Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's way eliminates the need for the informed consumer, because Apple says they've got your back. Lower your guard. They don't allow unwanted pests to enter their Walled Garden™. The only conclusion I can draw is Apple wants these scam apps in the AppStore for the reason many have already stated: $$$?. Get bitten by the scam apps too many times or have the charges reversed a few times and your AppleID gets locked so you cannot download from the AppStore.

Meanwhile, there is nothing stopping scams on the phone through the normal web and email and phishing, etc..

All the App Store "safety" stuff is just a smoke screen to protect their iOS App distribution and revenue monopoly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: topdrawer
Thanks! That would imply Apple is making a significant dent.

Apple_around-the-clock-global-effort-to-keep-App-Store-users-safe_infographic_050621_inline.jpg.large_2x.jpg
ROFL!
A page of Apples own Fairy Tales Stories Book?
 
Being funny aside, does the App Store really have any legal authority to enforce or determine infringement? I’m betting it doesn’t, even in copyright and trademark disputes it is up to the infringed party to bring action.
Perhaps not, but they still could (and should) be checking an app to see if it actually has the functionality that they claim. To advertise a watch feature that isn’t even in the app is rather obvious.
 
Last edited:
Where else would you get stats about what Apple has done to reduce fraud?
Heh nowhere, but it's clearly just marketing material without basis, just a try to strengthen their anti-competitive position at public. As if I would trust any numbers Apple burps out.
 
Heh nowhere, but it's clearly just marketing material without basis, just a try to strengthen their anti-competitive position at public. As if I would trust any numbers Apple burps out.
Cynicism isn’t logic. You’re just making stuff up to throw shade.

I don’t take the numbers at face value, but they certainly provide perspective.
 
Cynicism isn’t logic. You’re just making stuff up to throw shade.

I don’t take the numbers at face value, but they certainly provide perspective.
I suggest them put up numbers on how many rejections were unfounded and just to anti-competitively bully developers and take over their market like with:


It surely wasn't 0.
 
Has anyone noticed, that on the article about some law or court in the world trying to pursue sideloading, the fanbois are out in force ranting and raving about how it will ruin privacy and security... but every time there is an article about all the scam apps, they are dead silent... I somehow suspect they read the title, their brain refuses to even register its existence, and they browse straight on to the next article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nvmls
In general, copy catting/cloning is not illegal unless copyrighted material. Unethical, indeed. If copyright infringement, courts need to make the determination then Apple may be required to act on behalf of the judgement.
I think a far better way to handle it is for devs to report copy cats and then have Apple PROMPTLY act upon a set of rules for copycats/clones
I've purchased, unknowingly, copies of the same app from Apple's store. When I contacted the developer, he said it was "standard practice" to issue the same app under a different name to see which marketing elements work best.

It was like those late-night "get rich quick" commercials where the huckster would send you a list of outlets for cheap ads - college newspapers, etc. - and you'd place variations of an ad for the same product to see which one got the most responses.

So it wasn't "stealing" in that the developer owned the app (maybe), but it seemed wrong that Apple would allow them to sell the same product under different names and descriptions.
Wait......are you saying that a private company has legal authority to make determinations of infringement? NOOOOOO!
Apple have the authority to reject applications to the App store, and frequently do.
Nobody is asking them to actually pursue infringements beyond that.

Ah... you're expecting 100% perfection 100% of the time, when roughly 5,400 new apps are added per week in Apple's App Store containing roughly 3 million existing apps.

Got it.
Additionally, the average app review/approval time was decreased to 24-48 hours versus weeks after developer outrage a few years back. Of course, the period decrease was probably achieved via less scrutiny. Nonetheless, Apple could expand the review team(s) further, but is it appropriate to insist Apple do that indefinitely? Basically, a difficult balance to satisfy both developers and consumers.

Not that I doubt:
Apple seems only loosely interested in shutting down all scams due to financial incentives.

Of course they don’t “want it”… but it hits a huge gray area of “but we do make money no matter what here…” and thus they don’t seem nearly as motivated to fully staff a clean up and maintenance operation as they should be.

