Developer Highlights How Fake Apps Scam Users Via Apple's In-App Purchasing System

[Doctor Q]

Can't Apple automate checks for "the app's website is blank" and "the developer lists a fake email with a fake domain provider for its privacy contact"?

It won't solve the whole problem, but why not stop the detectable scammers without waiting for user complaints?

 

[Apple_Robert]

This is shameful. Someone at Apple isn't doing his or her job, when an app without valid credentials can pass submission.

 

[9927036]

This is shameful. Someone at Apple isn't doing his or her job, when an app without valid credentials can pass submission.

The whole privacy and security thing is theatre. People are only just starting to realize this.

 

[quietstormSD]

Looks like the app is no longer in the App Store lol

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Actually, it's the app store making the sale on behalf of the dev, and Apple is getting a cut for providing the management and hosting of the app; as it should.

I like your stance. If the App Store is making the sale than ..... Either its sells and than its liable, or it does not sell hence not profiting directly or indirectly.

One cannot have both ways. When there is a problem, oh it is just charging for their services as they should (management and hosting) and when there is none, than its selling. The fact is, that its not charging only for management and hosting.

 

[I7guy]

I like your stance. If the App Store is making the sale than ..... Either its sells and than its liable, or it does not sell hence not profiting directly or indirectly.

One cannot have both ways. When there is a problem, oh it is just charging for their services as they should (management and hosting) and when there is none, than its selling. The fact is, that its not charging only for management and hosting.

Well there is an agreement relative to apps. When a grocery store sells a product that gets people sick that they didn't manufacture and didn't know about, are the grocery stores liable. When a software company sells a digital product with a malware that causes an issue on users computers that they didn't know about, are the software companies liable.

Either way there is this.

Legal - Apple Media Services - Apple

Terms

www.apple.com

 

[Nuno Lopes]

When a grocery store sells a product that gets people sick that they didn't manufacture and didn't know about.

Yes. Restaurants and so on. Especially if it is a regular concern and the Grocery advertises as sickeness free goods.

 

[I7guy]

Yes. Restaurants and so on. Especially if it is a regular concern and the Grocery advertises as sickeness free goods.

It’s more like a sign on the window of a grocery store that reads:

GUARANTEED SAFE*

*By the government

 

[Nuno Lopes]

It’s more like a sign on the window of a grocery store that reads:

GUARANTEED SAFE*

*By the government

Well it just shows how the entire process is cynical in nature? Why? Because is not a Store really, given the revenue share model/policy, its a siphon.

 

[I7guy]

Well it just shows how the entire process is cynical in nature? Why? Because is not a Store really, given the revenue share model/policy, its a siphon.

Except that Apple makes it clear:

Legal - Apple Media Services - Apple

Terms

www.apple.com

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Except that Apple makes it clear:

Legal - Apple Media Services - Apple

Terms

www.apple.com

Yes its quite clear that Apple is technically the seller hence is partially liable as it should check their suppliers properly. Its not the seller on behalf of anyone as you have stated. Yet the rabbit hole goes deeper, now if the grocery store recurrently sells poisoned goods even if for free its even more liable.

There are ways for Apple to get out of this. They can instead offer a Cloud service for hosting and distributing apps and get payed for that. As it does it should also offer payment service and get a transaction fee at market prices. They would not be the seller in these circumstances, but a service provider. But they would need to give up the 30% revenue share because the would no longer be the seller of course and maybe allow alternate payment systems, along with Apple Pay.

And than maybe have more stringent policies on their digital service suppliers and in such scenarios than be the seller.

I see no reason why Facebook, for instance, is not paying Apple for the service of hosting and distributing their apps in iOS. No reason at all. While others share 30% of their revenue for the same service because they are technically the sellers. This is how stupid this all thing is!!!!!

Cheers.

 

[I7guy]

Yes its quite clear that Apple is technically the seller hence is partially liable as it should check their suppliers properly. Its not the seller on behalf of anyone as you have stated. Yet the rabbit hole goes deeper, now if the grocery store recurrently sells poisoned goods even if for free its even more liable.[...]

