Apple Sued for Pulling Co-Viewing App Rave From the App Store

[surferfb]

So both Google and Microsoft labeled it malware, the wording is questionable though, but why did neither remove a "malware" app from their stores?

I would imagine because they allow sideloading it is still available for those platforms even if it was removed from their stores. (To be clear, I have no idea if it was removed or not, but if they did it would still be available.)

Apple's whole argument for its restrictions is "you don't have to think or worry about this sort of thing - we'll handle it for you and there's no way you or your kid will accidentally install malware." I know that upsets a lot of tech enthusiasts, but it's an incredibly attractive selling feature for a lot of consumers; and I suspect a significant part of the explanation for the "why do apps sell so much better on iOS vs. Android" question.

 

[DocMultimedia]

Lol, I was going to say something just like this, but ending with an /s

Retail stores cannot just do whatever they want; restaurants cannot make whatever rules they want; no service oriented businesses can make whatever rules they want

In this case, they can make sure their services don't impact anyone harmfully, but no, just because a business is yours, you can't do whatever you want with it

You mean retail stores can't stock the products they want to sell, and restaurants can't have a specific menu of things you can order?

When you run a business you can do what you want within the law. If laws change then the business might have to change.

 

[zarmanto]

... Rave alleges Apple targeted the service because Rave competed with SharePlay, and Apple wanted to corner the market on smartphone co-viewing. Rave claims that Apple also falsely labeled the Rave Mac app as malware, preventing Mac users from installing it. ...

Discussion on Reddit suggests that Rave had unmoderated public chatrooms, pornography, issues with scams, and CSAM material. The Rave app was also labeled as malware by Kaspersky, BitDefender, Windows, and Google...

These are all of the truly pertinent details of these cases, concisely offered right in the first few paragraphs. (Well done, Ms. Clover.)

Rave clearly has a weak case, since others have likewise cited them as a vector for malware and CSAM, and Apple dropped them because they want nothing at all to do with either of those things. That's no mystery at all; outside of responding to the lawsuits via their lawyers, that's really the end of the story as far as Apple is concerned.

The only thing here that works in Rave's favor is the general animus that a certain group of people have towards Apple, specifically with regards to their famed Walled Garden... and while that gives Rave their fifteen minutes of fame in the media spotlight, I highly doubt it's going to help them in any way at all in the court of law -- at least, in the US lawsuit.

Thus, I fully expect that the lawsuits were filed for no other reason than to obtain those fifteen minutes. This very article and the comments herein demonstrate that their objective has already been accomplished; a large swath of people who had never even heard of Rave before now are abruptly artificially enraged at Apple and correspondingly sympathetic with Rave, so their userbase will soon be goosed by some portion of those people logging into their service on either Windows or Android. Rave will (internally) declare success and move on.

There's really only one question on my mind: How did we get to a place where suing Apple in multiple international jurisdictions is somehow less expensive and more effective than just launching an ad campaign?

 

[turbineseaplane]

There's really only one question on my mind: How did we get to a place where suing Apple is less expensive and more effective than just launching an ad campaign?

Same way we got Apple stealing IP for Apple Watch vs licensing it.

 

[I7guy]

Well, no, they can't as they have the monopoly on final say for apps being installed.

Says which court of law in the US. Obviously not the same as yelling fire in a movie theater but revoking deceptive apps. Grab the popcorn.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Bro wants all tic tac toe apps to be labeled as malware just for his to dominate...

But in all seriousness, if it has the concerns on unmoderated chatrooms, porn, and scams, and the fact that both Google and Microsoft labeled it as malware too then it kind of makes sense as to why.
It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out, but the fact that it has malware that 2 other major companies also saw, Apple had a reason to take it down.

To be fair, I don't see any actual root cause for it to have been labeled malware.

In my about 30 seconds of looking into it, I don't see any actual allegation of specific malicious code or functionality.

Did it steal data, did it give remote access, did it try to send SMS, what?

People on reddit only get as specific as saying it tried to access pictures. Which for a sharing app seems plausible. All the other warnings are verbiage of the antivirus application itself making allegations.

Also, what kind of malware could it possibly have on iOS? The system just doesn't work that way. Abusive permissions, yes. Malware, not really. Nobody's gonna burn an iOS exploit like that.

I think it really was labeled malware for other reasons.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

ANother developer that didnt follow the rules.

 

[frenchcamp49er]

Yet they permit the X app.

You didnt add FB or IG

 

[yabeweb]

Apple can do what they want, it’s their stores, their rules…

Thankfully it's not like that.

 

[mike2q]

Apple can do what they want, it’s their stores, their rules…

This is exactly why it becomes an antitrust issue. This isn't the pre-2000s where a company could simply sell their software at another store across the street. This is a situation where one company has the power to completely cut off another company from literally half of their user base. Most people have only one phone and for many that's their only computing device as well. The app store is too big and too ubiquitous to allow it to continue unregulated. If Apple has the power to crush a developer at will then Apple has too much power for the modern world.

