作者：Nicholas Lovell

苹果曾因未能防止未成年人在未经信用卡户主允许的情况下，在游戏中购买IAP内容一事被卷入一桩集体诉讼案。苹果原先坚持捍卫自己的立场，但最终还是妥协了。

对于一家年收益高达1560亿美元的公司而言，苹果所推出的赔偿方案不过是九牛一毛。对于App Store收益（约30亿美元）来说，这或许还有一定影响力，但最重要的是，苹果不希望此案影响公司信誉。苹果在此案上的让步对整个行业来说都是件好事，原因如下：

Apple-ipad-child(from guardian.co.uk)

1.家长将更重视密码设置

这一集体诉讼案要求那些请求获得退款的用户确认以下事项：

*他们确实在未经本人知情及允许的情况下，被迫为未成年人（通过其iTunes帐户购买合法游戏货币）买单；

*从未输入自己的iTunes密码确认任何一笔此类交易，也从未将自己的密码透露给未成年人以便后者执行此类交易；

*从未收到苹果的退款。

也就是说，除非你从未向子女透露App Store密码，否则就无法收到苹果退款。这是一个毫不含糊的苹果防御规则。家长必须认识到（苹果也必须强调）给他人提供自己的App Store等于是准许对方访问与这一帐号绑定的信用卡信息。所以如果你并不想发生意外情况，那就不要让子女知道你的密码。

2.苹果将更重视这一问题

移动游戏设计领域因为某些原因，总被称为蛮荒之地。开发者在此会尝试新商业模式，苹果也似乎有意允许开发者进行试验，学习和创新。但是，苹果也有责任帮助家长制定决策，让开发者采用免使未成年人在无知中消费的灵活付费模式。这一集体诉讼案会让苹果高管更清楚地意识到解决这个问题的重要性。

3.信息沟通更明确

我认为应该允许游戏开发者通过IAP模式实现大笔收益。现在已非固定价格模式的时代，用户也无需再为自己并不喜欢的部分内容买单，提升销量也不再是发行商获得更多收益的唯一途径。在这个更为微妙的领域中，游戏公司的目标是找到喜欢自己作品的用户，让他们为自己真正喜欢的内容付费，因此灵活的定价策略就甚为重要。但这种商业模式也应该透明化。这意味着开发者应优化iTunes价目表，也许要为非免费售价内容重命名，或通过其他途径让下载游戏的用户知道，这款免费游戏中含有微交易付费内容。

这一诉讼案要求苹果“提供关于苹果家长监管的使用指南，推出令iOS设备上的IAP功能失效，或者要求每笔IAP交易都需要输入密码的设置”。

4.苹果规则将获得发展

我希望经过这次集体诉讼，以及以上的第2、3个要点，苹果能够推出更具体明确的开发者指南，阐明如何正确设置IAP内容。我不想在开始玩游戏的头15分钟内看到任何IAP推广内容，尤其是指向儿童的内容。我希望所有的IAP交易都设置清晰的货币符号；我个人极希望苹果设备能够像飞行模式一样，推出一种“儿童模式”。

5.开发者学会适应变化

Backflip Studios所推出的游戏《Dragonvale》（游戏邦注：该作频频出现于热销应用榜单前列）会在用户加载游戏时立即出现IAP相关警告（如下图）：

Dragonvale-IAP(from gamesbrief)

我认为信誉良好的开发商如果对其IAP策略保持这种开放、诚实和透明度，其发展将更上一层楼，而这也是我们所有人都能受益的举措。

行业自律胜过政府干预

这桩集体诉讼案的结果令我满意，因为选择另一种方法结果可能更糟。我之前就指出有4个群体应该担起保护未成年人的责任：家长、开发者、平台持有者以及政府。多数家长都很负责，但有些未必如此。多数开发者很有责任心，但有些不是。这其中的风险在于，如果平台持有者不作为，政府就会干预。这样一来，全球多个国家就可能推出多种不同的规范条款，从而带来诸多物流、法务和技术挑战，而这又势必削弱苹果全球生态系统的许多优势。我认为这个集体诉讼案的结果恰如其分，它是对大型企业行为的一次检验。我希望苹果（包括谷歌等提供IAP服务的大型公司）注意并采取相应举措。

因为我真的很排斥政府插手行业的事情。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Five reasons why Apple’s loss of its IAP class action lawsuit is good for the industry

By Nicholas Lovell

Apple was recently sued in a class action suit over minors who were able to download in app purchases for their games without the permission of the account holder. Apple defended the suit at first but recently settled. (You read the court documents here.)

