[HN Gopher] Top Mac app store dev abuses free with in-app purcha... ___________________________________________________________________ Top Mac app store dev abuses free with in-app purchase for bait- and-switch apps Author : Apocryphon Score : 218 points Date : 2022-04-12 17:28 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | [deleted] | endisneigh wrote: | Make web apps, in the ops case, report | olliej wrote: | So glad app review ensures only high quality apps :-/ | gnicholas wrote: | Yesterday my friend was trying to take pulse ox measurements on | his Apple Watch. After searching on the web, he downloaded an app | called Blood Oxygen App, [1] which costs $20/yr. It didn't work | without a subscription, it seemed, so he asked me for help. I | figured out that the Apple Watch comes with a built-in app called | Blood Oxygen (no "App" at the end) that does this for free. | | I can't believe Apple let this through their review process. | Think of how much money they've made by fooling people into | thinking their app is the official Apple app. | | https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blood-oxygen-app/id1541992656 | benatkin wrote: | It's almost like they enjoy hypocrisy, that it's a game for | them. | | It was very much a game when Steve Jobs had his infamous | invitations for potential acquisitions that never panned out: | https://twitter.com/apartovi/status/1447251334814523392?lang... | ksec wrote: | While I think modern Apple is the definition of pure | hypocrisy. I honestly dont see how that is hypocrisy from | Steve. | | And I dont see how that is infamous. I actually thought Steve | was _very_ polite in replying. Had the decency to give him a | straight answer. | benatkin wrote: | I didn't say it was hypocrisy from Steve, I said it was a | game. I think it probably is though - he calls him a liar | but I think he misrepresented his offer. He was very | unlikely to pony up 50 million for iLike. A good faith | offer shouldn't explode like that. Calling someone a liar | while you're lying is hypocrisy. | | But again in the second paragraph I didn't say or imply | that he was being a hypocrite. Just that he was playing a | game. When I said hypocrisy I was talking about the current | app store approval process. Steve Jobs was only involved in | that for about 3 years more than a decade ago. | heavyset_go wrote: | > _I can 't believe Apple let this through their review | process. Think of how much money they've made by fooling people | into thinking their app is the official Apple app._ | | I can, given that there are multimillion dollar scams on the | App Store[1]. Last time I looked, I found about a half dozen | Chinese Bonzi Buddy clones on the Mac App Store, as well. | | [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app- | store-s... | jjtheblunt wrote: | it's because the automation in the review process is a work in | progress, given the huge nonstop flow of applications to review | not1ofU wrote: | You would think that the non-stop flow of cash apple has at | its disposal would be able to offset the issue. | | I love how apple has everyone so brainwashed that random | people just jump to their defence. | | Do you have some excuses for this? I really would like to | hear them :-D | | LTT Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHqntr8FjY | jjtheblunt wrote: | I'm not a random person. I worked in Apple engineering for | years, and what I said is factual. | | Consider how the challenge of reviewing app submissions is | an ever evolving game, and you'll see it's genuinely tricky | to get right all the time. | ksec wrote: | You are suggesting a flaw in review _automation_ , while | Apple is telling the world how they have people checking | every App submissions. | not1ofU wrote: | Well apologies for assuming you were a random person. I | conceed that reviewing app submissions would be quite | challenging, but based on all the screenshots provided in | that twitter thread, it doesnt look like any effort at | all goes in to screening submissions. I would assume | (correct me if I am wrong) that comment reviews would be | flagged for inappropriate words, and if this assumption | is correct, why not also scan / flag on the word "scam". | After which, someone would install the app to a test | system, and would immediately see that this is in fact a | scam / against the rules, etc., etc., because of the | immediate paywall thats presented in these examples. | | My comment relating to apple brainwashing / jumping to | their defence was not so much directed at you, and more | directed at, everytime I see a valid complaint, there is | always someone that chimes in