Top Mac app store dev abuses free with in-app purchase for bait-and-switch apps | Hacker News Reader

Top Mac app store dev abuses free with in-app purchase for bait-and-switch apps

twitter.com

304 pointsApocryphon143 comments

Yesterday my friend was trying to take pulse ox measurements on his Apple Watch. After searching on the web, he downloaded an app called Blood Oxygen App, [1] which costs $20/yr. It didn't work without a subscription, it seemed, so he asked me for help. I figured out that the Apple Watch comes with a built-in app called Blood Oxygen (no "App" at the end) that does this for free.

I can't believe Apple let this through their review process. Think of how much money they've made by fooling people into thinking their app is the official Apple app.

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blood-oxygen-app/id1541992656

Think about how much money Apple made by letting this app developer fool people into thinking it was the official app.

Thinking about zero dollars. The App Store states the developer name prominently. The graphics look nothing like an official Apple app. It nowhere claims any official anything.

I think GP was referring to Apple’s 30% cut (just 15% if this dev is clearing less than $1M annually).

Edit: subbed < for >

It’s 15% if it’s less than a million annually.

Only when applied and approved. Lots of Dev are still paying for 30% to this day.

https://mjtsai.com/blog/2022/04/05/apple-sitting-on-applicat...

It's a fine line to walk and one that I don't think they can sustain for much longer.

On one hand, they deny it and the app developer posts a medium sob story about Apple crowding out independent devs. that gets traction on Hacker News.

On the other hand, they let it through and this article gets posted.

I wonder how heavy the head that wears the crown gets before it's chopped off.

They don't need to walk a fine line. They decided to make a walled garden, but they do a terrible job of moderating it such that there are way too many of both false positives and false negatives.

I doubt it is much compared to Apple's balance sheet. Doesn't seem like a real motivation.

Doesn’t App Store utilization by both end users/consumers and perhaps more importantly developers, who make apps for end users, reflect indirectly in the share price?

If this were the case, the revenue to app developers in this instance could motivate Apple to not discourage this type of confusion.

I doubt leaving a BP app on there has any influence at all.

You're just restating the original point in a more convoluted way. Yes, Apple makes money from scams such as this. No, it's unlikely to be anywhere near the amount where it would matter, even in aggregate.

If it were a real motivation they could execute it much more effectively by not including their first-party app at all.

Do you think Apple had that 1 trillion dollars entry in their balance sheet spontaneously appear in one majestic swoop of same sale?

Do you?

> I can't believe Apple let this through their review process. Think of how much money they've made by fooling people into thinking their app is the official Apple app.

I can, given that there are multimillion dollar scams on the App Store[1]. Last time I looked, I found about a half dozen Chinese Bonzi Buddy clones on the Mac App Store, as well.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s...

> I figured out that the Apple Watch comes with a built-in app called Blood Oxygen (no "App" at the end) that does this for free.

Only the latest models, or latest few models, come with the sensor necessary. It was a pandemic feature addition that came too late, just like all their other pandemic feature additions.

Sure I’d have liked all these features on March 2020. But at least where I live the pandemic is still very much raging on. We still have mask mandates and vaccine passport checks. Having masked FaceID and vaccine passports in the wallet still makes daily life better.

And also, the pulse oximeter helps build a better image of overall cardiovascular fitness (basically they can estimate VO2 max). This is important for keeping the body in shape to fight off SARS-2 and whatever comes next (people with cardiovascular problems were more likely to die or be hospitalized.)

Where is the pandemic currently raging on ?

Everywhere? Lots of places have decided to basically ignore it but there's still hundreds of COVID deaths a day in the U.S, China has had Shanghai under lockdown for almost month, lots of 3rd world countries lack vaccines. It's not over by a long shot.

