If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then they could implement far stricter controls knowing that, worst case scenario, you can still get an app onto the iPhone. This is how it works on the Mac. Tor isn't on the Mac App Store, but that of course doesn't mean Tor can't be used on the Mac.
This is one of the tricky parts about AppStore discussions, it's not about being for or against the AppStore. In fact, I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in, and I also wish there was an alternative to the AppStore to catch cases that didn't meet that strict bar. Then the AppStore could actually be about curation as opposed to fear-induced isolationism. Then Apple wouldn't have to inadvertently have political side-effects when it disallowed apps like HKMap.live.
Being on the AppStore could still be advantageous beyond just "either that or you don't get to be on the iPhone at all.” Apple payment processing, iCloud integrations, Family-sharing, etc. could all be tied to being ON the AppStore, so there'd still be a huge incentive to try to ship that way. And side-loading doesn't have to be easy or even on by default.
And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g. Google, Facebook, Abobe, Zoom, Epic, would start their own independent app store (or distribution just for their apps).
Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc).
Then every scammer and scamster does the same for their apps, and lures enough people to get them, and depending on what's allowed, you also get pirated app "stores". In the end the result is not so great for the devs complaining either...
Now instead of 1 method of payment, 1 way to enforce subscriptions/cancellations and other rules, one checkpoint, you have 2 or 5 or 10.
>Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc).
We are already aware of a platform that allows easy sideloading - Android. And most apps on Android are distribured through the Play Store. All "big" players still go through the Play Store.
When there is no such thing as the examples you described going on in Android, why do you expect iOS to be different?
That didn't happen on Android. But at least on android you can download the apk from github, or use f-droid
1. It is highly dependent on the mechanics of how Apple implements side-loading (again, if it has a scary warning or requires you to turn something on deep in Settings, it's unclear if this would actually be the case). Especially considering that for many apps Apple now has their own versions, so it might not be a great idea for Google to put more hoops to jump through to get to Maps when Apple ships a (now) fairly competent Maps app built in.
2. It also disregards the other benefits the AppStore could provide aside from being the only game in town, as it does now. Again, there are many features that make a lot of sense to be tied to AppStore accounts, the most obvious of which is anything having to do with ease of payments. You might be leaving a lot of money on the table by completely abandoning the "one tap" payments that AppStore payments gets you (especially with in-app purchases, etc.). Separately, users will expect Family Sharing to "just work", etc. Again -- this aligns incentives really well on both sides: a lot of these features are implemented fairly poorly today by Apple because there's no rush, its not like there's another option. With a good incentive to make Family Sharing shine with respect to the competition, it could start being far less confusing and be far more flexible too. It might not take 5 year stretches to get bottom-of-the-barrel basic features like paid app updates or app trials, etc.
3. This actually flips a lot of current economics of the app store on its head: it is an open secret that Apple grants sweetheart deals to big companies on the AppStore who don't pay 30%. This is the worst of both worlds: the big players are given an unfair advantage on the AppStore. However, if they were attracted by their greed to try to "do it on their own" outside the AppStore, then small startups have a real shot at going head to head by being the "AppStore-compliant" version of the app, since 30% is an easier pill to swallow when its not billions of dollars in revenue.
4. The idea that because one or two apps convince users to side-load means that it would open the flood gates to every single scam app doing it is a fairly BIG slippery slope to... slide down? Again, if the process is fairly onerous for each side-load, then you might find that ONLY big names can actually convince people to do it, or important apps like HKMap.live or other apps that nations try to use the bottleneck of the AppStore to prevent. As mentioned elsewhere in these comments -- side-loading wouldn't necessarily mean you don't have to jump through some other Apple hoops.
And most importantly, I would argue that the current situation is worse. Apple tells everyone the AppStore is safe, and thus every app that appears on the AppStore is "Apple approved" (LITERALLY!). This precisely lulls people into installing scammy apps. Apple can't pop up a disclaimer every time you download something from the AppStore saying "HEY NOW CAREFUL, THIS APP MAY BE A SCAM," because it would go against the entire marketing of the AppStore. But they CAN put such a disclaimer in front of every side-load, because they owe those apps nothing and it hurts Apple's reputation none at all in that case.
I honestly believe that some sort of side-loading option would be best for any cynical Apple interests long-term and for developers and for users.
