Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #145714 > unrolled thread

Family Sharing problem

Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac

Contents

  Family Sharing problem TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> - 2020-07-22 09:17 +0000
    Re: Family Sharing problem Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-22 11:15 +0000
      Re: Family Sharing problem TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> - 2020-07-22 14:39 +0000
        Re: Family Sharing problem nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-22 10:45 -0400
          Re: Family Sharing problem Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-22 16:44 +0100
            Re: Family Sharing problem Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-22 15:50 +0000
              Re: Family Sharing problem nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-22 12:08 -0400
            Re: Family Sharing problem nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-22 12:08 -0400
              Re: Family Sharing problem TimH <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> - 2020-07-22 16:14 +0000
                Re: Family Sharing problem nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-22 12:26 -0400
                  Re: Family Sharing problem Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2020-07-22 18:20 +0100

#145714 — Family Sharing problem

Are there any well-known gotchas with family sharing across iOS devices? I'm
the 'Organiser' and my partner is 'Parent/Guardian', we're both signed in with
our own Apple IDs, and all the FS options are switched on on both devices as
far as I can see, but the App Store still wants her to pay for apps I've
bought (which do allow family sharing). 

What could we be missing??
-- 
TimH
pull tooth to reply by email	

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#145718

On 22 Jul 2020 at 10:17:17 BST, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:

> Are there any well-known gotchas with family sharing across iOS devices? I'm
> the 'Organiser' and my partner is 'Parent/Guardian', we're both signed in
> with
> our own Apple IDs, and all the FS options are switched on on both devices as
> far as I can see, but the App Store still wants her to pay for apps I've
> bought (which do allow family sharing). 
> 
> What could we be missing??

Does it actually want her to pay for them? I'm the organiser so it's hard to
test but last time I did once you go to pay it'll say "Oh, that's free because
another member of your family bought it" or words to that effect.

Obviously pick something at 49p or whatever to test it...

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
"History repeats itself. Has to. No one listens." -- Steve Turner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145723

On 22 Jul 2020 at 12:15:42 BST, "Jaimie Vandenbergh"
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> On 22 Jul 2020 at 10:17:17 BST, "TimH" <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Are there any well-known gotchas with family sharing across iOS devices? I'm
>> the 'Organiser' and my partner is 'Parent/Guardian', we're both signed in
>> with
>> our own Apple IDs, and all the FS options are switched on on both devices as
>> far as I can see, but the App Store still wants her to pay for apps I've
>> bought (which do allow family sharing). 
>> 
>> What could we be missing??
> 
> Does it actually want her to pay for them? I'm the organiser so it's hard to
> test but last time I did once you go to pay it'll say "Oh, that's free
> because
> another member of your family bought it" or words to that effect.

Yep, you're right. It's a pretty silly design though; you have to click
through a dialog that says "do you authorise this purchase?" or words to that
effect (definitely includes the word 'purchase'), *then* it tells you it's
free.

Anyway, thanks! Isolating mum and son can now play online Monopoly to their
hearts' content. And I don't have to :)

-- 
TimH
pull tooth to reply by email

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145724

In article <hnr1cjF8grgU1@mid.individual.net>, TimH
<thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:

> > Does it actually want her to pay for them? I'm the organiser so it's hard to
> > test but last time I did once you go to pay it'll say "Oh, that's free
> > because
> > another member of your family bought it" or words to that effect.
> 
> Yep, you're right. It's a pretty silly design though; you have to click
> through a dialog that says "do you authorise this purchase?" or words to that
> effect (definitely includes the word 'purchase'), *then* it tells you it's
> free.

it's still a purchase. the price just happens to be 0. the developer
could change its price to non-zero and other apps could change to be
free. they all go through the same codepath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145728

nospam wrote:
> In article <hnr1cjF8grgU1@mid.individual.net>, TimH
> <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> Does it actually want her to pay for them? I'm the organiser so it's hard to
>>> test but last time I did once you go to pay it'll say "Oh, that's free
>>> because
>>> another member of your family bought it" or words to that effect.
>>
>> Yep, you're right. It's a pretty silly design though; you have to click
>> through a dialog that says "do you authorise this purchase?" or words to that
>> effect (definitely includes the word 'purchase'), *then* it tells you it's
>> free.
> 
> it's still a purchase. the price just happens to be 0. the developer
> could change its price to non-zero and other apps could change to be
> free. they all go through the same codepath.

No it's not.  It's something already bought.  If I buy you a beer in a 
pub the bartender doesn't also ask you to pay for it and only charge 
nothing after you've proved that I've already paid for it.

So asking "do you authorise this purchase?" is meaningless in the 
context, and looks like an attempt at fraud.

