What is your opinion about the $1000 I Am Rich app?

What is the app ? Can you explain it more?

Very useful, it was worth every penny.

I think it’s funny. I wish I thought of it.

@basp it literally doesn’t do anything. You hit the little button and it brings you to a screen with a glowing red gem.

Did the people know of its (un)functionality before they bought it?

The developer is $8000 smarter than me!

Obviously he doesn’t know the Wal-Mart theory of “sell cheap, make it up on the volume.”

Sounds like the cyber version of the pet rock.

@basp I disagree. With imagination, the pet rock can be fun. It also doesn’t cost $1000.

I don’t know, toomuchcoffee, when one counts for inflation, it just might be comparable for what a pet rock cost forty yeas ago! LOL

i cant find it in the app store, link?

they took it off the market, so
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399461,00.html

They removed it from the app store.

It was widely advertised on the product description that it didn’t do anything. The only person who was ‘duped’ tried to buy it from the store, after his wife had set up one-click purchasing.

I don’t really see what the big deal is. Unless it affects a large portion of the population, which this didn’t, then I don’t really see why it shouldn’t be legal.

Well if the seller made it clear that it didn’t do anything, as fieryspoon says, it seems harmless enough to me…

I think an application should have to meet a minimum quality standard to be listed, and an application that draws an un-interactive static image of no utility isn’t above the minimum line in my book.

I’d also argue that it’s risky because things like that shouldn’t be available for 1-click purchase. That’s the kind of thing that could push someone into their overdraft.

I thought it was good silly satire, based on the (mis)perception that iphones are overpriced relative to what they can do and are just for showing off one’s wealth.

As mentioned above, it was taken off the market. (It might be available for download elsewhere if you look around—of course it would be about the most ironic candidate for cracking ever, but somebody somewhere is probably interested in it just as a historical curiosity. :))

I think it should be allowed, 100%. It was not a deception by the developer. The description stated what it did (or did not do). The developer did not force anyone to turn on one-click ordering or to be dumb enough to click on buy for an application that costs $1000 and doesn’t do anything. It should be a free market. Obviously if only 8 people bought it it would quickly disappear in the app store, as most apps are popular after being downloaded tons of times and ending up on the front page.

Restricting “quality” is a slippery slope, as there are hundreds of applications on the App Store that are total crap. But the problem really solves itself when people don’t buy it. Take that fart application for example. That’s pretty poor quality both in taste and actual function, but it was one of the most popular apps on the store for a while. Everything should be allowed as long as it is not deceptive or harmful to the hardware, and then let the market decide on its own what will do well.

@richardhenry it’s your choice not to buy software that doesn’t suit your needs. Maybe someone wanted exactly what was being sold though. Maybe they really just wanted to demonstrate how wealthy they are.

Shouldn’t it be their choice? There’s plenty of bad software in any computer store—do you think they should be illegal? If it’s not worth the price that people want to pay, then no one will buy it.

In fact, that’s the entire foundation of capitalism. Right there. Apple is running a communist market place. It doesn’t make any sense, since, at the end of the day, Apple is a capitalist entity, and they make a profit for the sales of that application. It would be in their best interest to have kept the software around. Maybe it was too much of a PR hazard after all (but I really doubt it).

@fieryspoon, a ”communist marketplace”? that is a hilarious oxymoron, nothing more

In the Fox news link above it also says that Netshare and Box office were also removed. Now I can see why net share was removed as it violated Apples contract with AT&T but why was Box office removed? All it did was display movie listings. WHats evil about that? Apart from encouraging people to go out instead of buy movies from iTunes

Because Apple exercises very tight control over apps that duplicate a current or planned feature of their own apps, my guess is that Box Office might duplicate a future/possible feature they might have, like a partnership with google or yahoo re. display of movie times? There might be something unique about it in that regard.