[lxgr]

Hey, on the other hand, zero malware! It is zero, right? Please say it's zero...

Just today I found a malicious version of Ledger on the macOS app store. It's been there for five weeks, and there are already some anecdotes out there of people losing their coins.

I guess that's somehow the developer's fault for not "staking their claim" to their name, as Apple seems to only monitor for malicious duplicate submissions if the original is in the App Store to begin with...

[iguessthislldo]

A year or so ago I had to speedrun turning on developer mode on Android because my grandma had somehow installed an app that did a ransomware-like fullscreen popup after about 10-20 seconds after bootup. Could've factory reset it and called it, but wanted to try to rescue it for my grandma. Used adb to figure out what app was doing it and removed it. I might be misremembering details, but I think one of the reasons it could do what it was doing was it was using Samsung-specific permissions, which Google shouldn't allow on the store. I reported the app and looks like it's gone now.

[g-b-r]

Sure, and zero ads and total privacy, as well

[ddtaylor]

Ads would never be used for malware either, thankfully.

[cubefox]

And only 30% fees, just for being on the app store!

[peterspath]

15 for most

[NetMageSCW]

Only if you charge for your app - and how much free labor and bandwidth do you give away? Apple gives away millions.

[Sayrus]

$99 per year for your developer account required to distribute applications. At AWS pricing, that's a bit over a TB of traffic. At any normal pricing, that's anywhere from 10TB to a few hundreds. At volume pricing, that's even more. How many apps are paying for traffic they don't use? Apple pockets millions.

[cubefox]

> Only if you charge for your app - and how much free labor and bandwidth do you give away? Apple gives away millions.

I guess a ~2% fee would cover those costs.

[lxgr]

Not on a free app, and I don't think Apple should be coerced to host content for free and cross-subsidize it from other paid content.

[tremon]

I also don't think Apple should be coerced to host content. However, as long as they insist on gatekeeping all installs on the iPhone platform they should be. If Apple doesn't want that coercion, they are free to relinquish their app store monopoly.

[array_key_first]

I definitely think they should be coerced to host content if they insist on being the only avenue of getting content out on the platform.

If they don't want that burden, which is very understandable, then maybe they shouldn't be the sole God gatekeeper of content? That's a choice, after all, and one they willingly made.

[cubefox]

> Not on a free app

30% of 0 is also 0. They are already cross-subsidizing it.

> I don't think Apple should be coerced to host content for free and cross-subsidize it from other paid content.

Nobody said they should be.

[zombot]

So much for their claim that the walled garden is there to protect you.