21 ms·

A top-grossing scam on the App Store

572 points by keleftheriou 6y ago

bombcar 6y ago
There has to be another step here that we're missing - such as malware that buys apps for you or subscribes to apps without your knowledge, or uses the App Store to launder money. I can't see a scam app being a top grosser without something like that.
- Retric 6y ago
  Scams are deceptive, if it’s completely automatic then that’s just theft. It’s the difference between cashing a fake check at a bank and just pulling a gun and robbing the place.
- golergka 6y ago
  Users don't read and just click on things.
  - 55555 6y ago
    I can see you are being downvoted but this is literally how this works. People install things and click rapidly thru the startup screens. These apps generally get legal consent from everyone who is billed, they just either didn't read it or forgot to cancel.
    - hans-moleman 6y ago
      A big issue I see is from the switch to Face ID from Touch ID. With Touch ID you actually had to put your finger on the sensor to confirm payment. Now with Face ID that dialog just becomes another OK you accidentally press and your face gets scanned before you even realize what’s happening.
      - jackson1442 6y ago
        You still have to double click the side button… it’s pretty clear to me when I’m paying for stuff on my phone, at least.
    - cytzol 6y ago
      > People install things and click rapidly thru the startup screens. While this is true, and there are definitely cases of people not reading the text and accepting whatever, Apple has a long way to go here. On the payment screen, the text showing the price and the recurrence is way too small, and they're both located under an eminently-skippable "Policy" paragraph. It's no surprise that users are skipping this user-unfriendly screen. This Twitter thread has some examples of how it can be improved: https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1358161301973979139 https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1358161301973979139
      - 55555 6y ago
        I completely agree.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Apple and Google are poor stewards of the mobile app distribution market. It's time that their 13+ year stranglehold on app distribution is disrupted.
- unicornfinder 6y ago
  You know, I was thinking last night about the parallels between this and the anti-trust investigation into Microsoft back in the 90s. Back then Microsoft was in a heap of trouble over the fact that they bundled IE and didn't allow vendors to bundle other alternative browsers. Users could still install other browsers, but the fact that the OS came bundled with IE was seen as an abuse of Microsoft's market position. Yet here we are, in 2021, and Apple won't even allow you to install software on the device you own without their say-so. There are admittedly other browsers on the app store, but they all must use Safari's rendering engine.
  - mason55 6y ago
    You said it yourself: > an abuse of Microsoft's market position Apple has no such market position to abuse. It's perfectly legal to put restrictions on your product. It's perfectly legal to be a monopoly. It's only a problem when you abuse your monopoly position to restrict competitors.
    - vlovich123 6y ago
      I wonder if just business size can be used here rather than monopoly position. If your business is above a certain size, then more restrictions apply to what you can do. The reasoning is that the bigger you are the more people you impact, regardless of your market position and poor behaviors of smaller players to compete with larger players is also an issue. The current economic model of monopolies is very limited in scope (only looks at pricing) whereas there are many negative externalities a business may have beyond just consumer prices. Look at the consumer unfriendly business practices that take hold in industries (eg 24hr fitness famously making it really hard to Vance their service, poor competition on the part of ISPs, etc).
phreack 6y ago
So it's not just a scam, it's a scam pretending to be a medical app? The walled garden method has been proven a failure and needs to go urgently.
- goonogle 6y ago
  It's never been about quality. It's about control.
  - viro 6y ago
    how did Nintendo save the video game market?
    - Daho0n 6y ago
      By killing competition and locking down their hardware so we couldn't get more open hardware? That's not "saving" anything but themselves.
      - viro 6y ago
        The market was flooded with trash because of the openness of Atari hardware to the point that it literally killed the market. The only reason it came back was the quality controls put into place by Nintendo. These are historical facts.
  - Bud 6y ago
    Let me just give you a hint: you don't even get the faintest chance to have one-millionth of Apple's level of potential "control" without creating many many years of quality, first. I'm surprised you don't see that.
    - 55555 6y ago
      Thanks Bud. But this isn't actually a disagreement with what he said. You're both right.
- 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jjtheblunt 6y ago
The assertion in that title is patently false click-bait. Apple definitely cares about its customers being driven away from them. That doesn't mean they've caught all scams, or more importantly in this case have managed to automate detection of them all, definitely not as fast as folks online identify them. Also note that there are entire classes of scams that never get click baity titles because Apple DOES detect them and shut them down before they're widespread. (I worked at Apple in engineering, left after many years for compelling genomics, and that's the basis for my assertion.)
- goonogle 6y ago
  Apple Applogism in the flesh. I wish I had people apologizing and defending my company. Not sure how Tesla/Apple does it. Edit-per the reply comment, something more substantiative. op has post purchase Rationalization fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
  - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
    > Apple Applogism in the flesh. I wish I had people apologizing and defending my company. Not sure how Tesla/Apple does it. Your comment violates HN commenting rules. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - goonogle 6y ago
      Edited to add the fallacy op was making. That should be enough to make it a substantiative comment.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        Nope, it's still flamebait.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  This is unfortunately the case for all content moderation online. May it be Apple, Youtube, Facebook, or any other large platform. People only get to see the very small fraction that slips through, but have no clue about the immense amount of bad content that does get caught and removed quickly. It's also worth noting that there's almost a game of natural selection going on, with these scams evolving and adapting constantly to slip through the automated systems. So it's a never ending war with no end in sight.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sebastien_b 6y ago
For a company that spent $6+ billion on a new campus, you'd think they could use even 1/60th of that to implement appropriate controls, especially when they're claiming it's "safe" and that's why it must be the only appstore on iOS.
Bud 6y ago
I'm just going to say one simple thing: very few people are qualified to assess what Apple actually "seems to care" about. And this poster definitely isn't one of those people. As for the invented-from-whole-cloth link title: please don't do that.
- Calvin02 6y ago
  Yeah, but if it came to Google, Facebook, or Amazon, you'd be all over them with a pitchfork. Users of HN really have some rose coloured blinders on when it comes to Apple.
  - Bud 6y ago
    Please don't pretend to know what other users would do in a given situation when in fact, you have no idea whatsoever.
  - xondono 6y ago
    If people judged Googles playstore with this criteria pitchforks wouldn’t cut it. This post to me sounds like someone claiming spam filters are worthless because an email got across. The relevant metric is how many scams aren’t there, not how many have managed to stay for some indeterminate amount of time.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      It's perfectly possible to criticize both Apple and Google at the same time. If anything, these examples just illustrate why centralized app stores are inherently flawed, even if Apple's store is of much greater quality than Google's. Corporate cheerleading is boring and elides that the greater issue at hand is about openness and choice vs. closeness and security. Examples such as TFA illustrate that despite corporate promises, their security is incomplete.
    - WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
      > This post to me sounds like someone claiming spam filters are worthless because an email got across. If I'm literally prevented from using any other kind of spam filter, you bet I'd be complaining. > The relevant metric is how many scams aren’t there Would you please also prove there is definitely no teapot orbiting Mars, while we're at it?
ksec 6y ago