TBD I suppose. Somehow I find the notion that Apple left themselves exposed not tenable.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

TBD I suppose. Somehow I find the notion that Apple left themselves exposed not tenable.

Yes, TBD. I have the impression that they maybe if one actually looks deeper at this process.

The the notion of the “seller” is so blurred with in App Purchases that ones need to go and check the legal documents to understand who is who in the process. The “Apple Official“ basically appear at the end of the sales to collet, charge and pass the sale receipt, and allow the shop owner to deliver the goods. It's not the de actual seller is not able to make the final steps of the process but that its s forced to hand it off a third party, the one that becomes technically the seller. Such level of "blurriness" is common to siphon like business practices.

All this proceed without rising much eyebrows because of the elasticity of digital objects. If instead of digital objects we had analog, imagine the official appearing in the end of the sale going on in the the devs shop on a to a device that does not own ... The entire process is over artifacts that Apple is not the owner, case in case Dev Shop and the iPhone, supported by an OS that is supposed to be fully licenced already by both parties ... it would rise many eyebrows, at list a blink .

Digital materials are so elastic that need to be regulated. From Social Networks to the so called App Stores.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

Digital materials are so elastic that need to be regulated. From Social Networks to the so called App Stores.

1. Regulations are generally the antithesis of innovation.
2. Let’s use digital currency as a test bed and see how it goes.
3. The digital exchange is far broader than an App Store.
4. Regulations should fit under existing frameworks. (Ie after the fact don’t make apples App Store a monopoly via specific regulations)

 

[Nuno Lopes]

1. Regulations are generally the antithesis of innovation.
2. Let’s use digital currency as a test bed and see how it goes.
3. The digital exchange is far broader than an App Store.
4. Regulations should fit under existing frameworks. (Ie after the fact don’t make apples App Store a monopoly via specific regulations)

Well, if the market wasn’t regulated Apple would be long gone and probably Google would not exist either. Starting with raw communications. Without that regulation the Internet would not be possible and you would be connected to America Online or an MSN network powered by Microsoft Sattelittes, that was the path.

It should fit under existing framework indeed. Almost none of the existing none digital framework is being applied. Ownership is being redefined, replaced by obscure licensing terms were consumers grantees are next to none regarding digital assets. Let alone private and secure communications. The computing devices themselves are fundamentally worthless by themselves. The iPhone is no exception. It thrives empowered by digital services.

The fact is that digital devices are fundamentally utilities today. The era that was something out of ordinary was gone in the 90s. Yet even there there is tremendous innovation, as per Apple iOS centric revenue, App Store apart.

I don’t believe in regulation heavy market, but I also do not believe in no regulated markets as the engines of progress and prosperity.

 

[I7guy]

Well, if the market wasn’t regulated Apple would be long gone and probably Google would not exist either. Starting with raw communications.

It should fit under existing framework indeed. Almost none of the existing none digital framework is being applied. Ownership is being redefined, replaced by obscure licensing terms were consumers grantees are next to none regarding digital assets. The computing devices themselves are fundamentally worthless by themselves. The iPhone is no exception. It thrives empowered by digital services.

The fact is that digital devices are fundamentally utilities today. The era that was something out of ordinary was gone in the 90s. Yet even there there is tremendous innovation, as per Apple iOS centric revenue, App Store apart.

"Digital devices", not app stores per se are devices in common use. One could argue a basic flip phone is fundamental to existence today, not a smarphone. If you can't make a phone call, but your vendor has a great app store you might as well use a windows laptop with a lte/5g chip.

Whether or not the app store is declared a monopoly and what happens thereafter, remains to be seen. And who wins and what appeals are filed and whether this goes to SCOTUS, and what is Apple's liability if any, etc.

Basically you are arguing the existing frameworks are in place, Apple is regulated and now you want the app store to be declared a monopoly and thus subject to the Sherman act and broken apart.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Basically you are arguing the existing frameworks are in place, Apple is regulated and now you want the app store to be declared a monopoly and thus subject to the Sherman act and broken apart.

Nope. You know as I do that the software / digital service industry is mostly unregulated part from the devices. Entities can basically right whatever in their licensing that are in practice almost impossible to read by consumers give the rate these services are being used.