The person they replied to is subject to mask mandates and vaccine passports

So I’m also curious to where they are referring to since the US doesn’t have that combination anywhere

I get that you were replying to the semantical words that suggest the pandemic ended

The US absolutely has that combo at plenty of private businesses. I was in NYC last weekend and both Broadway shows required masks and proof of vax to attend. About half of the restaurants we visited also were checking vaccine cards and asking patrons to wear masks if they got up from their tables.

In Portland, it's much the same. Grocery stores are no longer mandating it but many restaurants still are. Concert venues seem about 50/50 at this point. There may no longer be blanket mandates but I'm still showing my proof of vaccine or being asked to wear a mask a couple times a week.

FWIW, daily deaths in the US are currently at exactly the level it was in the month mentioned above, March of 2020.

Sure, but the models that can do it, can do it for free. The models that cannot, can't do it with this scummy app either.

The Exposure Notification API was released in April 2020 or, in other words, at the point where 99.5 % of US deaths had not yet happened. That strikes me as rather early in this pandemic. The feature also strikes me as the most significant of those I can think of, by a healthy margin.

Well, you found something.

We are referring to opening Face ID with a mask on released like a month ago which is beyond the last time I cared to wear a mask anywhere in the US - as no municipality requires it, except rideshares, busses and planes and just for now - as well as the blood oxygen reading requiring a completely new Apple Watch model, but that model was released september 2020 if you like that. The last time I cared was when I was willing to be afraid of the virus before September 2020.

We get it. You hate wearing masks.

It's pretty damn difficult to fault Apple for not enabling a feature that would require adding sensors to phones whose parts were sourced and/or built prior to the pandemic. As for the mask-enabled FaceID, I never enabled it since it goes against the whole security model and eliminates multiple data points in the verification process for about 2 seconds of inconvenience. At this poiont, I can type my 6 digit passcode almost as fast as FaceID would have unlocked my phone.

Before this used to be the norm, there would be at least a quarterly post on HN by some app developer lamenting the fact that Apple killed their business by just releasing an Apple developed version of their app.

I don't know for sure, but I assume that Apple's app was released as soon as the functionality was enabled on the relevant devices (Apple Watch 6 and 7). I don't think this is a case of 'Sherlocking'.

It's almost like they enjoy hypocrisy, that it's a game for them.

It was very much a game when Steve Jobs had his infamous invitations for potential acquisitions that never panned out: https://twitter.com/apartovi/status/1447251334814523392?lang...

While I think modern Apple is the definition of pure hypocrisy. I honestly dont see how that is hypocrisy from Steve.

And I dont see how that is infamous. I actually thought Steve was very polite in replying. Had the decency to give him a straight answer.

I didn't say it was hypocrisy from Steve, I said it was a game. I think it probably is though - he calls him a liar but I think he misrepresented his offer. He was very unlikely to pony up 50 million for iLike. A good faith offer shouldn't explode like that. Calling someone a liar while you're lying is hypocrisy.

But again in the second paragraph I didn't say or imply that he was being a hypocrite. Just that he was playing a game. When I said hypocrisy I was talking about the current app store approval process. Steve Jobs was only involved in that for about 3 years more than a decade ago.

Wow, that hurt to read.

I've been using Apple products for almost 30 years (good ol' System 7.5) but this absolute bullshit of user hostility has made me switch to a Pixel 6 most recently.

The App Store, the Lightning connector, two huge hassles that only exist to make Apple more money on top of the premium you already paid for the hardware. It's my device! I paid a premium for it!

> I paid a premium for it!

You sure paid a lot for a rental. You cant even run your own programs on it, unless you pay $100/yr to them IN ADDITION TO "buying" the hardware.

You don't actually need to do that. You can use Xcode to put any app you compile onto an iPhone connected to your Mac, regardless of whether you're paying. However, if you're not paying then those apps will only work for 7 days before you have to re-deploy them.

I'm not saying this is great. Just that you were wrong. :D

(To be fair, this is a fairly recent change. 2019 or so, I think?)

is the bar really so low that "need to connect your mac and redeploy the app every 7 days" is acceptable??

