App Store Stopped 1.6 Million 'Risky' and 'Untrustworthy' Apps From Defrauding Users, Says Apple

[macduke]

Easy. Have a toggle in settings to turn off these protections. You have to input your device passcode to continue as a second confirmation. Have a scary warning message saying that the device will be out of warranty and that the user is now responsible for any fraudulent activity that happens on their device. Then everything just unlocks.

By default, everyone will be protected. The 1% of people who actually care about this will be able to turn off all of the system protections. Everyone will be happy. And give parental controls to block kids from being able to do this, because I won't let my kids do this and I won't recommend it to any of my family or friends.

It's fun to jailbreak old devices. I've done this before. I might try this again on an old device that doesn't have access to my personal info. But as a technical user who understands the security implications, I would never do this on my daily driver. That's just stupid.

 

[CarlJ]

Preach it brother! Searching for apps on the App Store is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I hardly ever search on the App Store itself - I follow a link into the App Store from the developer's website, or from a review I trust, after deciding I'm more than a little interested in their app.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I hardly ever search on the App Store itself - I follow a link into the App Store from the developer's website, or from a review I trust, after deciding I'm more than a little interested in their app.

You and I bet the vast majority. My boy today asked me to buy a game that saw on some YouTube channel. Have no other place to buy it from than the App Store for his device … not even the developer website … all leads lead to them … bling bling bling …

 

[dk001]

I think the first question is, is the claim verifiable? Who else besides Apple has access to this data?

But if these numbers are real, then it reasonably proves that Apple is serious about screening illegitimate apps. Of course I’m sure the number of illegitimate apps trying to get into the App Store is astronomical, so it’s a given that there will be many that sneak by. So vetting must continually get better. No question about that.
Of course it is bad that a banned app from the Google Play Store gets into the App Store, but to then conclude that the App Store is “the graveyard of banned Android apps” from that alone is a leap. For instance, are we sure there are no banned apps from the App Store that are currently in the Google Play store?

That is the biggest issue; what is the truth?
If Apple is catching, correctly catching 90%+ - yes!!! That however is doubtful. People overlook it isn't just catching the bad ones but making sure you don't catch a good one and call it bad. Arguing a false claim with Apple is frustrating.

Your last question .. no clue. In all honesty I never looked for that in either store. I mostly now Google what I am looking for and link from there.

 

[user002]

Easy. Have a toggle in settings to turn off these protections. You have to input your device passcode to continue as a second confirmation. Have a scary warning message saying that the device will be out of warranty and that the user is now responsible for any fraudulent activity that happens on their device. Then everything just unlocks.

By default, everyone will be protected. The 1% of people who actually care about this will be able to turn off all of the system protections.

Took the words out of my mouth. Not sure why its an overly difficult concept for others to grasp.

 

[smetvid]

Out of how many submissions though? Also, couldn’t another third party also moderate?

Yeah they could but they likely will not. The issue is there is no guarantee they will moderate. There will no longer be a standard in place and consumers will not know which 3rd party store is safer without a ton of research.

 

[dk001]

Easy. Have a toggle in settings to turn off these protections. You have to input your device passcode to continue as a second confirmation. Have a scary warning message saying that the device will be out of warranty and that the user is now responsible for any fraudulent activity that happens on their device. Then everything just unlocks.

By default, everyone will be protected. The 1% of people who actually care about this will be able to turn off all of the system protections. Everyone will be happy. And give parental controls to block kids from being able to do this, because I won't let my kids do this and I won't recommend it to any of my family or friends.

It's fun to jailbreak old devices. I've done this before. I might try this again on an old device that doesn't have access to my personal info. But as a technical user who understands the security implications, I would never do this on my daily driver. That's just stupid.

Think about it....
If Apple is required to allow sideloading, does making it difficult mean that Apple is deliberately putting roadblocks to competition in place? That is one of the questions that has come up around Googles sideloading process. Depending on the OEM it can vary by a lot in complexity and/or frustration.

Would Apple be allowed to do this?
Will Google be allowed going forward?

 

[smetvid]

All these big numbers, not saying they are false, only Apple knows. More like a marketing slide for Apple to justify staying locked up.

Most consumers feel Apple is justified because its well known its harder to run into issues on iOS. Its the much lower risk factor that consumers like and not just marketing numbers from Apple. Its the fact that consumers do face less issues and more or less feel iOS is the most secure computing platform out there.