You argue that regulation undermines innovation. Yet just look at Apple and their devices to find how non true that is. They thrive way more on a regulated environment such as the devices they build than in a non regulated case in case App Store which is software ... so on and so forth. Their entire business is built on top of regulated products / devices.

So the idea that regulation in the software and digital services space somewhat would hurt Apple and innovation in general is totally absurd. It quite the contrary.

Today, App Stores are in common use as are smartphones. Your idea that smartphones are not utilities in todays day and age backward thinking, more so in advanced societies.

Its quite surprising that someone concerned with innovation is actually now arguing such a backward stance to than perpetuate a status quo. I know no one with a feature phone, but I do know a lot with smarphones using electricity, comms ... so on and so forth. Being an utility is does not mean cheap, it simply means that becomes a fundamental piece of the economy.

 

[I7guy]

Nope. You know as I do that the software / digital service industry is mostly unregulated part from the devices. Entities can basically right whatever in their licensing that are in practice almost impossible to read by consumers give the rate these services are being used.

You argue that regulation undermines innovation. Yet just look at Apple and their devices to find how non true that is. They thrive way more on a regulated environment such as the devices they build than in a non regulated case in case App Store which is software ... so on and so forth. Their entire business is built on top of regulated products / devices.

So the idea that regulation in the software and digital services space somewhat would hurt Apple and innovation in general is totally absurd. It quite the contrary.

Today, App Stores are in common use as are smartphones. Your idea that smartphones are not utilities in todays day and age backward thinking, more so in advanced societies.

Its quite surprising that someone concerned with innovation is actually now arguing such a backward stance to than perpetuate a status quo. I know no one with a feature phone, but I do know a lot with smarphones using electricity, comms ... so on and so forth. Being an utility is does not mean cheap, it simply means that becomes a fundamental piece of the economy.

I'm not clear there is an unregulated digital services industry; airline tickets, movie tickets, Broadway show tickets are all examples of digital services in existence today. Digital services regulation should (imo) amount to the same regulation as physical goods. And it's only my opinion, that more regulation impedes innovation.

Whether we want to define smartphones vs cell phones as being fundamental to the economy I guess is another judgement call.

 

[amartinez1660]

Apple should be held 100% accountable for this. They should be issuing full refunds. You want me to stay in your garden and force me to only use apps through YOUR store? Then you gotta pay up when you neglect security AND PROFIT FROM IT

For what is worth, I have never had any issues ever asking for a refund, even when it’s legitly my mistake... I bought a book I thought was the audio book and clicked on the paper one instead, or forgot to cancel a subscription. By the time I got charged I contested them each at their own time and got 100% refunded... I would even have accepted getting rejected because in these two instances it was totally my fault.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I'm not clear there is an unregulated digital services industry; airline tickets, movie tickets, Broadway show tickets are all examples of digital services in existence today. Digital services regulation should (imo) amount to the same regulation as physical goods. And it's only my opinion, that more regulation impedes innovation.

Whether we want to define smartphones vs cell phones as being fundamental to the economy I guess is another judgement call.

When the goods transactioned are digital is mostly not regulated. Tech companies can write whatever they want. The examples you gave the goods aren’t digital but analog. In fact, the examples you gave Apple does not impose a 30% revenue share. Say on analog books does not, yet already does on digital books even if the content is exactly the same, heck if it’s not created or distributed by them.

In an analog world you own a copy of book (not it’s content), in the digital space you license a copy of the book. You could make a copy of a game for safe keeping ... or sell your license now you cannot ... the tech industry unilaterally removed that.

The concept of ownership in digital space is being removed by the tech industry for the same price or more with cheaper production and distribution costs ... systematically. They figured that if they can’t 100% protect their ownship over content, there is always a slight chance of being hacked, much like the analogs, well they can simply remove all ownership but theirs. Customer own a license, a code, a piece of paper if you will.

The App Store is the next iteration of this, now they do it between themselves. You build an App but you are not allowed to sell in your App your digital goods if not through a third party. Today only within the confounds of Smartphones mainly, but if not stopped it will spread like wildfire soon.

