If you look back to page one you'll see we both already have read it as both of us linked to it on posts on that page. If you look at the date of the article, it will also be clear that since then a decision was made to decrease the trigger threshold to one in order to avoid the exact paranoia and persecution complex that is demonstrated here and to put everybody, irrelevant of the number of refunds in each case, on an equal footing and to be equally informed. Also to dispel the myth of "unlimited refunds". Obviously that intent hasn't worked for some people but at least everybody is in the same boat. You seemed to have skipped over the part that people were riding the system hard and taking advantage of it, which is bad news for everybody, so whatever system they bring in to discourage people from screwing over developers I'm happy to live with even if some choose to react in a paranoid way to it. Losing a few paranoids just because they get informed of the legal situation is still better than people riding a refund system and thinking they can have their apps for nothing just by later looking for a refund. And you also seem to have forgotten that I made it very clear that Apples preexisting "report a problem" system is still in place and still functioning as it always used to. How do you think people got refunds before this EU law came in and part of the system got automated? They simply tapped on "report a problem" in their receipt or in their purchase history. And that still exists and still functions as it always did and still provides another layer of refundability. The only difference is it's not automated, it's manual. Even if one accepts that "contentious" tab when purchasing one still has the full right of request of refund according to Apples own criteria. And if it fulfills the criteria set out in their terms and conditions, they will duly comply with the request. So it is still a non issue that is blown out of proportion by a few people who feel "persecuted" for no particular reason. The reaction makes me wonder a little bit as to what their intent was in the first place and if perhaps they are the very people that the tab was brought in to discourage in the first place. There simply is numerous options to avail of when actually needing a legitimate refund and being made aware of ones rights beforehand shouldn't be a problem for those who will require a legitimate non automated refund in the future. A polite email to Apple support will always be read and considered correctly.
I still stand by my original statement that it's a poor way to treat your customers. Especially for a company that prides itself on superior customer service. Here's an example of good customer service from Steam; "You can request a refund for nearly any purchase on Steam—for any reason. Maybe your PC doesn't meet the hardware requirements; maybe you bought a game by mistake; maybe you played the title for an hour and just didn't like it." I know some developers are running around saying the sky is falling because a few people might take advantage of this policy. However in the long run people will find it's better for everyone. Consumers can make purchases without worry that the game might not work correctly or that they just don't like it. Developers will sell more premium games because more people will buy them. Apple will make money off everything like they do now. It would also help even the playing field because premium games and F2P. I would need to see hard data be believe the policy was be abused by a wide number of people. More likely it's another knee jerk reaction from a company that is famous for knee jerk reactions.
"The Steam refund offer, within two weeks of purchase and with less than two hours of playtime, applies to games and software applications on the Steam store"* "DLC purchased from the Steam store is refundable within fourteen days of purchase, and if the underlying title has been played for less than two hours since the DLC was purchased, so long as the DLC has not been consumed, modified or transferred"* "Steam will offer refund for in-game purchases within any Valve-developed games within forty-eight hours of purchase, so long as the in-game item has not been consumed, modified or transferred"* "You can receive a full refund for any bundle purchased on the Steam Store, so long as none of the items in the bundle have been transferred, and if the combined usage time for all items in the bundle is less than two hours"* I dunno but that doesn't exactly look like any refund for any reason. In fact it looks like a whole lot of terms and conditions and criteria that needs to be fulfilled before one can actually get a refund and is even more severe than Apples refund policy in certain areas. Also, note they use a key word quite a lot, request. Request doesn't necessarily mean you will get. And if you are outside of two hours of play, you won't. So again, not exactly an unlimited refund policy and not all that different from the policy of the company you are railing against. And also note they do in fact have a very similar policy to Apple when it comes to those who abuse the refund policy. "Refunds are designed to remove the risk from purchasing titles on Steam—not as a way to get free games. If it appears to us that you are abusing refunds, we may stop offering them to you"* So not really getting that it is a valid comparison as to how it should be done because both companies do in fact do it in a very similar way. The steam policy is even a bit more harsh in the area of iap or consumables than Apple "report a problem" method. *http://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/
My friend think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm in the States and the Apps store return policy is even more limited as listed below: 'Prices for products offered via the Services may change at any time, and the Services do not provide price protection or refunds in the event of a price reduction or promotional offering. If a product becomes unavailable following a transaction but prior to download, your sole remedy is a refund. If technical problems prevent or unreasonably delay delivery of your product, your exclusive and sole remedy is either replacement or refund of the price paid, as determined by Apple.'
