4 ms·

3.99 a week charged monthly. For a simple "collage maker". Fake reviews. Immediately asks for a 5-star review when you open the app. And a simple utility that

3.99 a week charged monthly. For a simple "collage maker". Fake reviews. Immediately asks for a 5-star review when you open the app. And a simple utility that concatenates videos for $20/month? Apps like this are why I approve of Apple's app store moderation, even if they do occasionally make mistakes. This was not one of them. These apps were predatory. Immediately opening a second account when the first one was banned, before they had appealed, is also extremely suspicious behavior.

toxik 2y ago
Total sob story. Why is this even on here?
etchalon 2y ago
If I reviewed this decision, based on everything presented, I'd probably deny the appeal too.
- duxup 2y ago
  Agreed, the only indication that they're not the same developers that Apple seems to think they are is that they say so. They even used the same name, clearly at one point were associated with each other.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> And a simple utility that concatenates videos for $20/month? Maybe it does more than that? Why would anybody voluntarily pay a subscription for something that isn't worth the money? > Immediately opening a second account when the first one was banned, before they had appealed, is also extremely suspicious behavior. That is the most human behavior imaginable. Something bad happens to you, it's now an emergency, so you try every avenue to address it simultaneously.
- duxup 2y ago
  Of course people pay for things that aren't worth the money?
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    They're voluntarily paying for it. They know what they're receiving for the money. No one is forcing them. That's the definition of it being worth the money to them.
    - duxup 2y ago
      I feel like your response here and even your second point in the previous post indicate you're missing some basic steps / concepts that most people would understand about this situation? I don't know how else to say it other than that.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        Scams are rarely recurring subscriptions. The general operation of a scam is that you take someone's money and then you're gone by the time they realize they're left holding the bag. Once they have the app, they'll know what it's good for, and then how are you going to stop them from canceling the subscription if it isn't any good?
- dan-0 2y ago
  > That is the most human behavior imaginable. Something bad happens to you, it's now an emergency, so you try every avenue to address it simultaneously. I don't know the Apple ecosystem much, but on Android, it's very well known that this is a quick way to get completely banned from the Play Store. I would imagine it's the same.on iOS. I don't like that this is the way it's handled, but don't disagree with it either or it'd be a fast path to bypassing quality and compliance checks in the app stores. Even if Apple was to globally allow 3rd party app stores, 3rd party stores would hit this problem at scale eventually.
  - duxup 2y ago
    That worries me about 3rd party app stores. I'm not opposed to them, but it feels like there is just a wave of scam type activity waiting to be unleashed on them...
    - dan-0 2y ago
      This is exactly what Google has been trying to clean up. The Play Store is much cleaner and safer now than it was 10 years ago. Unfortunately small companies and independent devs take the brunt of the downside as their ability to get timely support is almost non existent. Big companies often have a Google rep they can reach back to.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > I don't know the Apple ecosystem much, but on Android, it's very well known that this is a quick way to get completely banned from the Play Store. You're describing the behavior of the store rather than the expected behavior of the developers. Of course a developer is going to try to create a new account, you just broke their existing account for unexplained reasons and this is their primary source of income. They have to fix it right away or their business is destroyed, and it's just as well known that appeals are often capriciously denied without recourse. So how is it suspicious behavior? It's the same thing you'd expect someone to do even if they're naive and innocent. > I don't like that this is the way it's handled, but don't disagree with it either or it'd be a fast path to bypassing quality and compliance checks in the app stores. In order for this to be reasonable you'd need the appeals process to be both swift and accurate, and yet it isn't. It also goes without saying that any actual scams are just going to do it anyway, and make up new company names etc. as necessary, so it seems like all they're doing here is punishing innocent people who try to open a new account using the same information, because unlike the scammers they're actually using a consistent identity.

toxik 2y ago

Total sob story. Why is this even on here?

etchalon 2y ago

If I reviewed this decision, based on everything presented, I'd probably deny the appeal too.

duxup 2y ago
Agreed, the only indication that they're not the same developers that Apple seems to think they are is that they say so. They even used the same name, clearly at one point were associated with each other.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> And a simple utility that concatenates videos for $20/month? Maybe it does more than that? Why would anybody voluntarily pay a subscription for something that isn't worth the money? > Immediately opening a second account when the first one was banned, before they had appealed, is also extremely suspicious behavior. That is the most human behavior imaginable. Something bad happens to you, it's now an emergency, so you try every avenue to address it simultaneously.

duxup 2y ago
Of course people pay for things that aren't worth the money?
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  They're voluntarily paying for it. They know what they're receiving for the money. No one is forcing them. That's the definition of it being worth the money to them.
  - duxup 2y ago
    I feel like your response here and even your second point in the previous post indicate you're missing some basic steps / concepts that most people would understand about this situation? I don't know how else to say it other than that.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      Scams are rarely recurring subscriptions. The general operation of a scam is that you take someone's money and then you're gone by the time they realize they're left holding the bag. Once they have the app, they'll know what it's good for, and then how are you going to stop them from canceling the subscription if it isn't any good?
dan-0 2y ago
> That is the most human behavior imaginable. Something bad happens to you, it's now an emergency, so you try every avenue to address it simultaneously. I don't know the Apple ecosystem much, but on Android, it's very well known that this is a quick way to get completely banned from the Play Store. I would imagine it's the same.on iOS. I don't like that this is the way it's handled, but don't disagree with it either or it'd be a fast path to bypassing quality and compliance checks in the app stores. Even if Apple was to globally allow 3rd party app stores, 3rd party stores would hit this problem at scale eventually.
- duxup 2y ago
  That worries me about 3rd party app stores. I'm not opposed to them, but it feels like there is just a wave of scam type activity waiting to be unleashed on them...
  - dan-0 2y ago
    This is exactly what Google has been trying to clean up. The Play Store is much cleaner and safer now than it was 10 years ago. Unfortunately small companies and independent devs take the brunt of the downside as their ability to get timely support is almost non existent. Big companies often have a Google rep they can reach back to.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > I don't know the Apple ecosystem much, but on Android, it's very well known that this is a quick way to get completely banned from the Play Store. You're describing the behavior of the store rather than the expected behavior of the developers. Of course a developer is going to try to create a new account, you just broke their existing account for unexplained reasons and this is their primary source of income. They have to fix it right away or their business is destroyed, and it's just as well known that appeals are often capriciously denied without recourse. So how is it suspicious behavior? It's the same thing you'd expect someone to do even if they're naive and innocent. > I don't like that this is the way it's handled, but don't disagree with it either or it'd be a fast path to bypassing quality and compliance checks in the app stores. In order for this to be reasonable you'd need the appeals process to be both swift and accurate, and yet it isn't. It also goes without saying that any actual scams are just going to do it anyway, and make up new company names etc. as necessary, so it seems like all they're doing here is punishing innocent people who try to open a new account using the same information, because unlike the scammers they're actually using a consistent identity.