with, "well thats because | of x" (even if x= thats hows its always been done) and I | do admit the bit that tripped me into writting a response | was "work in progress" from your comment. They make more | money than the entire GDP of a few countries, "work in | progress" doesnt cut it. | | As an ex-apple employee, I am even more curious on your | thoughts on the video link I posted. Cheers | varenc wrote: | I just gave this app a try it doesn't seem like an out-right | scam to me. | | It has 20,000 reviews and plenty of them look like they're | written by real humans that actually appreciate the app. The | app also works with other bluetooth SpO2 sensors, and I believe | that Apple's official "Blood Oxygen" app is only available if | you have an Apple Watch! (Though in either case presumably the | app is just leveraging iOS's built in functionality?). Also the | app seems to focus on data sharing which Apple's Blood Oxygen | and Health apps don't provide. There are some 1 star reviews, | but they seems mainly from people that are upset this app can't | track SpO2 by itself without a watch or other hardware. | | Also the app works fine without a subscription. It does | aggressively prompt you to subscribe when you first open the | app so it might not have been clear it was optional. Making | this non-obvious is sketchy. Subscribing enables Apple Health | syncing, sharing, and stats. There's plenty of out right scams | on the App Store but this doesn't seem like one. | derefr wrote: | It sounds like you're looking at the iOS app, which may well | have a sensible reason to exist. | | I presume the GP, on the other hand, is talking about an | Apple Watch app, which would only be doing something the | Apple Watch already does. | varenc wrote: | They're the same thing. There's no separate Apple Watch | app. This iOS app just has an Apple Watch app component | that can be installed on the watch if you have one. So the | reviews include both. (I believe this is true in general | and every Watch app is also an iOS app. You can't install a | Watch app without also installing an iOS app on your paired | phone as well. You can't even setup an Apple Watch without | having an iPhone to pair it too.) | GoodJokes wrote: | vmception wrote: | > I figured out that the Apple Watch comes with a built-in app | called Blood Oxygen (no "App" at the end) that does this for | free. | | Only the latest models, or latest few models, come with the | sensor necessary. It was a pandemic feature addition that came | too late, just like all their other pandemic feature additions. | jdavis703 wrote: | Sure I'd have liked all these features on March 2020. But at | least where I live the pandemic is still very much raging on. | We still have mask mandates and vaccine passport checks. | Having masked FaceID and vaccine passports in the wallet | still makes daily life better. | | And also, the pulse oximeter helps build a better image of | overall cardiovascular fitness (basically they can estimate | VO2 max). This is important for keeping the body in shape to | fight off SARS-2 and whatever comes next (people with | cardiovascular problems were more likely to die or be | hospitalized.) | roody15 wrote: | Where is the pandemic currently raging on ? | goosedragons wrote: | Everywhere? Lots of places have decided to basically | ignore it but there's still hundreds of COVID deaths a | day in the U.S, China has had Shanghai under lockdown for | almost month, lots of 3rd world countries lack vaccines. | It's not over by a long shot. | KarlKemp wrote: | FWIW, daily deaths in the US are currently at exactly the | level it was in the month mentioned above, March of 2020. | KarlKemp wrote: | The Exposure Notification API was released in April 2020 or, | in other words, at the point where 99.5 % of US deaths had | not yet happened. That strikes me as rather early in this | pandemic. The feature also strikes me as the most significant | of those I can think of, by a healthy margin. | FabHK wrote: | Sure, but the models that can do it, can do it for free. The | models that cannot, can't do it with this scummy app either. | ARandomerDude wrote: | Think about how much money Apple made by letting this app | developer fool people into thinking it was the official app. | KerrAvon wrote: | Thinking about zero dollars. The App Store states the | developer name prominently. The graphics look nothing like an | official Apple app. It nowhere claims any official anything. | gnicholas wrote: | I think GP was referring to Apple's 30% cut (just 15% if | this dev is clearing less than $1M annually). | | Edit: subbed < for > | megablast wrote: | It's 15% if it's less than a