Developers Complain as App Store Feature Promotes Rip-Off Apps

[Ethosik]

The point is, I think, Apple’s solution isn’t actually a solution and their claims aren’t borne out by reality.

Police can’t stop crime 100%, but that is their job.

I have said it before, to get the true walled garden with no scam/bad apps, App reviews would need to take weeks or months. Even updates. Apple would need to scan the code, test for weeks/months. But this is not possible. Apple can say their approach is making the device secure, because without it we would have ten times the bad apps.

 

[1129846]

Who the hell would subscribe to a mobile game for 700$US a year? That is crazy

They do stupid wording or try to sucker you into it hoping that they sign up then do not notice the 13 a week drain. By the time they do get noticed they collected a pretty penny. Ethics be damned.

 

[1129846]

I know that a number of the apps that have behaved this way: Fortnight was one such game, it made it through the review and then on a set date, it started running code that was against the rules. Probably what’s been happening here - seeing as Apple doesn’t see the code. So the App only has to make in through the review processes and then bam hidden actions can take place.
Personally, any app that does this should get a perma ban!!!

That perma ban is a pretty dangerous card for apple to play. Yes scam app need the banning but a lot of apps have thing in them that are turned on remotely after the fact. It not always there to get around the rules but because backend part is not ready or it is a feature with markting behind it but we need the app more out in the wild to turn it on. That is all allowed by Apple.
Apple also going to require the app to run on production code and a production backend so it is not like we could point it to a dev environment.
There are lots of shades of grey here. There are a lot of legitmate business cases for when the app is review by Apple things are not turned on. Plus Apple reviewers I am going to be honest is nothing more than someone random person poking around on the the app looking it over. Most of them have no clue how the app honestly work or may even understand the industry it is targeted for. Some times those industries have a lot of complicated things in them that need to be done or you design a UX to encourage them not to use some of XYZ feature so making it harder to get it is the point but it needs to be in there for some random customer who demands it and pays a lot of money.

 

[Surfer13134]

Who the hell would subscribe to a mobile game for 700$US a year? That is crazy

These slimball devs use it as a trap mostly targeted to kids, look how many times kids have made in-app purchases without the parents knowing. The app will either just pop up and hoping the person just hits the purchase button or it puts it behind some sort of pay wall hoping someone not paying attention and hits the purchase button.

 

[cmaier]

The point is, I think, Apple’s solution isn’t actually a solution and their claims aren’t borne out by reality.

That's silly. We know what the app store would look like if Apple wasn't applying its solution - it would look like Google's cesspool of a store. Just because Apple sometimes makes mistakes or misses things doesn't mean there isn't value in what Apple is doing.

 

[Surfer13134]

Look at the iPad app store and the top paid apps, there is a handful of these games that are all the same thing but they just use a different name for the game. All the reviews seem to be fake and offer predatory in-app purchases mainly a weekly subscription. These games have been on the top chart for months now. This is the crap that Apple should of caught and remove.

 

[_Spinn_]

This whole thing add becoming annoying already.

Yeah no kidding and with this kind of stuff going on it makes Apple look bad.

 

[tf_dc]

Apple will happily ban emulators and virtual machines, because they are "insecure", i.e. allow users to circumvent their extortionist "store", at the same time promoting expensive apps that do nothing useful, because they care about their users, their privacy and security, you know. And of course review procedures in the store are very rigorous. Damned shameless clowns (my apologies to real clowns).

 

[Eso]

We reject expensive apps that try to cheat users with irrationally high prices.

So, does collecting 30% of in-app purchases of game content like skins in iOS games count as irrationally high?

 

[cmaier]

So, does collecting 30% of in-app purchases of game content like skins in iOS games count as irrationally high?

Does charging for skins in the first place count as irrationally high?

 

[ponzicoinbro]

Looks like a money laundering app. There were many like that in early days and probably lots since.

It works like this.

You have a network of 1000 people. That’s a minimum number.

Each person subscribes to these apps.

5 apps per person. That’s 5 subscriptions @ $15 per week.

So that’s $780,000 being funnelled from your network alone and then there are strangers buying subs too.

That money might be laundered for many reasons. Could be a percentage of drug money that needs to be cleaned. Could be a network of immigrants who are sending money home by being asked to subscribe to the app. Could be a terrorist network. Anything.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

We all knew that there were scammy apps on the App Store. Myself have dodged some … But now Apple is promoting them … got have those revenue numbers rolling …

Personally don’t think its a mistake … maybe a social experiment of some kind …

 

[Deguello]

Police can’t stop crime 100%, but that is their job.