I would say the regulation over access, distribution, production and sale of digital goods should be regulated depending on the nature of the service or good as close to analogs as possible.

For exactly the same service why does FB not pay a dime to the App Store yet say a Digital Book Store is forced to? I bet FB consumes far far more resources of the App Store than does a third party digital book store by several orders of magnitude. Apple states it’s about fair policy ... yet it theirs. Well their and everyone policies should be regulated regarding digital goods just like analog goods ... they aren’t. What they do in analog world is impossible due to regulation, either local or international.

The answer is simple. The game is not about the value of the App Store service to suppliers or customers. It’s about power. FB as more power over iOS users than does a little digital book store, so much so that it can hurt Apple iOS business it blocked by them. Apple does not like that so it’s lobbying against Facebook. They have access to usage statistics of any app in iOS.

Things get complicated when people loose their common sense. That is when regulation gets in. I believe that certain tech companies lost theirs somewhere with their success. This licensing scheme as been stretched to a point that is fundamentally legalize “stealing” wrapped up in licensing agreements, policies and distorted concepts of privacy and security.

Apple solution for Privacy and Security for both customers and supplier is to give up ownership of any digital good and the right to access data. It’s nonsensical. Because the moment you own nothing, or share ownership of something, you have no longer power. Without power, there no Security, and from that is extremely easy to loose Privacy entirely ... all you need is a shift in Policy. There is a reason why there is still no nation wide GDPR like policy ... a change of CEO or board. There is a reason why EU regulators are being under attack by people that think like you ... with a lot more to gain that you probably.

Today tech companies have more power than entire Govs and are totally “infiltrated” in the governamental aparathos. There is no democracy without the ability for people to own things, digital or otherwise.

 

[I7guy]

When the goods transactioned are digital is mostly not regulated. Tech companies can write whatever they want. The examples you gave the goods aren’t digital but analog. In fact, the examples you gave Apple does not impose a 30% revenue share. Say on analog books does not, yet already does on digital books even if the content is exactly the same, heck if it’s not created or distributed by them.

In an analog world you own a copy of book (not it’s content), in the digital space you license a copy of the book. You could make a copy of a game for safe keeping ... or sell your license now you cannot ... the tech industry unilaterally removed that.

The concept of ownership in digital space is being removed by the tech industry for the same price or more with cheaper production and distribution costs ... systematically. They figured that if they can’t 100% protect their ownship over content, there is always a slight chance of being hacked, much like the analogs, well they can simply remove all ownership but theirs. Customer own a license, a code, a piece of paper if you will.

The App Store is the next iteration of this, now they do it between themselves. You build an App but you are not allowed to sell in your App your digital goods if not through a third party. Today only within the confounds of Smartphones mainly, but if not stopped it will spread like wildfire soon.

I would say the regulation over access, distribution, production and sale of digital goods should be regulated depending on the nature of the service or good as close to analogs as possible.

For exactly the same service why does FB not pay a dime to the App Store yet say a Digital Book Store is forced to? I bet FB consumes far far more resources of the App Store than does a third party digital book store by several orders of magnitude. Apple states it’s about fair policy ... yet it theirs. Well their and everyone policies should be regulated regarding digital goods just like analog goods ... they aren’t. What they do in analog world is impossible due to regulation, either local or international.

The answer is simple. The game is not about the value of the App Store service to suppliers or customers. It’s about power. FB as more power over iOS users than does a little digital book store, so much so that it can hurt Apple iOS business it blocked by them. Apple does not like that so it’s lobbying against Facebook. They have access to usage statistics of any app in iOS.

Things get complicated when people loose their common sense. That is when regulation gets in. I believe that certain tech companies lost theirs somewhere with their success. This licensing scheme as been stretched to a point that is fundamentally legalize “stealing” wrapped up in licensing agreements, policies and distorted concepts of privacy and security.

Apple solution for Privacy and Security for both customers and supplier is to give up ownership of any digital good and the right to access data. It’s nonsensical. Because the moment you own nothing, or share ownership of something, you have no longer power. Without power, there no Security, and from that is extremely easy to loose Privacy entirely ... all you need is a shift in Policy. There is a reason why there is still no nation wide GDPR like policy ... a change of CEO or board. There is a reason why EU regulators are being under attack by people that think like you ... with a lot more to gain that you probably.