It's no wonder that real people have such difficulty with using computers.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145729

On 22 Jul 2020 at 16:44:50 BST, "Graham J" <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> nospam wrote:
>> In article <hnr1cjF8grgU1@mid.individual.net>, TimH
>> <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Does it actually want her to pay for them? I'm the organiser so it's hard to
>>>> test but last time I did once you go to pay it'll say "Oh, that's free
>>>> because
>>>> another member of your family bought it" or words to that effect.
>>> 
>>> Yep, you're right. It's a pretty silly design though; you have to click
>>> through a dialog that says "do you authorise this purchase?" or words to that
>>> effect (definitely includes the word 'purchase'), *then* it tells you it's
>>> free.
>> 
>> it's still a purchase. the price just happens to be 0. the developer
>> could change its price to non-zero and other apps could change to be
>> free. they all go through the same codepath.
> 
> No it's not.  It's something already bought.  

Even Sony, who are continuously Bad At Computers, manage to get this mostly
right with their Playstation Store. Things you've already bought are marked
"owned" in the catalogue, and you can't buy them a second time. (Their shop
catalogue handling is otherwise diabolical, this is their one high spot)

It is certainly not beyond the wit of Apple to Sort That Shit Out. Even if it
has to be behind an extra authentication for privacy-between-AppleID reasons.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
The weirder you're going to behave, the more normal you should look.  
It works in reverse, too. When I see a kid with three or four
rings in his nose, I know there is absolutely nothing 
extraordinary about him.   -- P J O'Rourke

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145732

In article <hnr5iiFbcfoU1@mid.individual.net>, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

> 
> Even Sony, who are continuously Bad At Computers, manage to get this mostly
> right with their Playstation Store. Things you've already bought are marked
> "owned" in the catalogue, and you can't buy them a second time. (Their shop
> catalogue handling is otherwise diabolical, this is their one high spot)

same with apple. 

the twist is with family sharing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145731

In article <rf9mts$qp6$1@dont-email.me>, Graham J
<nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> >>> Does it actually want her to pay for them? I'm the organiser so it's hard
> >>> to
> >>> test but last time I did once you go to pay it'll say "Oh, that's free
> >>> because
> >>> another member of your family bought it" or words to that effect.
> >>
> >> Yep, you're right. It's a pretty silly design though; you have to click
> >> through a dialog that says "do you authorise this purchase?" or words to
> >> that
> >> effect (definitely includes the word 'purchase'), *then* it tells you it's
> >> free.
> > 
> > it's still a purchase. the price just happens to be 0. the developer
> > could change its price to non-zero and other apps could change to be
> > free. they all go through the same codepath.
> 
> No it's not.  It's something already bought. If I buy you a beer in a 
> pub the bartender doesn't also ask you to pay for it and only charge 
> nothing after you've proved that I've already paid for it.

*all* apps from the app store are purchased, even if the price is free.

it was designed that way because a free app can become a non-free app
and a non-free app can become free (or a different price) at any time,
should the developer choose to change it. all apps are processed the
same way, which greatly simplifies the back end.

> So asking "do you authorise this purchase?" is meaningless in the 
> context, and looks like an attempt at fraud.

not in the least.

> It's no wonder that real people have such difficulty with using computers.

apparently.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145733

On 22 Jul 2020 at 17:08:48 BST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> it was designed that way because a free app can become a non-free app
> and a non-free app can become free (or a different price) at any time,
> should the developer choose to change it. all apps are processed the
> same way, which greatly simplifies the back end.

Simplifying the back end at the expense of the human experience at the front
end is not clever.
-- 
TimH
pull tooth to reply by email

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145734

In article <hnr701Fbl02U1@mid.individual.net>, TimH
<thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:

> > it was designed that way because a free app can become a non-free app
> > and a non-free app can become free (or a different price) at any time,
> > should the developer choose to change it. all apps are processed the
> > same way, which greatly simplifies the back end.
> 
> Simplifying the back end at the expense of the human experience at the front
> end is not clever.

except that's not what they did. they simplified it so that the human
experience was simple and clear.

a more complex design would create all sorts problems, which will make
the human experience much worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145735

nospam wrote:
> In article <hnr701Fbl02U1@mid.individual.net>, TimH
> <thnews@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> it was designed that way because a free app can become a non-free app
>>> and a non-free app can become free (or a different price) at any time,
>>> should the developer choose to change it. all apps are processed the
>>> same way, which greatly simplifies the back end.
>>
>> Simplifying the back end at the expense of the human experience at the front
>> end is not clever.
> 
> except that's not what they did. they simplified it so that the human
> experience was simple and clear.

But the very fact that questions were asked here shows the human 
experience was not clear - exactly the reverse.

> a more complex design would create all sorts problems, which will make
> the human experience much worse.

Nonsense, a more complex design might take more time and intelligence to 
complete.  In the past Apple had something of a reputation for 
user-friendly design, but from what I read here that has all but 
disappeared.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac

csiph-web