Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
macOS Anyone else regret not thinking of 'I am Rich App' first?
- Thread starter yeroen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
its app like that that take away the integrity of it and put more issues with real developers to push real apps.
though i find it all in great hilarious humor that this was out there and people actually purchased it. way to go materialism/consumerism, good money spent in bad places.
though i find it all in great hilarious humor that this was out there and people actually purchased it. way to go materialism/consumerism, good money spent in bad places.
Daaaaaang I didn't even hear about that untill now... Chirst, eight people bought that program... that sucks... why can't I think of a stupid idea that'll make me some money
Definitely not. While it's nice to make a quick buck and $6,000 would feel really good in my pocket right now, I'd rather develop a solid application and gain respect from the community. If you do that, I'd anticipate making far more than $6,000.
C'mon... He made $6,000 for doing less than an hours worth of work. That's genius. Don't hate the player, hate the game. That guy FTW.
I think there will be a bit of pressure on the developer to give refunds. Otherwise I can see their other applications disappearing from the store as well. Plus a few credit card charge backs. Plus as much general unpleasantness as Apple can create for them.
from an artistic point of view, this is strong work... mostly because it was successful, but it has still gained international press (which isn't easy) and lots of artists (including myself) are quite impressed by this piece (not so much the actual image of the red diamond, but the performance aspect... to me, this was always a performance piece)... to be fair to the developer who created "I Am Rich", he has always stated that it was a work of art, not a functioning program.
"I Am Rich" sold to those 8 people in the first 24 hours, then apple pulled it from the AppStore without reason... the user did not violate any terms... as far as i'm concerned, Apple owes the developer the amount of $6,000/day since it was pulled... i think he should explore his legal options. apple is being hypocritical. they themselves sell beautifully designed products and charge a premium for them... how is "I Am Rich" any different? well, it depends on how you perceive the developer's message, and clearly Apple didn't like it...
mirror mirror on the wall, steve...
Not for misleading, but for being a smart ass. The guy now has eight "customers" that he would probably prefer not to meet in a dark street corner. If I meet anyone using software I've written, I am sure some will say they like it, some will moan, some will have either good or useless suggestions to improve it, but there won't be anyone who wants to smash my face for writing that software. Which is exactly what all his eight "customers" want to do.
I don't get what you are saying at all. He sold a piece of software that is very expensive, to people who (presumably), knew what is did (or didn't) do... How can those people be upset? It's not like he tricked them.
Of course, I never saw the app store listing, so maybe he did trick them somehow, in which case they should probably complain. But from what I have read he didn't. In which case, why would they want to smash his face in?
I'm with the above poster - this is more like an art piece, and it being pulled just increases its value to the only eight owners. They could possibly ebay their phones for more.
I can't believe I just used ebay as a verb.
its app like that that take away the integrity of it and put more issues with real developers to push real apps.
though i find it all in great hilarious humor that this was out there and people actually purchased it. way to go materialism/consumerism, good money spent in bad places.
I Am Rich Is Genius, It proves a point. All You People That Are
about it are because your broke, why take it out on this guy, cuz you can't afford it. I think 
is stupid for taking it down. Whats even more stupid is how people review stuff they haven't/will never buy. Thats "consumerism"
I imagine there are quite a few out there who aspire to this as well.
Agree.I Am Rich Is Genius, It proves a point. All You People That Are
I wish it was still there to purchase.
I believe someone already addressed this
But, I don't think there was ANY question about what the software promised.
"you are getting a picture of a diamond that just sits there" is what it even says on the developers description (I obviously can't confirm this now)
where they expecting that this diamond app was going to make the WHOLE cellphone become diamond encrusted?
I really think calling this an art piece is interesting -- more accurately we could allude it the equivalent of a print -- since we are not getting the "original" work, and we can get as any copy's as we desire to purchase.
Are all works worth what they cost? that's a question of perceived value.
But that's an argument that can be made buy anyone for anything.