The current course of action just leads to developer frustration (which is fine until a disruptive player enters the market), a super shitty store that leaves customers pissed (with scams, etc.), constant churn in rules to try to appease everyone and kick the can another 2 years (like the 15% reduction), and worst of all, unwanted attention from regulators that could have chaotic effects.
Whatever its problems are, it isn't the worst possible situation for themselves by a long shot.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-s...
Until you realize they don't actually care about it being "safe and secure" beyond a certain point.
They care they apps wont leech your payment details, they care they apps can't step outside the guidelines, they care that technology and connectivity is locked within the app store and not the browser but as long as an app plays within the rules they don't care if an app tricks your 5 year old into a 400$ a week subscription, as long as your 5 year old is doing it safely.
We can have multiple instances of both. And we probably should.
Safe and secure maybe, but it’s safe and secure garbage. It’s mind blowing how shitty most apps on the store are.
I want to go back to the iPhone 1 app store, where literally every app was a jewel.
Instead, I’d like to see Apple be forced to provide bootloader unlocks and some basic drivers for alternative operating systems. We own the hardware, after all. Then they could have their walled garden and people who wanted more could run something else.
It’s also a simpler and more generalizable goal, in my opinion. If you own it, you should have low level access. That sounds more reasonable than forcing a corporation to add open App Store access, maintain it, and deal with whatever market effects precipitate.
I actually think Apple could find a way to navigate it. They already allow one prominent alternative choice on iOS: non-iMessage SMS. If Apple allowed third-party stores, I could see them using their product, UX, and branding mastery to create the equivalent of the blue-bubble and green-bubble dichotomy for App Store vs. 3rd party downloaded apps. Creating a social stigma without technical restrictions, so to speak. So allowing an alternative while at the same time encouraging users not to partake in it.
There’s a lot wrong with the current state of apps in the App Store, but right now at least I know who’s job it is to get it fixed.
Through the same system APIs that exist right now. Why would that change?
> Who would verify them against malware
The distributor of the app, most likely. If you downloaded a game though Steam for iOS or whatever, and it had malware, that's Valve's fault.
If you went to virus.com and downloaded a virus, that's your problem.
> or ensure they didn’t violate security constraints?
You mean ensure they don't violate one of the operating system's security protections? That's called finding an exploit, and it's the developer of the operating system's responsibility. Exploits for iOS exist today, and they'll continue to exist in the future.
> It’s not like Apple could disavow all responsibility for any data leaked from the system, a lot of users simply wouldn’t see it that way
Of course not. A "leak" due to an exploit/vulnerability in iOS that Apple failed to patch would be their fault.
A third party app leaking personal info online would be the third party developer's fault. People didn't get pissed at Apple when Facebook leaked all that data a ~week ago.
> There’s a lot wrong with the current state of apps in the App Store, but right now at least I know who’s job it is to get it fixed.
It's their job to get it fixed. It's been their job for over 13 years, and they've failed at it again and again. It's about time they're fired.
But instead of gaslighting us, Apple could let us sideload notarized apps. This means:
- Automated scan for malware
- Remote kill switch, just in case
They already do this for macOS [1]:
> “Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly.”
They could give users a choice, much like they're doing with the new App Tracking Transparency prompt. But when pressed on why Apple should have control, Cook said "Somebody has to."
That's… not a very convincing argument.
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
Apple definitely cares about its customers being driven away from them.
That doesn't mean they've caught all scams, or more importantly in this case have managed to automate detection of them all, definitely not as fast as folks online identify them.
Also note that there are entire classes of scams that never get click baity titles because Apple DOES detect them and shut them down before they're widespread.
(I worked at Apple in engineering, left after many years for compelling genomics, and that's the basis for my assertion.)
If you're able to share your thoughts without giving away private info from your time there: Based on this particular scam - with so many bad reviews AND the extremely high revenue being generated, should this not have tripped some kind of alarm for closer review?
How has this been going on for so long without anyone at Apple noticing? It's not like it's lost in a sea of minor apps generating middling income, it's literally in the top tenth-of-a-percent by gross revenue.
And I would bet a LOT of money that there are plenty of people at Apple who are well paid to closely watch their top performing apps. So how does this get missed, unless "is this a scam?" just isn't high on the list of priorities for those teams.