Patrick McGee from Financial Times had a whole twitter thread [1] on it. It got everything from banning apps for competitive reason to Apple's FEAR ( Fraud Engineering Algorithms and Risk ) team saying the current App Store review process is inadequate. I am starting to think there is a much deeper problem with Apple, it is that without Steve Jobs, no one is being the yard stick of quality, especially in UX. A decade of App Store, you are wondering if they have actually put any effort in its Apps Search Engine. It took them 3 years to admit they have problem with Keyboard and offering an update after 5 years. For things that are easily quantify, like Sales, Hardware Performance ( Apple Silicon ), Logistics and Operation. They are absolutely excelling under Tim Cook. For everything else it seems they are loose, at least from an Apple Standard point of view, although that is still far higher than their competitors. To quote Steve, it seems people are too focused on the process, and forgot about the content. [1] https://twitter.com/PatrickMcGee_/status/1380194940236353536 https://twitter.com/PatrickMcGee_/status/1380194940236353536
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  >I am starting to think there is a much deeper problem with Apple, it is that without Steve Jobs, no one is being the yard stick of quality, especially in UX. I'd chalk it up to Apple being the biggest company on the planet, and the sheer scale of managing an enterprise that size. Nothing lasts forever.
- busymom0 6y ago
  The UI/UX standards have definitely gone out the window. From strange and inconsistent margins in iOS to the strange icon designs in the Big Sur update.
- nnain 6y ago
  > there is a much deeper problem with Apple Which might as well be greed — after all 30% of 5Mn = 1.5Mn USD. They make a lot of money by allowing scammy apps to continue operating. I hope these cases becomes a major reason why they have to open up the App Store.
WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
Remember, the App Store offers you the most secure, curated, and safe experience you can ever have with your Apple devices. Each app submitted to the App Store undergoes a thorough review process. Each app update is checked and approved by an Apple employee. It's not like some automated process which you can game left and right. Each app on the App Store is guaranteed, thanks to the strict review process, to adhere to a minimum standard of quality which is higher than competing app markets are offering. You can trust Apple's judgement on the content that is published on the App Store.
- s_dev 6y ago
  >Each app submitted to the App Store undergoes a thorough review process. Thats just not true though -- it does go through a review but the quality of that review is not remotely consistent. I've litterally had reviewers 'reject' an app because they couldn't log in and said I didn't provide the right details. Basically they copied the email or password incorrectly. Note they didn't copy and paste -- just wrote it wrong and then rejected the app with out double checking.
  - nomad225 6y ago
    I think OP was being sarcastic.
  - WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
    > Thats just not true though -- it does go through a review but the quality of that review is not remotely consistent. Still, it's way better than any competing app store for iOS apps in existence! Well duh, of course I'm being sarcastic. I'm of the opinion that Apple should get all possible roasting for their review process, since they designate themselves as the only gatekeepers in the ecosystem. Even if you can do better... You can't. They won't let you.
- Shivetya 6y ago
  Plus depending on news source Apple supposedly can get close to a hundred thousand apps submitted each week.[0] That staggering number of apps is bound to have leakage of the bad sort and as long as Apple has in place a means to report them then they should be given some leeway. If there is no process (I really don't know) then yeah we should call them out on it. [0]https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/24/app-store-rejected-150000-apps-in-2020-is-seeing-100000-submissions-per-week https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/24/app-store-rejecte...
AnonC 6y ago
This and the right to repair areas are where I’d like to see Apple forced to do a lot better through laws (since it has not done as much as would be expected from a company of this size and profits). Apple cannot claim that the App Store being the only source of apps and in-app payments (without allowing side loading or allowing app makers to even mention other payment options) is the safest option while not doing enough on scams. You don’t need machine learning or AI to catch many of these scams. That the developer of FlickType (the OP of this Twitter thread) had to file a lawsuit says a lot about how much Apple isn’t paying attention. I seriously wonder what the person at the top level managing the App Store is doing, other than lobbying to prevent any possibility of alternate payment options or allowing side loading of apps.
socialist_coder 6y ago
The scam really is about the iOS Subscriptions and how its easy to have a free trial then auto-bill you for some absurd amount. Very easy to trick people into doing this. Apple should just remove Subscriptions completely and have app developers turn them into consumable IAPs that you have to buy every X months. The app developer can still do a free trial in their own code. Games do this all the time with "premium". You buy 30 days of Premium for $5. 30 days later its done and you have to buy it again. No auto-recurring subscriptions.
- WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
  > Apple should just remove Subscriptions completely and have app developers turn them into consumable IAPs that you have to buy every X months. With my data going poof each time, I'm afraid that's a no. Even merely having to log in again, compared to the status quo, is way worse.
  - socialist_coder 6y ago
    I think you are saying that if you uninstall/reinstall, you could lose your subscription since it's from a consumable IAP. I agree that is a bad flow and something that Apple could fix by still allowing non-renewing subscriptions, and then changing how the free trial works by not triggering a payment automatically after the free trial. Basically, you should only be charged as a result of a user action, and it would go through the same IAP flow that people do not just blindly tap through.
    - WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
      No, I’m talking about the actual data or content I created using the app.
      - socialist_coder 6y ago
        I don't understand how that is related to IAPs or subscriptions? If the app has premium features gated behind a subscription, it needs to either use Apple's Subscriptions to check with Apple if your Apple ID has the subscription. Then, it can unlock the functionality. If the app is using consumable IAPs then it would not be able to check with Apple and would need to store the flag in its own data, either locally or in the cloud. If in the cloud, it could tie this data to your device id so it could be restored if you uninstall & reinstall, but this is more difficult if you have tracking disabled. Your content that you create could be stored in the cloud and restored the same way. But again, Apple makes it difficult to do this if you have tracking disabled since there isn't an easy "device ID" to get that is the same every time, to my knowledge.
jdmg94 6y ago
Clickbait title, but its easy to get points on the internet hating on Apple, truth is the alternatives are no better
- Daho0n 6y ago
  In your opinion.
tolmasky 6y ago
Apple has just engineered the worst possible situation for themselves by being the only way to get apps on the store and by simultaneously incessantly marketing the store as "Safe and Secure". The former encourages them to maximize the number of apps on the store, while the latter encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later. If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then they could implement far stricter controls knowing that, worst case scenario, you can still get an app onto the iPhone. This is how it works on the Mac. Tor isn't on the Mac App Store, but that of course doesn't mean Tor can't be used on the Mac. This is one of the tricky parts about AppStore discussions, it's not about being for or against the AppStore. In fact, I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in, and I also wish there was an alternative to the AppStore to catch cases that didn't meet that strict bar. Then the AppStore could actually be about curation as opposed to fear-induced isolationism. Then Apple wouldn't have to inadvertently have political side-effects when it disallowed apps like HKMap.live. Being on the AppStore could still be advantageous beyond just "either that or you don't get to be on the iPhone at all.” Apple payment processing, iCloud integrations, Family-sharing, etc. could all be tied to being ON the AppStore, so there'd still be a huge incentive to try to ship that way. And side-loading doesn't have to be easy or even on by default.
- ProjectArcturis 6y ago
  If they allowed side-loading, they might not capture 30% of revenue from apps sold through the app store. If they disallowed scams, they might not capture 30% of the scammers' revenue.
  - tolmasky 6y ago
