Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hmottestad 1970 days ago
Hits extra close to home when Apple enforces some arbitrary rule for one app (like Amphetamine) and then doesn't even bother to test other apps.
2 comments

It tests every app, including this one. Think about what really happened here.

Edit: Apparently my downvoters can’t think about what really happened here so I’ll explain it.

In App Review this app worked fine. Oh, the keyboard was likely lame and not useful, but the scam screens were no where to be seen. Then the app is approved and placed on the store. Now the scam screens appear.

It’s trivial to do, is done all the time even by legitimate developers, and incredibly hard for Apple review to detect.

> Then the app is approved and placed on the store. Now the scam screens appear.

This means there's some switch built into the code that changes its behavior, either after a certain date, or on certain known IPs that Apple tests on, or after a certain URL changes value.

At this point, the complaints pour in. People ask for refunds and claim it's not as advertised. The $400 subscription fee has to be mentioned in some complaint.

And at this point, Apple falls flat on its face. It does not investigate any of these serious complaints, which are easily validated.

Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world. If they can't afford to do the right thing, they shouldn't run this fake "walled garden" app store. If 30% of my app dollar goes to them, an app that doesn't try to steal hundreds of dollars from me is a very very reasonable expectation.

Apple gets thousands of complaints a day. They have to do a detailed investigation or they’ll risk pulling legitimate apps. The apps can also be geofenced so the behavior doesn’t occur in Cupertino.

Just because Apple doesn’t immediately remove a scam doesn’t mean they aren’t working to remove it.

So hire more people to get through the backlog faster. These are problems money can solve and Apple has plenty. (Disclaimer: I’m an Apple fanboy, use their products almost exclusively, but I still think it’s ridiculous all the shit apps that get through)
I wonder if it is trivially hard to detect or not.

For example, if the app reviewer’s touch interaction with an app were recorded and the resulting screens diffed with the same pattern after publishing, there should be no changes.

This is a method used as part of some UI testing with selenium.

There could be apps this does not work for, such as when content changes or conversion type UI is shown.

But I imagine there is some amount of low hanging fruit here. And even that once a “scam” app like this one is reported, Apple should want to review past diffs to look for the example of the violation.

I also agree that for the price, this is what apple should be preventing on behalf honest developers

It is also worth noting that DMCA is embraced ITT whereas with Github’s response to DMCA recently it did not get the same treatment.

> For example, if the app reviewer’s touch interaction with an app were recorded and the resulting screens diffed with the same pattern after publishing, there should be no changes.

There are lots of valid reasons for apps to change based on outside events (location, time, online content). For example apps displaying weather forecast or current news.

I think there is a solution and Apple should implement it. But even code we know how to write doesn’t appear overnight, doesn’t work perfectly, and doesn’t suffer from high levels of false positives.
Why don't they just leave the badly implemented keyboard then and slap a subscription button on it?
They probably A/B tested and had a far lower conversion rate when users saw their crappy keyboard.
It's just bike-shedding. Enforcing names or the fact that you mention subscribing to the app on a website is easy whereas testing every app that comes in is hard.
For 30% of all revenues, why should anyone give a flying damn about poor Apple having to do its homework?
Agreed, but the issue here seems to be a legal one.

There is very little IP protection for software in general.

If the app conforms to the rules, Apple may not be able to determine that it’s a violation of any rule.

Then what?

Excuses, excuses.

Apple advertises the benefit of its App Store that thanks to the diligent manual review, such fraud simply has no place there. They also maintain that the fees are high because the review process is top notch and thus expensive.

Now they have to admit that either the walls in their garden are worse than Swiss cheese by letting bad actors in, or that they are complicit in that fraud, because someone had to approve that shit.

Now if I’m just as likely to be screwed over by an Apple-approved app from their walled garden as I am by sideloading random crap, what’s the point in it for me, as a user? If I have to exercise just as much caution, I can just as well sideload what I want.

“Excuses, excuses.“

This is legal liability. That matters.

> Now if I’m just as likely to be screwed over by an Apple-approved app from their walled garden as I am by sideloading random crap, what’s the point in it for me, as a user? If I have to exercise just as much caution, I can just as well sideload what I want.

If this were true, then sure.

But it obviously isn’t.

Even the Google Play store is way worse in terms of risks than the App Store.

Which is actually better, because I and an average Joe D. User at least _expect_ shady apps to be abundant there, despite all Google's efforts to prove otherwise. We exercise care there because we know for a fact Google's approval system is half-automated and full of holes.

On the other hand, the rhetoric Apple's marketing employs all the time suggests the App Store is the Internet Safety Panacea, a risk-free Teletubbyland for everyone. Which is far worse because it entices you to assume it's totally safe and let your guard down.

The very least, there should a well-known, published and discussed precedents.

Apple should inform developers about edge cases of the app store and developers should know about it before they enter the contract.

Maybe so, but how is that related to this case?
Well, they can always take their business elsewhere, where the grass is greener. But they came to the App Store because it's a dozens of billions of dollars a year market...
Which "elsewhere" is there for someone developing an Apple Watch keyboard?
Apparently developers can develop more than one kind of app.
This sounds almost like the developers should be permanent, pardon my French, bitches to both Apple who can boot them for any petty reason, and to scammers who copycat them and make money with straightaway fraud, then to Apple again, who won't do anything about the scammers (I wonder what percentage of App Store revenue comes from those, once you look past the biggest players like Microsoft/Adobe/whoever else is in the top 20), and then to Apple again, who will incorporate your app's functionality into the core of their OS offering and then boast how they were the first to come up with the idea.

And not only should be the developers bitches, they should, according to you, accept and enjoy this dubious "honor".

Right?

Apple takes 30% off the top. 30%!

The other 70% goes to programming the app, doing design, QA, advertising, customer support. That's a lot to do.

For its 30% Apple only has to validate that the App is as advertised, and isn't trying to cheat you.

If they can't even do that, why do they exist except as a way to steal 30% from everyone off the top?