Apples Response/Solution to Crackulous

[YuriVoorhak]

I fully agree with all the chicken little commentary going around the mac community about this. I mean, look at how Hymn completely decimated the iTunes Store! And how commercial desktop application software was pretty much killed by the kracking scene way back in the 80's! And with the vast majority of iPhones/iPod touch out there being jailbroken immediately, we're looking at a complete evisceration of the App Store business model. The devs up in arms about this aren't whining at all, and I'm sure their poor sales have nothing to do with their substandard "Me Too" apps.


Oh.... wait.

 

[Evev12]

I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you here. It's nothing like going to a restaurant and eating food then leaving without paying the bill. It's like purchasing something and then returning it for a refund because it didn't work as you thought it would. How many non-returnable products exist in the world, not many - people's purchasing habits would change drastically, not to mention buy less! That's always been one of my biggest issues with the app store. ALL, and I mean ALL apps should have trials which expire after a certain time (even if it's one day). It's completely unfair to be charging people for apps that are unusable to them or don't perform as expected. I must have purchased 4 to-do apps which totaled ~ $20 before finally finding one that worked for me...that's not fair and I think Apple knows it. They're profiting where they shouldn't be. I've been meaning to try Omnifocus for ever now, BUT, there's no trial, and there's also no way in hell that I'm gonna spend that money to later find out I don't like it. I had a dell axim and can honestly say that I proablbly purchased 60% of the apps that I donwladed on a trial basis, so there's definitely no negative to doing so. I'm completely against stealing and piracy (except in certain cases), but I do feel that this crackulous (which I can't download anyway) will at least put a tiny dent into some of that income that Apple stole from everybody who bought apps that they shouldn't have had to pay for in the first place. I'm all for it...maybe it'll open Apple's eyes up and make them realize they're being theives with this whole not trial crap. Once (or maybe I should say if) they start offering free trials though I don't think it's right to be stealing apps - that IS other peoples hard work, and they do deserve compensation for it.

I disagree with that. Trial apps are more like trying out a phone for a few weeks to see if you really like it enough to buy it.

Trial software is a good way for the user to see if the app 1) does what it says, 2) does it in a way the user wants, 3) is reliable and/or doesn't tie up resources, 4) is basically worth the money.

I can't count the number of WM trial apps that I've installed and then found after the two week period that I wanted to buy and keep them. (A corresponding number have been the other way... finding out that they weren't reliable or just had better competition.)

One major difference is that these WM apps cost from $5-20. (Okay, and $30 for Slingplayer after the trial period, for each phone I use it on.) Most of the Apple apps I have were one dollar, which is easier to part with on a whim.

Trial software is definitely needed if developers want to bring their prices up.

 

[dejo]

Hi i am new in iphone. Can anyone help me in iphone game development.

Take a visit to the iPhone Programming forum and pay particular attention to the guides at the top. Also, this probably isn't the right thread to be posting this in.

 

[deadsouls]

Rather than act surprised at my response, why not explain what you think is wrong with those applications?



What the hell are you talking about? Seriously... I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Can you please try to phrase it another way?



Apple's App Store (which I assume is what you're referring to) isn't copying Installer. The concept of a network-accessible software repository is not unique to either company -- it's been around for a hell of a lot longer than the iPhone has.



You don't appear to be very good at it.

first of all i wasnt acting surprised about it. merely pointing out that its quite obvious whats wrong with them.

secondly, it sounds like you don't even know what crackulous is.

and no **** the concept of a software repository is not unique. but the only reason the app store even CAME TO BE was because of jailbreak and installer.

sorry if you're having a hard time understanding such basic terms.

 

[dejo]

but the only reason the app store even CAME TO BE was because of jailbreak and installer.

Have you considered the possibility that all along Apple intended to allow third-party apps and come out with the App Store but needed to be sure the iPhone was a hit and then needed to put together a process to allow development and sales? Even now, building, provisioning, and submitting an app is a rather complex system. They may just have needed time to get things ready enough for "prime-time".

 

[sharp65]

first of all i wasnt acting surprised about it. merely pointing out that its quite obvious whats wrong with them.

secondly, it sounds like you don't even know what crackulous is.

and no **** the concept of a software repository is not unique. but the only reason the app store even CAME TO BE was because of jailbreak and installer.

sorry if you're having a hard time understanding such basic terms.

The appstore didn't come because of cydia, if you really think apple released the iPhone with no intentions of letting people design apps for it your crazy. I think apple needed more time to work on the logistics and fine tune it and they didnt want to delay the phones release. But back to this topic, if apple would let people download trials this wouldn't be an issue. I have little sympathy for apple on this issue, it could have been dealt with properly.

