By now you've surely heard the story about the "I Am Rich" app that sold in Apple's iTunes store for the ridiculous price of $999.99 (U.S.). What you may not have heard was that there were eight people who actually bought the app - six in the U.S. and two Europeans. So far, there only appears to be one person who bought the app in error, if a certain screenshot circling the net is to be believed. But what about the other seven? Did they know what they were getting into? And, if so, was Apple right to remove the app from their store?
The "I Am Rich" app was not a scam. It did nothing and it clearly stated as such its description at the iTunes app store. The app simply displayed an image of a glowing red ruby that "always reminds you (and others when you show it to them) that you were rich enough to afford this." When activated, the app displays a larger, glowing gem. According to the author, Armin Heinrich "it's a work of art with no hidden function at all."
But the clear description of its uselessness didn't convince at least one of the app's buyers not to purchase. Instead, he believed the app was a joke. According to a screenshot of an App Store review circling the net, a customer with the screen name of "Lee5279xx" complains that when he and some friends saw the app, they jokingly clicked "buy." Unfortunately, he had forgotten that his wife had "iclick" activated on the laptop, so he actually bought the app for $999. Of course, he immediately called Visa but they couldn't do anything until they talk to the vendor, and, at the time he wrote the complaint, Visa had not been able to reach either Armin Heinrich or Apple.
Now the I Am Rich app has been added to the mysterious Apple blacklist which also includes NullRiver's NetShare tethering application and a harmless movie listings app called BoxOffice. All three apps have been pulled from the store with no explanation as to why. Apparently, not even the developers know why, either. According to an interview with the LA Times, Heinrich states "I have no idea why they did it and am not aware of any violation of the rules to sell software on the App Store."
Obviously, the customer complaint may have something to do with its removal. But that's just one of the seven customers - who are these other customers and how do they feel? If they knew what they were doing and bought the app (yes perhaps as a joke, but knowingly so) and have no regrets, then what's the problem? Why remove the app from the store?
Assuming that the one customer complaint is real, (which seems likely), how should this problem be handled now? Should the developer have to refund the money? Technically, he did nothing wrong. His app performed as promised. Should Apple then be responsible? After all, aren't they the ones responsible for vetting the apps in advance? Perhaps they should have never let it into the store to begin with. Or should the customer just bite the bullet and pay up?
Let us know what you think in this poll:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4627
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Since, according to the author, "it's a work of art", my guess is it will increase in value and was a bargain at $999.99.
Posted by: hj | August 8, 2008 8:48 AM
This is just plain ridiculous. There was NO deception, and the price and non-functionality obvious and clearly stated. It's not like the phone buys the app without the user initiating the transaction.
I *really* don't think Apple should get involved here. What if someone makes an app that only has mild use, and the buyer feels they overpaid? Can't they come whine to Apple for that too?
It's a terrible precedent to set, and Apple just shouldn't be involved. Apps should have refund policies (which could include "none" - up to the developer), and Apple's job should be to make sure those policies and transactions are properly handled.
As the saying goes, a fool and his money... I don't think we need to coddle the fools.
Posted by: Jeremy Toeman
|
August 8, 2008 9:04 AM
These guys have the "I am rich" app installed on their gold plated iPhones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubXBHyOmBA
Posted by: Todd | August 8, 2008 9:06 AM
The individuals who bought the app should be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot
Posted by: tehkenny
|
August 8, 2008 9:09 AM
I think no because application says wat it does. users are stupid to buy such things. And on apples part there should be something like quality control. you can not sell some picture in 1000$ from that store. That is the reason they are maintaining all app. to themselves.
Posted by: ksavai | August 8, 2008 9:46 AM
I think the problem lies more with the fact that you can spend 999$ with one click because you have iClick activated...
Even Amazon's One Click Buy button isn't *that* stupid.
Posted by: Tephlon | August 8, 2008 9:48 AM
Personally, the other seven people haven't complained, so they must have wanted it and had the money to buy it. Its interesting to debate, but as long as there wasn't any deceptive practices about the program or selling it then it should still be up if you ask me.
The idea behind the app mirrors much of what many people see the iPhone as, a status symbol. If you have an iPhone with a $1k app, you must be the Crème de la Crème, Homie!
Posted by: RylanB | August 8, 2008 9:51 AM
Apple has a brand to protect and they shouldn't have put the dumb app in their store in the first place. Yes, the people who bought it presumably did it knowingly, but, come on, we also know that there are a lot of gullible people out there, and it's not fair to take advantage of their stupidity this way. Apple has set up an expectation that their store is a reputable, legitimate outlet, not the Wild West.
Posted by: Alicia | August 8, 2008 9:55 AM
Alicia, they shouln't have put the dumb app in their store? Who says it's a dumb app? You? Me? What about the other apps? Why allow duplicates? (there are multiple breakout clones already) Where do you draw the line? Should they only put music in their music store that's objectively good and worth the money? Who are we to make that judgement?
Also, taking advantage of stupid people? Hardly. The description clearly stated that the app only showed the gem, and the market has CLEARLY shown that people will pay a lot of extra money to have their gadgets "Improved" by putting jewels on it, even though that does nothing to increase the value of it.