It’s frustrating as hell

Perhaps Apple should release the number of scam apps it has detected in an effort to be transparent about this. I'd also like to see how much human review of apps goes on (e.g., how many minutes of interaction with a human being does it take for an app to be approved on average?).
I think, fair though extremely doubt Apple will ever release such reports to the public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR
I’m sure you’d like to change the topic to an unrelated article that’s critical of Apple.
It's absolutely not unrelated, their review process and overall AppStore is the core issue.
They preach security by obscurity, and the reasons for rejections, if they provide any, are arbitrary.

They let scammer Apps temporary run because they make 30% with it, simply as that, once it get enough public attention they drop the bad Apps.
 
Apple's way eliminates the need for the informed consumer, because Apple says they've got your back. Lower your guard.
No it doesn’t, the consumer still needs to be informed. The main thing Apple does in this area, is to keep low, by a enormously significant amount, the number of different things a user would need to be informed about.
 
Has anyone noticed, that on the article about some law or court in the world trying to pursue sideloading, the fanbois are out in force ranting and raving about how it will ruin privacy and security... but every time there is an article about all the scam apps, they are dead silent... I somehow suspect they read the title, their brain refuses to even register its existence, and they browse straight on to the next article.
Well, I mean is there anyone here that REALLY thinks that sideloading will DECREASE the likelihood of there being scam and copycat apps out there? :) Today all the copycat apps are on the App Store. With sideloading the copycat apps will be EVERYWHERE.

“See THIS is why we need sideloading! Right now scam copycat apps are ONLY on the App Store. What we want is for scam and copycat apps to be downloadable from MORE places than just the App Store!”?
 
No, but doesn't that illustrate Apple's own vulnerability and failures, especially when they claim that sideloading shouldn't be allowed. Perhaps sideloading could be more secure, precisely because it's not Apple mismanaging apps on it's own store. Apple could do better, and because of that, there should be more consideration for sideloading. Would 5,400 new apps be added to other app stores?
The scale of the App Store requires crowdsourcing some of the monitoring as the only practical solution.
Unfortunately, that approach has significant ‘blind spots’ as well. For example:

 
Just looking at the name of the app, it appears that the developer didn’t ask anyone about branding or marketing prior to release. “Authenticator App”? Search the App Store for something like Authy and you only get one entry with anything close to that name. Sometimes helps to be unique and trademarkable.

Just to see something, let’s try searching “authenticator app” on Duckduckgo. No hits for 2Stable on the first page. Is that because Google and Microsoft are that much better? Or just because they’ve been around for longer and have more exposure (and their app name INCLUDES the company name)? Going down further, you see results that include a couple BEST AUTH APP 2022 articles, where “Authenticator App” doesn’t make the cut, and links to other authentication apps that aren’t as old as Microsoft and Google, but still, no “Authenticator App”.

UNTIL, interestingly enough, you get down to links to news stories about the developer’s complaint. Now, I’m just an old country rooster, but when news stories about your complaints have lapped your earnest effort to get your name out there, there was certainly some error in the marketing strategy. Unless, of course, this complaint is a part of the marketing strategy? ;)

Because, if it is, NOW would have been a GREAT time to pick a better name for the product… maybe “2Stable Authenticator”? :) At least then, as they’re getting ALL this free publicity, that unique term might find it’s way higher in the internet search results in the long run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bkaus
As usual, lots of complaining and joking, but no mention of solutions. 1) the App Store does not have legal authority to determine infringement, 2) not all ideas can be trademarked, copyrighted and patented, but even so that is an area for the courts to determine

So what oh great and knowledgeable forum is the solution. Would side loading make it better or worse? At least once a developer gets a judgement, the offenders can be taken down by an app store
Maybe Apple could use some of that fancy machine learning to find apps with very similar artwork, and notify developers of possible duplicates.
 
It's absolutely not unrelated, their review process and overall AppStore is the core issue.
It's a deflection on your part. A single developer that may or may not have a legitimate complaint is not a rebuttal to whether or not Apple has significantly countered fraud through the App Store.

They preach security by obscurity, and the reasons for rejections, if they provide any, are arbitrary.