 

[robvalentine]

Normally I'd be on Rave's side, but if several thirds parties seem their app malware, then is is one of the very few times, that have been made public, that apple's removal of their app is appropriate.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Normally I'd be on Rave's side, but if several thirds parties seem their app malware, then is is one of the very few times, that have been made public, that apple's removal of their app is appropriate.

I’m not sure that’s how we want to be conducting this sort of policy.

Is the inverse true that if those other parties deem an app OK that Apple should also approve such an app?

 

[FaustsHausUK]

The wording on this sentence is confusing me a little:

Rave claims that it has now created "industry-leading" content moderation and age verification technologies, presumably to preempt Apple's content moderation criticism."

Did they create these before they got banned, or after? If they lacked significant content moderation and verification, too right they would be banned if other apps are. It's not like Apple's policies - however unevenly applied - are unknown at this point.

 

[surferfb]

I'm sure most haven't clicked in to read the links in the article, but here are some quotes:

• Recently, I was watching shows on streaming with some friends on Rave. However, during one of the episodes, my antivirus alerted me to an attempted access through Rave. According to the address associated with the access, it seemed to be targeting intimate photos on my computer—something I fortunately don’t have, and even if I did, it appears to have been blocked by my antivirus.
• The other day, around 3:25 AM, an inappropriate image downloaded to my gallery. I didn't know where it came from or why it was in my downloads. However, my girlfriend found out it came from Rave and downloaded at a time when I wasn't using my phone.
• Whenever i open task manager it always has multiple entries running at once and when i tried deleting it it didn't let me
• Whenever I use Rave with my mobile data, I always get a notification from my provider saying they blocked a suspicious access or something like that.
• Bitfender & McAfee both are repeatedly detecting it as a phising attempt and blocking it on the grounds of Rave trying to steal confidential credentials and personal data
• I got notification from play security, saying that "Rave" is a fake app, and trying to get control over the phone, or to steal data.
• I'm not surprised it's been a hacker on the app for the past couple of weeks they sit in every single room. All pull IPs. Rave is not secure at all especially on the PC version

We've got Windows, Google, Kapersky, McAfee, and Bitdefender also flagging the app as malware. This is not a case of Apple blocking a competing service. This is exactly what we want Apple to be doing - keeping its users safe.

If Apple left it on the store, I suspect a lot of the same people complaining about its removal would be pointing to it and saying "See, Apple lets known malware on the App Store (even Google pulled it!), so their claims that the restrictions on the App Store are about "protecting Apple users" are clearly false. It's just about money. Open them up!"

 

[nikon1]

Hmmm … sounds like the team @ Rave is reading from the OrangePresidents play book of trying to intimidate by threatening multi-billion “I’ll Sue You Back Into The Stone Age” As a kludge to get scare legitimate businesses!

 

[marte91]

Do you want a monopoly? Because that's how you end up with a monopoly, and no just because there is one other competitor (google) does not make it not a problem. Apple just needs to allow side loading. Then I am more OK with them doing whatever they please with the App Store.

Apple will do what they want, they own the store, you knew well before you agree to their terms, a seller provide a service, as a customer you don't like the apple store go to android, no seller has to sell what you want, you decide with your money, and yes they are other options(android) its not apple or google for that matter job to offer what you want how you want it. it will be nice if so, but let be honest that is not how corporations work.
What's next are you going to claim monopoly because an Xbox cannot connect to the PlayStation network? this whole conversation is stale already.

Look I'm not trying to single you out or anything, i agree on your sentiment in principle, but unfortunately is not going to happen the way you want it, on my humble opinion.

If I'm wrong and laws get changed due to this, i will apologize to you directly on a DM.

 

[marte91]

Maybe, but that's still legally contested in several battles; they can't just do whatever they want at this scale. And if someone pays $1,000+ for a device, and the manufacturer is the only gateway to software on it, they're not just running a store, they're controlling the owner's property, especially if that person already had an app installed. That's different from a normal retailer. A store can refuse to sell something, but they can't reach into your house and disable something you already bought. Apple kind of can, because sideloading isn't an option

Microsoft has changed windows 11, some functionality has been taken away, some new functionality that for the most part no one want(Pilot), is some one going to sue them you signed an agreement accepting that Microsoft can change the software as they see fit, same applies here to IOS and the app store, same for google and the android os and their respective store.

 

[ginkobiloba]

In this case, they can make sure their services don't impact anyone harmfully, but no, just because a business is yours, you can't do whatever you want with it

You cannot force a store to carry a product it doesn’t want to carry, especially if that product is considered harmful. Try forcing a health store to carry cigarettes for example…

 

[HVDynamo]

Apple will do what they want, they own the store, you knew well before you agree to their terms, a seller provide a service, as a customer you don't like the apple store go to android, no seller has to sell what you want, you decide with your money, and yes they are other options(android) its not apple or google for that matter job to offer what you want how you want it. it will be nice if so, but let be honest that is not how corporations work.
What's next are you going to claim monopoly because an Xbox cannot connect to the PlayStation network? this whole conversation is stale already.

