[HN Gopher] Top Mac app store dev abuses free with in-app purcha...
___________________________________________________________________
Top Mac app store dev abuses free with in-app purchase for bait-
and-switch apps
Author : Apocryphon
Score : 218 points
Date : 2022-04-12 17:28 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| [deleted]
| endisneigh wrote:
| Make web apps, in the ops case, report
| olliej wrote:
| So glad app review ensures only high quality apps :-/
| gnicholas wrote:
| Yesterday my friend was trying to take pulse ox measurements on
| his Apple Watch. After searching on the web, he downloaded an app
| called Blood Oxygen App, [1] which costs $20/yr. It didn't work
| without a subscription, it seemed, so he asked me for help. I
| figured out that the Apple Watch comes with a built-in app called
| Blood Oxygen (no "App" at the end) that does this for free.
|
| I can't believe Apple let this through their review process.
| Think of how much money they've made by fooling people into
| thinking their app is the official Apple app.
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blood-oxygen-app/id1541992656
| benatkin wrote:
| It's almost like they enjoy hypocrisy, that it's a game for
| them.
|
| It was very much a game when Steve Jobs had his infamous
| invitations for potential acquisitions that never panned out:
| https://twitter.com/apartovi/status/1447251334814523392?lang...
| ksec wrote:
| While I think modern Apple is the definition of pure
| hypocrisy. I honestly dont see how that is hypocrisy from
| Steve.
|
| And I dont see how that is infamous. I actually thought Steve
| was _very_ polite in replying. Had the decency to give him a
| straight answer.
| benatkin wrote:
| I didn't say it was hypocrisy from Steve, I said it was a
| game. I think it probably is though - he calls him a liar
| but I think he misrepresented his offer. He was very
| unlikely to pony up 50 million for iLike. A good faith
| offer shouldn't explode like that. Calling someone a liar
| while you're lying is hypocrisy.
|
| But again in the second paragraph I didn't say or imply
| that he was being a hypocrite. Just that he was playing a
| game. When I said hypocrisy I was talking about the current
| app store approval process. Steve Jobs was only involved in
| that for about 3 years more than a decade ago.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _I can 't believe Apple let this through their review
| process. Think of how much money they've made by fooling people
| into thinking their app is the official Apple app._
|
| I can, given that there are multimillion dollar scams on the
| App Store[1]. Last time I looked, I found about a half dozen
| Chinese Bonzi Buddy clones on the Mac App Store, as well.
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-
| store-s...
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| it's because the automation in the review process is a work in
| progress, given the huge nonstop flow of applications to review
| not1ofU wrote:
| You would think that the non-stop flow of cash apple has at
| its disposal would be able to offset the issue.
|
| I love how apple has everyone so brainwashed that random
| people just jump to their defence.
|
| Do you have some excuses for this? I really would like to
| hear them :-D
|
| LTT Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHqntr8FjY
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| I'm not a random person. I worked in Apple engineering for
| years, and what I said is factual.
|
| Consider how the challenge of reviewing app submissions is
| an ever evolving game, and you'll see it's genuinely tricky
| to get right all the time.
| ksec wrote:
| You are suggesting a flaw in review _automation_ , while
| Apple is telling the world how they have people checking
| every App submissions.
| not1ofU wrote:
| Well apologies for assuming you were a random person. I
| conceed that reviewing app submissions would be quite
| challenging, but based on all the screenshots provided in
| that twitter thread, it doesnt look like any effort at
| all goes in to screening submissions. I would assume
| (correct me if I am wrong) that comment reviews would be
| flagged for inappropriate words, and if this assumption
| is correct, why not also scan / flag on the word "scam".
| After which, someone would install the app to a test
| system, and would immediately see that this is in fact a
| scam / against the rules, etc., etc., because of the
| immediate paywall thats presented in these examples.
|
| My comment relating to apple brainwashing / jumping to
| their defence was not so much directed at you, and more
| directed at, everytime I see a valid complaint, there is
| always someone that chimes in with, "well thats because
| of x" (even if x= thats hows its always been done) and I
| do admit the bit that tripped me into writting a response
| was "work in progress" from your comment. They make more
| money than the entire GDP of a few countries, "work in
| progress" doesnt cut it.
