尽管苹果已经要求用户的每笔内置应用付费功能交易都需输入密码，但关于此事的风波却仍未平息。最近有一名美国用户Garen Meguerian的律师向法院起诉苹果在不经家长授权的情况下，允许幼儿进行iOS游戏小额虚拟商品交易的做法。

据Meguerian所述，他让9岁的女儿从iTunes App Store下载了包括《Zombie Cafe》、《Treasure Story》和 《City Story》在内的数款免费游戏，但几周后却发现女儿在这些游戏虚拟货币上花掉了将近200美元。

Zombie-Cafe

他在起诉文件中称“这些游戏有意设计令人上瘾的内容，会诱使孩子们每次至少花掉100美元购买虚拟货币”，并指责苹果放任这种“诱售法”在App Store中泛滥的行为。

苹果之前允许应用内置付费功能交易，在15秒内无需再次输入密码即可完成再次付费的做法，以及Capcom游戏《蓝精灵村庄》的99美元高价虚拟商品所引起的儿童过度消费问题，在不久前引起了各界的关注和争论。迫于舆论压力，苹果不得不在3月份的iOS 4.3版本中进行了调整，要求用户在每次交易时均需输入密码。

在国会议员Edward Markey的呼吁下，FTC（美国联邦贸易委员会）也已介入调查此事。iOS 4.3的新功能得到了Markey的认同和称赞，他认为这是苹果积极保护家长利益的重要举措。

该起诉书中还指出，苹果在《蓝精灵村庄》的iTunes App Store中添加的免责声明（游戏邦注：该声明提醒用户购买虚拟货币会花掉自己的真实钞票），只是“出于对FTC调查的一种回应，或者苹果自己的良心发现……”

有人认为这种假设并不能成立：因为尽管苹果可能已针对《蓝精灵村庄》的高价虚拟商品一事与Capcom进行交涉，但该免责声明更有可能是Capcom所添加上去的，毕竟Capcom才是该游戏的开发商。这就是App Store的运营原则：应用描述的文字内容应由开发商提供，苹果只负责审核这些内容。

这种内置付费功能的运营模式是否会因各方压力而受到限制，目前来看仍是个未知数。在1月份苹果调整这项政策之前，Urban Airship公司发布的一项调查报告表明，采用应用内置付费功能的应用数量，将从2010年的8%上升到2011年的31%。

移动市场调研公司Distimo也指出，2010年12月份排在前100名的iOS应用中，采用内置付费功能的应用创造了34%的营收。更令人意外的是，在Distimo这份报告出炉时，采用这种免费模式的iOS应用比例尚不足2%。这么少的应用居然可以创造三分之一的应用营收，这也就不难解释这种运营模式如此受捧的原因了。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

Apple Sued Over In-App Purchasing

The lawsuit claims Apple unlawfully targeted children and induced them to purchase high-priced virtual goods from the iTunes App Store.

Attorneys representing Phoenixville, Pa., resident Garen Meguerian filed a lawsuit against Apple on Monday claiming that the company allowed minors to purchase virtual goods through iOS games without the authorization of their parents.

Meguerian let his 9-year-old daughter download several free games from the iTunes App Store, including “Zombie Cafe,” “Treasure Story,” and “City Story,” the complaint said. Several weeks later, Meguerian discovered his daughter had purchased approximately $200 of virtual currency called “Zombie Toxin,” “Gems,” and “City Cash.”

“These games are highly addictive, designed deliberately so, and tend to compel children playing them to purchase large quantities of Game Currency, amounting to as much as $100 per purchase or more,” the complaint said.

Weak authentication leaves your organization open to sophisticated hackers.

The complaint blames Apple for allowing what is referred to as a “bait-and-switch business scheme.”

At issue is Apple’s former practice of allowing in-app purchases without a password for fifteen minutes after an initial authorization. With the release of its iOS 4.3 update in March, Apple began requiring passwords for every transaction, after news reports and state officials began questioning why the sale of $99 virtual items in games like Capcom’s Smurf’s Village were being bought by children.

The Federal Trade Commission began looking into the issue at the urging of Congressman Edward Markey (D-Mass.). The release of iOS 4.3 prompted a statement of approval from Markey, who applauded Apple’s effort to help protect parents from unwanted in-app purchases.

The complaint also notes that Apple has added a warning that in-app currency costs real money to the iTunes App Store purchase page of Smurf’s Village “either in response to the FTC’s investigation, or as a result of a guilty conscience …”

This assumption is probably incorrect: While Apple may have communicated displeasure to Capcom about the high-priced items sold in Smurf’s Village, it is more likely that Capcom, as the game’s developer, added the disclaimer. That’s the way the App Store works: Developers, and not Apple, provide the text describing their apps. Apple merely approves such listings.

It remains to be seen whether increasing friction in in-app commerce will curb its appeal. In January, prior to Apple’s changes, in-app payment and mobile messaging provider Urban Airship published a survey indicating that implementations of in-app purchasing will rise from 8% in 2010 to 31% in 2011.

Mobile research firm Distimo found that 34% of the revenue generated by the top 100 iOS apps in December, 2010, came from free applications featuring in-app purchasing. What makes this more remarkable is that when these figures were released, less than 2% of iOS apps utilized this freemium model. With so few apps bringing in a third of app revenue, it’s not surprising this business model is attracting attention.（source:informationweek）