They let scammer Apps temporary run because they make 30% with it, simply as that, once it get enough public attention they drop the bad Apps.
Again, cynicism isn't logic. You're just making assumptions to fit your point of view.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Wildkraut
As usual, lots of complaining and joking, but no mention of solutions. 1) the App Store does not have legal authority to determine infringement, 2) not all ideas can be trademarked, copyrighted and patented, but even so that is an area for the courts to determine

So what oh great and knowledgeable forum is the solution. Would side loading make it better or worse? At least once a developer gets a judgement, the offenders can be taken down by an app store


you want us to give apple unpaid solutions? give me a few billion, i'll come up with a few
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
No, but doesn't that illustrate Apple's own vulnerability and failures, especially when they claim that sideloading shouldn't be allowed. Perhaps sideloading could be more secure, precisely because it's not Apple mismanaging apps on it's own store. Apple could do better, and because of that, there should be more consideration for sideloading. Would 5,400 new apps be added to other app stores?

I'm guessing you also have inside knowledge. By doing better, how many scam apps has Apple detected? And what is the total number. With that you can come up with a percentage detected.

What is that percentage currently? And what would be a proper better percentage?
 
Scam apps are not exactly an easy thing to police, and Apple is taking action on these apps to some extent, whether it is enough is hard to say. Expecting a review process that processes millions of apps every year to check everything and be foolproof is a little naive, and certainly not an argument to allow sideloading, which will remove any control over what an app can do and what recourse users will have in the event of malicious apps on their device.
 
I'm guessing you also have inside knowledge. By doing better, how many scam apps has Apple detected? And what is the total number. With that you can come up with a percentage detected.

What is that percentage currently? And what would be a proper better percentage?
Sometimes others do things better. They filter better, and they create better. It's just the way it is. There are browsers built on chromium that people prefer. Same with Safari. Brave is safer. Brave creates a safer and more secure browser using Safari technology on iOS. Some people want safer places to get apps, even if its a much smaller number of available apps. At least, they can be better curated.

Apple's far from perfect, but restricting choices and freedoms because of arrogance or false belief is the problem with all things autocratic, despite their sycophants and loyalists. Apple's taking choice for safer options away. I'd rather get my apps from a place like www.saferthanapple or whatever than Apple's app store that allows so many apps in willy nilly--no matter how valiant they claim their effort is. I think their PR team is much better than the team that reviews their apps.

With respect to your percentages, why don't you tell me? You seem to be more certain about it. I'd rather have the option to get my apps from a place I trust more than the app store anyway.
 
  • Love
Reactions: turbineseaplane
As usual, lots of complaining and joking, but no mention of solutions. 1) the App Store does not have legal authority to determine infringement, 2) not all ideas can be trademarked, copyrighted and patented, but even so that is an area for the courts to determine
Here's a solution - if an indie developer works 40 hours a week on an app, and Apple wants a 30% cut of the revenue, then Apple should schedule 12 hours a week for someone in app review to focus on that app (and most of that time could be spent searching for clones of it).

Or... remove the 30% cut, so the developer can pay a third of their revenue to some other company (e.g. a law firm) that will actually do something for the money.
 
  • Love
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Here's a solution - if an indie developer works 40 hours a week on an app, and Apple wants a 30% cut of the revenue, then Apple should schedule 12 hours a week for someone in app review to focus on that app (and most of that time could be spent searching for clones of it).

Or... remove the 30% cut, so the developer can pay a third of their revenue to some other company (e.g. a law firm) that will actually do something for the money.
Small indie developers only pay 15%.
 
Well, I mean is there anyone here that REALLY thinks that sideloading will DECREASE the likelihood of there being scam and copycat apps out there? :) Today all the copycat apps are on the App Store. With sideloading the copycat apps will be EVERYWHERE.

“See THIS is why we need sideloading! Right now scam copycat apps are ONLY on the App Store. What we want is for scam and copycat apps to be downloadable from MORE places than just the App Store!”?
Yet another who has never heard of macOS. You know, that Apple platform with sideloading and no walled garden, and yet, which is devoid of scam apps compared to the iPhone app store.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.