I did say it wasn't great. It's just not as bad as the poster claimed.

For "ownership", thats a LOT of terms of restriction. Sure sounds like a rental.

If you think what you typed was somehow a "gotcha", its not. It just shows how stupid apple users are willing to defend their abuses.

It’s not a gotcha, friend. It’s just that you were wrong. You can now say the accurate thing instead and still be making a good point.

I believe you’re limited to 3 apps this way, as well as being limited to 10 App IDs (most popular apps will include multiple App IDs for things like extensions, widgets, etc).

If you have the $99/yr Apple Developer account that the user mentioned, those restrictions don’t apply.

Apologies in advance for the rant:

> the Lightning connector

Lightning is the better-engineered physical connector. Quite-heavy phones can be held up on a charging cradle with 100% of the load placed on the Lightning connector, while this would destroy a USB-C connector. A Lightning jack is a solid piece of aluminum, plus two plastic bits on either side with wires running up them. It's simple and robust. The socket is equally simple.

USB-C — all of the USBs, really — give unneeded opportunity to catch debris inside the connectors and then force said debris into the slots, gumming it up. Lightning avoids this; the jack is designed to be completely flat+smooth+convex, so no debris collects on/in it.

The only reason USB-C doesn't just use a Lightning connector is spite. IIRC, Apple offered the USB Forum the Lightning connector patents if they wanted them, but they refused. Instead, the USB Forum copied what they considered the desirable features of Lightning — e.g. reversibility; but implemented them worse (with non-mirrored sense pins requiring USB PHYs to understand orientation); and then sought extra trouble trying to solve problems that people provably hadn't been having with Lightning (e.g. re-adding a shroud for the pins — presumably to protect from scratches/rust — when nobody has ever had a Lightning cable fail for this reason; where this design choice increased the failure rate of USB-C sockets. The cables are supposed to have the sacrificial side of the connection!)

Hah! I had to clean pocket lint out of my XS like a half dozen times in the two years I used it. I've known a few people with iPhones that have had this problem too where it stops charging and the culprit is lint. Apple even has a special tool just for this for purpose they give to Geniuses. Maybe it doesn't happen cable end but it sure happens pocket end. I've mostly had Android phones and haven't had to clean as many USB C ports as the XS.

Lightning also has that problem where the 4th pin burns out and now you have a cable that charges one way. I've yet to have that happen on a USB C cable.

That's a lot of lint! I've had iPhones from day 1 and only needed to clean out 4-5 times total. Easy to do with a toothpick or canned air!

> Maybe it doesn't happen cable end but it sure happens pocket end. I've mostly had Android phones and haven't had to clean as many USB C ports as the XS.

I mean, from an engineering/repair POV, these sorts of short-term, user-correctable connection faults are a good trade-off for having fewer long-term, actual-repair-needed "junk getting in there and breaking something" problems.

See, on the complete opposite end of engineering robustness: the butterfly keyboard. The hinges in those things just loved to hoover in debris, and then ground themselves apart, with user repair (i.e. popping off the keycaps to get the debris out before it can break your keyboard) being "inadvisable" at best (i.e. likely destroying the hinges just as well as the debris would have.)

> Lightning also has that problem where the 4th pin burns out and now you have a cable that charges one way.

This is true, but it's due to the electrical design (sense and VCC right next to each-other), not the physical connector design. If USB-C had used a Lightning physical connector, they could have corrected this problem just by ordering the pinout differently.

To me, the device with the Lightning connector (my phone, my AirPods) spends far more time in places (like my jacket, jeans, shirt pocket, etc.) than do any of the connector ends in my many USB-C cables.

That’s odd, I have never cleaned lint from an iPhone and I am on a long upgrade cycle. It might be an issue with your case or something.

Does no one use the Nintendo cartridge solution anymore?

Doesn't work. The lightning connector compacts the dust tightly and it can't be blown away.

