7 ms·

I agree, I think they should help him, but I also think it would open a whole can of worms. The fact is, no matter how much time/energy/effort they spend, they

I agree, I think they should help him, but I also think it would open a whole can of worms. The fact is, no matter how much time/energy/effort they spend, they will never eliminate all scams, scams would just become more and more sophisticated. This doesn't mean, they should just give up, but having been through the review process, they are already doing quite a bit. So that would mean, they will make it much harder for apps to get approved in the store (and it's already a very painful process), so you'd only end up with apps from large developers which is not ideal. We are seeing a similar dynamic with Youtube which has become rather "ban-happy" as in they don't want to take risks, so would rather ban content than try to reduce false positives, because at a certain scale, you just can't identify content with good precision/recall.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> I also think it would open a whole can of worms Absolutely. Apple should be afraid of holding the gatekeeper position. Anyone should. When people can install and use whatever they want, safety becomes their responsibility. They should open up their platform and let people do their own due dilligence. If they assume that responsibility and then neglect it, they absolutely can and should be blamed for any problems.
- nwienert 5y ago
  Yes and likewise, car manufacturers should remove seatbelts and airbags. They simply encourage reckless driving, and by giving the false sense of security / assuming the gatekeeper role, they should be liable for any accident.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Weird, I can flash whatever code I want to on my car's ECU. There's even an entire subculture dedicated to modding ECU firmware.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - CharlesW 5y ago
      Flashing your car's ECU is illegal. Or more specifically, federal and state laws make it illegal to operate an automobile on the open road or highway after you've altered a vehicle's emission control devices (which includes the ECU). In contrast, it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      You absolutely cannot, unless you have an open ECU to begin with. Typically this is only sporty type cheap cars (evo, wrx). But even if you were to take on such and endeavor the difficulty of such a task and the knowledge requirement will scare off the unexperienced
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    The Apple review process is not in any way equivalent or even similar to seat belts and airbags. Not even the government can be fully blamed for bad drivers since people don't actually need a driver's license in order to drive.
    - nwienert 5y ago
      Punishing companies for adding protections to their products is an insanely backwards incentive. May as well turn off sandboxing, and lock screens. If they ever break, it’d be a liability!
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        Nah. If you're gonna set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of what I can run on my device, you are absolutely to blame for any harm that comes as a result. Protections? Encryption is protection. Address space randomization is protection. This Apple review process? This is just humans failing to do what's expected of them. Also known as negligence.
        tekknik 5y ago
        there’s a lot of faulting apple here, when you point out it’s a “humans failing”. Does this mean you understand the process completely and you can do better?
        atatatat 5y ago
        Probably not, which is why he hasn't placed himself in the position of "arbiter of what's right and wrong on phones", the way Apple has with their App Store.
        tekknik 5y ago
        so then what’s the argument here, if not perfect, remove?
  - draugadrotten 5y ago
    Car manufacturers are going to face the liability issues when they try to sell "self driving" cars. Volvo has for example ack'ed this in public years ago. https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9470551/volvo-self-driving-car-liability https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9470551/volvo-self-drivin...
  - drusepth 5y ago
    The big difference between "Apple's app review process" and "seatbelts and airbags" is that car companies acknowledge the latter are fallible. It's not about adding layers of protection or not; it's about being transparent with your customers about how effective those layers actually are.
    - nwienert 5y ago
      I don’t think any one of my less technical friends has any belief that the App Store is infallible or even mostly secure. Apple doesn’t advertise it much, and if they did I’d be happy to call that a mistake.
      - saagarjha 5y ago
        Just read their copy for the App Store: https://www.apple.com/app-store/ https://www.apple.com/app-store/ > Because we offer nearly two million apps — and we want you to feel good about using every single one of them. > Apps must adhere to our guidelines. > You should never have to worry about inappropriate content. > Every day, moderators review worldwide App Store charts for quality and accuracy. All of these are far stronger claims than I would be comfortable making about the current state of the store.
        nwienert 5y ago
        Disagree, they seem very reasonable. But also no one is reading those terms really, they aren’t being pushed in ads or shown at the store.
        meowster 5y ago
        Do you have any ties to Apple? That is the most ridiculous implication. 'We did not expect anyone to read the terms of the product, so we shouldn't have to deliver on what we promised.' That is not resonable. Apple is using weezle-words like "should" which gives them wiggle room, but I guess it will be up to a court to decide.
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  If Apple gave up the gatekeeping position, I would be afraid to use my phone for the things I do today.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    You should already be afraid now.
  - rawtxapp 5y ago
    The point is, you should be afraid today too (or better word, more careful). What you have right now is a false sense of security.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Why aren't you afraid today? Their gatekeeping is clearly useless.
    - CharlesW 5y ago
      > Why aren't you afraid today? Their gatekeeping is clearly useless. You're not perfect at anything you do. Does that make you useless? Of course not.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        That's why I don't gatekeep anyone.
        tekknik 5y ago
        So if we followed this logic, and reversed everything that wasn’t 100% perfect, so you realize how far back in human history we’d be propelling ourselves? There is not a single gov program, law, corp, anything on this planet that is perfect, except maybe the planet itself.
      - a1369209993 5y ago
        > You're not perfect at anything you do. Does that make you useless? As a gatekeeper? Yes, yes it does; hence why there shouldn't be any gatekeepers.
lozenge 5y ago
> they are already doing quite a bit. They must be focusing on the wrong things then. Certain categories are filled with scam apps at the top ranks, including scam subscriptions.
jay_kyburz 5y ago
I think what Apple _could_ do is insure that there is a real person that can be held accountable by law enforcement in the users jurisdiction. That way a user has some legal recourse in the event they are wronged. Nobody wants Apple to be judge and jury, we have judges and juries for that, but it would be nice if they could tell us who to go after when we have to. If they can't do that, I don't think its unreasonable for us to ask Apple to be responsible any losses, then let Apple seek compensation for their losses from the app publisher.
atatatat 5y ago
Censorship is also easier when you have an AI to blame the "mistake" on.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> I also think it would open a whole can of worms Absolutely. Apple should be afraid of holding the gatekeeper position. Anyone should. When people can install and use whatever they want, safety becomes their responsibility. They should open up their platform and let people do their own due dilligence. If they assume that responsibility and then neglect it, they absolutely can and should be blamed for any problems.