|
| As an ex-apple employee, I am even more curious on your
| thoughts on the video link I posted. Cheers
| varenc wrote:
| I just gave this app a try it doesn't seem like an out-right
| scam to me.
|
| It has 20,000 reviews and plenty of them look like they're
| written by real humans that actually appreciate the app. The
| app also works with other bluetooth SpO2 sensors, and I believe
| that Apple's official "Blood Oxygen" app is only available if
| you have an Apple Watch! (Though in either case presumably the
| app is just leveraging iOS's built in functionality?). Also the
| app seems to focus on data sharing which Apple's Blood Oxygen
| and Health apps don't provide. There are some 1 star reviews,
| but they seems mainly from people that are upset this app can't
| track SpO2 by itself without a watch or other hardware.
|
| Also the app works fine without a subscription. It does
| aggressively prompt you to subscribe when you first open the
| app so it might not have been clear it was optional. Making
| this non-obvious is sketchy. Subscribing enables Apple Health
| syncing, sharing, and stats. There's plenty of out right scams
| on the App Store but this doesn't seem like one.
| derefr wrote:
| It sounds like you're looking at the iOS app, which may well
| have a sensible reason to exist.
|
| I presume the GP, on the other hand, is talking about an
| Apple Watch app, which would only be doing something the
| Apple Watch already does.
| varenc wrote:
| They're the same thing. There's no separate Apple Watch
| app. This iOS app just has an Apple Watch app component
| that can be installed on the watch if you have one. So the
| reviews include both. (I believe this is true in general
| and every Watch app is also an iOS app. You can't install a
| Watch app without also installing an iOS app on your paired
| phone as well. You can't even setup an Apple Watch without
| having an iPhone to pair it too.)
| GoodJokes wrote:
| vmception wrote:
| > I figured out that the Apple Watch comes with a built-in app
| called Blood Oxygen (no "App" at the end) that does this for
| free.
|
| Only the latest models, or latest few models, come with the
| sensor necessary. It was a pandemic feature addition that came
| too late, just like all their other pandemic feature additions.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Sure I'd have liked all these features on March 2020. But at
| least where I live the pandemic is still very much raging on.
| We still have mask mandates and vaccine passport checks.
| Having masked FaceID and vaccine passports in the wallet
| still makes daily life better.
|
| And also, the pulse oximeter helps build a better image of
| overall cardiovascular fitness (basically they can estimate
| VO2 max). This is important for keeping the body in shape to
| fight off SARS-2 and whatever comes next (people with
| cardiovascular problems were more likely to die or be
| hospitalized.)
| roody15 wrote:
| Where is the pandemic currently raging on ?
| goosedragons wrote:
| Everywhere? Lots of places have decided to basically
| ignore it but there's still hundreds of COVID deaths a
| day in the U.S, China has had Shanghai under lockdown for
| almost month, lots of 3rd world countries lack vaccines.
| It's not over by a long shot.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| FWIW, daily deaths in the US are currently at exactly the
| level it was in the month mentioned above, March of 2020.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| The Exposure Notification API was released in April 2020 or,
| in other words, at the point where 99.5 % of US deaths had
| not yet happened. That strikes me as rather early in this
| pandemic. The feature also strikes me as the most significant
| of those I can think of, by a healthy margin.
| FabHK wrote:
| Sure, but the models that can do it, can do it for free. The
| models that cannot, can't do it with this scummy app either.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Think about how much money Apple made by letting this app
| developer fool people into thinking it was the official app.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Thinking about zero dollars. The App Store states the
| developer name prominently. The graphics look nothing like an
| official Apple app. It nowhere claims any official anything.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I think GP was referring to Apple's 30% cut (just 15% if
| this dev is clearing less than $1M annually).
|
| Edit: subbed < for >
| megablast wrote:
| It's 15% if it's less than a million annually.
| ksec wrote:
| Only when applied and approved. Lots of Dev are still
| paying for 30% to this day.