I think it's absolutely fair to question Apple's commitment to catching this stuff based on that.
Perhaps they are great at catching all the low-hanging fruit and the obvious stuff, but what if something gets through that first net? Is anyone paying attention then? Or are they just watching the money roll in?
That's beside the point. According to the thread, Apple detected this one. So why didn't they shut it down? The thread speculates that it's because Apple is making significant revenue from it and, frankly, that sounds like a logical conclusion - at least until Apple can be bothered to remove the app or explain their justification for leaving it up.
Besides, doesn't Apple manually review apps on their store? I've read story after story of app devs complaining about how that review process screwed them over in one way or another. Surely one of the top 500 highest grossing apps on their store would garner at least a little extra attention in a manual review, right? How did this even slip through the cracks in the first place?
It's also worth noting that there's almost a game of natural selection going on, with these scams evolving and adapting constantly to slip through the automated systems. So it's a never ending war with no end in sight.
The problem here is Apple cannot assume sole responsibility for policing and take a 30% cut, not allow anyone else to do a try and do better job and claim user safety is why they do all this and then even fail in any % of cases. people only care how many crimes are happening now, saying the policing has prevented so many other crimes is little help to all the people being cheated now.
Users were defrauded of $5/M +, Apple made 1.5M from this app. How has apple corrected this ? . A app claiming to show your pulse is not just financial scam, it is medical risk. Lives are at risk here. If Apple earning $1.5M from a fraud is unable protect its users from this kind of app, or come out and say what went wrong and how they are improving the system and actually doing it.
Why should I as user believe them ? Why should I not reasonably assume actions and financial structure for the Apple App store will do some basic checks inconsistently and get away with it if they can ?
When someone on Twitter discovers an app making more revenue than Microsoft Word will "detect" the blood pressure of a reddish candy bar responding by reducing the star rating by 0.9 just doesn't cut it.
Same as Facebook - they get tons of shit for hate speech, even tho they invest tons into trying to get rid of it. Same rules apply to Apple - I don’t doubt that it’s problem that’s being actively tackled. But unless it’s fully solved, external criticism is well deserved.
"Apple doesn’t seem to care about top-grossing scams on the App Store"
Both can easily be true.
I’m not buying apps from wannabes who can vanish or buying into an app market that could go tits up the next week.
The market as a whole is basically Google; here today, gone tomorrow.
I needed the SmartThings app for some Samsung home automation devices, searched for it, and installed this one:
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smart-things-smart-view-app/id...
When it charged me a $20/year subscription (now cancelled) I thought "Wow, Samsung charging me for this feels pretty cheap of them, but I guess that's how they do things - after all, I found this on the App Store".
The app I should have installed was this one: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smartthings/id1222822904
I've also seen the "free but not free" apps like in the twitter thread. Usually there is an invisible "X" in the top corner of the payment form that you can click to get past it and use the app's free features after all. My kids run into these all the time: they see an ad for a game, it has good reviews so I let them get it, it prompts them for payment. If you are clever you can sometimes get around it, but I've seen cheap old arcade game knock-offs asking for $30+/mo! This is not by any stretch the only developer making mad bank on a subpar app.
It's nearly impossible for anyone--even the most savvy user--to identify which app is the real one and which one is a deceptive one.
Someone I know had a family plan thing with restrictions on their kid, but then got automatically charged for an app subscription somehow. Maybe install free app is ok, but auto-subscription bypasses restrictions?
Yet here we are, in 2021, and Apple won't even allow you to install software on the device you own without their say-so. There are admittedly other browsers on the app store, but they all must use Safari's rendering engine.
To maintain this monopoly Microsoft employed tactics like offering discounts if OEMs promised exclusivity. Basically punishing any manufacturer that might want to ship another operating system. My read on the browser verdict was that this was what the justice department thought was sufficiently low-hanging fruit to convict Microsoft. But it was far from the only anticompetitive tactic Microsoft used at the time. "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run"[2]
[1] I'm ignoring exotic stuff like SGI workstations that were priced out of reach of typical consumers.
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10434133
Edit: Here's an example. In 2002 Dell started offering PCs without Windows pre-installed[2] - this was considered a big deal in the linux forums I hung out in. Why? Because until then you had to pay Microsoft to own a PC (practically the only consumer computing hardware available at the time), even if you wanted to install Linux on it. This is like if nearly every phone had to come with iOS pre-installed (and Apple collected a licensing cut), even if you wanted to install/use Android.