You must be using a dust repelling, perfectly engineered, made of naturally occurring purest of metals, first time in any iPhone kinda lighting connector because mine needs dust cleaning often.

I must be living somewhere with minimal dust because I have never dust cleaned any of my or my family member’s iPhones, in years. Especially not the lighting jack.

>The only reason USB-C doesn't just use a Lightning connector is spite. IIRC, Apple offered the USB Forum the Lightning connector patents if they wanted them, but they refused.

I'd love to read more about this, especially since I also heard somebody claim that USB-C was based on an older Apple power socket.

A few googlers on HN have previously told me that the USB-C connector came out of the Chromebook team

My understanding was some what different and also came from comments made here: apple made both connectors and offered the worse one (type-c) to the USB Forum. Because it was reversible, smaller than usb-A and overall a better design vs usb-A they took it, but lightning is the superior connection.

I don't think you can say Lightning only exists to make Apple money. They did come out with it a decent length of time before USB-C was finalized (2012 vs 2014), and (I think) Lightning is clearly superior to pre-C USB options for a phone.

Then when USB-C was available, Apple had only just switched connectors, and there were enough angry people when they switched away from the 30-pin connector (which had been in use for ~9 years) that switching connectors again after only a few years would have been a massive source of drama. They do seem to be slowly working towards a switch now, with USB-C showing up in iPads over the last few years, but I sincerely think that it'd have been overall bad for their PR to try to switch iPhones away anytime earlier than the last year or two.

The longer they linger now, admittedly, the more money-grubbing it'll seem.

it's because the automation in the review process is a work in progress, given the huge nonstop flow of applications to review

You would think that the non-stop flow of cash apple has at its disposal would be able to offset the issue.

I love how apple has everyone so brainwashed that random people just jump to their defence.

Do you have some excuses for this? I really would like to hear them :-D

LTT Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHqntr8FjY

I'm not a random person. I worked in Apple engineering for years, and what I said is factual.

Consider how the challenge of reviewing app submissions is an ever evolving game, and you'll see it's genuinely tricky to get right all the time.

You are suggesting a flaw in review automation, while Apple is telling the world how they have people checking every App submissions.

if that's so, that's news to me. ?

Well apologies for assuming you were a random person. I conceed that reviewing app submissions would be quite challenging, but based on all the screenshots provided in that twitter thread, it doesnt look like any effort at all goes in to screening submissions. I would assume (correct me if I am wrong) that comment reviews would be flagged for inappropriate words, and if this assumption is correct, why not also scan / flag on the word "scam". After which, someone would install the app to a test system, and would immediately see that this is in fact a scam / against the rules, etc., etc., because of the immediate paywall thats presented in these examples.

My comment relating to apple brainwashing / jumping to their defence was not so much directed at you, and more directed at, everytime I see a valid complaint, there is always someone that chimes in with, "well thats because of x" (even if x= thats hows its always been done) and I do admit the bit that tripped me into writting a response was "work in progress" from your comment. They make more money than the entire GDP of a few countries, "work in progress" doesnt cut it.

As an ex-apple employee, I am even more curious on your thoughts on the video link I posted. Cheers

It is a fallacy that money gets you everything you need, immediately when you need it. (Tried hiring a reputable general contractor lately?) Even a company with a war chest the size of Apple's can't hire the people they need with the desired skill set. The labor talent pool is not unlimited, and unemployment in the U.S. is at record lows.

I just gave this app a try it doesn't seem like an out-right scam to me.

It has 20,000 reviews and plenty of them look like they're written by real humans that actually appreciate the app. The app also works with other bluetooth SpO2 sensors, and I believe that Apple's official "Blood Oxygen" app is only available if you have an Apple Watch! (Though in either case presumably the app is just leveraging iOS's built in functionality?). Also the app seems to focus on data sharing which Apple's Blood Oxygen and Health apps don't provide. There are some 1 star reviews, but they seems mainly from people that are upset this app can't track SpO2 by itself without a watch or other hardware.