|
| https://mjtsai.com/blog/2022/04/05/apple-sitting-on-
| applicat...
| RC_ITR wrote:
| It's a fine line to walk and one that I don't think they can
| sustain for much longer.
|
| On one hand, they deny it and the app developer posts a
| medium sob story about Apple crowding out independent devs.
| that gets traction on Hacker News.
|
| On the other hand, they let it through and this article gets
| posted.
|
| I wonder how heavy the head that wears the crown gets before
| it's chopped off.
| josephcsible wrote:
| They don't need to walk a fine line. They decided to make a
| walled garden, but they do a terrible job of moderating it
| such that there are way too many of both false positives
| and false negatives.
| duxup wrote:
| I doubt it is much compared to Apple's balance sheet. Doesn't
| seem like a real motivation.
| tshaddox wrote:
| If it were a real motivation they could execute it much
| more effectively by not including their first-party app at
| all.
| testbjjl wrote:
| Doesn't App Store utilization by both end users/consumers
| and perhaps more importantly developers, who make apps for
| end users, reflect indirectly in the share price?
|
| If this were the case, the revenue to app developers in
| this instance could motivate Apple to not discourage this
| type of confusion.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| You're just restating the original point in a more
| convoluted way. Yes, Apple makes money from scams such as
| this. No, it's unlikely to be anywhere near the amount
| where it would matter, even in aggregate.
| duxup wrote:
| I doubt leaving a BP app on there has any influence at
| all.
| tapoxi wrote:
| I've been using Apple products for almost 30 years (good ol'
| System 7.5) but this absolute bullshit of user hostility has
| made me switch to a Pixel 6 most recently.
|
| The App Store, the Lightning connector, two huge hassles that
| only exist to make Apple more money on top of the premium you
| already paid for the hardware. It's my device! I paid a premium
| for it!
| noasaservice wrote:
| > I paid a premium for it!
|
| You sure paid a lot for a rental. You cant even run your own
| programs on it, unless you pay $100/yr to them IN ADDITION TO
| "buying" the hardware.
| derefr wrote:
| Apologies in advance for the rant:
|
| > the Lightning connector
|
| Lightning is the better-engineered physical connector. Quite-
| heavy phones can be held up on a charging cradle with 100% of
| the load placed on the Lightning connector, while this is
| would destroy a USB-C connector. A Lightning jack is a solid
| piece of aluminum with wires running up the sides. It's
| simple and robust. The socket is equally simple.
|
| USB-C -- all of the USBs, really -- give unneeded opportunity
| to catch debris inside the connectors and then force said
| debris into the slots, gumming it up. Lightning avoids this;
| the jack is designed to be completely flat+smooth+convex, so
| no debris collects on/in it.
|
| The only reason USB-C doesn't just use a Lightning connector
| is spite. IIRC, Apple offered the USB Forum the Lightning
| connector patents if they wanted them, but they refused.
| Instead, the USB Forum copied what they considered the
| desirable features of Lightning -- e.g. reversibility; but
| implemented them _worse_ (with non-mirrored sense pins
| requiring USB PHYs to understand orientation); and then
| sought extra trouble trying to solve problems that people
| provably hadn 't been having with Lightning (e.g. re-adding a
| shroud for the pins -- presumably to protect from
| scratches/rust -- when nobody had ever has ever had a
| Lightning cable fail for this reason; where this _increased_
| the failure rate of Lightning _sockets_. The cables are
| supposed to have the sacrificial side of the connection!)