million annually. | ksec wrote: | Only when applied and approved. Lots of Dev are still | paying for 30% to this day. | | https://mjtsai.com/blog/2022/04/05/apple-sitting-on- | applicat... | RC_ITR wrote: | It's a fine line to walk and one that I don't think they can | sustain for much longer. | | On one hand, they deny it and the app developer posts a | medium sob story about Apple crowding out independent devs. | that gets traction on Hacker News. | | On the other hand, they let it through and this article gets | posted. | | I wonder how heavy the head that wears the crown gets before | it's chopped off. | josephcsible wrote: | They don't need to walk a fine line. They decided to make a | walled garden, but they do a terrible job of moderating it | such that there are way too many of both false positives | and false negatives. | duxup wrote: | I doubt it is much compared to Apple's balance sheet. Doesn't | seem like a real motivation. | tshaddox wrote: | If it were a real motivation they could execute it much | more effectively by not including their first-party app at | all. | testbjjl wrote: | Doesn't App Store utilization by both end users/consumers | and perhaps more importantly developers, who make apps for | end users, reflect indirectly in the share price? | | If this were the case, the revenue to app developers in | this instance could motivate Apple to not discourage this | type of confusion. | KarlKemp wrote: | You're just restating the original point in a more | convoluted way. Yes, Apple makes money from scams such as | this. No, it's unlikely to be anywhere near the amount | where it would matter, even in aggregate. | duxup wrote: | I doubt leaving a BP app on there has any influence at | all. | tapoxi wrote: | I've been using Apple products for almost 30 years (good ol' | System 7.5) but this absolute bullshit of user hostility has | made me switch to a Pixel 6 most recently. | | The App Store, the Lightning connector, two huge hassles that | only exist to make Apple more money on top of the premium you | already paid for the hardware. It's my device! I paid a premium | for it! | noasaservice wrote: | > I paid a premium for it! | | You sure paid a lot for a rental. You cant even run your own | programs on it, unless you pay $100/yr to them IN ADDITION TO | "buying" the hardware. | derefr wrote: | Apologies in advance for the rant: | | > the Lightning connector | | Lightning is the better-engineered physical connector. Quite- | heavy phones can be held up on a charging cradle with 100% of | the load placed on the Lightning connector, while this is | would destroy a USB-C connector. A Lightning jack is a solid | piece of aluminum with wires running up the sides. It's | simple and robust. The socket is equally simple. | | USB-C -- all of the USBs, really -- give unneeded opportunity | to catch debris inside the connectors and then force said | debris into the slots, gumming it up. Lightning avoids this; | the jack is designed to be completely flat+smooth+convex, so | no debris collects on/in it. | | The only reason USB-C doesn't just use a Lightning connector | is spite. IIRC, Apple offered the USB Forum the Lightning | connector patents if they wanted them, but they refused. | Instead, the USB Forum copied what they considered the | desirable features of Lightning -- e.g. reversibility; but | implemented them _worse_ (with non-mirrored sense pins | requiring USB PHYs to understand orientation); and then | sought extra trouble trying to solve problems that people | provably hadn 't been having with Lightning (e.g. re-adding a | shroud for the pins -- presumably to protect from | scratches/rust -- when nobody had ever has ever had a | Lightning cable fail for this reason; where this _increased_ | the failure rate of Lightning _sockets_. The cables are | supposed to have the sacrificial side of the connection!) | dimitrios1 wrote: | Before this used to be the norm, there would be at least a | quarterly post on HN by some app developer lamenting the fact | that Apple killed their business by just releasing an Apple | developed version of their app. | gnicholas wrote: | I don't know for sure, but I assume that Apple's app was | released as soon as the functionality was enabled on the | relevant devices (Apple Watch 6 and 7). I don't think this is | a case of 'Sherlocking'. | [deleted] | uuyi wrote: | The moment you moderate one of these away everyone runs around | like headless chickens complaining about how they overstepped the | mark and the developer posts a pissy blog somewhere about how the | App Store ruins livelihoods. | | The rest of us just know how not to step in shit while walking | through