OMG!! ?!! what a scam!!

[rctman12]

look and read!!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=2099 :bored::bored::bored:
PEOPLE THESE DAYS!!

[DisneyFellow]

lol! haha thats so messed up!

[Rageaholic]

So some guy put this up and said, "Here's a picture of a ruby, gimme a thousand bucks." How is that a scam? It's not like he's misrepresented what he's selling. And apparently, eight morons (rich morons, presumably) bought it in the first day.

[rctman12]

^
true true

[RandBlade]

Agreed, though I do think the complainant should have been able to get a refund.

EDIT: This was in response to Dread's post below.

[Dreadnaught]

It's arguably worse that Apple removed the application from their store.

[Khendraja'aro]

It's even worse that Apple even put the application in their store in the first place.

I mean, they don't allow open access for all developers and exact a 30% profit from all applications sold there - and then they don't even do a simple Quality Assurance check?

What kind of people are working over there? Donkeys? Monkeys whose only task it is to roll a dice?

[Dreadnaught]

I don't think the quality assurance was the problem...I mean, the application did exactly what it said. The people who checked it probably saw that.

[RandBlade]

QA != Value Assurance

[Khendraja'aro]

I don't think the quality assurance was the problem...I mean, the application did exactly what it said. The people who checked it probably saw that.

Right. That's why they didn't pull the app. :rolleyes:

If you're really believing that, then, hey, I've got a castle in Latveria to sell to you!

QA != Value Assurance

Y'know, I'm pretty sure that Apple has some guidelines as to what makes an application eligible for their marketplace. That this application appeared on the marketplace at all only shows that either their guidelines are shoddy or their QA for the marketplace is incompetent.

You may now continue your twisting of terms.

[Nessus]

QA != Value Assurance
Oh look, the MONEY apologist decided to chime in, colour me surprised

[BalticSailor]

I mean, they don't allow open access for all developers and exact a 30% profit from all applications sold there - and then they don't even do a simple Quality Assurance check?

Quality Assurance? The app really did what it was told to. And everyone could see the price. I don't see what's so terribly wrong there. First of all, buying extremely overpriced **** has always been a way to show off one's wealth. Secondly,
exact a 30% profit from all applications sold there - looks like economically sound decision not to prevent the app from being sold, no?

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm seeing something wrong here with selling an "application" that actually is anything but an application.

Hey, Baltic, I've got this special offer - a Symbolic Link from your desktop to a .png for only €100! Wanna buy?

Really. If a corporation leverages a pretty hefty tax on the applications sold there and furthermore is pretty restrictive as to which applications actually may appear there - then they don't have to wonder if they're receiving flak over allowing a glorified, overpriced icon on their market.

[Loki]

I'm seeing something wrong here with selling an "application" that actually is anything but an application.

Hey, Baltic, I've got this special offer - a Symbolic Link from your desktop to a .png for only €100! Wanna buy?

Really. If a corporation leverages a pretty hefty tax on the applications sold there and furthermore is pretty restrictive as to which applications actually may appear there - then they don't have to wonder if they're receiving flak over allowing a glorified, overpriced icon on their market.

Your mission to control everyone's lives never ends, does it? Just because he might not want to buy something doesn't mean that he'd want to deny other people the right to buy it. Typical socialist.

[BalticSailor]

Hey, Baltic, I've got this special offer - a Symbolic Link from your desktop to a .png for only €100! Wanna buy?


No, and I don't need anyone keeping such offer from me to be able to decide I don't want it. :o
Then again, maybe in few decades, when(if) I'm rich enough to have to live up to expectations of my snob friends.

"Yes, truly, this hand-crafted Symbolic Link cost me €100. I know, I know, it doesn't really show the true level of our class, but I preffer to think I got a huge discount since I sort of know the guy who made it, not any riff-raff, too, so I'm certain it's authentic, and 100% custom-made. And hey, it's not like I can't spare a 100 from my change purse for what I truly like, y'knooow?"

[Nessus]

Typical socialist.

Your mission to control everyone's lives never ends, does it?

Oh irony, we knew ye well

[Khendraja'aro]

Your mission to control everyone's lives never ends, does it? Just because he might not want to buy something doesn't mean that he'd want to deny other people the right to buy it. Typical socialist.

Actually, it's the other way around, you moron.

Apple supplies this closed-loop, highly proprietary and we-rule-everything marketplace for the reason that they may only allow high quality products.

And promptly fail to establish at least the rule that, god forbid, an application placed on this marketplace actually does something.

Thus it's perfectly justified to rip Apple a new one for delivering a sub-par product.

But, hey, this proprietary crap must be your capitalistic wet-dream, right? Vendor lock-in, DRM, and it's ilk. You probably even cheer the RIAA on. Have you actually looked at what Apple does? They actually make Microsoft look weak in the we-want-to-rule-the-world department.
Heh.