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| Before this used to be the norm, there would be at least a
| quarterly post on HN by some app developer lamenting the fact
| that Apple killed their business by just releasing an Apple
| developed version of their app.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I don't know for sure, but I assume that Apple's app was
| released as soon as the functionality was enabled on the
| relevant devices (Apple Watch 6 and 7). I don't think this is
| a case of 'Sherlocking'.
| [deleted]
| uuyi wrote:
| The moment you moderate one of these away everyone runs around
| like headless chickens complaining about how they overstepped the
| mark and the developer posts a pissy blog somewhere about how the
| App Store ruins livelihoods.
|
| The rest of us just know how not to step in shit while walking
| through a field. Like it has been with every single store since
| the first shop opened in human prehistory. An early complaint
| about goods being rubbish:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir
|
| Do some research first. Don't be a sucker. Every vendor will sell
| you crap so go in expecting it.
|
| I have never been scammed by anything on any app stores.
| kobalsky wrote:
| > I have never been scammed by anything on any app stores.
|
| I would dare to say that people visiting this site aren't their
| target demographic.
|
| Also, you probably got scammed by your mechanic and never even
| realized it.
| uuyi wrote:
| Yeah my mechanic is terrible. Wastes hours trying to save
| money :)
| makecheck wrote:
| It's absolutely soul-crushing to see the software market warped
| by broken store models. Legitimate developers can't seem to
| convince people to pay anywhere near enough to sustain a
| business, and meanwhile scammers get millions.
| Doubtme wrote:
| By design.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| I miss the pre-internet and pre-smartphone days when you could
| buy software at a reasonable price and use it in perpetuity.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _It's absolutely soul-crushing to see the software market
| warped by broken store models_
|
| What makes it worse, in my mind, is that the entirety of the
| mobile application market has been held hostage by these rent-
| seeking app store models for over a decade, now.
| carom wrote:
| I experienced this on iOS the other week. I think I was looking
| for a video editing app. A ton were free but required immediate
| sign up to a subscription with a free period to use the product
| at all.
| outcoldman wrote:
| I have an app, that I sell with App Store (OpenIn). So the Openly
| used to be called OpenIn Pro. Only because this app looked like a
| fraud, I submitted a trademark violation. The author of the app
| replied with a lot of confidence, that I was attacking their
| company, etc. But they have changed the name to Openly at the
| end.
|
| My complain was that this app definitely have a lot of fake
| reviews, and my guess by being free they can generate a lot of
| downloads to keep it in top of the app store. And you can see a
| few of bad reviews, where some people actually purchased the app
| via in-app-purchases. And the name of my app brings traffic to
| the app store, and they use it in their advantage.
|
| He called it false accusations. That they trust apple reviews,
| and that apple take it seriously. And a lot of well written text
| protecting themselves.
|
| He was referring also to the head of legal department that they
| might take actions against me for false accusations.
|
| Anyway, after that I just downloaded their apps and submitted
| concerns about legitimacy of their apps. That did not do
| anything.
|
| I am surprised that those apps exist. Feel like they are 100%
| scam. My only guess is that somehow the people from review team
| know those developers and somehow let them to be on app store.
| Considering how hard sometimes to pass the review, that is the
| only explanation I have.
| sneak wrote:
| Apple doesn't mind scams that make Apple money and don't erode
| the Apple brand image.
| lupire wrote:
| It's also a blatant trademark violation. Apple would never allow
| a "Music for Apple Music" app in their store, but is happy to
| infringe on competitors' trademarks.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I thought it is a standard scum practice these days silently
| accepted by Apple. Practically every "free" app I downloaded from
| the App Store in the last few months behaved in this way.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| > GCalendar for Google Calendar
|
| > Docs Pro for Google Drive
|
| > Openly a Link Damn, if only there was a free app for google
| calendar, google docs, and looks up App open my web browser.
| Adraghast wrote:
| How long ago was the commentariat fainting over Apple ruining
| DHH's livelihood by not allowing him to do this exact thing with
| Hey?
| davidkuennen wrote:
| Isn't this practice used to scam people in the App Store since
| forever now? I remember coming across exactly this practice 1-2
| years ago here with some document scanner apps that made
| 10M/month revenue through that.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > This obscure Mac developer has 3 of the top 95 grossing apps in
| the Mac App Store.
|
| I wonder if it's money laundering and most of the purchases
| aren't victims.
| [deleted]
| robotnikman wrote:
| I've thought of this myself. Anecdotally, I once ran across a
| game on Steam which looked hastily put together with basic
| Unity store assets and had a single $5000 DLC... makes you
| wonder.
| 88840-8855 wrote:
| can you do the iap several times?