In the context of Apple’s annual revenue($156 bn), it is a tiny amount. In the context of its AppStore revenue (around $3 billion) it is more significant, but most importantly it is a reputational issue that Apple will want to address. This is a very good thing for the industry. Here are five reasons why.

1. Parents will lean to treat passwords like PINsThe class action suit requires people requesting refunds to confirm that they:

•paid for Qualified Game Currency charges that a minor charged to their iTunes account without their knowledge and permission

•did not knowingly enter their iTunes password to authorize any such purchases and did not give their password to the minor to make such purchases

•have not already received a refund from Apple

You will only get a refund if you did not give your AppStore password to your child. This is a clear, defensible rule that is unambiguous. Parents will need to learn (and Apple will need to emphasise) that giving someone your AppStore password is giving them access to the credit card tied to that account. If you don’t want to do that, don’t give your child the password.

2. The issue will become more important at AppleMobile game design has, with some reason, been described as a Wild West. Developers are experimenting with new business models and Apple has intentionally stepped back to allow experimentation, learning and innovation. However, they also have a responsibility to help parents make informed decisions and developers to have flexible payment models that also protect minors from spending money that they did not intent to do. With the success of the class action law suit, senior executives will be more aware of the importance of tackling this issue head-on.

3. Communication will improveI believe that game developers should be allowed to charge very large sums of money for in-app purchases. We are moving away from the era of fixed-price businesses, where every customer pays the same amount irrespective of their desire for the product and the only way to drive more revenue is by increasing the volume. In the more nuanced world where a business’s raison d’etre is to find customers who love what they do and let them spend lots of money on things they truly value, variable pricing is very important. It should, however, be transparent and obvious. That means improved iTunes listings, perhaps a renaming of the Free+ price point and other ways of making it abundantly clear to anyone downloading the game that it contains micropayments.

The settlement requires Apple to “provide instructions concerning the use of Apple’s parental controls, which may be set to disable In-App Purchases on an iOS device or to require a password before every In-App Purchase transaction.”

4. Apple’s rules will evolveI hope that as a result of this class action, and points #2 and #3 above, Apple will have clearer guidelines for what constitutes appropriate IAP behaviour by developers. I would like to see no IAPs promoted during the first 15 minutes of play, particularly aimed at children. I would like all IAP transactions to be required to have a currency symbol. The GAMESbriefers have a list of ideas that Apple could implement to help with this issue. I believe that this class action lawsuit will focus Apple’s attention on this issue. (Personally, I really want a kid’s mode that is as easy to turn on as Airplane mode).

5. Developers will adaptBackflip Studios, the developer of Dragonvale, a game which frequently occupies some of the top slots in the Top Grossing charts, puts this warning up as soon as you load the game.

I think that reputable developers will get better at being open, honest and transparent about their In-App Purchase strategy, which will be good for us all.

Better we regulate than government doesI’m pleased about the class action ruling because the alternative is much worse. I have argued before that four groups have responsibility for protecting minors: parents, developers, platform holders and governments. Most parents are responsible, but some aren’t. Most developers are responsible, but some aren’t. The risk is that if the platform holders don’t act, government will. That raises the spectre not only of regulation but of different regulation in dozens of countries the world over, a nightmare of logistics, lawyering and technological challenges which will remove many of the benefits of Apple’s global ecosystem. I see the class action suit acting in the way it is intended – as a check on the behaviour of large corporations. I hope that Apple (and Google, and anyone else with a global service that offers In-App Purchases) pays attention and adapts now.

Because I would really hate for government to get involved.（source：gamesbrief）