    I actually believe that if they allowed side-loading it would be one of the best ways to guarantee that they continue capturing 30% of revenue in perpetuity. This is because they could actually for the first time make developers feel like they're getting something for that 30%, as opposed to it being an "existence tax". Apple could actually with a straight face say "hey, you don't HAVE to be on the store, try doing it on your own". This is much different than the current Hobson's Choice of "you don't have to be on the store, you could just not have an app" which feels increasingly shallow in a duopoly, which gets to another important point: they'd actually have a fantastic argument for regulators: competitors really do have choices other than Apple! It would be very hard to argue that Apple should cater to your app that they don't like when there is another way to deliver that app to all the same customers (that doesn't involve first convincing them to switch platforms). I honestly believe that some sort of side-loading option would be best for any cynical Apple interests long-term and for developers and for users. The current course of action just leads to developer frustration (which is fine until a disruptive player enters the market), a super shitty store that leaves customers pissed (with scams, etc.), constant churn in rules to try to appease everyone and kick the can another 2 years (like the 15% reduction), and worst of all, unwanted attention from regulators that could have chaotic effects.
sjg007 6y ago
Google isn't immune either I suspect. Before the app store, I discovered a google search scam for usps change of address. You can fill that out for free at usps.com or in the post office, but if you search for it, a bunch of scammy providers offered to do it for you for $20. They were buying google ads so that their links appeared before the usps. They would come from somewhat legit looking domains too. I think part of the issue is that usps.com is the official site vs usps.gov.
- WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
  Google's Play Store is a cesspit at times, frankly speaking. But you enter it with low expectations since they don't advertise it to you as a walled garden experience, curation by hand, artisanal repackaging, and whatnot, and you tune your buyer beware sense to 11. On the other hand, Apple's like a restaurant that promises you clean and superior experience, you enter, it's clean and tidy indeed, but then you suddenly get served a smelly smoked herring wrapped in an old stained newspaper, and get charged $199 for it on top.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    I think buyer beware isn't really effective for the general public. As techies, sure, but for everyone else? There's a reason this app is making $5m a month.
simonw 6y ago
I got scammed on the App Store a couple of weeks ago. I needed the SmartThings app for some Samsung home automation devices, searched for it, and installed this one: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smart-things-smart-view-app/id1538696472 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smart-things-smart-view-app/id... When it charged me a $20/year subscription (now cancelled) I thought "Wow, Samsung charging me for this feels pretty cheap of them, but I guess that's how they do things - after all, I found this on the App Store". The app I should have installed was this one: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smartthings/id1222822904 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smartthings/id1222822904
- brianwawok 6y ago
  And I suspect you are in the top 1% of users. How is a 80 year old granny going to know which one to buy?
- fortran77 6y ago
  It's because of this issue I've learned to never search for a manufacturer or company app in the app store. I go to the company's website and see if I can find an app store link to it there. It's nearly impossible for anyone--even the most savvy user--to identify which app is the real one and which one is a deceptive one.
  - slobotron 6y ago
    Kind of funny that we trust Google's index of the whole www to take us to manufacturer's legitimate website, but don't trust Apple's own search of their curated store.
    - fortran77 6y ago
      You don't need to trust Google. If you buy a Samsung phone, for example, their official domain would be printed in their documentation.
      - fsckboy 6y ago
terrywilcox 6y ago
It's as if the people paying for this app aren't actually the ones complaining. Why wouldn't they complain if it was a scam? Because they're not actually using it. It's a money laundering app. If you're just laundering money through an app, it doesn't have to actually do anything. And if you make the price outrageously high, you can launder more money with fewer clicks and reduce the risk of some idiot actually buying it.
- WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
  > Why wouldn't they complain if it was a scam? ~120 1-star reviews are saying you're wrong about this one.
- easton 6y ago
  Who would launder money in a way that would not only require finding a developer and going through App Review, but also losing 30% in the process (plus however much that developer costs)?
  - smolder 6y ago
    I think for someone who needd to launder large amounts of money and can't spend it otherwise, 30% or more might not be unreasonable. 70% beats 0%.
    - asdff 6y ago
      There are far simpler and less convoluted ways to launder money. We have bitcoin. We have HSBC.
      - aembleton 6y ago
        Can you launder dirty cash with those? At least with the App Store you can buy gift cards with cash or even get a mark from a scam to buy you gift cards that you can then launder.
        6y ago
suketk 6y ago
I would imagine that any app that charges users has to make it abundantly clear what the price for the service is. How are people getting scammed? I must be missing something here.
layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
Meanwhile they are regularly rejecting updates for legitimate, established apps, because the given reviewer didn’t like the way the pricing page was worded. It doesn’t matter that the same copy was used for the last 10 versions of the app, you must change it and re-submit for review :^)
emmanueloga_ 6y ago
Which app is it!? Why is it so hard to find the app he's talking about ... sigh
- johnx123-up 6y ago
  https://archive.ph/zgRUw https://archive.ph/zgRUw
iamleppert 6y ago
The App Store quality is so low now that I avoid it completely. It reminds me of a dollar store just browsing through it. All the developers, like sellers of products at a dollar store, have learned to optimize for “the packaging” of the app. The goal isn’t to get some meaningful money per customer but to make a single sale, usually only a few dollars. So the goal is to trick the user, optimize for large volumes of unit sales and reduce the cost per sale to as minimal as possible. I think it’s time that there be competing App Stores on iOS because Apple has completely dropped the ball with their brain-dead approach to quality and developer incentives. Whoever runs the App Store at Apple should be replaced, but that’s not going to happen until there is real competition so the numbers reflect the true state of things. Getting someone to part with $20 is harder than $1. I think the race to the bottom with software distribution has had a negative effect on overall quality. I’d rather have a few moderately priced options to choose from than 100 equally cheap options.
larkinrichards 6y ago
link goes to a different thread discussing the removal of fake reviews. Looks like Apple is in the process of taking action against this. Original thread, which explains the scam, is here: https://mobile.twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1381463196280610816 https://mobile.twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1381463196280...
tyrex2017 6y ago
When I was doing iOS apps around 2016, there was a simple way to request a refund if you purchased sth by mistake. I think it was a web form using your Apple id. The amount was autocredited back to you immediately. Not sure if this was the norm back then, and if it is now.
haecceity 6y ago
What app are they talking about? Am I the only one confused??
- dvhh 6y ago
  Previous thread : https://mobile.twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1381463196280610816 https://mobile.twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1381463196280... ELI5 : Application that are using fake review, fake company profile, giving misleading medical information seems to thrive on the App Store. And it seems that not only there is little a customer can do to warn others ( 1 star reviews that are mentioning the deceptive nature of the application are not immediately visible and are still overwhelmed by the amount of allegedly fake 5 stars review, and Apple or the subsidiary they are using to manage the store seem to have removed a mean for the user to report an issue with the application ) This is aggravated by the appearance that the App Store should be trusted and is free from scam ( even if the amount is relatively small, 0.00N% is still more than 0% ), where it seem that review process only protect the user from security and potential privacy issue. Most of people would believe Apple press communication and most Apple user would believe that their iPhone is safer than the other phone brand, thanks to Apple keeping an eye for quality and security.
devit 6y ago
How does it work? Doesn't iOS inform the user when they are about to authorize a paid subscription?
Jakobeha 6y ago