|
| actually a fantastic idea. purchase gift cards with cash,
| credit into an apple account, do iaps, cash out as dev. how
| much will be lost underway? 30%?
|
| where are the problems in that model?
| 0x0 wrote:
| You'd need appleid accounts to load the gift cards into. I
| guess it would be tricky to set those up without linking
| phone numbers / apple device serials / ip addresses to your
| scam all the while establishing a reputation and legit
| looking usage history for them
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > can you do the iap several times?
|
| Yes, there's "consumable" IAPs for doing things like
| purchasing in-game currency in games.
| philjohn wrote:
| The worst thing to happen to mobile apps.
| kmonsen wrote:
| 15% if you are big enough I believe
| judge2020 wrote:
| 30% isn't terrible in terms of laundering money, but chances
| are the App Store payout is how you're citing your income for
| taxes, so it's more risky than other ventures if Apple were
| to inform the IRS about something like "90% of this
| developer's revenue is via gift cards...".
| sneak wrote:
| It is when NFTs are 0%.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| People already launder money with gift cards. Further
| laundering it through apps whose merchant accounts are
| registered to real human beings, because of Know Your
| Customer laws, ruins the laundering aspect. There's no reason
| to go through additional de-anonymizing steps via apps once
| you've got or sold gift cards.
| extrapickles wrote:
| That is where the "Earn $XXX/mo for doing nothing" scams
| come in. The victim would be effectively laundering the
| money from any KYC. The victim would not be sophisticated
| enough to point law enforcement your way. So the chain
| would be gift card->app->patsy->you.
| bogwog wrote:
| Especially when Apple takes an obscene 30%
| function_seven wrote:
| Every time I see these scammy apps in the App Store, it erodes
| the foundations that support the walls around Apple's garden.
|
| If those walls turn out to be shitty rusty fences instead, then
| Apple should tear them down completely and give other gardeners
| an opportunity to make better spaces.
|
| Instead users are in the middle ground between the safety of the
| walled garden and the freedom of a wide-open app ecosystem. Worst
| of both worlds.
| willis936 wrote:
| I don't recall a time where I could ever play solitaire in iOS
| without being met with hostility, free or paid.
|
| There has never been reason to have faith because there has
| never been a golden age of the iOS app store. It's always been
| trash.
|
| Android has never had these issues.
| criddell wrote:
| Maybe not Solitaire, but you can still download Apple's _Hold
| 'em_ poker app. It's pretty fun and feels like a relic from a
| different age.
|
| I don't think I've ever downloaded an app that felt hostile.
| In fact, some of the best software I've ever used is on iOS.
| For example, Procreate is $10 and it's astoundingly good.
| GoodNotes was also something like $10-$20 and has been
| nothing but a joy to use.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Agreed, but I'll also add that this seems to be happening on
| every store. Miles upon miles of junk you have to sift through
| to get to something worthwhile. Apple, Google, Steam, Amazon...
| I'm presented with the worst choices. I don't know if these
| stores are all being gamed, but they all need to have better
| standards. At this point I just see them all as disorganized
| cash grabs.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I agree. I'm really sick of Apple's handling of their App
| Store. It's been nearly 14 years and the only app distribution
| models Apple permits are pay once (with possible IAP), free
| with IAP, and subscription. Still no ability for developers to
| provide paid upgrades or "active subscription gives you
| updates" models. I think Apple has done more than anyone to
| turn software into a rental business where every calendar and
| to-do app now needs its own subscription. I love using the
| payment and subscription management systems in iOS - it's much
| better than many bespoke systems - but it's not worth having to
| put up with their subscription-philia.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| > I think Apple has done more than anyone to turn software
| into a rental business where every calendar and to-do app now
| needs its own subscription.
|
| All part of the plan:
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/14/apple-met-with-
| de...
| judge2020 wrote:
| > Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades or
| "active subscription gives you updates" models.
|
| While not via the app store itself, you're expected to lock
| new features behind a new in-app purchase sku, while still
| providing (security|stability) updates to users who aren't
| going to pay for new features.