Also the app works fine without a subscription. It does aggressively prompt you to subscribe when you first open the app so it might not have been clear it was optional. Making this non-obvious is sketchy. Subscribing enables Apple Health syncing, sharing, and stats. There's plenty of out right scams on the App Store but this doesn't seem like one.

It sounds like you're looking at the iOS app, which may well have a sensible reason to exist.

I presume the GP, on the other hand, is talking about an Apple Watch app, which would only be doing something the Apple Watch already does.

They're the same thing. There's no separate Apple Watch app. This iOS app just has an Apple Watch app component that can be installed on the watch if you have one. So the reviews include both. (I think this is true in general and every Watch app is also an iOS app. You can't even setup an Apple Watch without having an iphone to pair it with.)

There aren’t really Apple Watch apps. Just iOS apps with Watch interfaces

How certain are you that this app doesn’t do more than the free app from Apple?

Every time I see these scammy apps in the App Store, it erodes the foundations that support the walls around Apple's garden.

If those walls turn out to be shitty rusty fences instead, then Apple should tear them down completely and give other gardeners an opportunity to make better spaces.

Instead users are in the middle ground between the safety of the walled garden and the freedom of a wide-open app ecosystem. Worst of both worlds.

I agree. I'm really sick of Apple's handling of their App Store. It's been nearly 14 years and the only app distribution models Apple permits are pay once (with possible IAP), free with IAP, and subscription. Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades or "active subscription gives you updates" models. I think Apple has done more than anyone to turn software into a rental business where every calendar and to-do app now needs its own subscription. I love using the payment and subscription management systems in iOS - it's much better than many bespoke systems - but it's not worth having to put up with their subscription-philia.

> Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades or "active subscription gives you updates" models.

While not via the app store itself, you're expected to lock new features behind a new in-app purchase sku, while still providing (security|stability) updates to users who aren't going to pay for new features.

That doesn't seem like quite the same model though - a new customer has to purchase the base app plus all IAPs in order to gain the full feature set. Whereas in the traditional paid upgrades model, when you pay the full app price you get all current features and then you can pay smaller incremental prices in the future for new-feature updates.

You can still structure the IAPs to account for that, no? There's nothing stopping you from creating arbitrary bundles of IAPs, and pricing those bundles separately. One's an upgrade and presented to people who've already bought the last version, another's for new users, and priced higher, but includes the stuff from the earlier version(s).

I tried to sell my app in the ways:

1. Free and IAP for Pro features. I knew there are going to be only like 20% of users who would purchase it. And I was fine with that. With this model I got a lot of bad reviews, and some of the felt like fake reviews (my guess from some fake competitive apps, that can generate those fake reviews, like we are talking about in the link - Openly).

2. Because I tired of fake reviews and bad ratings, I have changed the model to something like 50% pay for basic app, 50% for Pro features. Easy change, considering I did not need to change anything in the code. Just change the prices. But now there were real reviews of people who complained about why do you need to pay for Pro if they already purchased the app. Or support emails saying "They purchased a Pro version of the app, but app still asks them to purchase Pro". Which was confusing at first, but at the end I realized that if user pays for an app, he already thinks it is a Pro version. My guess because there are other apps that use "Lite" (free with ads) and "Pro" (paid and no ads) in their names.

3. After that I have removed IAP and made app 100% paid. Ratings recovered from 3.8 to 4.5. I believe I still make the same amount of money. But the idea to give a free version of the app, just did not work for me, I guess.

I like that you are selling a frontend for the OS URI handler for 10$. And then there is someone scamming you out of your revenue. A tech savvy standup comedian should be able to get a bit out of this :-)

My app makes about 1-2k a month. My guess that those free with IAP apps can make easily the same amount. That will be a very good salary for someone, for example, in India.

And scamming with a little profit makes it easier to stay away from some of the eyes.

