthy; the app should have cost $10 million.
$1000 is rent for many people, it's one half to one third of their salary.
Yeah, 1000 is going to weed out a number of people but its not unreachable, should be more for 1000 we'll examine your financial situation and then grant you the ability to display the icon.
This was someone putting a drawing in an iPhone app bundle with a funny name and charging the highest price that Apple allowed developers to set.
It was brilliant. Made even more brilliant when the people who had actually paid for the app went on line, backpedalling, to explain how they had bought it on accident.
Why would someone spend the time and money to develop an app that is not monetized?
You’d need a server to manage state and that’s an ongoing cost as well. It doesn’t exist because it’s not economical to do so.
That’s not censorship. It’s protecting customers from being duped into buying something they don’t understand and getting ripped off.
TFA quotes an app review where someone felt scammed. The dev is quoted as saying he didn’t want people to buy it by accident and then feel cheated:
> "I don't want to collect money from people who did this by accident and I am glad that Apple returned the money for two orders," Heinrich said.
It sounds like he had good intent, was following the rules. It still wasn’t a good app to be in the App Store.
Conversely, there are countless free apps (Facebook-owned included) which extract far more value than 1,000usd from their users... and the users are completely unaware because the price of the app didn't give them pause.
The first iPhone was released in 2007. In 2008 people had only just begun writing apps and publishing to the app store. It's probably fair to say that people were still finding their way around the app store and some people were just curious.
Kids have sometimes ended up dropping thousands of dollars on stupid in-app purchases in games. I'm pretty sure they spent zero time considering the consequences.
Generally I think consumer protections are a good thing.
App Store descriptions were also more prominent at launch than they are today. The developer did nothing to obfuscate what it was nor to try and cheat anyone. The price was there, the description was there. It was exactly what he advertised.
what really got people (and apple) worked up was the idea that someone could create a "nothing" and make a lot of money with that. now we laugh because we can all create crypto tokens and sell them to naive investors.
While there's undoubtedly an intersection between the set "tech geeks who want to be early adapters" and "people for whom losing $1K is no big deal", they're not identical. Remember that the original iPhone was $399[1]; losing 2.5x the cost of the phone to somebody's dumb software joke would not have just been an "oopsie, I guess we'll have to get a slightly cheaper jar of caviar for afternoon tea, Lovey" moment for a lot of us.
[1]: Technically, it was $599 for the 8GB model, but that initial price only lasted 3 months, and early buyers got a $100 credit in partial offset.
There's no point punishing people for accidentally spending money on a digital product they don't want when the tech involved to reverse that decision is available, ready to use, and won't hurt any parties involved
aka it was bad PR for Apple, so it was removed.
In the 1600s, if you bought anything that didn't come from your village or region, that was a big deal. Tulips were an exotic distant foreign luxury (as frankly any flower would be if you could not grow it in your garden already).
People who bought them were not average, they were privileged and wealthy. Surely no peasant was duped into investing their half-month's worth life savings into tulip futures.
Also, Amsterdam was the first stock and commodities exchange in the world as far a we know (or at least in the west, as written by westerners). So peculiar investments should have been more likely.
Ironically, we now live in a world where non-physical creations with non-physical provenance fetch huge sums because... ? (because there is a lot of excess wealth accumulated by a few people who can piss it away without consequence, or because they can buy it with un-tax-reported currency).
Lasting value beyond speculation appears when there is use value. But how do you apply a use value to a token? Well, you can't do it by locking down the nominally encoded asset - that's just a sticker pasted on it. These things do not gatekeep well. The use value comes from someone declaring that the bearer of the token is now entitled to something - a song, a poem, a noble rank. Anyone can do that for any token at any time. That is a thing that a unique, uncensored digital asset could be very relevant towards.
So the interesting part has not really come yet.
The usual arrangement is that the seller inflates their price a lot, and then the seller provides the product plus a kickback to the person who wants to launder the money. Now the launderer has a real, valid asset, plus optionally some of the overpaid amount in cash. As long as the buyer reports the income and pays taxes, now the seller has laundered the money. I am oversimplifying somewhat, but that's the idea.
A lot of properties have been sold by a certain high profile American politician that way in the last decade. That's a fascinating place to start studying the scheme.
1. Buy/ obtain stolen credit card details.
2. Buy CSGO skins / Purchase steam game as a gift with stolen CC.
3. Sell skins/ game keys through a 3rd party, online marketplace.
4. Collect profits.
Congratulation, you've converted dirty money (used to buy stolen CCs) and potentially dirty money (charges put on stolen CCs) in clean, washed money!
Of course you can do this scheme without the stolen CCs (just buy steam games/ skins) but the CCs have a nice multiplicative effect and they add more obfuscation.