| outcoldman wrote:
| I tried to sell my app in the ways:
|
| 1. Free and IAP for Pro features. I knew there are going to
| be only like 20% of users who would purchase it. And I was
| fine with that. With this model I got a lot of bad reviews,
| and some of the felt like fake reviews (my guess from some
| fake competitive apps, that can generate those fake
| reviews, like we are talking about in the link - Openly).
|
| 2. Because I tired of fake reviews and bad ratings, I have
| changed the model to something like 50% pay for basic app,
| 50% for Pro features. Easy change, considering I did not
| need to change anything in the code. Just change the
| prices. But now there were real reviews of people who
| complained about why do you need to pay for Pro if they
| already purchased the app. Or support emails saying "They
| purchased a Pro version of the app, but app still asks them
| to purchase Pro". Which was confusing at first, but at the
| end I realized that if user pays for an app, he already
| thinks it is a Pro version. My guess because there are
| other apps that use "Lite" (free with ads) and "Pro" (paid
| and no ads) in their names.
|
| 3. After that I have removed IAP and made app 100% paid.
| Ratings recovered from 3.8 to 4.5. I believe I still make
| the same amount of money. But the idea to give a free
| version of the app, just did not work for me, I guess.
| starting_fresh wrote:
| I like that you are selling a frontend for the OS URI
| handler for 10$. And then there is someone scamming you
| out of your revenue. A tech savvy standup comedian should
| be able to get a bit out of this :-)
| outcoldman wrote:
| My app makes about 1-2k a month. My guess that those free
| with IAP apps can make easily the same amount. That will
| be a very good salary for someone, for example, in India.
|
| And scamming with a little profit makes it easier to stay
| away from some of the eyes.
| criddell wrote:
| I think some apps create two entries in the app store.
| One is often something like _HN Lite_ which is the free
| version and then _HN Pro_ for the paid version. But then
| I guess you have the problem of reviews being split over
| the two "different" apps.
| ytpete wrote:
| That doesn't seem like quite the same model though - a new
| customer has to purchase the base app _plus_ all IAPs in
| order to gain the full feature set. Whereas in the
| traditional paid upgrades model, when you pay the full app
| price you get _all_ current features and then you can pay
| smaller incremental prices in the future for new-feature
| updates.
| brimble wrote:
| You can still structure the IAPs to account for that, no?
| There's nothing stopping you from creating arbitrary
| bundles of IAPs, and pricing those bundles separately.
| One's an upgrade and presented to people who've already
| bought the last version, another's for new users, and
| priced higher, but includes the stuff from the earlier
| version(s).
| Karunamon wrote:
| > _Still no ability for developers to provide paid upgrades
| or "active subscription gives you updates" models._
|
| As a user, I'm glad that neither of those things are
| supported. Given how often upgrades either remove
| functionality or otherwise make my experience worse, I am
| glad that developers are required to push an entirely new
| application if they want users to pay again, rather than
| being able to coast on their old ratings and reviews. This
| gives me ultimate power to determine which version of the
| application I wish to run.
|
| Additionally, I am quite over the nickel and diming of every
| other bloody application being a subscription.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Can't you offer an upgrade IAP if you know they have
| purchased the previous version via IAP?
| [deleted]
| tedunangst wrote:
| If devs really wanted to, they could list a v2 upgrade
| product separately in the store, no? $10 for v2, $5 for v2
| upgrade. Upgrade app has no functionality except "paste key"
| button, which unlocks everything after tapping "copy key" in
| v1 app. Or however you want to pass data between them.
| eddyg wrote:
| App Store bundles are a potential solution, especially
| since developers can now _unlist_ an app so it can 't be
| found unless there's a direct link to it. It's not perfect,
| but it's a workable approach.
|
| Say you've had FooBarWizard in the App Store for a couple
| years at 99C/ and want to offer "upgrade pricing" to the
| all-new FooBarWizard 2 (which will be $1.99).