Look I'm not trying to single you out or anything, i agree on your sentiment in principle, but unfortunately is not going to happen the way you want it, on my humble opinion.

If I'm wrong and laws get changed due to this, i will apologize to you directly on a DM.

You've completely missed the point of my post... When you only have one or two players you don't really have a choice anymore, especially when you need a phone to live in today's world. From the software side it's mostly Apple and Android and that's it. Sure there are some very small other players, but they really aren't competitive in the sense that matters. We already have a Duopoly essentially, and they should not have as tight of control over what we install on our devices as they have. The easy solution for Apple is to allow side loading.

Also, no, I'm not going to make that absurd comparison of Xbox not connecting to Playstation network... Have you heard of gaming PC's where I can install whatever I please? Sure, that market is narrowing too. But that's why we should be against that kind of market narrowing in any market.

 

[marte91]

You've completely missed the point of my post... When you only have one or two players you don't really have a choice anymore, especially when you need a phone to live in today's world. From the software side it's mostly Apple and Android and that's it. Sure there are some very small other players, but they really aren't competitive in the sense that matters. We already have a Duopoly essentially, and they should not have as tight of control over what we install on our devices as they have. The easy solution for Apple is to allow side loading.

Also, no, I'm not going to make that absurd comparison of Xbox not connecting to Playstation network... Have you heard of gaming PC's where I can install whatever I please? Sure, that market is narrowing too. But that's why we should be against that kind of market narrowing in any market.

I don't think i misunderstood you at all, Any company can create a new mobile ecosystem, is it easier, No, but is not impossible, for the most part it is very hard to change people habits, so a new mobile ecosystem will have almost no new users in the beginnings.

whatever you or i think, in the eyes of the laws (As written) people have another choice which is android, now you and many others might not like that other choice, but as long as the choice is available there is not a Monopoly, the laws at least in America don't care about Duopoly since by definition they are more than one.

and as far as considering a mobile phone indispensable, it is not, if its your only computing device maybe you could make a case for this, but as it stands not indispensable they are other choices for getting online.

That absurd comparison between consoles is the same, have you heard of PC's to get online and do some work, mobile devices are a modern time nicety, i can guarantee you will survive without one,

I'm not allowed any mobile devices at work.

I'm still alive and successful.

 

[HVDynamo]

I don't think i misunderstood you at all, Any company can create a new mobile ecosystem, is it easier, No, but is not impossible, for the most part it is very hard to change people habits, so a new mobile ecosystem will have almost no new users in the beginnings.

whatever you or i think, in the eyes of the laws (As written) people have another choice which is android, now you and many others might not like that other choice, but as long as the choice is available there is not a Monopoly, the laws at least in America don't care about Duopoly since by definition they are more than one.

and as far as considering a mobile phone indispensable, it is not, if its your only computing device maybe you could make a case for this, but as it stands not indispensable they are other choices for getting online.

That absurd comparison between consoles is the same, have you heard of PC's to get online and do some work, mobile devices are a modern time nicety, i can guarantee you will survive without one,

I'm not allowed any mobile devices at work.

I'm still alive and successful.

Not having your phone for a few hours during a workday is not the same as not having one at all. Have you tried finding a job without a phone? Who do they call to do the interview? How might you do 2-factor authentication that more and more places are requiring if they can't text or call you? Like it or not, owning a phone is essential to existing in the modern world. So again, your example doesn't fit my point. It's not smart to allow a small handful of companies to completely own necessary avenues for survival in the modern world. But I can see you are not going to agree no matter what I say, and I really don't feel like arguing this further.

 

[svish]

Lots of legal troubles for Apple these days. Don't think the app is safe to use especially when it is labeled as a malware by different entities. Waiting to see what will happen with this case.

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

"Rave has filed antitrust lawsuits in […] Russia"

I don't know about this company and its app, but the fact that they still operate in Russia and trust its "judiciary" system is telling.

 

[robvalentine]

I’m not sure that’s how we want to be conducting this sort of policy.

Is the inverse true that if those other parties deem an app OK that Apple should also approve such an app?

How so? If an app is malware, boot it. Does it have to be apple that discovers it's malware?

As for your second question, apple should approve it as it wouldn't be dangerous. the issue they have is that non apple users would be able to join in on a share play like experience. And apple want a monopoly on their services so try and lock people in.

 

[hagar]

I mean of course you cannot sell anything you want like you cannot sell drugs or guns in some places… but as the owner of the store, normally you can remove an item without any problem…

True. Unless your store is the only one in town and everybody has to shop at your place. And merchants are not allowed to open other stores on the Main Street. That's why Apple is in hot water. They own both the street and the only store.

(not saying Rave has a point here, I don't know anything about that app)