[3] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2577666/dell-offering-...
> an abuse of Microsoft's market position
Apple has no such market position to abuse.
It's perfectly legal to put restrictions on your product. It's perfectly legal to be a monopoly. It's only a problem when you abuse your monopoly position to restrict competitors.
Anyone is free to buy an iPhone, install apps on it, and resell it.
The other anti-trust claims against MS were I think largely credible and reasonable, but that one really has not aged well.
An open ecosystem does have advantages, but reducing scam apps and malware is not one of them.
People are complaining about a small number of bad apps getting through and at the same time we have quite a few stating that not allowing people to load up anything they want is bad. Can you imagine trying to sort through the mess if there was no gate keeper because there is an actual chance if people get their legislative wish list through.
Even if you could get an independent system up and running who is going to pay for it? The staffing is going to be very large and who determines what is a good app and what is not?
I am all for Apple having and managing their store by their rules. While I think it is dumber than all get out to allow for people to install any app they find I am certainly not going to stand in their way as long as the companies which make the phones and provide the software are fully protected from such a choice. After all if a rogue app does something bad who do you think the lawyers will come for?
[0]https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/24/app-store-rejecte...
Since it seems that Apple can't handle the problem they've delegated to themselves exclusively, and they prevent parties that might be better suited to solve it from solving it, they should allow the power of markets and competition to develop better, more efficient solutions. That way, consumers don't have to suffer while Apple insists that they're the only company allowed to serve the app distribution market as their customers are being scammed to the tune of several million dollars, or more, each month.
Is this a serious question? The answer is: by hiring people. Lots of them. Apple has over $200 billion just in cash in the bank.
Here's the specific portion of the original Jobs iPhone announcement that I'm referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQ9JNm_qWc
Which was preposterously false then and still mostly false today.
It sounds like you are arguing that more medical scams would be better.
App review fails sometimes, but removing it would be worse.
It's literally the most rousing success of any product in the history of civilization. You might want to re-calibrate your sensors a bit about what is successful.
Each app submitted to the App Store undergoes a thorough review process. Each app update is checked and approved by an Apple employee. It's not like some automated process which you can game left and right. Each app on the App Store is guaranteed, thanks to the strict review process, to adhere to a minimum standard of quality which is higher than competing app markets are offering.
You can trust Apple's judgement on the content that is published on the App Store.
Thats just not true though -- it does go through a review but the quality of that review is not remotely consistent.
I've litterally had reviewers 'reject' an app because they couldn't log in and said I didn't provide the right details.
Basically they copied the email or password incorrectly. Note they didn't copy and paste -- just wrote it wrong and then rejected the app with out double checking.
Still, it's way better than any competing app store for iOS apps in existence!
Well duh, of course I'm being sarcastic. I'm of the opinion that Apple should get all possible roasting for their review process, since they designate themselves as the only gatekeepers in the ecosystem. Even if you can do better... You can't. They won't let you.
That staggering number of apps is bound to have leakage of the bad sort and as long as Apple has in place a means to report them then they should be given some leeway. If there is no process (I really don't know) then yeah we should call them out on it.
[0]https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/24/app-store-rejecte...
Apple should just remove Subscriptions completely and have app developers turn them into consumable IAPs that you have to buy every X months.
The app developer can still do a free trial in their own code.
Games do this all the time with "premium". You buy 30 days of Premium for $5. 30 days later its done and you have to buy it again. No auto-recurring subscriptions.
With my data going poof each time, I'm afraid that's a no. Even merely having to log in again, compared to the status quo, is way worse.
I am starting to think there is a much deeper problem with Apple, it is that without Steve Jobs, no one is being the yard stick of quality, especially in UX.
A decade of App Store, you are wondering if they have actually put any effort in its Apps Search Engine. It took them 3 years to admit they have problem with Keyboard and offering an update after 5 years. For things that are easily quantify, like Sales, Hardware Performance ( Apple Silicon ), Logistics and Operation. They are absolutely excelling under Tim Cook. For everything else it seems they are loose, at least from an Apple Standard point of view, although that is still far higher than their competitors.