|
| Add FooBarWizard 2 in the App Store. Publish a new version
| of FooBarWizard that includes an announcement that
| "FooBarWizard 2 is now available in a specially-priced
| upgrade bundle" (a one-time pop-up or something, and then a
| mention on the Settings screen, for example) so existing
| customers know about it. Create a bundle in the App Store
| with FooBarWizard and FooBarWizard 2 priced at $1.99, then
| _unlist_ FooBarWizard.
|
| The price of the bundle has to be at least as high as the
| most expensive app _in_ the bundle. The net cost to the
| user is the difference between the bundle price and what
| was paid for the original app. So an existing user can buy
| the bundle and get FooBarWizard 2 for the "upgrade price"
| of $1. (A "new user" that tries to buy the 2-item bundle
| that only has 1 item pays $1.99 and still only gets
| FooBarWizard 2, because the original FooBarWizard is
| unlisted.)
| a_t48 wrote:
| There's a good chance this would not pass several app store
| guidelines and be rejected.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| C'mon, would you buy that?
| blihp wrote:
| None of these walled gardens exist primarily to keep bad apps
| out, but rather to keep users in. It's always been about the
| revenue share.
| function_seven wrote:
| I know that. I just think it'd be nice if--as a side effect--
| the plants and flowers here were pretty. Don't they want me
| to stay here? How many weeds does it take for me to climb the
| wall and see what's available in the F-Droid Zoo or
| AppGallery amusement park? When does Code Enforcement (aka
| FTC, if my analogy is getting a little _too_ cute) come by
| and demand they clean the yard up?
|
| Rhetorical question I guess, because I'm still here in the
| garden ranting about it. But I'm not gonna leave. Not yet.
| ordinaryradical wrote:
| What's the point of a walled garden if the gardener doesn't give
| a shit?
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| The counterfactual isn't that there's no gardener and things
| are the same, in the counterfactual with no gardener things are
| even worse.
| willis936 wrote:
| To make a lot of money.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Once you're trapped inside their walled garden, they make you
| call it fertilizer and speak of its virtues.
| ProAm wrote:
| Same reason Amazon doesnt care if they people sell counterfeit
| items, everyone makes money.
| brimble wrote:
| I can still cancel _all_ my subscriptions on iOS services in
| one place, very easily, all the same way. I still only have to
| trust one big, reasonably competent & responsible entity with
| my money when making a purchase decision, rather than trying to
| evaluate things on a case-by-case basis with every little two-
| person indie development shop. I don't have to figure out a
| different checkout flow for every app or service I buy on iOS.
| There aren't even two of them! Just one. Consistent, fast, and
| I trust it (well enough).
|
| Apple's overall ecosystem still does a lot to make people feel
| comfortable & safe saying "yes" to a purchase and installing
| some software from a developer they've never heard of, even if
| the curation and presentation could be a lot better (but would
| just invite more waves of "waaaaah Apple won't let my
| derivative, inferior, somewhat-scammy app in the store, it's so
| unfair!" posts on HN, to great acclaim)
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Just because the App Store is overly permissive in its
| curation in some cases doesn't mean it isn't overly stringent
| in other ones. Any system can have diametrically opposite
| problems in different areas. That just means the underlying
| problem is that the system is huge, hard to police, and
| suffers from inconsistent enforcement.
| makecheck wrote:
| It's like they walled-in the garden, look only at the walls
| when there's a problem, and meanwhile the scammers are
| parachuting in.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| The entire mobile store is full of garbage. 98% trash. I don't
| know how Google and Apple let it get so bad. The bar is too low.
|
| What kind of an asshole sells a $39.99/week subscription in a
| game hoping people misclick on the accept button.
| brimble wrote:
| I truly wish they'd at least separate out the whale-seeking IAP
| or subscription shit into its own section, which I could then
| totally filter out of my searches. I don't even bother to look
| at games on iOS anymore, because it's too hard to dig through
| the scum.
|
| Also just, like, raise their standards. I'd love to see the
| worst 50% or so of the App Store just _vanish_.
| robotnikman wrote:
| To add insult to injury, their automated AI moderation system
| then ends up banning legitimate developers and you see their
| horror stories posted on HN.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-12 23:00 UTC)