3 ms·
It's not about a "good job" or a "bad job". It's a continuous game of cat and mouse. They're getting better at it just as some of the best funded bad actors are
by Schiendelman 3mo ago
It's not about a "good job" or a "bad job". It's a continuous game of cat and mouse. They're getting better at it just as some of the best funded bad actors are.
- benoau 3mo agoThey only have 500 reviewers for the whole App Store, and in fact, they were chastised by the judge in the Epic case for investing very little in the review process six years ago when they also only had 500 reviewers for the whole App Store. This isn't cat and mouse it's theater while they're shielded by section 230 immunity and pocketing enormous profits.
- Schiendelman 3mo agoI'm not sure why it matters that they have 500 reviewers, or had six years ago. Is this a "that number seems small" argument?
- benoau 3mo agoIt matters in the context of trusting their review process, and certainly "seems small" considering these 500 people oversee 2 million apps while scams and fraud have been prolific for years. I think if they didn't have immunity for all the scams and fraud - and that's being challenged by both the EU regulators and in US courts - they'd probably have a lot more than 500 people. Multiples of it.
- Schiendelman 3mo agoHow many exactly would they have and why? BTW, good recent comment on the difference between Apple and Google reviews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48911599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48911599