These 8 transactions violated no laws i'm aware off, be it legislated or economic.
There were buyers, there was a seller -- they met in a market and agreed to a price. All information was provided -- you can't really argue this was price guaging because even thought there was no alternative or other sellers, this really isn't a product you HAVE to have.
In reality, this diamond application is exactly analogous to the real diamond market. Diamonds do not hold as much intrinsic value as they are sold for. There is no decree that makes them worth as much as they are. There use in industry is not dependent on luster or cut. They are really only worth what the seller is willing to accept and the buyer is willing to give.
I wish I'd thought of it...
I don't think he did anything wrong, and I think Apple has done a disservice by removing it from the store. He didn't violate any rules that I can tell. It wasn't demeaning to any ethnicity or sex. As performance art, it is priceless.
Well done!
I don't think he did anything wrong, and I think Apple has done a disservice by removing it from the store. He didn't violate any rules that I can tell. It wasn't demeaning to any ethnicity or sex. As performance art, it is priceless.
Well done!
I've charge $1,000 to produce websites that were hardly more than a complex collection of text and images, so how could I really fault this one?
I suppose there's some case to be made regarding harm; a substantial sum paid for little or no value. To most of us it sounds ridiculous, but I site an example of 'modern art' that's even more egregious in my (artwise) uneducated opinion.
I purchased a car from a dealership that had a large painting in the lobby. The canvas was perhaps 40 ft by 10 ft, and was mostly white. The edges had some 6 inches of a geometric pattern. It was barely distinguishable from the white wall behind it, yet the 'painting' was valued at over $200,000 because of the artists name (which I can't recall and never heard of before). It is considered some 'valuable' depiction of emptiness, I suppose.
Should that be considered wrong? Criminal? If it were my $200,000, well, yes - but if I PAID that myself, I'd have to consider myself mentally deranged during the time I forwarded the payment.
At list the 'jewel' wasn't some lead painted toy, poisoned pet food or tainted heprin (no ill will toward that country of origin).
I'm happy that my reputation isn't soiled with something like this in my history, and I suppose Apple has some right to determine what they're willing to retail, but outside of wondering about the mental fitness of someone willing to pay for that application, I have to wonder if 'the line' we should draw regarding consumer protection would fall anywhere near this kind of business. I think not.
I suppose there's some case to be made regarding harm; a substantial sum paid for little or no value. To most of us it sounds ridiculous, but I site an example of 'modern art' that's even more egregious in my (artwise) uneducated opinion.
I purchased a car from a dealership that had a large painting in the lobby. The canvas was perhaps 40 ft by 10 ft, and was mostly white. The edges had some 6 inches of a geometric pattern. It was barely distinguishable from the white wall behind it, yet the 'painting' was valued at over $200,000 because of the artists name (which I can't recall and never heard of before). It is considered some 'valuable' depiction of emptiness, I suppose.
Should that be considered wrong? Criminal? If it were my $200,000, well, yes - but if I PAID that myself, I'd have to consider myself mentally deranged during the time I forwarded the payment.
At list the 'jewel' wasn't some lead painted toy, poisoned pet food or tainted heprin (no ill will toward that country of origin).
I'm happy that my reputation isn't soiled with something like this in my history, and I suppose Apple has some right to determine what they're willing to retail, but outside of wondering about the mental fitness of someone willing to pay for that application, I have to wonder if 'the line' we should draw regarding consumer protection would fall anywhere near this kind of business. I think not.
Furthermore, thanks to Apple withdrawing the piece from sale (or censoring?), the existing copies are now exclusive and genuinely priceless.
Perhaps one of the original buyers should test the water on eBay...
I wouldn't do something like this myself, but I find it hilarious, ingenious, creative, and stupid. Those people can't complain, I remember it clearly stating what it was. Apple shouldn't have taken it down as it wasn't violating their rules, and those reviewers should shut up if they haven't even bought it. If those people want to say "I'm rich!" then go ahead and let them!
