[ncann]

Because the scammed version is way more profitable? They can code up some buttons in a layout roughly resembling a keyboard that insert the character when clicked on in like 15 minutes which will probably pass review. The "keyboard" of course will be unusable for practical purpose.

[shawnz]

If the "keyboard" wasn't usable for practical purposes then why did it pass review? A stronger review process could refuse such apps.

And if the "keyboard" was usable for practical purposes then why would the scammer waste the chance to monetize those practical, working features which they sunk their own time developing?

[valuearb]

It’s not the reviewers job to decide if you created a “good” keyboard, just that your app generally does what it says it does.

Doing specific feature testing would not be trivial. Your description may say you have the worlds only AI keyboard driven by machine learning. No way the reviewers will be able to test that, so they will accept it at face value.

A few years ago Apple substantially decreased the App Review time, in direct response to developer complaints. It went from a week to a day. Part of the reduction was the use of more automated tools to detect violations. Some of it was adding more resources.

But that means reviewers only have minutes to review each app, not hours. And they are focused on technical rules violations. They aren’t ever going to build a test plan based on marketing claims to verify every single one.

[shawnz]

I don't think it's necessary to do specific feature testing or verify marketing claims to solve this particular issue.

For example, whether or not the app is lying in its description about using AI techniques is irrelevant. Even if it were lying about using AI techniques, it still might be a useful and functional keyboard app. And even if it really did use AI techniques, it still might be a useless impractical app.

> It’s not the reviewers job to decide if you created a “good” keyboard

Don't the app store guidelines say that the app needs to deliver a "great" experience?

> But that means reviewers only have minutes to review each app, not hours.

To me, that eliminates a big part of the value proposition of having a "highly curated" app store.

[valuearb]

Apple wants developers to deliver a great experience. It’s not a review requirement.

The far larger amount of scams and malware on Google Play vs the App Store clearly establishes its value proposition.

Even this garden variety scam isn’t likely to bet its makers more than a few hundred bucks before their account is banned.

[CRConrad]

> The far larger amount of scams and malware on Google Play vs the App Store clearly establishes its value proposition.

[Citation needed]

[latexr]

> It’s not the reviewers job to decide if you created a “good” keyboard, just that your app generally does what it says it does.

From KeyboardCleanTool’s webpage[1]:

> In 2011 Apple rejected the app for the Mac App Store because apparently it's "not useful", however I often use it to clean my Macbook Keyboard without producing annoying input.

App review does make judgements on the usefulness of apps (and in this case they are wrong, because plenty of people use that app).

[1]: https://folivora.ai/keyboardcleantool

[valuearb]

So ten years ago they showed why it’s a bad idea?