231–240 of 261 posts
But… what I think would be nice to see from Apple is better visibility into those ratings and reviews so users have more to go on than a single number.
Will that alone prevent these from happening? probably not, but this isn’t a fight that can be won with a single battle/weapon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, except this scam app was free. Apple earned 30% of $0.
Nopes, they also earn $99 / year - https://developer.apple.com/support/purchase-activation/ ...
Arguing about the $99/year developer fee is a pointless rabbit hole. You might as well also accuse Apple of selling the developers an iPhone and a Mac for developing the scam app. And then don't forget to accuse the electrical grid operator of selling electricity to the scammers.
I got scammed too. I got an app for $14/week for some LG / Samsung screen sharing. We were in hotel and I wanted to stream something to TV in the hotel room so I quickly downloaded it. Wine did not help :( The app was charging me for one month. But then it disappeared from the store. One problem is this weekly schedule: people do not check cc statements on weekly schedule. Also they should sent an iMessage a couple o…
> also they should sent an iMessage a couple of days before the change. But then users might disable the auto-renew, and Apple wouldn't get their cut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why aren't you afraid today? Their gatekeeping is clearly useless.
Something does not have to be perfect to be useful; a filter that throws out 50% or 90% of malicious trash is very useful even if a lot of malicious trash gets through. The appropriate metric for safety of an app store is not whether you can get attacked, but rather how many users - proportional to all users - get attacked every year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why aren't you afraid today? Their gatekeeping is clearly useless.
Something does not have to be perfect to be useful; a filter that throws out 50% or 90% of malicious trash is very useful even if a lot of malicious trash gets through. The appropriate metric for safety of an app store is not whether you can get attacked, but rather how many users - proportional to all users - get attacked every year.
Apple's filters are clearly garbage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and likewise, car manufacturers should remove seatbelts and airbags. They simply encourage reckless driving, and by giving the false sense of security / assuming the gatekeeper role, they should be liable for any accident.
Weird, I can flash whatever code I want to on my car's ECU. There's even an entire subculture dedicated to modding ECU firmware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Punishing companies for adding protections to their products is an insanely backwards incentive. May as well turn off sandboxing, and lock screens. If they ever break, it’d be a liability!
Nah. If you're gonna set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of what I can run on my device, you are absolutely to blame for any harm that comes as a result. Protections? Encryption is protection. Address space randomization is protection. This Apple review process? This is just humans failing to do what's expected of them. Also known as negligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something does not have to be perfect to be useful; a filter that throws out 50% or 90% of malicious trash is very useful even if a lot of malicious trash gets through. The appropriate metric for safety of an app store is not whether you can get attacked, but rather how many users - proportional to all users - get attacked every year.
I've been using Linux for at least 10 years and I have never received malicious software from distribution repositories. For some reason, malware just doesn't make it into the repositories. Apple's filters are clearly garbage.
Using linux as an example here doesn’t work.