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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Indie Developer Dogged By Scammy Clone Apps Again Highlights the Holes in Apple's App Store Review Process
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
ROFL!Thanks! That would imply Apple is making a significant dent.
A page of Apples own Fairy Tales Stories Book?
Where else would you get stats about what Apple has done to reduce fraud?
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:
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.
The wolf says it is doing everything it can to ensure the safety in the hen house.
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:
The bitter lawsuit hanging over the Apple Watch’s new swipe keyboard
Apple’s head of keyboards stands accused of trying to crush competition
www.theverge.com
It surely wasn't 0.
I’m sure you’d like to change the topic to an unrelated article that’s critical of Apple.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:
The bitter lawsuit hanging over the Apple Watch’s new swipe keyboard
Apple’s head of keyboards stands accused of trying to crush competition
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.
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.
Not that I doubt:
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:
I think, fair though extremely doubt Apple will ever release such reports to the public.
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.
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.
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!”?
Unfortunately, that approach has significant ‘blind spots’ as well. For example:
Log4J Vulnerability: What, Why and How
This vulnerability allows attackers to remotely control and execute code on vulnerable machines.
gca.isa.org
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.
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.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 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.
Again, cynicism isn't logic. You're just making assumptions to fit your point of view.
you want us to give apple unpaid solutions? give me a few billion, i'll come up with a few
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.
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.
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.
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.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?
“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!”?