nwienert 5y ago
Yes and likewise, car manufacturers should remove seatbelts and airbags. They simply encourage reckless driving, and by giving the false sense of security / assuming the gatekeeper role, they should be liable for any accident.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Weird, I can flash whatever code I want to on my car's ECU. There's even an entire subculture dedicated to modding ECU firmware.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - CharlesW 5y ago
    Flashing your car's ECU is illegal. Or more specifically, federal and state laws make it illegal to operate an automobile on the open road or highway after you've altered a vehicle's emission control devices (which includes the ECU). In contrast, it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    You absolutely cannot, unless you have an open ECU to begin with. Typically this is only sporty type cheap cars (evo, wrx). But even if you were to take on such and endeavor the difficulty of such a task and the knowledge requirement will scare off the unexperienced
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  The Apple review process is not in any way equivalent or even similar to seat belts and airbags. Not even the government can be fully blamed for bad drivers since people don't actually need a driver's license in order to drive.
  - nwienert 5y ago
    Punishing companies for adding protections to their products is an insanely backwards incentive. May as well turn off sandboxing, and lock screens. If they ever break, it’d be a liability!
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      Nah. If you're gonna set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of what I can run on my device, you are absolutely to blame for any harm that comes as a result. Protections? Encryption is protection. Address space randomization is protection. This Apple review process? This is just humans failing to do what's expected of them. Also known as negligence.
      - tekknik 5y ago
        there’s a lot of faulting apple here, when you point out it’s a “humans failing”. Does this mean you understand the process completely and you can do better?
        atatatat 5y ago
        Probably not, which is why he hasn't placed himself in the position of "arbiter of what's right and wrong on phones", the way Apple has with their App Store.
        tekknik 5y ago
        so then what’s the argument here, if not perfect, remove?
- draugadrotten 5y ago
  Car manufacturers are going to face the liability issues when they try to sell "self driving" cars. Volvo has for example ack'ed this in public years ago. https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9470551/volvo-self-driving-car-liability https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9470551/volvo-self-drivin...
- drusepth 5y ago
  The big difference between "Apple's app review process" and "seatbelts and airbags" is that car companies acknowledge the latter are fallible. It's not about adding layers of protection or not; it's about being transparent with your customers about how effective those layers actually are.
  - nwienert 5y ago
    I don’t think any one of my less technical friends has any belief that the App Store is infallible or even mostly secure. Apple doesn’t advertise it much, and if they did I’d be happy to call that a mistake.
    - saagarjha 5y ago
      Just read their copy for the App Store: https://www.apple.com/app-store/ https://www.apple.com/app-store/ > Because we offer nearly two million apps — and we want you to feel good about using every single one of them. > Apps must adhere to our guidelines. > You should never have to worry about inappropriate content. > Every day, moderators review worldwide App Store charts for quality and accuracy. All of these are far stronger claims than I would be comfortable making about the current state of the store.
      - nwienert 5y ago
        Disagree, they seem very reasonable. But also no one is reading those terms really, they aren’t being pushed in ads or shown at the store.
        meowster 5y ago
        Do you have any ties to Apple? That is the most ridiculous implication. 'We did not expect anyone to read the terms of the product, so we shouldn't have to deliver on what we promised.' That is not resonable. Apple is using weezle-words like "should" which gives them wiggle room, but I guess it will be up to a court to decide.
enos_feedler 5y ago
If Apple gave up the gatekeeping position, I would be afraid to use my phone for the things I do today.
- fsflover 5y ago
  You should already be afraid now.
- rawtxapp 5y ago
  The point is, you should be afraid today too (or better word, more careful). What you have right now is a false sense of security.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Why aren't you afraid today? Their gatekeeping is clearly useless.
  - CharlesW 5y ago
    > Why aren't you afraid today? Their gatekeeping is clearly useless. You're not perfect at anything you do. Does that make you useless? Of course not.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      That's why I don't gatekeep anyone.
      - tekknik 5y ago
        So if we followed this logic, and reversed everything that wasn’t 100% perfect, so you realize how far back in human history we’d be propelling ourselves? There is not a single gov program, law, corp, anything on this planet that is perfect, except maybe the planet itself.
    - a1369209993 5y ago
      > You're not perfect at anything you do. Does that make you useless? As a gatekeeper? Yes, yes it does; hence why there shouldn't be any gatekeepers.

lozenge 5y ago

> they are already doing quite a bit. They must be focusing on the wrong things then. Certain categories are filled with scam apps at the top ranks, including scam subscriptions.

jay_kyburz 5y ago

I think what Apple _could_ do is insure that there is a real person that can be held accountable by law enforcement in the users jurisdiction. That way a user has some legal recourse in the event they are wronged. Nobody wants Apple to be judge and jury, we have judges and juries for that, but it would be nice if they could tell us who to go after when we have to. If they can't do that, I don't think its unreasonable for us to ask Apple to be responsible any losses, then let Apple seek compensation for their losses from the app publisher.

atatatat 5y ago

Censorship is also easier when you have an AI to blame the "mistake" on.