How does Apple even solve this problem? On one hand, they're already having trouble with legitimate developers getting apps on the store (or at least they used to). On the other hand, there are tons of low-quality and scam apps. I agree with common sentiment here that people should be able to install apps from wherever they want. But a curated "App Store" for most people is a good idea. Otherwise your entire system's reputation becomes worse because people install low quality apps and possibly even malware, and it's hard to find good and legitimate apps. Except that's still happening with the current App Store. And I honestly think Apple is trying to do better curation, but it's a hard problem because there are so many apps and you don't want to reject any legitimate ones.
- boxed 6y ago
  You don't need to catch them before the fact. But catching them after the fact, at least the big ones seem pretty simple.
spondyl 6y ago
This is somewhat ironic given the recent interview Tim Cook did with Kara Swisher on Sway[1] that touched on topics like App Store curation and not allowing side loading. Here's an excerpt: > Kara Swisher: Like Netflix and others, right. What’s wrong with Epic or any developer going their own way or allowing a direct payment system, instead of having to go through the App Store? Why should you have the control? > Tim Cook: Well, I think somebody has to. I think somebody has to curate, right? Because users aren’t going to come there and buy things if they don’t have trust and confidence in the store. And we think our users want that. > Kara Swisher: Why can’t there be more stores, other stores run by others? > Tim Cook: Because if you had side loading, you would break the privacy and security model. > Kara Swisher: On the phone itself, and the phone itself wouldn’t protect the user necessarily. > Tim Cook: Well, you’d be opening up a huge vector on another store. > [a minute or so later] > Tim Cook: I think curation is important as a part of the App Store. In any given week, 100,000 applications come into the app review. 40,000 of them are rejected. Most of them are rejected because they don’t work or don’t work like they say that they work. You can imagine if curation went away, what would occur to the App Store in a very short amount of time. --- I agree that not having sideloading, without giving it any thought on the technical implentation, is probably safer in terms of reducing "viruses" and what not. It's arguable that cases like families whose kids spends tens of thousands due to dark patterns in approved applications were no safer than if they had run a side loaded application or a vetted one though. Similarly, I can only imagine the amount of money wasted on misleadingly titled applications. You could perhaps argue that the privacy model is compromised anyway in the sense that you can install Facebook, sign up and have your info dumped online, through no fault of Apple. The upcoming ATT changes should help but they haven't existed since, well, the app store was created :) [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/opinion/apples-ceo-is-making-very-different-choices-from-mark-zuckerberg.html?showTranscript=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/opinion/apples-ceo-is-mak...
- orangecat 6y ago
  Tim Cook: Because if you had side loading, you would break the privacy and security model. I really wish somebody would follow up a response like that by asking if that means macOS is inherently insecure and dangerous.
dan-robertson 6y ago
I wonder what solutions to scams on the App Store might be? I can think of some: 1. Do nothing more. It doesn’t seem to be going too badly for Apple 2. Have stricter review and allow sideloading. Obviously this is popular on HN but it seems to me that Apple would not do this and it doesn’t obviously help. Maybe users would just be trained to sideload (I vaguely recall that there was a time when many apps in mainland China were not in the App Store and had to be sideloaded. There would be well-written instructions for how to install them) 3. Be stricter at review. Maybe this is expensive (so Apple would have to increase fees or reduce profits). It might also not be good for Apple if fewer amateurs can release apps. But maybe that isn’t so significant and Apple make most of their money from bigger players. 4. Make it harder to profit from these scams. Maybe hold user payments in escrow for a while and look for evidence of scams—users quickly cancelling, leaving 1-star reviews, etc—and only pay later. To some extent this is “more scrutiny” so maybe this is just a way to make it targeted. Maybe this would still have the problem of hurting small players, and maybe most money lost to scams goes to small apps rather than “popular” ones like the one in the thread, so this flagging wouldn’t catch them. 5. Have a two-tier App Store with a section of “high quality” apps and a section of less-reviewed apps. Apple already does this to some extent with “editors” of the store, various articles about apps, and plenty of custom artwork too. I don’t know how they would pay for this thing or explain it to users but it seems it would still allow small players a chance while giving users better safety. Personally I think I would like a mix of a few of these. I like the idea of a higher tier in the store and I would be ok if it was expensive to get into (e.g. dev has to pay $1000 for the first review of an app) and had various stricter requirements (e.g. a different contract with apple requiring more notification when transferring app ownership or longer settlement times for user purchases, but also things like the app having good performance). I would also like it if Apple would try to find popular apps in the lower tier and help the good ones into the higher tier (maybe for free for a good viral game or with deferred payments out of (in-) app purchase income for paid apps) while removing the bad ones. And I think they could still improve their scam detection in the lower tier.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  The solution is competition. If one App Store has terrible policies like Apple's or Google's, then I can just use another one. By being forced to compete, Apple will have to address consumer and developer needs or be left in the dust by their competition.
unityByFreedom 6y ago
I doubt Apple is "incentivized" to allow this as the poster claims. Clearly it makes them look awful. Apple is the only company who's been able to convince users to pay for client-side software. Android is mostly full of "free" ad-supported apps. Prior to smart phones, users generally could not be relied upon to buy software. Now, you need to break your banking apps if you want to side-load anything, and it's just easier to buy apps. This has greatly contributed to investment in software development IMO. I do want more freedom to develop on iOS and I also understand why they have limitations. It's because they don't want scam-apps to reach customers.
xwdv 6y ago
Is it just me or is it impossible to find the name of the actual app? What is it called?
busymom0 6y ago
As an iOS and MacOS Developer myself, this doesn’t surprise me but it still infuriates me. Over the years, I have realized that the app review is extremely inconsistent and also the rules are applied differently to different developers. While I have no proof of whether Apple is allowing this simply because it’s a high grossing app, I do know that Apple treats the big company apps like Facebook, Uber, Twitter and Reddit differently. The update logs are a perfect example. I have had updates rejected (rightfully) because my update logs were too vague and there’s a rule against vague useless update logs. But the same standard never applies to FB, Twitter etc. FB’s update logs are always vague and two lines of “We update the app often to fix bugs and improve features.” Even when they are using updates to lets say remove features or add features. People often try to excuse this by saying “big companies have too many A-B tests etc. But that makes it worse. A big company should be held to an even higher standard than the ordinary pleb developer like me. Another example is when Apple gave special privileges to Uber’s app: https://www.businessinsider.in/apple-gave-ubers-app-unprecedented-access-to-a-secret-backdoor-that-can-record-iphone-screens/articleshow/60963865.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/apple-gave-ubers-app-unpreced... It’s a BIG CLUB and you and I ain’t in it.
admax88q 6y ago
I thought I handed Apple my keys so I couldn't get scammed?
mch0lic1 6y ago
Every time something like this happens people seem to be shocked and surprised, but his happens day in day out with every single large entity (companies, government, criminal gangs) as long as they large enough and have enough power to get away with whatever they are doing. If Apple can make 1-2M/yr from a scam and lawyers tied all loose ends they will have no problem doing that. Worst case will push some press release statement blaming third party and that will be it.
victor106 6y ago
How accurate is Appfigures (or similar websites) in estimating the revenue of apps. What methods do they use to get that data?
boxed 6y ago
Search still doesn't work at all. If you search for any of my apps by their exact name the apps aren't the first hit. This is the absolute most basic thing. And they screw it up spectacularly. It's especially infuriating because app names must be unique. What's the point if the search is that broken?
vietvu 6y ago
I don't know how this happened. I was an iOS dev before. Their reviewing process is crazy. I got rejected for a line of text before.