I think some apps create two entries in the app store. One is often something like HN Lite which is the free version and then HN Pro for the paid version. But then I guess you have the problem of reviews being split over the two "different" apps.

>Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades or "active subscription gives you updates" models.

As a user, I'm glad that neither of those things are supported. Given how often upgrades either remove functionality or otherwise make my experience worse, I am glad that developers are required to push an entirely new application if they want users to pay again, rather than being able to coast on their old ratings and reviews. This gives me ultimate power to determine which version of the application I wish to run.

Additionally, I am quite over the nickel and diming of every other bloody application being a subscription.

Can't you offer an upgrade IAP if you know they have purchased the previous version via IAP?

If devs really wanted to, they could list a v2 upgrade product separately in the store, no? $10 for v2, $5 for v2 upgrade. Upgrade app has no functionality except "paste key" button, which unlocks everything after tapping "copy key" in v1 app. Or however you want to pass data between them.

There's a good chance this would not pass several app store guidelines and be rejected.

C’mon, would you buy that?

App Store bundles are a potential solution, especially since developers can now unlist an app so it can't be found unless there's a direct link to it. It's not perfect, but it's a workable approach.

Say you've had FooBarWizard in the App Store for a couple years at 99¢ and want to offer "upgrade pricing" to the all-new FooBarWizard 2 (which will be $1.99).

Add FooBarWizard 2 in the App Store. Publish a new version of FooBarWizard that includes an announcement that "FooBarWizard 2 is now available in a specially-priced upgrade bundle" (a one-time pop-up or something, and then a mention on the Settings screen, for example) so existing customers know about it. Create a bundle in the App Store with FooBarWizard and FooBarWizard 2 priced at $1.99, then unlist FooBarWizard.

The price of the bundle has to be at least as high as the most expensive app in the bundle. The net cost to the user is the difference between the bundle price and what was paid for the original app. So an existing user can buy the bundle and get FooBarWizard 2 for the "upgrade price" of $1. (A "new user" that tries to buy the 2-item bundle that only has 1 item pays $1.99 and still only gets FooBarWizard 2, because the original FooBarWizard is unlisted.)

> I think Apple has done more than anyone to turn software into a rental business where every calendar and to-do app now needs its own subscription.

All part of the plan:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/14/apple-met-with-de...

I think of apple as anti-software. they sell physical/digital products. but they don't do software.

None of these walled gardens exist primarily to keep bad apps out, but rather to keep users in. It's always been about the revenue share.

I know that. I just think it'd be nice if—as a side effect—the plants and flowers here were pretty. Don't they want me to stay here? How many weeds does it take for me to climb the wall and see what's available in the F-Droid Zoo or AppGallery amusement park? When does Code Enforcement (aka FTC, if my analogy is getting a little too cute) come by and demand they clean the yard up?

Rhetorical question I guess, because I'm still here in the garden ranting about it. But I'm not gonna leave. Not yet.

There's the rub: you're still there. At the end of the day, that's all they care about. They will keep pushing and taking until people start to leave and then dial it back just a bit.

When all of the players are playing the same game and getting away with it, it will not get better on its own. You need to vote with your wallet as that's the only thing companies hear.

I don't recall a time where I could ever play solitaire in iOS without being met with hostility, free or paid.

There has never been reason to have faith because there has never been a golden age of the iOS app store. It's always been trash.

Android has never had these issues.

Maybe not Solitaire, but you can still download Apple's Hold 'em poker app. It's pretty fun and feels like a relic from a different age.

I don't think I've ever downloaded an app that felt hostile. In fact, some of the best software I've ever used is on iOS. For example, Procreate is $10 and it's astoundingly good. GoodNotes was also something like $10-$20 and has been nothing but a joy to use.

Agreed, but I'll also add that this seems to be happening on every store. Miles upon miles of junk you have to sift through to get to something worthwhile. Apple, Google, Steam, Amazon... I'm presented with the worst choices. I don't know if these stores are all being gamed, but they all need to have better standards. At this point I just see them all as disorganized cash grabs.