To quote Steve, it seems people are too focused on the process, and forgot about the content.
[1] https://twitter.com/PatrickMcGee_/status/1380194940236353536
I'd chalk it up to Apple being the biggest company on the planet, and the sheer scale of managing an enterprise that size. Nothing lasts forever.
Which might as well be greed — after all 30% of 5Mn = 1.5Mn USD. They make a lot of money by allowing scammy apps to continue operating.
I hope these cases becomes a major reason why they have to open up the App Store.
I can't see a scam app being a top grosser without something like that.
Why wouldn't they complain if it was a scam?
Because they're not actually using it. It's a money laundering app.
If you're just laundering money through an app, it doesn't have to actually do anything.
And if you make the price outrageously high, you can launder more money with fewer clicks and reduce the risk of some idiot actually buying it.
~120 1-star reviews are saying you're wrong about this one.
1. Do nothing more. It doesn’t seem to be going too badly for Apple
2. Have stricter review and allow sideloading. Obviously this is popular on HN but it seems to me that Apple would not do this and it doesn’t obviously help. Maybe users would just be trained to sideload (I vaguely recall that there was a time when many apps in mainland China were not in the App Store and had to be sideloaded. There would be well-written instructions for how to install them)
3. Be stricter at review. Maybe this is expensive (so Apple would have to increase fees or reduce profits). It might also not be good for Apple if fewer amateurs can release apps. But maybe that isn’t so significant and Apple make most of their money from bigger players.
4. Make it harder to profit from these scams. Maybe hold user payments in escrow for a while and look for evidence of scams—users quickly cancelling, leaving 1-star reviews, etc—and only pay later. To some extent this is “more scrutiny” so maybe this is just a way to make it targeted. Maybe this would still have the problem of hurting small players, and maybe most money lost to scams goes to small apps rather than “popular” ones like the one in the thread, so this flagging wouldn’t catch them.
5. Have a two-tier App Store with a section of “high quality” apps and a section of less-reviewed apps. Apple already does this to some extent with “editors” of the store, various articles about apps, and plenty of custom artwork too. I don’t know how they would pay for this thing or explain it to users but it seems it would still allow small players a chance while giving users better safety.
Personally I think I would like a mix of a few of these. I like the idea of a higher tier in the store and I would be ok if it was expensive to get into (e.g. dev has to pay $1000 for the first review of an app) and had various stricter requirements (e.g. a different contract with apple requiring more notification when transferring app ownership or longer settlement times for user purchases, but also things like the app having good performance). I would also like it if Apple would try to find popular apps in the lower tier and help the good ones into the higher tier (maybe for free for a good viral game or with deferred payments out of (in-) app purchase income for paid apps) while removing the bad ones. And I think they could still improve their scam detection in the lower tier.
On the other hand, Apple's like a restaurant that promises you clean and superior experience, you enter, it's clean and tidy indeed, but then you suddenly get served a smelly smoked herring wrapped in an old stained newspaper, and get charged $199 for it on top.
On one hand, they're already having trouble with legitimate developers getting apps on the store (or at least they used to). On the other hand, there are tons of low-quality and scam apps.
I agree with common sentiment here that people should be able to install apps from wherever they want. But a curated "App Store" for most people is a good idea. Otherwise your entire system's reputation becomes worse because people install low quality apps and possibly even malware, and it's hard to find good and legitimate apps.
Except that's still happening with the current App Store. And I honestly think Apple is trying to do better curation, but it's a hard problem because there are so many apps and you don't want to reject any legitimate ones.
Here's an excerpt:
> Kara Swisher: Like Netflix and others, right. What’s wrong with Epic or any developer going their own way or allowing a direct payment system, instead of having to go through the App Store? Why should you have the control?
> Tim Cook: Well, I think somebody has to. I think somebody has to curate, right? Because users aren’t going to come there and buy things if they don’t have trust and confidence in the store. And we think our users want that.
> Kara Swisher: Why can’t there be more stores, other stores run by others?
> Tim Cook: Because if you had side loading, you would break the privacy and security model.
> Kara Swisher: On the phone itself, and the phone itself wouldn’t protect the user necessarily.
> Tim Cook: Well, you’d be opening up a huge vector on another store.