a field. Like it has been with every single store since | the first shop opened in human prehistory. An early complaint | about goods being rubbish: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir | | Do some research first. Don't be a sucker. Every vendor will sell | you crap so go in expecting it. | | I have never been scammed by anything on any app stores. | kobalsky wrote: | > I have never been scammed by anything on any app stores. | | I would dare to say that people visiting this site aren't their | target demographic. | | Also, you probably got scammed by your mechanic and never even | realized it. | uuyi wrote: | Yeah my mechanic is terrible. Wastes hours trying to save | money :) | makecheck wrote: | It's absolutely soul-crushing to see the software market warped | by broken store models. Legitimate developers can't seem to | convince people to pay anywhere near enough to sustain a | business, and meanwhile scammers get millions. | Doubtme wrote: | By design. | annoyingnoob wrote: | I miss the pre-internet and pre-smartphone days when you could | buy software at a reasonable price and use it in perpetuity. | heavyset_go wrote: | > _It's absolutely soul-crushing to see the software market | warped by broken store models_ | | What makes it worse, in my mind, is that the entirety of the | mobile application market has been held hostage by these rent- | seeking app store models for over a decade, now. | carom wrote: | I experienced this on iOS the other week. I think I was looking | for a video editing app. A ton were free but required immediate | sign up to a subscription with a free period to use the product | at all. | outcoldman wrote: | I have an app, that I sell with App Store (OpenIn). So the Openly | used to be called OpenIn Pro. Only because this app looked like a | fraud, I submitted a trademark violation. The author of the app | replied with a lot of confidence, that I was attacking their | company, etc. But they have changed the name to Openly at the | end. | | My complain was that this app definitely have a lot of fake | reviews, and my guess by being free they can generate a lot of | downloads to keep it in top of the app store. And you can see a | few of bad reviews, where some people actually purchased the app | via in-app-purchases. And the name of my app brings traffic to | the app store, and they use it in their advantage. | | He called it false accusations. That they trust apple reviews, | and that apple take it seriously. And a lot of well written text | protecting themselves. | | He was referring also to the head of legal department that they | might take actions against me for false accusations. | | Anyway, after that I just downloaded their apps and submitted | concerns about legitimacy of their apps. That did not do | anything. | | I am surprised that those apps exist. Feel like they are 100% | scam. My only guess is that somehow the people from review team | know those developers and somehow let them to be on app store. | Considering how hard sometimes to pass the review, that is the | only explanation I have. | sneak wrote: | Apple doesn't mind scams that make Apple money and don't erode | the Apple brand image. | lupire wrote: | It's also a blatant trademark violation. Apple would never allow | a "Music for Apple Music" app in their store, but is happy to | infringe on competitors' trademarks. | hdjjhhvvhga wrote: | I thought it is a standard scum practice these days silently | accepted by Apple. Practically every "free" app I downloaded from | the App Store in the last few months behaved in this way. | armchairhacker wrote: | > GCalendar for Google Calendar | | > Docs Pro for Google Drive | | > Openly a Link Damn, if only there was a free app for google | calendar, google docs, and looks up App open my web browser. | Adraghast wrote: | How long ago was the commentariat fainting over Apple ruining | DHH's livelihood by not allowing him to do this exact thing with | Hey? | davidkuennen wrote: | Isn't this practice used to scam people in the App Store since | forever now? I remember coming across exactly this practice 1-2 | years ago here with some document scanner apps that made | 10M/month revenue through that. | Nextgrid wrote: | > This obscure Mac developer has 3 of the top 95 grossing apps in | the Mac App Store. | | I wonder if it's money laundering and most of the purchases | aren't victims. | [deleted] | robotnikman wrote: | I've thought of this myself. Anecdotally, I once ran across a | game on Steam which looked hastily put together with basic | Unity store assets and had a single $5000 DLC... makes you | wonder. | 88840-8855 wrote: | can you do the iap several times? | | actually a fantastic idea. purchase gift cards with cash, | credit into an apple account, do iaps, cash out as dev. how | much will be lost underway? 