 

[I7guy]

Took the words out of my mouth. Not sure why its an overly difficult concept for others to grasp.

Because some have the opinion it’s a downward spiral for the entire ecosystem. Race to the bottom. I don’t understand why this is an overly difficult concept for some to grasp.

 

[Abazigal]

Took the words out of my mouth. Not sure why its an overly difficult concept for others to grasp.

I really see no point in expecting Apple to introduce vulnerabilities into their OS (where none existed before) and expend resources into monitoring and managing this issue, just to address an overwhelmingly niche request.

Whether I am affected by it is one issue. It just feels like a pointless distraction and waste of resources just so people can have their emulators and pirated apps.

 

[mygoldens]

Thank You Apple! I knew there was no need for a paid antivirus on Apple hardware!

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Those are insane numbers…

Insane that anyone would believe Apple's thinly veiled marketing cr*p.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Preach it brother! Searching for apps on the App Store is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Yep, I simply don't even bother wasting my time anymore. Word of mouth is the only way I am ever downloading an app.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Those are some impressive numbers posted by Apple. I believe for all these risky and untrustworthy apps, there should be some serious consequences.

Assuming those numbers aren't completely fabricated marketing rubbish, designed entirely as propaganda to claim the moral high ground in the fight against anti-trust cases.

Call me a cynic, but I don't believe a single word of it.

 

[user002]

I really see no point in expecting Apple to introduce vulnerabilities into their OS (where none existed before) and expend resources into monitoring and managing this issue, just to address an overwhelmingly niche request.

"Overwhelmingly niche request", like legislation being drafted in the United States, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. compelling Apple to permit sideloading?

Doesnt sound that niche to me.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

It's not a "perhaps." People take for granted and are unaware what Apple does behind the scenes.

This has been known for a long time to people willing to do a little digging on their own.

macOS.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

How to stop a third party being corrupted?

Easy, competition will kill those stores.

 

[macfacts]

Easy. Have a toggle in settings to turn off these protections. You have to input your device passcode to continue as a second confirmation. Have a scary warning message saying that the device will be out of warranty and that the user is now responsible for any fraudulent activity that happens on their device. Then everything just unlocks.

The middle row in the graphic only affect apple, not end users, so having a toggle on the end users device is not going to do anything.

 

[citysnaps]

macOS.

Spot on.

 

[bousozoku]

I trust apps I download from the App Store way more than I did the Google Play Store when I was on Android. Maybe it’s improved since a couple years ago, but doesn’t matter the App Store has won me over.

I see fewer of the copycat apps in both stores than I did way back when they started. Hopefully, they always get the bad ones. Neither company checks as are as reliable as they should be.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Because some have the opinion it’s a downward spiral for the entire ecosystem. Race to the bottom. I don’t understand why this is an overly difficult concept for some to grasp.

Because anything known point otherwise. Take macOS ecossystem as an example.

It’s all about the money flowing to and through Apple … nothing else to see. It’s security threat to many properties.

 

[Abazigal]

"Overwhelmingly niche request", like legislation being drafted in the United States, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. compelling Apple to permit sideloading?

Doesnt sound that niche to me.

Then I suppose I will just have to settle for the next best thing - watching Apple implement said feature in a manner that technically meets the letter of the law, while making the process as cumbersome and onerous for users, and positioning themselves to lose as little as possible in the process.

Because if it’s one thing Apple values even more than money, it’s control.

 

[cosmolv]

Thanks! There are so mutch junk in App store.

 

[FyrStrike]

Goes to show how many cheap, nasty dodgy, bastards live in this world.

Thank you for protecting us Apple.

 

[jakey rolling]

Credit card companies can only do so much.

And they do do so much. Apple's claim to have "prevented fraud" is pretty dubious here - the heavy lifting is being done by the credit card companies. It is doubtful that Apple have really done much more than simply accepting the credit card companies' chargeback on behalf of the developers.

Visa and Mastercard now require merchants to have chip readers, if a merchant only has a swipe machine, then that merchant becomes responsible for any fraudulent charges.

Are there still retailers using "swipe" machines in the US? I haven't encountered one still in use anywhere in Canada in at least five years (probably closer to ten). It's all chip-and-pin or tap here.

I think this was Apple's way of saying they take responsibility for fraudulent charges, and third party App Store might not do this.

Apple doesn't take responsibility. They pass the chargeback on to the developer. As does every other app store in existence today.