Hacker News Reader

Comment by concinds | Hacker News Reader

That's how Steam works. I think it's a much more dev-friendly policy, because in practice there's really zero reason to review Adobe or Microsoft or OmniGroup app updates since you know they won't turn into scam apps overnight; it's weird to me Apple hasn't done a "Trusted Developer" program to exempt the biggest devs from this headache. There's no reason why the weird clone apps (like the app that shows up 3 results down, when you search for "1Password", that trashily has the exact same blue ring and keyhole but slightly different background) should be treated the same as apps by hardworking, honest, trustworthy developers. People would cry foul for unfairness but there's also no way of letting the hundreds of thousands of App Store devs all submit updates with no review, you'd end up with something like the Chrome Web Store where apps get bought and filled with malware all the time.

View on HN

> in practice there's really zero reason to review Adobe or Microsoft or OmniGroup app updates

I can totally see Facebook pushing a update which uses internal APIs to access private information outside of its sandbox.

Honestly apps need to be verified after every update for much of the same reasons they need to be verified initially. The issue is the verification process itself, which sometimes blocks legitimate developers while also sometimes allowing scam apps.

private api issues are usually caught with automated binary scans. You can obfuscate them to avoid detection but manual review wouldn’t help with that either

They can't even fix private API abuse, how do you expect them to scan for it?

See: recent iOS exploits.

Apple security is based on developer goodwill. If you’ve used private API, you did it by mistake. That’s how their security model works. That’s why they’re scanning binaries for unobfuscated calls. They don’t have an answer against malicious developers other than acting post-factum.

Wait, did you just imply that apps by certain big companies dont need a review because you think these special biig companies deserve a bit of extra trust? Fascinating, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

He actually arrived at the exact opposite conclusion: all apps should be reviewed after each update because not even (or especially) big companies can’t be trusted.

No, armchairhacker said the opposite: even big famous companies need review of every update.

And the original poster (the blind game developer) says so too

Did you mean to reply to the grandparent poster?

Yes, my bad.

This is fair, but I think we can agree that rejecting an update on grounds of its basic features being duplicative, when the feature set has not changed -- which is what happened here -- is pretty absurd.

"which uses internal APIs to access private information outside of its sandbox"

Isn't this being possible a security issue with iOS?

Yes, it is.

This. Reputation based review standards is pretty low hanging fruit.

You literally already have an ongoing relationship with the party in question, which is usually one of the biggest hurdles to reputation systems (new users).

I expect the real reason they haven't moved in this direction is fundamentally App Store review is seen as a tool of ongoing control rather than quality. So the more frequently something has to pass through it, the better.

If Apple can "find an issue" with your app every time you update, that's a very different relationship than an ongoing approval.

PS: Would also require developers to inform Apple of any company sale / dev team replacement to prevent abuse (Didn't mention you sold your company? Ban).

With a reputation system you'd still want to do your due diligence and manually check things. Even the most trustworthy people make honest mistakes sometimes.

Well, first off, big developers are known to occasionally ship features that Apple wouldn't like. Facebook used their enterprise cert to ship a spyware VPN, and Epic used a hotfix to ship a direct payments feature in Fortnite. So there's no reason to treat Adobe or Microsoft as more trustworthy based on reputation when you're specifically imposing business requirements on them that they won't like. If you're not looking at what they submit, eventually they are going to try and ship something under Apple's nose.

Second, Apple really hates the idea of special rules for specific developers. When they make an exception for, say, Kindle; they don't just approve Kindle. They change the App Store rules to say "apps that are just viewing content purchased on other devices don't have to use IAP". The closest thing they have to special rules are entitlements; things like Zoom's special camera multitasking entitlement comes to mind. However, even that ultimately wound up being something other developers of video chat apps could ask for, they just didn't say anything about it until they got called out on it.

The 1Password example you cite is plain 'ol trademark infringement. I imagine Apple isn't particularly interested in doing trademark enforcement for third parties, though I'm pretty sure they wrote the rules to allow them to do exactly that. This is definitely something where Apple could be more proactive, but there's a limit to how much they can do before you get people complaining about Apple going overboard.

> Apple really hates the idea of special rules for specific developers.

You mean "really loves" special rules for specific developers. They won't change the public rules, of course, but backroom deals for private APIs or specific entitlements are a thing.

The problem with this is that these big trusted tech giants have abused the trust put in them to break compliance rules of the app store because they can (facebook for example).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com