Now, sure, if the guy had said "and clicking on the gem will take you to a site that will show you what you're REALLY buying for $999," and failed to do that, then, sure, that would be a misrepresentation. But this? This is just another goofy, useless app that someone paid for.
Posted by: Brian Hogg | August 8, 2008 10:03 AM
The "I Am Rich" (cr)app was damaging one of the world's most valuable brands, so it was removed. It should have never been accepted.
Apple recognized their mistake in time, and should pay up for it!
Posted by: hj | August 8, 2008 10:34 AM
What about a return policy? Allowing the user three days to return the application if he is unhappy.
But why three days? And what about applications that are single-use types of applications? So maybe apple can allow developers to specify if they want to enable a return policy.
As for this application, the developer would have been unlikely to opt-in to any return policy. Still, it did what it claimed to do and I think it should have stayed in the app store.
Posted by: Uri Schonfeld | August 8, 2008 10:38 AM
Clearly the app did what it promised it would do. I'm actually surprised so few Americans bought it. They didn't even give Paris Hilton a chance?!
Posted by: Hyder | August 8, 2008 10:39 AM
Of course it should be removed. The App Store is a business, not some laissez-faire, libertarian utopia for Ayn Rand-reading hackers. The very fact that Apple claims the right to vet applications in the Store lays it out clearly. The company has the absolute right to remove overpriced, useless pieces of junk which trivialize their service and besmirch their reputation. They have a brand to protect.
"I'm Rich" should not have been okayed in the first place. Apple needs to refund the customer for any app they wipe, if it has been installed legally.
That said, I would love an app that gives me local movie listings, reviews, showtimes, and the ability to purchase tickets online, but it cuts into the add revenues of the sites it amalgamates, and is a parasitic theft of intellectual property. Apple can't accept this without proof of proper licensing, and even then, they'd be ill-advised to do so.
Posted by: Robert Schaaf | August 8, 2008 11:23 AM
Headline should read "U.S. once again trounces Europe!"
Posted by: Jorge butch | August 8, 2008 11:31 AM
This is just really sad. For one that Apple allowed it at all (even if it was a slip up), and then that people actually paid that amount of money for it. Am I the only one here thinking about what they could have done with that money instead? Hello starving populations, medical research, etc. Yeah, I know $1,000 wouldn't help any cause too much, but the mere fact that these people pissed it away for something so useless (especially for something as vain as status) is just disgusting. But hey, as Phil Collins said, "this is the world we live in (waaaooooooohoooh)"
Posted by: Zack | August 8, 2008 11:42 AM
agree w/tehkenny - I'm retracting my previous comment.
Posted by: Jeremy Toeman
|
August 8, 2008 11:45 AM
Leave the app in the store. Even more ridiculous things are sold in the real world (ounce of perfume for $2,000), and some people have large disposable income. Ultimately - the free market will decide. Some enterprising developer should come up with "I Am Not So Rich" with the exact same functionality and sell it for $1.00. Profit.
Posted by: Jason Kaneshiro
|
August 8, 2008 11:49 AM
Nothing should have been done. Sigh. If you bought the app because you thought apple was joking? You deserve to be $1k poorer.
Posted by: felix
|
August 8, 2008 11:51 AM
Isn't the real issue that Apple should have never approved the app? IE What exactly has the screening process been used for? I feel this is a valid question for all the apps that reach the 'black list' but especially this one.
Posted by: Sean Ammirati
|
August 8, 2008 12:09 PM
it is art, purely an artistic idea ... and a very good one, worth far more than 1000 dollars ... the art world totally got that app
Posted by: gregory lent
|
August 8, 2008 12:10 PM
In terms of Apple pulling applications with no explanation... its Apple what do you expect.
Posted by: Matt | August 8, 2008 1:24 PM
That wouldn't happen if you could download demos just like every other app in the world... No demo version for software is retarded, and probably has a negative effect on paying apps and therefor contributes to take the general level of apps down...
Beside for that one off course which is freaking brilliant - I'm just jealous I didn't think of it.
Posted by: wack | August 8, 2008 4:35 PM
I think anyone should have a right to (within a resonable timeframe) change their mind about a purchase, no questions asked. Especially online purchases. It's a basic consumer right and hasn't got anything to do with "I'm Rich". I don't think Apple should have a right to pull an app just because they or someone else don't like it. What about online music stores?
Posted by: Jonas | August 10, 2008 1:18 AM
Dears Sarah..,
Nice to see your interesting article.
Posted by: Cahya | August 10, 2008 7:35 AM
Although I thought the app was an amusing idea, I think Apple is just trying to avoid potentially costly problems in the future. Imagine that someone comes up with the "I am richer" app for $1,000,000 and someones 5 year old daughter buys it with iclick. Thats potentially a formula for fraud and if I were the scammer on that one I'd take the money and run =P
BTW, there are some entertaining reviews of the I am Rich App on valleyWag
Posted by: tedo | August 10, 2008 8:24 AM