30%? | | where are the problems in that model? | 0x0 wrote: | You'd need appleid accounts to load the gift cards into. I | guess it would be tricky to set those up without linking | phone numbers / apple device serials / ip addresses to your | scam all the while establishing a reputation and legit | looking usage history for them | ceejayoz wrote: | > can you do the iap several times? | | Yes, there's "consumable" IAPs for doing things like | purchasing in-game currency in games. | philjohn wrote: | The worst thing to happen to mobile apps. | kmonsen wrote: | 15% if you are big enough I believe | judge2020 wrote: | 30% isn't terrible in terms of laundering money, but chances | are the App Store payout is how you're citing your income for | taxes, so it's more risky than other ventures if Apple were | to inform the IRS about something like "90% of this | developer's revenue is via gift cards...". | sneak wrote: | It is when NFTs are 0%. | heavyset_go wrote: | People already launder money with gift cards. Further | laundering it through apps whose merchant accounts are | registered to real human beings, because of Know Your | Customer laws, ruins the laundering aspect. There's no reason | to go through additional de-anonymizing steps via apps once | you've got or sold gift cards. | extrapickles wrote: | That is where the "Earn $XXX/mo for doing nothing" scams | come in. The victim would be effectively laundering the | money from any KYC. The victim would not be sophisticated | enough to point law enforcement your way. So the chain | would be gift card->app->patsy->you. | bogwog wrote: | Especially when Apple takes an obscene 30% | function_seven wrote: | Every time I see these scammy apps in the App Store, it erodes | the foundations that support the walls around Apple's garden. | | If those walls turn out to be shitty rusty fences instead, then | Apple should tear them down completely and give other gardeners | an opportunity to make better spaces. | | Instead users are in the middle ground between the safety of the | walled garden and the freedom of a wide-open app ecosystem. Worst | of both worlds. | willis936 wrote: | I don't recall a time where I could ever play solitaire in iOS | without being met with hostility, free or paid. | | There has never been reason to have faith because there has | never been a golden age of the iOS app store. It's always been | trash. | | Android has never had these issues. | criddell wrote: | Maybe not Solitaire, but you can still download Apple's _Hold | 'em_ poker app. It's pretty fun and feels like a relic from a | different age. | | I don't think I've ever downloaded an app that felt hostile. | In fact, some of the best software I've ever used is on iOS. | For example, Procreate is $10 and it's astoundingly good. | GoodNotes was also something like $10-$20 and has been | nothing but a joy to use. | bastardoperator wrote: | Agreed, but I'll also add that this seems to be happening on | every store. Miles upon miles of junk you have to sift through | to get to something worthwhile. Apple, Google, Steam, Amazon... | I'm presented with the worst choices. I don't know if these | stores are all being gamed, but they all need to have better | standards. At this point I just see them all as disorganized | cash grabs. | AlexandrB wrote: | I agree. I'm really sick of Apple's handling of their App | Store. It's been nearly 14 years and the only app distribution | models Apple permits are pay once (with possible IAP), free | with IAP, and subscription. Still no ability for developers to | provide paid upgrades or "active subscription gives you | updates" models. I think Apple has done more than anyone to | turn software into a rental business where every calendar and | to-do app now needs its own subscription. I love using the | payment and subscription management systems in iOS - it's much | better than many bespoke systems - but it's not worth having to | put up with their subscription-philia. | lkxijlewlf wrote: | > I think Apple has done more than anyone to turn software | into a rental business where every calendar and to-do app now | needs its own subscription. | | All part of the plan: | | https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/14/apple-met-with- | de... | judge2020 wrote: | > Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades or | "active subscription gives you updates" models. | | While not via the app store itself, you're expected to lock | new features behind a new in-app purchase sku, while