572 points by keleftheriou 6y ago

There has to be another step here that we're missing - such as malware that buys apps for you or subscribes to apps without your knowledge, or uses the App Store to launder money. I can't see a scam app being a top grosser without something like that.

Retric 6y ago
Scams are deceptive, if it’s completely automatic then that’s just theft. It’s the difference between cashing a fake check at a bank and just pulling a gun and robbing the place.
golergka 6y ago
Users don't read and just click on things.
- 55555 6y ago
  I can see you are being downvoted but this is literally how this works. People install things and click rapidly thru the startup screens. These apps generally get legal consent from everyone who is billed, they just either didn't read it or forgot to cancel.
  - hans-moleman 6y ago
    A big issue I see is from the switch to Face ID from Touch ID. With Touch ID you actually had to put your finger on the sensor to confirm payment. Now with Face ID that dialog just becomes another OK you accidentally press and your face gets scanned before you even realize what’s happening.
    - jackson1442 6y ago
      You still have to double click the side button… it’s pretty clear to me when I’m paying for stuff on my phone, at least.
  - cytzol 6y ago
    > People install things and click rapidly thru the startup screens. While this is true, and there are definitely cases of people not reading the text and accepting whatever, Apple has a long way to go here. On the payment screen, the text showing the price and the recurrence is way too small, and they're both located under an eminently-skippable "Policy" paragraph. It's no surprise that users are skipping this user-unfriendly screen. This Twitter thread has some examples of how it can be improved: https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1358161301973979139 https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1358161301973979139
    - 55555 6y ago
      I completely agree.

heavyset_go 6y ago

Apple and Google are poor stewards of the mobile app distribution market. It's time that their 13+ year stranglehold on app distribution is disrupted.

unicornfinder 6y ago
You know, I was thinking last night about the parallels between this and the anti-trust investigation into Microsoft back in the 90s. Back then Microsoft was in a heap of trouble over the fact that they bundled IE and didn't allow vendors to bundle other alternative browsers. Users could still install other browsers, but the fact that the OS came bundled with IE was seen as an abuse of Microsoft's market position. Yet here we are, in 2021, and Apple won't even allow you to install software on the device you own without their say-so. There are admittedly other browsers on the app store, but they all must use Safari's rendering engine.
- mason55 6y ago
  You said it yourself: > an abuse of Microsoft's market position Apple has no such market position to abuse. It's perfectly legal to put restrictions on your product. It's perfectly legal to be a monopoly. It's only a problem when you abuse your monopoly position to restrict competitors.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    I wonder if just business size can be used here rather than monopoly position. If your business is above a certain size, then more restrictions apply to what you can do. The reasoning is that the bigger you are the more people you impact, regardless of your market position and poor behaviors of smaller players to compete with larger players is also an issue. The current economic model of monopolies is very limited in scope (only looks at pricing) whereas there are many negative externalities a business may have beyond just consumer prices. Look at the consumer unfriendly business practices that take hold in industries (eg 24hr fitness famously making it really hard to Vance their service, poor competition on the part of ISPs, etc).

phreack 6y ago

So it's not just a scam, it's a scam pretending to be a medical app? The walled garden method has been proven a failure and needs to go urgently.

goonogle 6y ago
It's never been about quality. It's about control.
- viro 6y ago
  how did Nintendo save the video game market?
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    By killing competition and locking down their hardware so we couldn't get more open hardware? That's not "saving" anything but themselves.
    - viro 6y ago
      The market was flooded with trash because of the openness of Atari hardware to the point that it literally killed the market. The only reason it came back was the quality controls put into place by Nintendo. These are historical facts.
- Bud 6y ago
  Let me just give you a hint: you don't even get the faintest chance to have one-millionth of Apple's level of potential "control" without creating many many years of quality, first. I'm surprised you don't see that.
  - 55555 6y ago
    Thanks Bud. But this isn't actually a disagreement with what he said. You're both right.
6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jjtheblunt 6y ago

The assertion in that title is patently false click-bait. Apple definitely cares about its customers being driven away from them. That doesn't mean they've caught all scams, or more importantly in this case have managed to automate detection of them all, definitely not as fast as folks online identify them. Also note that there are entire classes of scams that never get click baity titles because Apple DOES detect them and shut them down before they're widespread. (I worked at Apple in engineering, left after many years for compelling genomics, and that's the basis for my assertion.)

goonogle 6y ago
Apple Applogism in the flesh. I wish I had people apologizing and defending my company. Not sure how Tesla/Apple does it. Edit-per the reply comment, something more substantiative. op has post purchase Rationalization fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
- BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
  > Apple Applogism in the flesh. I wish I had people apologizing and defending my company. Not sure how Tesla/Apple does it. Your comment violates HN commenting rules. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - goonogle 6y ago
    Edited to add the fallacy op was making. That should be enough to make it a substantiative comment.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Nope, it's still flamebait.
ehsankia 6y ago
This is unfortunately the case for all content moderation online. May it be Apple, Youtube, Facebook, or any other large platform. People only get to see the very small fraction that slips through, but have no clue about the immense amount of bad content that does get caught and removed quickly. It's also worth noting that there's almost a game of natural selection going on, with these scams evolving and adapting constantly to slip through the automated systems. So it's a never ending war with no end in sight.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sebastien_b 6y ago

For a company that spent $6+ billion on a new campus, you'd think they could use even 1/60th of that to implement appropriate controls, especially when they're claiming it's "safe" and that's why it must be the only appstore on iOS.

Bud 6y ago

I'm just going to say one simple thing: very few people are qualified to assess what Apple actually "seems to care" about. And this poster definitely isn't one of those people. As for the invented-from-whole-cloth link title: please don't do that.

Calvin02 6y ago
Yeah, but if it came to Google, Facebook, or Amazon, you'd be all over them with a pitchfork. Users of HN really have some rose coloured blinders on when it comes to Apple.
- Bud 6y ago
  Please don't pretend to know what other users would do in a given situation when in fact, you have no idea whatsoever.
- xondono 6y ago
  If people judged Googles playstore with this criteria pitchforks wouldn’t cut it. This post to me sounds like someone claiming spam filters are worthless because an email got across. The relevant metric is how many scams aren’t there, not how many have managed to stay for some indeterminate amount of time.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    It's perfectly possible to criticize both Apple and Google at the same time. If anything, these examples just illustrate why centralized app stores are inherently flawed, even if Apple's store is of much greater quality than Google's. Corporate cheerleading is boring and elides that the greater issue at hand is about openness and choice vs. closeness and security. Examples such as TFA illustrate that despite corporate promises, their security is incomplete.
  - WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
    > This post to me sounds like someone claiming spam filters are worthless because an email got across. If I'm literally prevented from using any other kind of spam filter, you bet I'd be complaining. > The relevant metric is how many scams aren’t there Would you please also prove there is definitely no teapot orbiting Mars, while we're at it?