I have an app, that I sell with App Store (OpenIn). So the Openly used to be called OpenIn Pro. Only because this app looked like a fraud, I submitted a trademark violation. The author of the app replied with a lot of confidence, that I was attacking their company, etc. But they have changed the name to Openly at the end.

My complain was that this app definitely have a lot of fake reviews, and my guess by being free they can generate a lot of downloads to keep it in top of the app store. And you can see a few of bad reviews, where some people actually purchased the app via in-app-purchases. And the name of my app brings traffic to the app store, and they use it in their advantage.

He called it false accusations. That they trust apple reviews, and that apple take it seriously. And a lot of well written text protecting themselves.

He was referring also to the head of legal department that they might take actions against me for false accusations.

Anyway, after that I just downloaded their apps and submitted concerns about legitimacy of their apps. That did not do anything.

I am surprised that those apps exist. Feel like they are 100% scam. My only guess is that somehow the people from review team know those developers and somehow let them to be on app store. Considering how hard sometimes to pass the review, that is the only explanation I have.

Apple doesn't mind scams that make Apple money and don't erode the Apple brand image.

But of course, Tim Cook likes to whine about Zuckerberg's hypocrisy on fees (which isn't happening yet), and complain about imaginary privacy nightmares if sideloading is allowed on iOS, while ignoring the very real and very current scams on their precious appstore.

> My only guess is that somehow the people from review team know those developers and somehow let them to be on app store. Considering how hard sometimes to pass the review, that is the only explanation I have.

The explanation is simple: it's an app that makes Apple money, so of course Apple is going to let it through unchallenged.

Apple is not consumers' BFF - it's the BFF of their shareholders, for which they'll do anything to please.

It’s absolutely soul-crushing to see the software market warped by broken store models. Legitimate developers can’t seem to convince people to pay anywhere near enough to sustain a business, and meanwhile scammers get millions.

By design.

> It’s absolutely soul-crushing to see the software market warped by broken store models

What makes it worse, in my mind, is that the entirety of the mobile application market has been held hostage by these rent-seeking app store models for over a decade, now.

I miss the pre-internet and pre-smartphone days when you could buy software at a reasonable price and use it in perpetuity.

> This obscure Mac developer has 3 of the top 95 grossing apps in the Mac App Store.

I wonder if it's money laundering and most of the purchases aren't victims.

can you do the iap several times?

actually a fantastic idea. purchase gift cards with cash, credit into an apple account, do iaps, cash out as dev. how much will be lost underway? 30%?

where are the problems in that model?

> can you do the iap several times?

Yes, there's "consumable" IAPs for doing things like purchasing in-game currency in games.

The worst thing to happen to mobile apps.

You'd need appleid accounts to load the gift cards into. I guess it would be tricky to set those up without linking phone numbers / apple device serials / ip addresses to your scam all the while establishing a reputation and legit looking usage history for them

15% if you are big enough I believe

30% isn't terrible in terms of laundering money, but chances are the App Store payout is how you're citing your income for taxes, so it's more risky than other ventures if Apple were to inform the IRS about something like "90% of this developer's revenue is via gift cards...".

It is when NFTs are 0%.

I think also that it's often desirable to run multiple steps. Losing 30% from a whole pipeline is one thing, but losing 30% from one transaction out of a couple seems like a fairly big hit.

People already launder money with gift cards. Further laundering it through apps whose merchant accounts are registered to real human beings, because of Know Your Customer laws, ruins the laundering aspect. There's no reason to go through additional de-anonymizing steps via apps once you've got or sold gift cards.

Especially when Apple takes an obscene 30%

That is where the “Earn $XXX/mo for doing nothing” scams come in. The victim would be effectively laundering the money from any KYC. The victim would not be sophisticated enough to point law enforcement your way. So the chain would be gift card->app->patsy->you.

