Login to comment
Epic argues Apple has “no evidence” its app review process “screens for security issues better than other methods of app distribution”. It cites many examples of fraudulent apps, eg fake blood pressure detection tools and scams where users have been mislead into buying items— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
App Reviewers typically review between 50 to 100 apps per day … "In certain instances, reviews took less than a minute to review apps.”— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
Apple is at once both overselling the benefits of the App Store reviews (we'll protect you! we're sophisticated!) and underdelivering massively (store is full of obvious scams). Only area where the review process actually works is in collecting fees. Disgraceful process.— DHH (@dhh) April 8, 2021
if you're wondering what the rest of the world uses instead of iMessage:— Tom Warren (@tomwarren) April 9, 2021
• Europe: WhatsApp / FB Messenger
• China: WeChat
• South Africa: WhatsApp
• India: WhatsApp
• Australia: FB Messenger
• Ukraine: Viber
• Iran: Telegram
I don’t see why everyone’s talking about this.— Marco Arment (@marcoarment) April 9, 2021
Of course iMessage provides huge iOS lock-in. Of course Apple knows it.
Tech companies are under no obligation to be “open”. They’re open when it suits them and closed when it doesn’t, and that usually doesn’t warrant intervention. https://t.co/nhVqabN6sV
Anyway iMessage for Android is one of those forever pipe dreams but I guess the case could be make that iMessage could be a gateway service in the way the iPod was a gateway device?— Dieter Bohn (@backlon) April 9, 2021
Yeah a stretch. Here’s the only argument that’s ever made sense to me:https://t.co/A0f5phTOhi
CEO of Headspace became upset with the level of “egregious theft” on the App Store as copy-cats sprang up, stealing its IP.— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
“Shockingly, Apple [is] approving these apps, and when the users buy the apps they are left with nothing but some scammy chat rooms in the background."
In current job postings, listed qualifications for App Reviewers primarily include nontechnical skills such as teamwork, curiosity, clear communications and resilience. A thorough knowledge of macOS and iOS is noted as “helpful,” but not a requirement.— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
In 2015, Apple recognized that Google’s way of automating the screening process had some advantages. It acquired a company called SourceDNA to help detect malicious apps.— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
It is fascinating how a generation of bad policy has allowed huge corporations to make people believe that anti-competitive behavior is actually competition— nilay patel (@reckless) April 9, 2021
This thread explains so much. Why the App Store is full of scams, why rulings are so arbitrary, why its impossible to get clear answers. Apple hires essentially unskilled people to do the reviews, yet claims they're necessary to protect people. You can't have it both ways! https://t.co/e8gVqSTzdn— DHH (@dhh) April 8, 2021
Epic argues that Apple’s App Store review process is “cursory” and that Apple doesn’t recruit reviewers with sophisticated tech backgrounds.— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
Hard to say iMessge on iOS only is problematic.— Michael Gartenberg (@Gartenberg) April 9, 2021
SMS was carrier specific & helped drive adoption. SMS was free in network, costly out of network. If you wanted to chat with your friends, VZW was the way to go.
AIM didn’t work with MSN Messenger. I could go on.
Schiller responded, “moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us, this email illustrates why.”— Michael Gartenberg (@Gartenberg) April 9, 2021
Phil once told me never to put stuff like this in email because it might turn up on a deposition.
Also, Green Bubbles Rule! https://t.co/CHtjSSYKxE
Eric Friedman, head of Apple’s FEAR unit — Fraud Engineering Algorithms and Risk — said in a recent deposition that his team believed the App Review team was inadequate to the risks posed by malicious actors, saying they were “bringing a plastic butter knife to a gun fight.”— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
Former head of App Review says some apps were “remov[ed]” “immediately” because Mr. Schiller and Mr. Cue were “adamant” about (their) removal, despite Mr. Shoemaker’s “protest[s]” that there was no clear justification for doing so under the app review guidelines.— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
I believe both of these are true:— Marco Arment (@marcoarment) April 9, 2021
1. Apple’s arguments to prohibit third-party IAP methods for digital goods are flimsy, unreasonable, and anticompetitive;
2. Apple’s IAP system is easier for most customers, and it should compete with its merits on a level playing field. https://t.co/C86iI3s9mT
Certain apps that may have competed with Apple’s apps or features, such as Google Voice, were “rejected on pretextual grounds”.— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
(that is, competitive reasons)
The words "content moderation" and "discovery" (in the litigation sense) should give anyone in this space a little thrill.— Daphne Keller (@daphnehk) April 9, 2021
That might be a thrill of delight, horror, amusement, schadenfreude, or any number of other feels. It all depends where you stand. https://t.co/OHUCRfVP2p
Apple was negotiating w/ the cmte then abruptly informed them they wouldn't be sending anyone, citing ongoing litigation, Klobuchar & Lee say. hearing is apparently in two weeks.— Ashley Gold (@ashleyrgold) April 9, 2021
When the App Store first began, applicants were considered qualified if they “understood how to use a Mac”, “understood how to use an iPhone”, “understood a little about the Apple brand”, “could breathe . . . could think”.— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
"Friedman likened @Apple’s process of reviewing new apps for the App Store to 'more like the pretty lady who greets you …at the Hawaiian airport than the drug-sniffing dog'. He added that Apple was ill-equipped to 'deflect sophisticated attackers'." https://t.co/bjH7BDq3SR— Peter Coffee (@petercoffee) April 8, 2021
"A senior Apple engineer compared the defences of its App Store against malicious actors to “bringing a plastic butter knife to a gunfight”.. The revelation could be a significant blow to Apple’s defence [that a 30% tax] is necessary to protect consumers"https://t.co/7PilnoSEAS— DHH (@dhh) April 8, 2021
Epic said the volume of apps submitted “does not permit robust review."— Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) April 8, 2021
As of April 2016 the human review process typically took 13 mins per app and 6 minutes per app update.
Login to comment