I have said it before, to get the true walled garden with no scam/bad apps, App reviews would need to take weeks or months. Even updates. Apple would need to scan the code, test for weeks/months. But this is not possible. Apple can say their approach is making the device secure, because without it we would have ten times the bad apps.

Police don’t make alternative methods, self-defense or private security, illegal though. Bad analogy.

 

[Ethosik]

Police don’t make alternative methods, self-defense or private security, illegal though. Bad analogy.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Police stops illegal actions. But they can’t stop ALL illegal actions. Just like the App Store. It stops bad apps but there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to stop ALL bad apps.

 

[I7guy]

If Apple can’t figure it out, their argument against the dangers of others is weakened, though.

Apple has such a captive audience at this point, I think it’s getting to the point that an argument can be made that a third-party store has a greater incentive for safety than does Apple. A crappy stand-alone store would have trouble staying in business. Apple‘s store is going to stay in business as long as Apple sells devices.

We’ll see how this all plays out. Because
The App Store isnt perfect doesn’t mean apples argument is weakened. Perfect after all is the enemy of good.

 

[I7guy]

It really depends on the goal of said 3rd party App Store. If they only have a 1000 apps, it’s easier to test and vet those apps. Apple probably gets that many app submissions every 6 hours.

Or they won’t be vetted at all.

 

[macintoshmac]

Should we call Apple out on this or should we say "Meh, mistakes happen!" and go back to being googly-eyed on Apple?

For what it's worth, considering the curated nature of App Store, these actions are not mistakes, they are employees being lax and not doing the job properly, or they are doing the job as they are supposed to, per internal policies.

Whatever it may be, we should be able to see everything - the good and the bad - and this is not a good look at all.

 

[Deguello]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Police stops illegal actions. But they can’t stop ALL illegal actions. Just like the App Store. It stops bad apps but there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to stop ALL bad apps.

I’m trying to say that police aren‘t the only way to stop bad actors. Apple App Store requirements aren’t the only way to stop bad actors.

Police are fine, if imperfect. Apple’s App Store requirements are fine, if imperfect. That doesn’t mean they need to be the only actors involved.

 

[Deguello]

Or they won’t be vetted at all.

Then people should take that into account when deciding whether to use the source, in general, or the app, in particular.

 

[Deguello]

We’ll see how this all plays out. Because
The App Store isnt perfect doesn’t mean apples argument is weakened. Perfect after all is the enemy of good.

It does mean it’s weakened. “We’ll keep you safe and you‘d unsafe using a third party.” Well, they’re not keeping you safe.

 

[Ethosik]

I’m trying to say that police aren‘t the only way to stop bad actors. Apple App Store requirements aren’t the only way to stop bad actors.

Police are fine, if imperfect. Apple’s App Store requirements are fine, if imperfect. That doesn’t mean they need to be the only actors involved.

Still not sure what argument you are making. So some bad apps got through means it’s proof and should be forced to have Apple enable side loading? Side loaded apps will NOT be reviewed. So it can make things much MUCH worse. I’m saying that just like the police, the App Store is not perfect. But, just like the police, that doesn’t mean the App Store is pointless, or their protection argument is any weaker. Crime still exists and people still can avoid getting caught. Doesn’t mean I think any less of the police.

 

[I7guy]

It does mean it’s weakened. “We’ll keep you safe and you‘d unsafe using a third party.” Well, they’re not keeping you safe.

I'm not sure the argument is weakened. But that is not for me to decide.

 

[I7guy]

Then people should take that into account when deciding whether to use the source, in general, or the app, in particular.

That doesn't mean alternative app stores will be better for the customers.

 

[Deguello]

I'm not sure the argument is weakened. But that is not for me to decide.

Since the argument is “you’re safer because we do X“ but they don’t actually do X, you’re free to think that doesn’t weaken their argument, of course, but I think most people will think it does.

That doesn't mean alternative app stores will be better for the customers.

No, it doesn’t mean they will. It also doesn’t mean they won’t. And “they won’t“ is Apple‘s argument.

 

[contacos]

The difference between „people make mistake“ and the App Store is that Apples whole closed system propaganda is build upon keeping its user base save which clearly filed here and in many other cases