121–130 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how did Nintendo save the video game market?
By killing competition and locking down their hardware so we couldn't get more open hardware? That's not "saving" anything but themselves.
Clickbait title, but its easy to get points on the internet hating on Apple, truth is the alternatives are no better
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This post to me sounds like someone claiming spam filters are worthless because an email got across. If I'm literally prevented from using any other kind of spam filter, you bet I'd be complaining. > The relevant metric is how many scams aren’t there Would you please also prove there is definitely no teapot orbiting Mars, while we're at it?
> If I'm literally prevented from using any other kind of spam filter, you bet I'd be complaining. Actually, you can use another kind of spam filter - your brain.
The assertion in that title is patently false click-bait. 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 th…
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.
It's as if the people paying for this app aren't actually the ones complaining. 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 buyin…
Who would launder money in a way that would not only require finding a developer and going through App Review, but also losing 30% in the process (plus however much that developer costs)?
Apple has just engineered the worst possible situation for themselves by being the only way to get apps on the store and by simultaneously incessantly marketing the store as "Safe and Secure". The former encourages them to maximize the number of apps on the store, while the latter encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later. If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you even understand the volume of apps they deal with? Apple claims 100k a week[0]. How do you propose to handle that? 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 p…
> Do you even understand the volume of apps they deal with? Apple claims 100k a week[0]. How do you propose to handle that? 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.
There's this area that can only be reached by crossing one of two bridges. The first bridge you encounter when you leave the starting town is guarded by a rude and aggressive troll. The bridge is a mess, falling apart, and he charges an expensive toll if you want to pass.
But if you explore for a bit instead of paying, you'll find another bridge with another troll, except this troll is super polite, soft-spoken and friendly, the bridge is very neat and tidy, and his toll is like 10x cheaper. He even thanks you for your patronage when you pay him.
When you encounter the mean troll again, he'll offer you a reward if you kill the other troll.
Apple charging 30% for a scam/malware-infested store, and keeping the profits rather than reinvesting them to try and actually improve the store makes them the first troll in this story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of funny that we trust Google's index of the whole www to take us to manufacturer's legitimate website, but don't trust Apple's own search of their curated store.
You don't need to trust Google. If you buy a Samsung phone, for example, their official domain would be printed in their documentation.
Apple has just engineered the worst possible situation for themselves by being the only way to get apps on the store and by simultaneously incessantly marketing the store as "Safe and Secure". The former encourages them to maximize the number of apps on the store, while the latter encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later. If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then…
> 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. And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g.…
>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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of funny that we trust Google's index of the whole www to take us to manufacturer's legitimate website, but don't trust Apple's own search of their curated store.
You don't need to trust Google. If you buy a Samsung phone, for example, their official domain would be printed in their documentation.
They link directly to the app. They almost certainly have relevant QR codes in the manuals to go directly to the app downloads. You can find the official app listed by "Samsung Electronics", where the "scam" app is by a third party.
There are a lot of problems and egregious abuses in the app store (made much worse once recurring subscriptions appeared), however this particular thread is not convincing. Some third party made a control app for Samsung TVs. There is nothing wrong with that (and it does not, contrary to claims, misrepresent itself or even clone the official app, beyond the most superficial of mainstream design choices). There is no reasonable reason to think that the app is by Samsung. I don't see how it's a scam in any way.
For someone to miss the Samsung app and download this, then agree to a subscription and pay, is something that I don't think many people would do. And it certainly isn't a fault of the store.