Rogue heart rate app highlights flaws in Apple's closed-door review process

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    rcfarcfa Posts: 763member
    Two things:
    a) heart rate from a camera IS POSSIBLE

    b) if Apple limited submissions to no more than six updates per year, plus two emergency submissions for blatant security problems, instead of allowing developers to annoy everyone, use up battery and data, by updating every few days, they would have a lot more resources for seriously testing submissions.
  • Reply 22 of 30
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,462member
    Rayz2016 said:
    cpsro said:
    Apple can't praise the security of its walled garden while not even looking at apps that make it on the App Store. This app is currently still alive on the App Store, though we expect it to be promptly removed.
    Apple certainly can praise the security, as I do. Yes, it's awful that this app made it into the App Store--and how it did so needs to be discovered and corrected--but the app is gone now. GONE.
    I get that it's gone, but the point is that it shouldn't have gotten to the store in the first place.


    We're all agreed the app shouldn't have made into the store, but ridding the world of it was easy, fast and complete--important security features of the App Store. Oh, yes, a bad app made it through app review. Well, imagine if there was no review or the bad app was sold through a myriad of stores. Good luck with that.
    To the person who analogized this to committing murder... it was only money lost in this case, which Apple should refund.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 23 of 30
    cpsro said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    cpsro said:
    Apple can't praise the security of its walled garden while not even looking at apps that make it on the App Store. This app is currently still alive on the App Store, though we expect it to be promptly removed.
    Apple certainly can praise the security, as I do. Yes, it's awful that this app made it into the App Store--and how it did so needs to be discovered and corrected--but the app is gone now. GONE.
    I get that it's gone, but the point is that it shouldn't have gotten to the store in the first place.


    We're all agreed the app shouldn't have made into the store, but ridding the world of it was easy, fast and complete--important security features of the App Store. Oh, yes, a bad app made it through app review. Well, imagine if there was no review or the bad app was sold through a myriad of stores. Good luck with that.
    To the person who analogized this to committing murder... it was only money lost in this case, which Apple should refund.
    Yeah, the murder analogy was more than a little over the top, but I figured it was enough so that people would recognize I didn't intend equivalence, but was simply making an easy to understand comparison.

    I'll try harder next time.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 24 of 30
    It's not even just the scams that are eroding my trust. The system in its current form allows for misleading consumers.

    Like free apps with in-app purchases that present as supporting Family Sharing. We checked to make sure the app Infinite Flight supported Family Sharing before paying over $100 for an in-app purchase for our grandson. When we tried to activate the unlocked features on another device, it didn't work. When we contacted the developer we were told the app itself is shareable, but NOT the in-app purchase. What the hell is the point of Family Sharing for a FREE app? The part that matters is the PAID part! There's nothing in the existing App Store structure that lets a buyer know that in advance.

    Words With Friends does the same thing.

    The "Family Sharing" designation in the App Store seems to be meaningless.
    It’s described here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203046
  • Reply 25 of 30
    It's not even just the scams that are eroding my trust. The system in its current form allows for misleading consumers.

    Like free apps with in-app purchases that present as supporting Family Sharing. We checked to make sure the app Infinite Flight supported Family Sharing before paying over $100 for an in-app purchase for our grandson. When we tried to activate the unlocked features on another device, it didn't work. When we contacted the developer we were told the app itself is shareable, but NOT the in-app purchase. What the hell is the point of Family Sharing for a FREE app? The part that matters is the PAID part! There's nothing in the existing App Store structure that lets a buyer know that in advance.

    Words With Friends does the same thing.

    The "Family Sharing" designation in the App Store seems to be meaningless.
    It’s described here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203046
    Well ain't that just fuckin' dandy. Seems like the kind of thing one shouldn't have to visit a support page to find out, but then I'm not sure where it SHOULD be mentioned, either.

    Anyway, thank you for the link!
  • Reply 26 of 30
    ivanhivanh Posts: 353member
    Which country of the Developer ID was registered? I always advocate that the country of origin should be disclosed because I font want to buy any apps from the mainland China.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 30
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,712member
    I just say no to any app with IAP.
    happy to pay a higher up front cost in the first place.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 30
    entropys said:
    I just say no to any app with IAP.
    happy to pay a higher up front cost in the first place.
    I understand the concept of in-app purchases, but not the way many developers are implementing them, and not making them exempt from Family Sharing.

    In-app purchases provide a simple way for developers to provide various levels of capability without the complexity and confusion of having multiple versions of the app. Not long ago I decided an app I'd installed was no good for my purposes because it lacked a specific feature. Later, after purchasing something else, I discovered there was a "pro" version of the first app that included the feature I wanted. Offering an upgrade to the pro version as in-app purchase would have let me know it existed.

    IAPs are also a great way to provide a "demo" of an app. Having a basic version I can experiment with and easily upgrade to full capability if I like it is a good approach, as long as the developer is up-front about what it is (and many are). I don't like it when developers use a low price or a free version to get me to install an app without disclosing its severely limited capability. I'd like Apple to require listings on the App Store to indicate the cost and capabilities of in-app purchases. As it stands now, it's difficult to compare apps between vendors because the unscrupulous ones hide the actual cost.

    The only part of the existing system that completely escapes my understanding is why in-app purchases are not available via Family Sharing. There's a difference between an app that costs $50 and a free one that requires a $50 in-app purchase to unlock it. My wife an I can both use the first one, but we probably won't because we can't try it out without paying $50. The free app lets us try it, but costs us twice as much because we both have to pay for the IAP. What's the point of offering Family Sharing with a FREE app? Duh. ANYONE can install it, not just Family members.
  • Reply 29 of 30
    airnerdairnerd Posts: 664member
    bolen mac said:
    I am not looking forward to what will happen if Apple loses the Supreme Court case Re: App Store Antitrust.

    I like that fact that the App store is not the wild west and full of scams like the other stores on other platforms.

    IMO what will happen if they lose that case is there will be the official app store like we have today, and there will be lesser app stores where the buyer better beware.  If you don't want garbage on your phone, don't use the other app stores.  If you do want a questionable app, then take your chances but you are aware of the risk because you purposely went around Apple so you have no Apple safeguards.  

    In other words, people will have to take responsibility for themselves.  
  • Reply 30 of 30
    There should be an update to this article clarifying that the app has been removed.

    In my opinion "the process" works well.  Yes, this app shouldn't have gotten through the approval process.  That was a mistake, but I expect that if it was submitted 10 times, 9 times out of 10 it would have been rejected.  In any case, here are the additional controls in place: 1. user reviews.  I expect this app got a ton of 1-star reviews, so anyone with a brain wouldn't have downloaded it.  2. refunds. Anyone who would defrauded by this app could have gotten their IAP charges reversed.  3. after-the-fact removals.  The app isn't in the store now.

    See?  The process works.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.