Apple 'no refunds' policy for better and worse

Apple's "no refunds" policy for iPhone App Store purchase is both not as bad--and worse--than it sounds. Readers say Apple occasionally gives refunds, but also complain that Apple's own updates break apps for which no refunds are given.

Apple's "no refunds" policy for iPhone App Store purchase is both not as bad--and worse--than it sounds. Readers say Apple occasionally gives refunds, but also complain that Apple's own updates break apps for which no refunds are given.

These readers were replying to a story about the no-refunds policy I posted earlier today.

One reader said he got a refund for applications purchased that did not function with VoiceOver, an accessibility application used by the visually disabled.

"I sent a long and stern letter detailing the inadequacies of the app store for the blind community and how it was clearly unjust to force people to pay for applications that are completely unusable on their devices," the reader wrote in an e-mail.

"The result? Somewhat surprisingly, they promptly refunded the price of all the applications I had listed without any trouble at all. Clearly, their draconian refund policy is not set in stone and they are willing to consider requests on a case-by-case basis at least some of the time."

Another reader warned that sometimes Apple itself is to blame for non-functional apps, but offers no help in those cases.

"A problem that was not mentioned is that every time Apple updates firmware, as in v3.0 upgrade, an app can be broken," the reader wrote.

"A year ago, I bought a language app for $US25. Today it is not working properly because of the update and Apple would not refund my money. The developer says they sent an update but Apple has not approved it.

"So, Apple can, at their discretion, keep an app from working properly and keep the money."

Still another reader says, "don't worry" because now that the refund issue has made the New York Times, lawyers will doubtless soon come to the rescue.

"Sounds like a bonanza for a class action lawyer," the reader wrote.

"The implied warrantee of fitness/merchantability means Apple is breaking the law when it does not refund the price on apps that don't work. This is not something Apple's lawyers can defend against!"

"The end result usually is that there is a large settlement; a huge percentage goes to the lawyers, and since "individual compensation is too cumbersome," the rest is sent to some charity," according to the reader.

David Coursey tweets as @techinciter and can be contacted via his Web site.

Tags Appleiphone app storeiPhoneiphone appsmobile apps

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

David Coursey

PC World (US online)

Comments

Comments are now closed.

Most Popular Reviews

Follow Us

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Shopping.com

Latest News Articles

Resources

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Latest Jobs

Shopping.com

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?