I find it orderly two emails of this internally show this problem but yet because of To it becomes a major problem LOL
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.
Phil Schiller on App Store Knockoffs in 2012: 'Is No One Reviewing These Apps?'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not really. The argument seems to be, "The App Store is bad now, so there's no point in keeping it 'walled.'" But that ignores the blindingly obvious fact that it could be much worse sans wall.
Yeah... no.
My wife would be a pretty ideal candidate for replacing her computer with an iPad Pro. All she does is type up Word documents and browse the web. She won't do it.
I can't think of any job that used a computer in 2005 that isn't still using a computer in 2021. College Students are still using laptops or physical notebooks (or maybe a Microsoft Surface tablet) - I'm not familiar with any of them using an iPhone or iPad instead.
I say this as someone who went through high school just taking notes on my iPhone 3GS... I was an outlier then, thinking I was on a leading edge and others would follow. Instead I was the one who changed, switching to a laptop like everyone else when I went to college.
99.99%...really? That seem realistic to you? There are over 2 million apps on the App Store, so you're contending that 1,999,800 of those apps are trash? That there are only 200 good apps on the App Store? Really?
Maybe someday the Apple haters will realize that their specious and absurd trolling does nothing but detract from arguments that are actually reasonable and necessary.
Wow way to go good for you reaching back 10+ years I don’t think there’s been an updated or recent fart up in like nine years
That is a good example.I dumped iOS in favor of Steam on PC/Mac/Linux. Copycats are not a problem on Steam because the presentation is completely different. It's nearly impossible to confuse two different games, unlike the app store. See the image below for what I mean.
There's also no IAP or ads, so sweatshops don't have any incentive to copy it. Especially with Steams refund policy in place. If I have any kind of success, I'll be making a version for the ipad but that's it.
EDIT: Also, trademark registration shuts down copycats pretty fast but if I don't have a presence on iOS to begin with, it shouldn't be a problem.
For those that don’t know if the top left corner is the original 2048 app actually have it
No, Apple never claimed that the 30% is just for the maintenance and curation of the App Store. In fact, in writing, they have claimed that it also goes toward the cost of providing marketing assistance, providing technical support to developers, providing additional SDKs for use by developers, and a number of other things.
There is no proof of that argument. None whatsoever.
Agreed. Imagine if there was no Apple store reviewing at all...meaning, glad there is something and they are trying to improve. If with Apple's money, its still hard, how would an open store be? Right.
99% might be a stretch, but it’s close. Load up the App Store and check the top apps of any categories or most of what your eyes see.
Most are gaming apps from China or elsewhere with in-app purchases and low quality interfaces that do nothing. Photography apps are especially bad at this - so many useless filter apps, garbage advertisements and pop-ups in them, limited features.
The App Store is a real mess. I basically don’t even install new apps anymore.
I think it’s safe to say that most intense app review scrutiny is directed towards apps that heavily impact the App Store’s bottom line. Look how fast Fortnite was taken down after circumventing Apple’s 30% cut. Epic may have a point here. If this level of scrutiny was universal the App Store would be pristine.
I really admire the creativity of developers - just from the first apps that would magically turn your iPhone 3G into a mirror (by turning of the screen) or give you a heat up your pocket gadget (by running something very CPU intensive, draining the battery in 20 minut and to today’s “adds within games within adds within games within adds within games” - my 8 year old is just cycled through adds and adds and adds in some addictive games.
We tried to set him up with Apple Arcade, but he didn’t like the games in there. Strangely enough he prefers these free games with 100’s of adds instead of payed games. They must be more addictive somehow.
I really wish Apple could find a way to make it more attractive for developers to make good quality apps…
We tried to set him up with Apple Arcade, but he didn’t like the games in there. Strangely enough he prefers these free games with 100’s of adds instead of payed games. They must be more addictive somehow.
I really wish Apple could find a way to make it more attractive for developers to make good quality apps…
Of course it’s nothing compared to the Wild West in android world. My mother in law (she’s 70) had something installed on her android that would block the entire screen with an add whenever she had an incoming call… don’t know if that was from Google Play or just a random place. Deleted it and she’s now on iPhone and happy
The way is remove all of the horrible apps. They clutter up the market and debase and devalue all of the money and work put into developing quality apps. Developers won’t spend the time or money to make decent apps if they’re just going to fall by the wayside and be overrun by bloated charts from ad-filled Chinese-based apps.
Last edited:
These days only a few apps made by idealists are truly free. So when searching for an app give us (back?) filters for how you want to pay for this app:
- Buy blindfolded before trying
- Download before buy (nearly nothing works till you pay)
- Try before buy (works for a week. Then pay)
- Subscription (999 USD/month)
- Bloated with adds
- Buy expensive gadget on the side
- Truly free because developer only eats air and live in the sky
- Buy blindfolded before trying
- Download before buy (nearly nothing works till you pay)
- Try before buy (works for a week. Then pay)
- Subscription (999 USD/month)
- Bloated with adds
- Buy expensive gadget on the side
- Truly free because developer only eats air and live in the sky
Last edited:
It's not about hiring more people... I'd argue it's about hiring fewer of them and equipping them with the knowledge and pattern recognition to detect these things.
It's about hiring people who care about it, training them, and assigning apps to people who know about that category. If you assign a Temple Run clone to someone who isn't familiar with the games space, or someone who hasn't seen other similar games in the space, that person won't know a clone from the real thing. If I've never seen or heard of Monument Valley and you show me a clone of it, I wouldn't be able to tell you it's not an original.
I think they should do it like the way the USPTO handles patent examiners. Each is assigned a technology area. So one reviewer should only handle “Games - side scrollers” and another “Social networking - messaging” or whatnot.
I’m not a big app user. I have a few on my iPhone but really haven’t downloaded anything new in years. But reading through some of these posts, I wonder if Apple sees it as let every developer publish their app as long as it does it’s thing and is safe, regardless how good it is. Maybe those copy cat apps have enough of a twist to make it its own difference vs someone blatantly copying another app to trick customers.
I get what you’re saying but I wonder how many developers aren’t on Apple out of principle. I’m talking that they can easily port their app, the added revenue would be welcome, but they still don’t want to do it. With millions of iPhone users, I don’t see what’s not attractive.
Well you say that, but worse for who? You could argue folks placing their misplaced trust in something that they perceive safe is worse than knowing it isn’t and being on your guard.
Like Phil, I’m surprised there aren’t automatic tools for rooting out fakes. Seems like it would have to start by creating a “verified original” status, like Twitter has, which allow them to then make relative statistical and linguistic comparisons with.