Oh gosh, here we go again... First, what is the legal situation in the US? Does Apple have to give you a refund under certain conditions, like in the EU? This is important, so one can determine if Apple is going beyond what they are required to do - which would be a point or two for good customer service. Afterthought: Why do I even have to ask for that info? By now you've seen enough to know what a well-founded argument looks like. And second black mark for moving the goalposts. Weren't we specifically discussing the EU situation? What does the US refund policy say? Next, ...the Services do not provide price protection or refunds in the event of a price reduction or promotional offering. Very reasonable. Just because something goes on sale or even free should not entitle you to a refund. If a product becomes unavailable following a transaction but prior to download, your sole remedy is a refund. Again, very reasonable. If technical problems prevent or unreasonably delay delivery of your product, your exclusive and sole remedy is either replacement or refund of the price paid, as determined by Apple. Now we are halfway into legal territory. I don't know the US laws, so I cannot judge if anyone - be it Apple, the developer, or the distributor - has to refund you because, let's say, a game breaks on release day because Apple brings out a new iOS version on the same day (true story, btw). Then, re: Steam: If you quote something to make a point, please get your facts straight. Rip pretty much ripped (pun intended) your "Steam does it better" argument apart. Rebutting unsound arguments that are based on - at best - half-knowledge gets old pretty fast... On to customer service: Like I wrote several times already, I agree with you that Apple could definitely handle it better. But let's look at a real example of an extremely generous refund policy: Spiderweb, developer of the Avernums and Avadons for iOS. http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/misc/promises.html, #2 Money-Back Guarantee!, quoting: We have a no-questions-asked One Year Money-back Guarantee. Pay attention to the third part: You might think, "Hmmm. I wonder if people ever buy the game, play it through, and demand a refund." The answer is: No. This has never happened. You know why? Because our customers are awesome people. That should give you a good hint if something similar might work for Apple, Google, Steam, younameit. Done thinking? Good. I'll assume that you also found the correct answer to the above is "No". For the simple reason that the 3 I named are a whole lot bigger than tiny Spiderweb. Economy of scale makes this kind of approach very much unfeasible for the big players. True, they could still do it like that. But the number of jerks they get will inevitably be a lot higher than for e.g. Spiderweb. I have no numbers, so I cannot make an informed statement, or even a good estimate. But I am very sure that Apple/Google/Steam would need more than one person who processes the occasional refund in between their regular work. Depending on scale, we could be talking about needing hundreds or even thousands of employees just to manually deal with a refund policy like Spiderweb's, weed out the jerks and freeriders, etc. I think we can agree on that, yes? For the system abuse Rip refers to, we don't have any hard numbers, so we can only treat it as an assumption, not a fact (sorry, Rip, but you get the same treatment as everybody else ). Do I consider it likely? With the amount of morons on the Internet, most definitely yes. Not to mention that there are enough examples floating around where people try to pull the same kind of stunt in retail or whatever. Massive - or even anything more than "disappears in statistical noise" - abuse of a refund system would severely hurt Apple/Google/Steam's business model, because developers/publishers would lose faith that they can make a cut with their apps if every jerk can play a game for a week or two and then just return it. Spiderweb can afford this approach for various reasons, one very important one being the scale of things as I outlined above. Another, that it makes them stand out with great service, and as a small developer you need every boon you can get. Example from a different area: In my native Germany, you are entitled to return retail CDs/DVDs within 2 weeks (I think). But only if the packaging hasn't been opened. Quite obvious that this is to prevent copying said CD/DVD and then return it. Very reasonable approach, in my book. Did people try to abuse that system and attempt to get refunds anyways? Sure as hell they did. But a similar approach is slightly more difficult with digital goods. The easiest to verify equivalent of "unopened packaging" is "not downloaded". Which, oh strange coincidence, is exactly what the EU laws prescribe now. Almost forgot: Like Rip pointed out already, before the EU laws changed, afaik you did not have that "right to refund within 14 days, under certain conditions" which certain people get their knickers in a huge twist over.
Almost missed this last one. Big minus points for that statement. While the request for hard data in itself is a noble one, your approach is not. If you demand facts, you have to live up to the same standard, not just pull the "evidence!" card whenever it suits you. I have to deal with the "I make totally unfounded statements and who the hell cares about evidence, but of course you have to substantiate your claims with facts" approach often enough when discussing with cranks, quacks, conspiracy or religious nutcases. The only folks who brought anything substantial to the table so far were Rip and me. Was it acknlowedged or conveniently ignored? My money is on the latter... Certain other people - in this thread and in the quoted online press - went off the deep end with the "Apple is blacklisting customers" stuff, without researching - not to mention providing - anything factual to back it up.
Geez matey, do your research before rattling your bone-box: The exact same sentence is in the UK,NL,DE T&C. This one obviously is not, because the legal situation in the US is different from Europe. If you want to score points, see if you can dig up an old version of e.g. the UK T&C, if it had the same wording. Know what? I'll even save you the trouble for the current version. Look what it says for the UK: If a product becomes unavailable following a transaction but prior to download, your sole remedy is likely to be limited to a refund of the price paid for the unavailable product. If technical problems prevent or unreasonably delay delivery of your product, your exclusive and sole remedy is either replacement or refund of the price paid, as determined by iTunes. Note the slightly different wording of the first sentence, with special attention to the word "likely". Germany (slightly different laws than UK I guess, translated): If a product becomes unavailable following a transaction but prior to download, the purchase price for this product will be refunded to your account. Other legal rights remain unaffected. Netherlands (again, translated): Oh lookie, it's exactly the same wording as in the UK, just in Dutch. Wanneer een product niet meer beschikbaar is ná een transactie, maar vóórdat het is gedownload, bent u waarschijnlijk alleen gerechtigd tot terugbetaling van de prijs die u voor het niet beschikbare product heeft betaald. Wanneer technische problemen de levering van uw product onmogelijk maken of onredelijk vertragen, bent u uitsluitend gerechtigd tot ofwel vervanging ofwel terugbetaling van de betaalde prijs, als vastgesteld door iTunes. --> Summary: Major fail on all fronts. Go back to the drawing board.