Today tech companies have more power than entire Govs and are totally “infiltrated” in the governamental aparathos. There is no democracy without the ability for people to own things, digital or otherwise.

I agree on some points disagree on others. What I agree with is the digital use of my data should be regulated. Facebook shouldn't be allowed to collect my information from anywhere that isn't authorized by me. That's where the power is.

I do not agree app stores should be regulated, the current system is actually working very well with competition in the market place overall with multiple app stores across different devices.

I agree that with creative works physical or digital we don't the works, we have a license to view the works and make a backup.

I think if we are going to start regulating than let's start with laws concerning our data. US desperately needs a GDPR policy, not a statewide makeshift patchwork policy. Let the tech companies battle this out and see where public policy is really needed. I'm really concerned because when the government steps in innovation takes a nosedive. (A good use case is the break-up of AT&T and what did that really accomplish? Cheap, reliable, fast cell phone service for all so many years later?)

The ironic thing is that app store regulation could put Epic out of business, because you are not suggesting only Apples' app stores get regulated? Are you?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I agree on some points disagree on others. What I agree with is the digital use of my data should be regulated. Facebook shouldn't be allowed to collect my information from anywhere that isn't authorized by me. That's where the power is.

I do not agree app stores should be regulated, the current system is actually working very well with competition in the market place overall with multiple app stores across different devices.

I agree that with creative works physical or digital we don't the works, we have a license to view the works and make a backup.

I think if we are going to start regulating than let's start with laws concerning our data. US desperately needs a GDPR policy, not a statewide makeshift patchwork policy. Let the tech companies battle this out and see where public policy is really needed. I'm really concerned because when the government steps in innovation takes a nosedive. (A good use case is the break-up of AT&T and what did that really accomplish? Cheap, reliable, fast cell phone service for all so many years later?)

The ironic thing is that app store regulation could put Epic out of business, because you are not suggesting only Apples' app stores get regulated? Are you? The

Of course I’m not suggesting only Apple App Store to be regulated. All App Stores that have a discretionary access power to devices.

Simply because, those through thei devices market share can basically siphon the entire market place in the back of their device customers. Literally, on their backs.

 

[I7guy]

Of course I’m not suggesting only Apple App Store to be regulated. All App Stores that have a discretionary access power to devices.

Simply because, those through thei devices market share can basically siphon the entire market place in the back of their device customers. Literally, on their backs.

The manufacturer of a device who built the respective app market, should have total control. Let the marketplace speak by voting with ones $$$. It’s no different than a physical storefront whose owners make the ultimate decisions, even to the extent of being able to kick people out for violating the rules.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The manufacturer of a device who built the respective app market, should have total control. Let the marketplace speak by voting with ones $$$. It’s no different than a physical storefront whose owners make the ultimate decisions, even to the extent of being able to kick people out for violating the rules.

No, Apple did not build the digital service market place. It build a App Store for iOS devices that the digital services need to use in order to reach their customers that have chosen an Apple device. Digital services follow their customers, not devices.

The market in general exists precisely because it wasn’t voted only through $$$ consumers money.

 

[I7guy]

The market in general exists precisely because it wasn’t voted only through $$$ consumers money. That was proven wrong through the American bailout history.

Conflating a few things with the bailouts. The reason the financial sector got fed money is not the same for Chrysler or GM. The banks were playing fast and loose with consumers money, the car companies were being mismanaged, while consumers were voting with their dollars due to the recession and Japanese imports.

A smartphone is just a convenience for access to information. The same could be accomplished with a hotspot and laptop. (of course some still need a laptop in the field).

There are many agenda items that government has done that is to be consumers benefit and some where the consumer is the loser. I see this type of tech regulation as a lose-lose for consumers.

Let's see how the government does with our PII. Rather than regulating Apple at the get-go, let the US get a coherent GDPR policy. (and while my opinion counts for naught in this universe, the government should let tech work things out and make sure consumers are not being steamrolled by corporations, in terms of safety and security, protecting FDIC assets, honest stockbrokers, etc)