still | providing (security|stability) updates to users who aren't | going to pay for new features. | outcoldman wrote: | I tried to sell my app in the ways: | | 1. Free and IAP for Pro features. I knew there are going to | be only like 20% of users who would purchase it. And I was | fine with that. With this model I got a lot of bad reviews, | and some of the felt like fake reviews (my guess from some | fake competitive apps, that can generate those fake | reviews, like we are talking about in the link - Openly). | | 2. Because I tired of fake reviews and bad ratings, I have | changed the model to something like 50% pay for basic app, | 50% for Pro features. Easy change, considering I did not | need to change anything in the code. Just change the | prices. But now there were real reviews of people who | complained about why do you need to pay for Pro if they | already purchased the app. Or support emails saying "They | purchased a Pro version of the app, but app still asks them | to purchase Pro". Which was confusing at first, but at the | end I realized that if user pays for an app, he already | thinks it is a Pro version. My guess because there are | other apps that use "Lite" (free with ads) and "Pro" (paid | and no ads) in their names. | | 3. After that I have removed IAP and made app 100% paid. | Ratings recovered from 3.8 to 4.5. I believe I still make | the same amount of money. But the idea to give a free | version of the app, just did not work for me, I guess. | starting_fresh wrote: | I like that you are selling a frontend for the OS URI | handler for 10$. And then there is someone scamming you | out of your revenue. A tech savvy standup comedian should | be able to get a bit out of this :-) | outcoldman wrote: | My app makes about 1-2k a month. My guess that those free | with IAP apps can make easily the same amount. That will | be a very good salary for someone, for example, in India. | | And scamming with a little profit makes it easier to stay | away from some of the eyes. | criddell wrote: | I think some apps create two entries in the app store. | One is often something like _HN Lite_ which is the free | version and then _HN Pro_ for the paid version. But then | I guess you have the problem of reviews being split over | the two "different" apps. | ytpete wrote: | That doesn't seem like quite the same model though - a new | customer has to purchase the base app _plus_ all IAPs in | order to gain the full feature set. Whereas in the | traditional paid upgrades model, when you pay the full app | price you get _all_ current features and then you can pay | smaller incremental prices in the future for new-feature | updates. | brimble wrote: | You can still structure the IAPs to account for that, no? | There's nothing stopping you from creating arbitrary | bundles of IAPs, and pricing those bundles separately. | One's an upgrade and presented to people who've already | bought the last version, another's for new users, and | priced higher, but includes the stuff from the earlier | version(s). | Karunamon wrote: | > _Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades | or "active subscription gives you updates" models._ | | As a user, I'm glad that neither of those things are | supported. Given how often upgrades either remove | functionality or otherwise make my experience worse, I am | glad that developers are required to push an entirely new | application if they want users to pay again, rather than | being able to coast on their old ratings and reviews. This | gives me ultimate power to determine which version of the | application I wish to run. | | Additionally, I am quite over the nickel and diming of every | other bloody application being a subscription. | lern_too_spel wrote: | Can't you offer an upgrade IAP if you know they have | purchased the previous version via IAP? | [deleted] | tedunangst wrote: | If devs really wanted to, they could list a v2 upgrade | product separately in the store, no? $10 for v2, $5 for v2 | upgrade. Upgrade app has no functionality except "paste key" | button, which unlocks everything after tapping "copy key" in | v1 app. Or however you want to pass data between them. | eddyg wrote: | App Store bundles are a potential solution, especially | since developers can now _unlist_ an app so it can 't be | found unless there's a direct link to it. It's not perfect, | but it's a workable approach. | | Say you've had FooBarWizard in the App Store for a couple | years at 99C/ and want to offer "upgrade pricing" to the | all-new FooBarWizard 2 (which will be $1.99). | | Add FooBarWizard 2 in the App Store. Publish a new version | of FooBarWizard that includes an