ksec 6y ago

Patrick McGee from Financial Times had a whole twitter thread [1] on it. It got everything from banning apps for competitive reason to Apple's FEAR ( Fraud Engineering Algorithms and Risk ) team saying the current App Store review process is inadequate. I am starting to think there is a much deeper problem with Apple, it is that without Steve Jobs, no one is being the yard stick of quality, especially in UX. A decade of App Store, you are wondering if they have actually put any effort in its Apps Search Engine. It took them 3 years to admit they have problem with Keyboard and offering an update after 5 years. For things that are easily quantify, like Sales, Hardware Performance ( Apple Silicon ), Logistics and Operation. They are absolutely excelling under Tim Cook. For everything else it seems they are loose, at least from an Apple Standard point of view, although that is still far higher than their competitors. To quote Steve, it seems people are too focused on the process, and forgot about the content. [1] https://twitter.com/PatrickMcGee_/status/1380194940236353536 https://twitter.com/PatrickMcGee_/status/1380194940236353536

itsoktocry 6y ago
>I am starting to think there is a much deeper problem with Apple, it is that without Steve Jobs, no one is being the yard stick of quality, especially in UX. I'd chalk it up to Apple being the biggest company on the planet, and the sheer scale of managing an enterprise that size. Nothing lasts forever.
busymom0 6y ago
The UI/UX standards have definitely gone out the window. From strange and inconsistent margins in iOS to the strange icon designs in the Big Sur update.
nnain 6y ago
> there is a much deeper problem with Apple Which might as well be greed — after all 30% of 5Mn = 1.5Mn USD. They make a lot of money by allowing scammy apps to continue operating. I hope these cases becomes a major reason why they have to open up the App Store.

WesolyKubeczek 6y ago

Remember, the App Store offers you the most secure, curated, and safe experience you can ever have with your Apple devices. Each app submitted to the App Store undergoes a thorough review process. Each app update is checked and approved by an Apple employee. It's not like some automated process which you can game left and right. Each app on the App Store is guaranteed, thanks to the strict review process, to adhere to a minimum standard of quality which is higher than competing app markets are offering. You can trust Apple's judgement on the content that is published on the App Store.

s_dev 6y ago
>Each app submitted to the App Store undergoes a thorough review process. Thats just not true though -- it does go through a review but the quality of that review is not remotely consistent. I've litterally had reviewers 'reject' an app because they couldn't log in and said I didn't provide the right details. Basically they copied the email or password incorrectly. Note they didn't copy and paste -- just wrote it wrong and then rejected the app with out double checking.
- nomad225 6y ago
  I think OP was being sarcastic.
- WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
  > Thats just not true though -- it does go through a review but the quality of that review is not remotely consistent. Still, it's way better than any competing app store for iOS apps in existence! Well duh, of course I'm being sarcastic. I'm of the opinion that Apple should get all possible roasting for their review process, since they designate themselves as the only gatekeepers in the ecosystem. Even if you can do better... You can't. They won't let you.
Shivetya 6y ago
Plus depending on news source Apple supposedly can get close to a hundred thousand apps submitted each week.[0] That staggering number of apps is bound to have leakage of the bad sort and as long as Apple has in place a means to report them then they should be given some leeway. If there is no process (I really don't know) then yeah we should call them out on it. [0]https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/24/app-store-rejected-150000-apps-in-2020-is-seeing-100000-submissions-per-week https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/24/app-store-rejecte...

AnonC 6y ago

This and the right to repair areas are where I’d like to see Apple forced to do a lot better through laws (since it has not done as much as would be expected from a company of this size and profits). Apple cannot claim that the App Store being the only source of apps and in-app payments (without allowing side loading or allowing app makers to even mention other payment options) is the safest option while not doing enough on scams. You don’t need machine learning or AI to catch many of these scams. That the developer of FlickType (the OP of this Twitter thread) had to file a lawsuit says a lot about how much Apple isn’t paying attention. I seriously wonder what the person at the top level managing the App Store is doing, other than lobbying to prevent any possibility of alternate payment options or allowing side loading of apps.

socialist_coder 6y ago

The scam really is about the iOS Subscriptions and how its easy to have a free trial then auto-bill you for some absurd amount. Very easy to trick people into doing this. Apple should just remove Subscriptions completely and have app developers turn them into consumable IAPs that you have to buy every X months. The app developer can still do a free trial in their own code. Games do this all the time with "premium". You buy 30 days of Premium for $5. 30 days later its done and you have to buy it again. No auto-recurring subscriptions.

WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
> Apple should just remove Subscriptions completely and have app developers turn them into consumable IAPs that you have to buy every X months. With my data going poof each time, I'm afraid that's a no. Even merely having to log in again, compared to the status quo, is way worse.
- socialist_coder 6y ago
  I think you are saying that if you uninstall/reinstall, you could lose your subscription since it's from a consumable IAP. I agree that is a bad flow and something that Apple could fix by still allowing non-renewing subscriptions, and then changing how the free trial works by not triggering a payment automatically after the free trial. Basically, you should only be charged as a result of a user action, and it would go through the same IAP flow that people do not just blindly tap through.
  - WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
    No, I’m talking about the actual data or content I created using the app.
    - socialist_coder 6y ago
      I don't understand how that is related to IAPs or subscriptions? If the app has premium features gated behind a subscription, it needs to either use Apple's Subscriptions to check with Apple if your Apple ID has the subscription. Then, it can unlock the functionality. If the app is using consumable IAPs then it would not be able to check with Apple and would need to store the flag in its own data, either locally or in the cloud. If in the cloud, it could tie this data to your device id so it could be restored if you uninstall & reinstall, but this is more difficult if you have tracking disabled. Your content that you create could be stored in the cloud and restored the same way. But again, Apple makes it difficult to do this if you have tracking disabled since there isn't an easy "device ID" to get that is the same every time, to my knowledge.

jdmg94 6y ago

Clickbait title, but its easy to get points on the internet hating on Apple, truth is the alternatives are no better

Daho0n 6y ago
In your opinion.

tolmasky 6y ago

Apple has just engineered the worst possible situation for themselves by being the only way to get apps on the store and by simultaneously incessantly marketing the store as "Safe and Secure". The former encourages them to maximize the number of apps on the store, while the latter encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later. If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then they could implement far stricter controls knowing that, worst case scenario, you can still get an app onto the iPhone. This is how it works on the Mac. Tor isn't on the Mac App Store, but that of course doesn't mean Tor can't be used on the Mac. This is one of the tricky parts about AppStore discussions, it's not about being for or against the AppStore. In fact, I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in, and I also wish there was an alternative to the AppStore to catch cases that didn't meet that strict bar. Then the AppStore could actually be about curation as opposed to fear-induced isolationism. Then Apple wouldn't have to inadvertently have political side-effects when it disallowed apps like HKMap.live. Being on the AppStore could still be advantageous beyond just "either that or you don't get to be on the iPhone at all.” Apple payment processing, iCloud integrations, Family-sharing, etc. could all be tied to being ON the AppStore, so there'd still be a huge incentive to try to ship that way. And side-loading doesn't have to be easy or even on by default.