Friends your still missing my point. It doesn't matter that Apple complies or slightly exceeds its legal requirements. Consumer protection laws are the bottom rung of the ladder. My opinion is that Apple could and should have a better more lenient return policy. They're certainly not providing world class customer service. If certain people abuse it then deal with them individually and not punish the rest of us. If you're happy with the return policy then great more power to you.
@klink: That's where we actually agree somewhat, when we talk about the quality of Apple's customer service. We just come at it from different angles You mainly would prefer a more lenient return policy. My major nitpick is their lack of transparency and clear communication when it comes to certain things. But, as I wrote before: to judge the quality of e.g. a return policy, you need to establish a baseline first. And it most cases - including Apple - it is the minimum required by the relevant laws. Well well, that said, you put the ball firmly in your field yourself. Just saying "I want a better return policy" falls a bit short for any individual capable of sound reasoning. Why don't you give at least an outline, what a good policy would be in your opinion? Heck, if you are lazy, just nod appreciatively and say "one year like in the Spiderweb example would be really nice." Not that difficult, no? To keep the tally: - You changed the subject again. - And I'm still awaiting a response to my rebuttal of your US Appstore statement. - If the above is your point, why didn't you say so right away? Instead of going off on a tangent about the more stringent (than the EU) US Appstore return policy?
Hi This has happened to me too. I bought a lot of apps after I got my iPad but some weren't as good as expected. I found out about the refund policy in time to get a refund on one of these, but I was stuck with the others. Several months later, I went on another app spree, but I cancelled one of the apps from that batch too as it required in-app purchases for all the good features. Around 3 days later I was blacklisted, and Apple support tells me that once you are blacklisted (or "once you see the waiver") the change to your account is permanent. Has anyone here been taken off the blacklist? Thanks
On the other side Google is almost as bad I've accidentally deleted purchases from the play store when I had trouble with the settings or similar, the way it works there is if you uninstall the app within a period of time they automatically refund the purchase (at least that's how it was when I did it). Most of the time the only reason I would do that is to start the settings fresh but it ends up with having to buy the app again. I've also had times the purchase has vanished and the money was never refunded from the same issue, chasing it up is pointless as you will never get anywhere.
Interesting, but I'm just trynna find out if my iOS blacklisting is really permanent or if it will reset back to normal at some point. The only people who can help to answer this are people who were blacklisted in the past. Apple Support are never gonna give a definitive answer and I'm reluctant to invest more money into a second class account if it's always gonna be that way.
That is very bizarre, I've asked, and received, several games over the nearly 6 years that I've had IOS devices. It's been with absolutely zero problems whatsoever. The last being Eisenhorn, the highest price of the apps. 3 or 4 other ones have been similarly close, price-wise. And every one I've asked for, has come within about 3 days from when I asked. K.
I've only been an Apple customer for a few months. I've probably bought 20 apps and had two refunded using the automated system (as described in my earlier post). On the same day I got the first refund I asked for a refund on another app that was out of it's 14 day period but that refund was denied by a customer service rep. This I think sets precedent for Apple's future policy. Had I known that taking Apple up on their offer of automatic refunds would be such an issue I wouldn't have bothered. I wonder if I can get the refunds reversed and my account put back to normal :/
Ahhh, I've never gone beyond the 14 day period. (Which I didn't even ok was a rule, until now.). Though, I was probably pretty close with Eisenhorn. I've also easily spent $1K+ in the last 6 years. I dunno if that may play a part either. All I know, is Apple has been great to me, and have never had a problem with them.
This isn't about whether Apple is great or not, although I'm not surprised that some people would only be able to see it that way. Spending $1k+ with Apple is no big deal - that's equivalent to a mid-range iPhone and iPad, or a top-end model of either. I too have a similar investment in Apple tech, as does everyone who owns these items.
Have any of you guys stopped getting the waiver to give up your right for a refund? I want to know if its permanent or not.
I buy a ton of games, only asked for a refund twice and both times i've got it. As long as you dont take the biscuit and ask for a refund every 5 seconds you should be fine. Now as US prices are the same as UK (A $4.99 game is £4.99 which is bad - never used to be) i tend to do a bit of homework first, watch youtube videos etc about the game. I dont buy a game to try it, buy it to keep it. I do wish it was like Android so you have a small window where you can 'try it' but i just feel if i ask for too many refunds i might not get them.
Didn't see it in a while, but then I am not buying that many games. Anyways, I have to point out again that it is not a waiver, but a confirmation (admittedly not well-worded) that you (again) accept Apple's refund policy (you did that when you checked off the iTunes Terms&Conditions). For details, go back in the thread, folks - including me - explained it in some detail. Just checked, on page 1 already, even
