101–110 of 335 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. But the recipient company needs to be American.
In this case, isn't the recipient company Apple?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how would they know it's one or the other party that violated the terms? "Because our app was posted first" is not enough.
“Because our app was posted first” is actually what I thought of. Could you explain why this isn’t enough?
So, I suspect Apple just wants to stay out of it, let courts decide based on a collection of evidence (and whomever has the money to pay for lawyers, and time to do all the proceedings), and profit no matter who wins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how would they know it's one or the other party that violated the terms? "Because our app was posted first" is not enough.
One of the reasons I like to open-source my work (even in “source-available” form), is so that there is clear “prior art.” However, I have yet to write an app that has been highly successful, so being copied has not been a problem for me. Seeing the behavior of these scammers, I have no doubt that they would gleefully take my source, tweak the storyboard, and release a clone. They don’t seem to have any sense of sham…
Also... I just realized... in the same way the article OP mentioned they were ahead of everyone else wrt features/implementation etc, I wonder if the scammers are ahead of the game in terms of preternaturally staying under the App/Play Store radars? Like, specifically, exactly what might they be doing, I wonder?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I first published my app, they asked for a video of video fully working. Then once I had a bug and they sent me a video of it with the steps to the bug. So there are definitely people opening and testing apps
Yeah, same here, the only explanation I can think of is that the scammers have someone on the inside approving these fake apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they have the right to allow anybody they see fit Within the limits of the law, and I'm not so sure that these scam apps are in most jurisdictions. I'm actually reasonably sure they're not.
Why? If an app scams users, is Apple going to be liable for that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Because our app was posted first” is actually what I thought of. Could you explain why this isn’t enough?
You post screenshots of your app in progress for feedback. Scammer dupes those, rushes app into store, and when you finally launch, they "were there first" and requests your deletion on those grounds. So, I suspect Apple just wants to stay out of it, let courts decide based on a collection of evidence (and whomever has the money to pay for lawyers, and time to do all the proceedings), and profit no matter who wins.
I seriously doubt this has ever happened in the history of the App Store.
Scammers are "lazy". The look for the easy targets. Copying an existing app is easier and more lucrative than trying to write a new app based just on some in-progress screenshots, as if scammers would even be paying attention to you before you published an app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>about 2000€ a month, enough to pay for a students living expenses Just out of pure curiosity, where did you live/study that 2000 Euros are student living expenses? In my neck of the woods in central-western Europe (Austria), 1000 Euros per month is already really good money for most students and 2000 is what you make as a junior full time employee in a good tech company.
Vienna for example. Although it is possible to survive with around 700-900€ per month, eat, live and study. But if you also want to go out, go to restaurants/bars regularly and live in a nice place (not a shared dorm room), 1500-2000€ are way better.
The one I know most students have, is living very frugally, cooking at home, counting every penny to not go into more debt, studying hard to get a head start in life and partying hard on a budget, mostly house parties with booze bought from the supermarket with the occasional club or restaurant outing being a treat.
The other one is the Instagram lifestyle student, travelling to fancy places, practicing expensive sports and hobbies, eating out a lot, going bars and clubbing all the time. That's not your typical student, more like the 1%-er.
Living alone in a non-shared apartment is already a huge luxury for most students unless you come from a well-off family.
FYI, in situations like this the best way is to: 1. Register your videos and images with the USCO. It'll cost 2. You can now file DMCA takedowns. Send one to Apple with the USCO registration ID and a copy of the image and a link to the app in question. 3. Apple will either immediately remove that fake app, or be liable for up to $350k in punitive damages for wilful infringement and lose all DMCA protection. 4. If App…
Some people want to create great, useful apps. That's what they want to do. They are willing to give away half of their earnings to different 3rd parties to just not deal with the bullshit. It's unlikely to be their full time job. They probably don't make that much money on it, cloning happens just when the app begins to make any reasonable profit. So dealing with all your described is just not practical. Time is val…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, so? It's still a 100 billion market they've built, for devices, OSes, and SDKs they build. And it still has better paying customers than the Play store, and 1/50+ less malware (according to stats), so more customer trust. Is it perfect? No.
>OSes, and SDKs they build They build the OS and SDK on Mac too, why do they not get a % cut on all apps there too? Actually when you're in Safari you're using their OS and SDK too why don't they get a % cut of purchases and software there too? Just interested why one scenario is considered the norm yet these two others that fall under the same justification seem absurd.
Because they chose not to for business/historical reasons. So?
>Actually when you're in Safari you're using their OS and SDK too why don't they get a % cut of purchases and software there too?
Well, technically you're not using their SDK. Just the OS and the browser engine. The SDK is just the JS runtime.
That said, they could. And people could use another platform.
>Just interested why one scenario is considered the norm yet these two others that fall under the same justification seem absurd.
In the end it's a business decision, with historical (e.g. computers didn't have this model in the past, phones/consoles/etc did), market, and other considerations.