[comboy]

Some people want to create great, useful apps. That's what they want to do. They are willing to give away half of their earnings to different 3rd parties to just not deal with the bullshit. It's unlikely to be their full time job. They probably don't make that much money on it, cloning happens just when the app begins to make any reasonable profit.

So dealing with all your described is just not practical. Time is valuable. If somebody is creative and wants to provide some value, fighting with the system, preparing some documents, registrations hiring lawyers etc. is the last thing they want to and likely would rather abandon the project instead. Life is too short to deal with the bullshit.

Not to mention that even if what you said is very reasonable most developers will have no idea. It's scammers (efficient ones) that have to know something about copyright law, DMCAs and so on.

Problem is not that easy to solve. App stores can't spend too many hours on each app because there's tons of them, and if they would only invest time in helping those apps that provide enough profit to be worth it, that would create inequality and also many outrages over inevitable false positives.

That said there are of course many many things Apple could be doing better, especially given their fees. Also I wish subscription based model would just die. Should only be for cloud based services and wherever possible those should be optional. Or at least as simple thing as automatically not paying for months when you didn't open the app (with very few exceptions like storage services etc).

Btw, we should have some attribute for web that marks link as scam/negative. These tweets and HN homepage just made those scam apps easier to find.

[mrighele]

> App stores can't spend too many hours on each app because there's tons of them,

In this specific case it seems they didn't even spend one minute, since the app is not working. If at Apple they don't have the resource to at least try to open every app (I doubt it, they are swimming in cash), they could at least find a way to decide which apps to test first, like complaints from other developers, reviews telling that the app is a scam etc.

[valuearb]

The app was working, during review. Then once approved its behavior changed and the scam started.

This is trivial to implement and done by many developers.

[stevehawk]

Apple doesn't approve each release of an app?

[valuearb]

They do, but in these cases the binary never changed. A value returned to it from a web API changed, or a date passed, or the users are outside of Cupertino, etc.

[innagadadavida]

Are there any automated approaches to solve this type of bait and switch?

[shinycode]

When I first published my app, they asked for a video of video fully working. Then once I had a bug and they sent me a video of it with the steps to the bug. So there are definitely people opening and testing apps

[phreack]

Yeah, same here, the only explanation I can think of is that the scammers have someone on the inside approving these fake apps.

[valuearb]

No, the reviewers never see the scam screens. Once approved the scammers change a setting in the cloud and the app starts opening in scam mode.

[sireat]

If the app is working properly during review, why change it to nonworking later on?

It is like that Key and Peele skit about robbing a bank by working there.

If you can create a working app why not leave it as is ?

[valuearb]

It was likely a very poor keyboard. Just operating well enough to pass review. Once a user saw it, no one is buying.

[tmp538394722]

The more boring reason: some review employees are bad at their job

[ascagnel_]

Given the up-and-down, seemingly always controversial (and sometimes adversarial nature) of how Apple performs their app reviews and enforces their rules, I think it's 50% on lazy/bad reviewers and 50% poorly-communicated rules and regulations.

[danmur]

I wonder if there are a load of failed submissions too. They'd want to minimise effort so I guess they'd have good ways to quickly rebranding an app as a new one.

[ndiddy]

Or the app talks to a remote server so it works normally during the review period, but after the app gets approved the author changes a flag on the server and the app changes to "scam mode".

[ballenf]

And this is another example of why Apple is too focused on short-term profit over long-term user experience. I think we all know that the app reviewer's top priority is making sure the monetization strategies in the app are "compliant".

Whether it works or not probably won't get you fired as an app reviewer. But miss some IAP workaround that an app is using and I'd bet it could be your job.

[ninth_ant]

You’re exactly correct and is why Apple should be taking action on this problem — it’s in their long-term self interest to do so.

Having customers distrust their App Store is really bad for them in the long run, and would be a competitive advantage over Google if their store was less crammed with garbage.

As it stands now, I usually find apps by looking for solid reviews outside of the App Store app, and am very wary about purchasing anything.

[fxtentacle]

I fully agree, except for the subscriptions. I'd say subscription and in-app purchase are the only ways that building apps can be financially viable. A one-time $1 per user is just too little. But at $10+ you'll be crushed by low cost competition. So I believe it is generally impossible to fund high quality apps with a one time purchase on the app store.

But what's the solution against copycats? I believe we should hold app stores responsible for counterfeit goods, the same way we'd punish Walmart for selling Chinese fakes. But then again, we kind of stopped enforcing that rule, too, as you can see with Amazon.

So effectively, the US has become the wild west for counterfeit products and copyright infringing apps.. Except, of course, if you're the movie industry.

[lazerl0rd]

Or the music industry cough youtube-dl.

[hctaw]

Those people shouldn't be releasing on the App store then, if it's a hobby use hobbyist distribution channels and let users side load the app.

[fakedang]

Tell us where the hobbyist distribution channels for iOS are, where you can "sideload". Apple never has, never will.

[alisonkisk]

Why would a developer be happy to pay 30% to a publisher for publishing, etc, and maybe pay an artist for assets, but not pay a lawyer for legal? It's cost of doing business. The only reason they wouldn't would be if Apple already sucked them dry with their monopoly rent.

[coldtea]

>Some people want to create great, useful apps. That's what they want to do. They are willing to give away half of their earnings to different 3rd parties to just not deal with the bullshit. It's unlikely to be their full time job. They probably don't make that much money on it, cloning happens just when the app begins to make any reasonable profit. So dealing with all your described is just not practical.

Well, sucks to be them, then, since that's the reality.

[comboy]

Very much indeed. But this reality is created by ecosystem of our society. If you suppress highly creative individuals who don't want to deal with BS, it's gonna suck for you too. We live in a highly connected world. Changes take years, but even from purely egoistic point of view, to say that suffering of a group of people does not affect you is plain wrong if you think about it long enough.

What do you care about people in North Korea? If the country was doing well, maybe they would have the biggest semiconductor fab. Or maybe you would be using some great open source that came from there.

I agree that there is no point shouting at the clouds when there is no action that you can take to fix the problem. But in some cases you can take some action, even if it's as little as discussing the issue here which makes it slightly louder which could fix the problem, or deciding that you don't want to use Apple because of it etc.

Personally I keep thinking about decentralized web of trust which could make app stores deprecated or at least create a market of app stores. http://comboy.pl/wot.html - I'm working on a better version and a github repo.

And yes, impact of your actions, unless they are really great, is likely very small, so you can just be completely egoistic and world won't be much different. But this works on all scales. If you are not trying to make people around you happy then you live surrounded by unhappy people. So I guess what I'm suggesting, is that this approach will not make you happy, and I'd like you to be. And while internet stranger words have low value for you, it's an input that may affect later output.

You may not necessarily be optimizing for happiness, but if your utility function is not aligning with the most popular one in this case (people seem to want great work to be well rewarded), it would be nice to give us a glimpse of it, to put your statement in a context which makes sense.