161–170 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think for someone who needd to launder large amounts of money and can't spend it otherwise, 30% or more might not be unreasonable. 70% beats 0%.
There are far simpler and less convoluted ways to launder money. We have bitcoin. We have HSBC.
At least with the App Store you can buy gift cards with cash or even get a mark from a scam to buy you gift cards that you can then launder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users don't read and just click on things.
I can see you are being downvoted but this is literally how this works. People install things and click rapidly thru the startup screens. These apps generally get legal consent from everyone who is billed, they just either didn't read it or forgot to cancel.
While this is true, and there are definitely cases of people not reading the text and accepting whatever, Apple has a long way to go here. On the payment screen, the text showing the price and the recurrence is way too small, and they're both located under an eminently-skippable "Policy" paragraph. It's no surprise that users are skipping this user-unfriendly screen.
This Twitter thread has some examples of how it can be improved: https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/1358161301973979139
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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are far simpler and less convoluted ways to launder money. We have bitcoin. We have HSBC.
Can you launder dirty cash with those? At least with the App Store you can buy gift cards with cash or even get a mark from a scam to buy you gift cards that you can then launder.
Doesn't iOS inform the user when they are about to authorize a paid subscription?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google has an OS that is literally a browser engine It's not though. Chrome OS is literally Linux. You can install Firefox.
You may be able to install Firefox now, but originally it was literally a web-only affair. "Chrome OS is literally Linux" is about as accurate as "Android is literally Linux". Chrome OS is not just some rebadged Debian distro. Do all chromebooks support linux apps now? AFAIK that's not true, and only a subset of them support it.
It's not rebadged Debian. The default Linux in Chrome OS is literally Debian. It has apt, bash, Wayland, X11. And of course the Linux kernel is there. What more do you want before you call it Linux?
> Do all chromebooks support linux apps now?
According to this page all 2019+ Chromebooks support Linux apps: https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chrome-os-systems-suppo...
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…
This is a fair position to have, but maybe a follow-up question: 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'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s pretty obvious why this is flawed: a lot of people will end up being sold on scammy or privacy invading stores. Why? The vast majority will continue to use the App Store. Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users would leave the safety of the App Store to seek out sideloading or alternative stores. The dichotomy of walled garden…
> The vast majority will continue to use the App Store. Definitely not true. Most people will be forced to install alternative stores because those stores will pay for exclusives on key apps. Players like Facebook and Google will open stores and only make their products available within them. > Apple could also manage this situation to both educate users and frame the situation in such a way so that only power users…
That is debatable, and discussed throughout this thread, including in my own comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283
Furthermore, there is clear evidence that what you are describing is not inevitable. Most Android users use the Google Play Store. Most MacOS users use the Mac App Store, and if they get their apps from elsewhere, it is not from competing app stores, unless you include game stores such as Steam or those run by Epic/EA/UbiSoft.
Facebook does not run their own separate Android app store, even though they could. Amazon has one, largely to service their own unique Android Kindle devices, and they are not popular outside of them, nor do they have exclusivity over Amazon apps. Your doomsday scenario of myriads of exclusive app stores flies in the face of both existing trends, and market dynamics. As pointed out elsewhere, network effects prevents everyone from starting their own app store; users do not want to deal with dozens of accounts, and will just use Apple's built-in apps if you present too high a bar to getting your own.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799335
> Not true. If Apple is forced to allow alternative store, anti-trust regulators will prevent Apple from portraying their own store as safer or from framing the situation.
Antitrust regulators have down little so far, making your fear-mongering claim even more dubious. Additionally, Apple is a master of dark patterns and social engineering, and can easily convey the safety of the App Store without stooping to heavy-handedness that would trigger regulators.
> Not true. Apple obviously cannot manage the behavior of third parties who they are forced to allow to build stores.
I find your lack of faith in Apple to be most disturbing. It's easily imaginable for Apple to re-frame the entire game so that they are the ones who are encouraging third parties to build stores, using official Apple App Store SDKs/APIs that come with Apple security standards built in.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26797189
> Clearly false. We know the scammers and privacy invaders will act, but are currently limited in their ability to do so.
You are refusing to acknowledge that when someone is scammed, the scammer is the one who holds the greatest fault for doing so. By doing so, you are passing the buck up the the responsibility chain.
And, clearly not enough, as the OP demonstrates. Apple's App Store enforcement standards have been slipping compared to previous years. Its clear that scammers are far less limited than back when Apple was more diligent at stopping malicious apps from being on their own platform.
> Forcing Apple to reduce protections will be the proximate cause of their customers being vulnerable.
No one is forcing Apple to host scammy apps on their own platform. And you seem to be the only one who believes that Apple cannot extend protections even to hypothetical Apple-powered third party app stores. At the end of the day, they control the operating system. They would always have ultimate control.
Finally, the original statement you are responding to is talking about the possibility of third party app stores that are more secure than the Apple App Store. Given the App Store's huge size and apparently slipping safety standards, it's certainly possible for new entrants to provide competition and offer an even better curated and secure experience than the one Apple provides. By preventing Apple from allowing the creation of such third party app stores, you are in effect the one forcing Apple to reduce protections, making their customers vulnerable.
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.