> [a minute or so later]
> Tim Cook: I think curation is important as a part of the App Store. In any given week, 100,000 applications come into the app review. 40,000 of them are rejected. Most of them are rejected because they don’t work or don’t work like they say that they work. You can imagine if curation went away, what would occur to the App Store in a very short amount of time.
---
I agree that not having sideloading, without giving it any thought on the technical implentation, is probably safer in terms of reducing "viruses" and what not.
It's arguable that cases like families whose kids spends tens of thousands due to dark patterns in approved applications were no safer than if they had run a side loaded application or a vetted one though.
Similarly, I can only imagine the amount of money wasted on misleadingly titled applications.
You could perhaps argue that the privacy model is compromised anyway in the sense that you can install Facebook, sign up and have your info dumped online, through no fault of Apple. The upcoming ATT changes should help but they haven't existed since, well, the app store was created :)
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/opinion/apples-ceo-is-mak...
I really wish somebody would follow up a response like that by asking if that means macOS is inherently insecure and dangerous.
ELI5 :
Application that are using fake review, fake company profile, giving misleading medical information seems to thrive on the App Store.
And it seems that not only there is little a customer can do to warn others ( 1 star reviews that are mentioning the deceptive nature of the application are not immediately visible and are still overwhelmed by the amount of allegedly fake 5 stars review, and Apple or the subsidiary they are using to manage the store seem to have removed a mean for the user to report an issue with the application )
This is aggravated by the appearance that the App Store should be trusted and is free from scam ( even if the amount is relatively small, 0.00N% is still more than 0% ), where it seem that review process only protect the user from security and potential privacy issue.
Most of people would believe Apple press communication and most Apple user would believe that their iPhone is safer than the other phone brand, thanks to Apple keeping an eye for quality and security.
As for the invented-from-whole-cloth link title: please don't do that.
That the developer of FlickType (the OP of this Twitter thread) had to file a lawsuit says a lot about how much Apple isn’t paying attention. I seriously wonder what the person at the top level managing the App Store is doing, other than lobbying to prevent any possibility of alternate payment options or allowing side loading of apps.
The update logs are a perfect example. I have had updates rejected (rightfully) because my update logs were too vague and there’s a rule against vague useless update logs.
But the same standard never applies to FB, Twitter etc. FB’s update logs are always vague and two lines of “We update the app often to fix bugs and improve features.” Even when they are using updates to lets say remove features or add features.
People often try to excuse this by saying “big companies have too many A-B tests etc. But that makes it worse. A big company should be held to an even higher standard than the ordinary pleb developer like me.
Another example is when Apple gave special privileges to Uber’s app:
https://www.businessinsider.in/apple-gave-ubers-app-unpreced...
It’s a BIG CLUB and you and I ain’t in it.
Apple is the only company who's been able to convince users to pay for client-side software. Android is mostly full of "free" ad-supported apps. Prior to smart phones, users generally could not be relied upon to buy software. Now, you need to break your banking apps if you want to side-load anything, and it's just easier to buy apps. This has greatly contributed to investment in software development IMO. I do want more freedom to develop on iOS and I also understand why they have limitations. It's because they don't want scam-apps to reach customers.
Original thread, which explains the scam, is here: https://mobile.twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1381463196280...
If Apple can make 1-2M/yr from a scam and lawyers tied all loose ends they will have no problem doing that. Worst case will push some press release statement blaming third party and that will be it.
The goal isn’t to get some meaningful money per customer but to make a single sale, usually only a few dollars. So the goal is to trick the user, optimize for large volumes of unit sales and reduce the cost per sale to as minimal as possible.
I think it’s time that there be competing App Stores on iOS because Apple has completely dropped the ball with their brain-dead approach to quality and developer incentives. Whoever runs the App Store at Apple should be replaced, but that’s not going to happen until there is real competition so the numbers reflect the true state of things.
Getting someone to part with $20 is harder than $1. I think the race to the bottom with software distribution has had a negative effect on overall quality. I’d rather have a few moderately priced options to choose from than 100 equally cheap options.
Not sure if this was the norm back then, and if it is now.
This is the absolute most basic thing. And they screw it up spectacularly. It's especially infuriating because app names must be unique. What's the point if the search is that broken?
Doesn't iOS inform the user when they are about to authorize a paid subscription?