I've thought of this myself. Anecdotally, I once ran across a game on Steam which looked hastily put together with basic Unity store assets and had a single $5000 DLC... makes you wonder.

imo NFTs are easier for money laundering

If I was an AML analyst I'd scrutinize NFT/crypto transactions much more than Apple paying out (what looks like) a legitimate app development company.

Aren't app store purchases easily tracked, on both the buyer and the merchant side? Which would make any money laundering attempt there easier to prosecute?

You can buy the gift cards with cash, pay for the app with that and get legitimate money in a bank account.

What's the point of a walled garden if the gardener doesn't give a shit?

To make a lot of money.

It’s like they walled-in the garden, look only at the walls when there’s a problem, and meanwhile the scammers are parachuting in.

Once you're trapped inside their walled garden, they make you call it fertilizer and speak of its virtues.

Same reason Amazon doesnt care if they people sell counterfeit items, everyone makes money.

The counterfactual isn’t that there’s no gardener and things are the same, in the counterfactual with no gardener things are even worse.

No, the counterfactual is way better. There's no more apps incorrectly rejected, and no more of Apple getting 30% of everyone's money for no good reason. The only benefit walled gardens even supposedly have is that apps like these wouldn't be allowed in.

I can still cancel all my subscriptions on iOS services in one place, very easily, all the same way. I still only have to trust one big, reasonably competent & responsible entity with my money when making a purchase decision, rather than trying to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis with every little two-person indie development shop. I don't have to figure out a different checkout flow for every app or service I buy on iOS. There aren't even two of them! Just one. Consistent, fast, and I trust it (well enough).

Apple's overall ecosystem still does a lot to make people feel comfortable & safe saying "yes" to a purchase and installing some software from a developer they've never heard of, even if the curation and presentation could be a lot better (but would just invite more waves of "waaaaah Apple won't let my derivative, inferior, somewhat-scammy app in the store, it's so unfair!" posts on HN, to great acclaim)

Just because the App Store is overly permissive in its curation in some cases doesn't mean it isn't overly stringent in other ones. Any system can have diametrically opposite problems in different areas. That just means the underlying problem is that the system is huge, hard to police, and suffers from inconsistent enforcement.

> GCalendar for Google Calendar

> Docs Pro for Google Drive

> Openly a Link Damn, if only there was a free app for google calendar, google docs, and looks up App open my web browser.

The entire mobile store is full of garbage. 98% trash. I don't know how Google and Apple let it get so bad. The bar is too low.

What kind of an asshole sells a $39.99/week subscription in a game hoping people misclick on the accept button.

To add insult to injury, their automated AI moderation system then ends up banning legitimate developers and you see their horror stories posted on HN.

I truly wish they'd at least separate out the whale-seeking IAP or subscription shit into its own section, which I could then totally filter out of my searches. I don't even bother to look at games on iOS anymore, because it's too hard to dig through the scum.

Also just, like, raise their standards. I'd love to see the worst 50% or so of the App Store just vanish.

I experienced this on iOS the other week. I think I was looking for a video editing app. A ton were free but required immediate sign up to a subscription with a free period to use the product at all.

Isn't this practice used to scam people in the App Store since forever now? I remember coming across exactly this practice 1-2 years ago here with some document scanner apps that made 10M/month revenue through that.

I thought it is a standard scum practice these days silently accepted by Apple. Practically every "free" app I downloaded from the App Store in the last few months behaved in this way.

So glad app review ensures only high quality apps :-/

How long ago was the commentariat fainting over Apple ruining DHH’s livelihood by not allowing him to do this exact thing with Hey?

How is this even remotely similar to Hey?

It's also a blatant trademark violation. Apple would never allow a "Music for Apple Music" app in their store, but is happy to infringe on competitors' trademarks.

Yo quit linking to walled garden Shitter threads

Make web apps, in the ops case, report

Reply on news.ycombinator.com