ProjectArcturis 6y ago
If they allowed side-loading, they might not capture 30% of revenue from apps sold through the app store. If they disallowed scams, they might not capture 30% of the scammers' revenue.
- tolmasky 6y ago
  I actually believe that if they allowed side-loading it would be one of the best ways to guarantee that they continue capturing 30% of revenue in perpetuity. This is because they could actually for the first time make developers feel like they're getting something for that 30%, as opposed to it being an "existence tax". Apple could actually with a straight face say "hey, you don't HAVE to be on the store, try doing it on your own". This is much different than the current Hobson's Choice of "you don't have to be on the store, you could just not have an app" which feels increasingly shallow in a duopoly, which gets to another important point: they'd actually have a fantastic argument for regulators: competitors really do have choices other than Apple! It would be very hard to argue that Apple should cater to your app that they don't like when there is another way to deliver that app to all the same customers (that doesn't involve first convincing them to switch platforms). I honestly believe that some sort of side-loading option would be best for any cynical Apple interests long-term and for developers and for users. The current course of action just leads to developer frustration (which is fine until a disruptive player enters the market), a super shitty store that leaves customers pissed (with scams, etc.), constant churn in rules to try to appease everyone and kick the can another 2 years (like the 15% reduction), and worst of all, unwanted attention from regulators that could have chaotic effects.

sjg007 6y ago

Google isn't immune either I suspect. Before the app store, I discovered a google search scam for usps change of address. You can fill that out for free at usps.com or in the post office, but if you search for it, a bunch of scammy providers offered to do it for you for $20. They were buying google ads so that their links appeared before the usps. They would come from somewhat legit looking domains too. I think part of the issue is that usps.com is the official site vs usps.gov.

WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
Google's Play Store is a cesspit at times, frankly speaking. But you enter it with low expectations since they don't advertise it to you as a walled garden experience, curation by hand, artisanal repackaging, and whatnot, and you tune your buyer beware sense to 11. On the other hand, Apple's like a restaurant that promises you clean and superior experience, you enter, it's clean and tidy indeed, but then you suddenly get served a smelly smoked herring wrapped in an old stained newspaper, and get charged $199 for it on top.
- sjg007 6y ago
  I think buyer beware isn't really effective for the general public. As techies, sure, but for everyone else? There's a reason this app is making $5m a month.

simonw 6y ago

I got scammed on the App Store a couple of weeks ago. I needed the SmartThings app for some Samsung home automation devices, searched for it, and installed this one: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smart-things-smart-view-app/id1538696472 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smart-things-smart-view-app/id... When it charged me a $20/year subscription (now cancelled) I thought "Wow, Samsung charging me for this feels pretty cheap of them, but I guess that's how they do things - after all, I found this on the App Store". The app I should have installed was this one: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smartthings/id1222822904 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smartthings/id1222822904

brianwawok 6y ago
And I suspect you are in the top 1% of users. How is a 80 year old granny going to know which one to buy?
fortran77 6y ago
It's because of this issue I've learned to never search for a manufacturer or company app in the app store. I go to the company's website and see if I can find an app store link to it there. It's nearly impossible for anyone--even the most savvy user--to identify which app is the real one and which one is a deceptive one.
- slobotron 6y ago
  Kind of funny that we trust Google's index of the whole www to take us to manufacturer's legitimate website, but don't trust Apple's own search of their curated store.
  - fortran77 6y ago
    You don't need to trust Google. If you buy a Samsung phone, for example, their official domain would be printed in their documentation.
    - fsckboy 6y ago

terrywilcox 6y ago

It's as if the people paying for this app aren't actually the ones complaining. Why wouldn't they complain if it was a scam? Because they're not actually using it. It's a money laundering app. If you're just laundering money through an app, it doesn't have to actually do anything. And if you make the price outrageously high, you can launder more money with fewer clicks and reduce the risk of some idiot actually buying it.

WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
> Why wouldn't they complain if it was a scam? ~120 1-star reviews are saying you're wrong about this one.
easton 6y ago
Who would launder money in a way that would not only require finding a developer and going through App Review, but also losing 30% in the process (plus however much that developer costs)?
- smolder 6y ago
  I think for someone who needd to launder large amounts of money and can't spend it otherwise, 30% or more might not be unreasonable. 70% beats 0%.
  - asdff 6y ago
    There are far simpler and less convoluted ways to launder money. We have bitcoin. We have HSBC.
    - aembleton 6y ago
      Can you launder dirty cash with those? At least with the App Store you can buy gift cards with cash or even get a mark from a scam to buy you gift cards that you can then launder.
      - 6y ago

suketk 6y ago

I would imagine that any app that charges users has to make it abundantly clear what the price for the service is. How are people getting scammed? I must be missing something here.

layoutIfNeeded 6y ago

Meanwhile they are regularly rejecting updates for legitimate, established apps, because the given reviewer didn’t like the way the pricing page was worded. It doesn’t matter that the same copy was used for the last 10 versions of the app, you must change it and re-submit for review :^)

emmanueloga_ 6y ago

Which app is it!? Why is it so hard to find the app he's talking about ... sigh

johnx123-up 6y ago
https://archive.ph/zgRUw https://archive.ph/zgRUw

iamleppert 6y ago

The App Store quality is so low now that I avoid it completely. It reminds me of a dollar store just browsing through it. All the developers, like sellers of products at a dollar store, have learned to optimize for “the packaging” of the app. The goal isn’t to get some meaningful money per customer but to make a single sale, usually only a few dollars. So the goal is to trick the user, optimize for large volumes of unit sales and reduce the cost per sale to as minimal as possible. I think it’s time that there be competing App Stores on iOS because Apple has completely dropped the ball with their brain-dead approach to quality and developer incentives. Whoever runs the App Store at Apple should be replaced, but that’s not going to happen until there is real competition so the numbers reflect the true state of things. Getting someone to part with $20 is harder than $1. I think the race to the bottom with software distribution has had a negative effect on overall quality. I’d rather have a few moderately priced options to choose from than 100 equally cheap options.

larkinrichards 6y ago

link goes to a different thread discussing the removal of fake reviews. Looks like Apple is in the process of taking action against this. Original thread, which explains the scam, is here: https://mobile.twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1381463196280610816 https://mobile.twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1381463196280...

tyrex2017 6y ago

When I was doing iOS apps around 2016, there was a simple way to request a refund if you purchased sth by mistake. I think it was a web form using your Apple id. The amount was autocredited back to you immediately. Not sure if this was the norm back then, and if it is now.

haecceity 6y ago

What app are they talking about? Am I the only one confused??

dvhh 6y ago
Previous thread : https://mobile.twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1381463196280610816 https://mobile.twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1381463196280... ELI5 : Application that are using fake review, fake company profile, giving misleading medical information seems to thrive on the App Store. And it seems that not only there is little a customer can do to warn others ( 1 star reviews that are mentioning the deceptive nature of the application are not immediately visible and are still overwhelmed by the amount of allegedly fake 5 stars review, and Apple or the subsidiary they are using to manage the store seem to have removed a mean for the user to report an issue with the application ) This is aggravated by the appearance that the App Store should be trusted and is free from scam ( even if the amount is relatively small, 0.00N% is still more than 0% ), where it seem that review process only protect the user from security and potential privacy issue. Most of people would believe Apple press communication and most Apple user would believe that their iPhone is safer than the other phone brand, thanks to Apple keeping an eye for quality and security.

devit 6y ago

How does it work? Doesn't iOS inform the user when they are about to authorize a paid subscription?