announcement that | "FooBarWizard 2 is now available in a specially-priced | upgrade bundle" (a one-time pop-up or something, and then a | mention on the Settings screen, for example) so existing | customers know about it. Create a bundle in the App Store | with FooBarWizard and FooBarWizard 2 priced at $1.99, then | _unlist_ FooBarWizard. | | The price of the bundle has to be at least as high as the | most expensive app _in_ the bundle. The net cost to the | user is the difference between the bundle price and what | was paid for the original app. So an existing user can buy | the bundle and get FooBarWizard 2 for the "upgrade price" | of $1. (A "new user" that tries to buy the 2-item bundle | that only has 1 item pays $1.99 and still only gets | FooBarWizard 2, because the original FooBarWizard is | unlisted.) | a_t48 wrote: | There's a good chance this would not pass several app store | guidelines and be rejected. | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | C'mon, would you buy that? | blihp wrote: | None of these walled gardens exist primarily to keep bad apps | out, but rather to keep users in. It's always been about the | revenue share. | function_seven wrote: | I know that. I just think it'd be nice if--as a side effect-- | the plants and flowers here were pretty. Don't they want me | to stay here? How many weeds does it take for me to climb the | wall and see what's available in the F-Droid Zoo or | AppGallery amusement park? When does Code Enforcement (aka | FTC, if my analogy is getting a little _too_ cute) come by | and demand they clean the yard up? | | Rhetorical question I guess, because I'm still here in the | garden ranting about it. But I'm not gonna leave. Not yet. | ordinaryradical wrote: | What's the point of a walled garden if the gardener doesn't give | a shit? | dodobirdlord wrote: | The counterfactual isn't that there's no gardener and things | are the same, in the counterfactual with no gardener things are | even worse. | willis936 wrote: | To make a lot of money. | spacemanmatt wrote: | Once you're trapped inside their walled garden, they make you | call it fertilizer and speak of its virtues. | ProAm wrote: | Same reason Amazon doesnt care if they people sell counterfeit | items, everyone makes money. | brimble wrote: | I can still cancel _all_ my subscriptions on iOS services in | one place, very easily, all the same way. I still only have to | trust one big, reasonably competent & responsible entity with | my money when making a purchase decision, rather than trying to | evaluate things on a case-by-case basis with every little two- | person indie development shop. I don't have to figure out a | different checkout flow for every app or service I buy on iOS. | There aren't even two of them! Just one. Consistent, fast, and | I trust it (well enough). | | Apple's overall ecosystem still does a lot to make people feel | comfortable & safe saying "yes" to a purchase and installing | some software from a developer they've never heard of, even if | the curation and presentation could be a lot better (but would | just invite more waves of "waaaaah Apple won't let my | derivative, inferior, somewhat-scammy app in the store, it's so | unfair!" posts on HN, to great acclaim) | Apocryphon wrote: | Just because the App Store is overly permissive in its | curation in some cases doesn't mean it isn't overly stringent | in other ones. Any system can have diametrically opposite | problems in different areas. That just means the underlying | problem is that the system is huge, hard to police, and | suffers from inconsistent enforcement. | makecheck wrote: | It's like they walled-in the garden, look only at the walls | when there's a problem, and meanwhile the scammers are | parachuting in. | sergiotapia wrote: | The entire mobile store is full of garbage. 98% trash. I don't | know how Google and Apple let it get so bad. The bar is too low. | | What kind of an asshole sells a $39.99/week subscription in a | game hoping people misclick on the accept button. | brimble wrote: | I truly wish they'd at least separate out the whale-seeking IAP | or subscription shit into its own section, which I could then | totally filter out of my searches. I don't even bother to look | at games on iOS anymore, because it's too hard to dig through | the scum. | | Also just, like, raise their standards. I'd love to see the | worst 50% or so of the App Store just _vanish_. | robotnikman wrote: | To add insult to injury, their automated AI moderation system | then ends up banning legitimate developers and you see their | horror stories posted on HN. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-12 23:00 UTC)