Jakobeha 6y ago

How does Apple even solve this problem? On one hand, they're already having trouble with legitimate developers getting apps on the store (or at least they used to). On the other hand, there are tons of low-quality and scam apps. I agree with common sentiment here that people should be able to install apps from wherever they want. But a curated "App Store" for most people is a good idea. Otherwise your entire system's reputation becomes worse because people install low quality apps and possibly even malware, and it's hard to find good and legitimate apps. Except that's still happening with the current App Store. And I honestly think Apple is trying to do better curation, but it's a hard problem because there are so many apps and you don't want to reject any legitimate ones.

boxed 6y ago
You don't need to catch them before the fact. But catching them after the fact, at least the big ones seem pretty simple.

spondyl 6y ago

This is somewhat ironic given the recent interview Tim Cook did with Kara Swisher on Sway[1] that touched on topics like App Store curation and not allowing side loading. Here's an excerpt: > Kara Swisher: Like Netflix and others, right. What’s wrong with Epic or any developer going their own way or allowing a direct payment system, instead of having to go through the App Store? Why should you have the control? > Tim Cook: Well, I think somebody has to. I think somebody has to curate, right? Because users aren’t going to come there and buy things if they don’t have trust and confidence in the store. And we think our users want that. > Kara Swisher: Why can’t there be more stores, other stores run by others? > Tim Cook: Because if you had side loading, you would break the privacy and security model. > Kara Swisher: On the phone itself, and the phone itself wouldn’t protect the user necessarily. > Tim Cook: Well, you’d be opening up a huge vector on another store. > [a minute or so later] > Tim Cook: I think curation is important as a part of the App Store. In any given week, 100,000 applications come into the app review. 40,000 of them are rejected. Most of them are rejected because they don’t work or don’t work like they say that they work. You can imagine if curation went away, what would occur to the App Store in a very short amount of time. --- I agree that not having sideloading, without giving it any thought on the technical implentation, is probably safer in terms of reducing "viruses" and what not. It's arguable that cases like families whose kids spends tens of thousands due to dark patterns in approved applications were no safer than if they had run a side loaded application or a vetted one though. Similarly, I can only imagine the amount of money wasted on misleadingly titled applications. You could perhaps argue that the privacy model is compromised anyway in the sense that you can install Facebook, sign up and have your info dumped online, through no fault of Apple. The upcoming ATT changes should help but they haven't existed since, well, the app store was created :) [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/opinion/apples-ceo-is-making-very-different-choices-from-mark-zuckerberg.html?showTranscript=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/opinion/apples-ceo-is-mak...

orangecat 6y ago
Tim Cook: Because if you had side loading, you would break the privacy and security model. I really wish somebody would follow up a response like that by asking if that means macOS is inherently insecure and dangerous.

dan-robertson 6y ago

I wonder what solutions to scams on the App Store might be? I can think of some: 1. Do nothing more. It doesn’t seem to be going too badly for Apple 2. Have stricter review and allow sideloading. Obviously this is popular on HN but it seems to me that Apple would not do this and it doesn’t obviously help. Maybe users would just be trained to sideload (I vaguely recall that there was a time when many apps in mainland China were not in the App Store and had to be sideloaded. There would be well-written instructions for how to install them) 3. Be stricter at review. Maybe this is expensive (so Apple would have to increase fees or reduce profits). It might also not be good for Apple if fewer amateurs can release apps. But maybe that isn’t so significant and Apple make most of their money from bigger players. 4. Make it harder to profit from these scams. Maybe hold user payments in escrow for a while and look for evidence of scams—users quickly cancelling, leaving 1-star reviews, etc—and only pay later. To some extent this is “more scrutiny” so maybe this is just a way to make it targeted. Maybe this would still have the problem of hurting small players, and maybe most money lost to scams goes to small apps rather than “popular” ones like the one in the thread, so this flagging wouldn’t catch them. 5. Have a two-tier App Store with a section of “high quality” apps and a section of less-reviewed apps. Apple already does this to some extent with “editors” of the store, various articles about apps, and plenty of custom artwork too. I don’t know how they would pay for this thing or explain it to users but it seems it would still allow small players a chance while giving users better safety. Personally I think I would like a mix of a few of these. I like the idea of a higher tier in the store and I would be ok if it was expensive to get into (e.g. dev has to pay $1000 for the first review of an app) and had various stricter requirements (e.g. a different contract with apple requiring more notification when transferring app ownership or longer settlement times for user purchases, but also things like the app having good performance). I would also like it if Apple would try to find popular apps in the lower tier and help the good ones into the higher tier (maybe for free for a good viral game or with deferred payments out of (in-) app purchase income for paid apps) while removing the bad ones. And I think they could still improve their scam detection in the lower tier.

heavyset_go 6y ago
The solution is competition. If one App Store has terrible policies like Apple's or Google's, then I can just use another one. By being forced to compete, Apple will have to address consumer and developer needs or be left in the dust by their competition.

unityByFreedom 6y ago

I doubt Apple is "incentivized" to allow this as the poster claims. Clearly it makes them look awful. Apple is the only company who's been able to convince users to pay for client-side software. Android is mostly full of "free" ad-supported apps. Prior to smart phones, users generally could not be relied upon to buy software. Now, you need to break your banking apps if you want to side-load anything, and it's just easier to buy apps. This has greatly contributed to investment in software development IMO. I do want more freedom to develop on iOS and I also understand why they have limitations. It's because they don't want scam-apps to reach customers.

xwdv 6y ago

Is it just me or is it impossible to find the name of the actual app? What is it called?

busymom0 6y ago

As an iOS and MacOS Developer myself, this doesn’t surprise me but it still infuriates me. Over the years, I have realized that the app review is extremely inconsistent and also the rules are applied differently to different developers. While I have no proof of whether Apple is allowing this simply because it’s a high grossing app, I do know that Apple treats the big company apps like Facebook, Uber, Twitter and Reddit differently. The update logs are a perfect example. I have had updates rejected (rightfully) because my update logs were too vague and there’s a rule against vague useless update logs. But the same standard never applies to FB, Twitter etc. FB’s update logs are always vague and two lines of “We update the app often to fix bugs and improve features.” Even when they are using updates to lets say remove features or add features. People often try to excuse this by saying “big companies have too many A-B tests etc. But that makes it worse. A big company should be held to an even higher standard than the ordinary pleb developer like me. Another example is when Apple gave special privileges to Uber’s app: https://www.businessinsider.in/apple-gave-ubers-app-unprecedented-access-to-a-secret-backdoor-that-can-record-iphone-screens/articleshow/60963865.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/apple-gave-ubers-app-unpreced... It’s a BIG CLUB and you and I ain’t in it.

admax88q 6y ago

I thought I handed Apple my keys so I couldn't get scammed?

mch0lic1 6y ago

Every time something like this happens people seem to be shocked and surprised, but his happens day in day out with every single large entity (companies, government, criminal gangs) as long as they large enough and have enough power to get away with whatever they are doing. If Apple can make 1-2M/yr from a scam and lawyers tied all loose ends they will have no problem doing that. Worst case will push some press release statement blaming third party and that will be it.

victor106 6y ago

How accurate is Appfigures (or similar websites) in estimating the revenue of apps. What methods do they use to get that data?

boxed 6y ago

Search still doesn't work at all. If you search for any of my apps by their exact name the apps aren't the first hit. This is the absolute most basic thing. And they screw it up spectacularly. It's especially infuriating because app names must be unique. What's the point if the search is that broken?

vietvu 6y ago

I don't know how this happened. I was an iOS dev before. Their reviewing process is crazy. I got rejected for a line of text before.