 

[Trueskool]

I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you here. It's nothing like going to a restaurant and eating food then leaving without paying the bill. It's like purchasing something and then returning it for a refund because it didn't work as you thought it would. How many non-returnable products exist in the world, not many - people's purchasing habits would change drastically, not to mention buy less! That's always been one of my biggest issues with the app store. ALL, and I mean ALL apps should have trials which expire after a certain time (even if it's one day). It's completely unfair to be charging people for apps that are unusable to them or don't perform as expected. I must have purchased 4 to-do apps which totaled ~ $20 before finally finding one that worked for me...that's not fair and I think Apple knows it. They're profiting where they shouldn't be. I've been meaning to try Omnifocus for ever now, BUT, there's no trial, and there's also no way in hell that I'm gonna spend that money to later find out I don't like it. I had a dell axim and can honestly say that I proablbly purchased 60% of the apps that I donwladed on a trial basis, so there's definitely no negative to doing so. I'm completely against stealing and piracy (except in certain cases), but I do feel that this crackulous (which I can't download anyway) will at least put a tiny dent into some of that income that Apple stole from everybody who bought apps that they shouldn't have had to pay for in the first place. I'm all for it...maybe it'll open Apple's eyes up and make them realize they're being theives with this whole not trial crap. Once (or maybe I should say if) they start offering free trials though I don't think it's right to be stealing apps - that IS other peoples hard work, and they do deserve compensation for it.

That's fine. I can agree that the restaurant analogy was not exactly up to par and I should have spent more time on one that would be more clear as the point I was trying to make. Which is that while I'm not opposed to the idea of trials, I am opposed to the idea of free trials will which basically just make it even easier for these pirates to steal the applications. Then that one person won't even have to take the bullet and pay for the application to then turn around and crack/distribute it. If they can find a way to strip the DRM protection they can certainly get around the code which makes it a trail, thus making it fully usable. That is if apple was to create trials using the App Store's current distribution methods.

How many non-returnable products exist in the world, not many

Pretty much (not all) anything that is electronically distributed/downloaded comes with a no return policy or better yet the chance for a refund. That is unless it's a service of some sort. The next time you go by your nearest game or video store buy a game, dvd, cd what have you open/play it and then see if they will allow for you to return it. I can say with confidence the answer will be no, at least around where I live. The sooner or later people get around this fact the better - it's a digital world and that means it is becoming more and more difficult to protect digital content.

It's just such a special case with the App store because the developers really only have one main source of revenue with Apple's current App Store model, and that is direct sales. This is opposed to the music and video where they can host concerts, provide showings, etc. The limits are openless with those mediums. Sure developers could resort to advertising (which some are) but with the size of screen real estate it's not really much of an alternative. And if all apps eventually had advertisements it would be a sure fire way to kill all applications developed by third-party developers.

the only reason the app store even CAME TO BE was because of jailbreak and installer.

I really don't think this is accurate. I can certainly see how people would initially believe the App Store idea came from apptapp's installer, but if you have some general knowledge of how Apple does business you can certainly see that is not the case. Apple has prided itself in being able to say the iPhone has it's own operating system "iPhone OS X" and that it's not just a phone - thing has been since the beginning. Why would someone build an mainstream operating system and not allow for third-party developers? All installer "may" have done was speedup the process of it's development. Then again, If I'm wrong I guess Google's Andriod App Store is a copy of installer as well, along with Sun, and most mobile phone carriers online market places.

Have you considered the possibility that all along Apple intended to allow third-party apps and come out with the App Store but needed to be sure the iPhone was a hit and then needed to put together a process to allow development and sales? Even now, building, provisioning, and submitting an app is a rather complex system. They may just have needed time to get things ready enough for "prime-time".

Agreed.

if apple would let people download trials this wouldn't be an issue. I have little sympathy for apple on this issue, it could have been dealt with properly.

It's fine to not have much sympathy for Apple, but have sympathy for the developers whose applications code has been broken into and is open for public viewing. Not even the fact that it's being pirated.

--

Anyways that just my $0.99 cents

 

[TheSpaz]

You forgot to add: Developers have no way to control the way the copy protection works on their App. At least on the full Mac OS X, each developer can create their own copy protection and anti-theft stuff, but if one app on the App Store gets hacked, they're ALL possible to hack.... then the developers have no control to combat this. It's up to Apple to fix it... meanwhile the developers aren't getting paid.

By the way.. the argument about "The people stealing the apps wouldn't have paid for them anyway, so the developer isn't losing money" is B.S. Developers who work and provide the app are basically providing a service. If you weren't going to pay for it, you shouldn't be using it. Why do you think stealing cable is illegal? Why do you think copying DVDs is illegal?

I'm tired, so I hope that all made sense.

 

[cjm3113]

You forgot to add: Developers have no way to control the way the copy protection works on their App. At least on the full Mac OS X, each developer can create their own copy protection and anti-theft stuff, but if one app on the App Store gets hacked, they're ALL possible to hack.... then the developers have no control to combat this. It's up to Apple to fix it... meanwhile the developers aren't getting paid.

By the way.. the argument about "The people stealing the apps wouldn't have paid for them anyway, so the developer isn't losing money" is B.S. Developers who work and provide the app are basically providing a service. If you weren't going to pay for it, you shouldn't be using it. Why do you think stealing cable is illegal? Why do you think copying DVDs is illegal?

I'm tired, so I hope that all made sense.

While I agree with almost everything you said I would like to play devil's advocate. A survey a little while pack showed that musician's CD sales actually went way up after their music started getting heavily pirated on the internet.

More people hear it, like it, buy it, tell other people they like it, they buy it. It's all about being heard. I'm not saying the same thing happens here, but it is definitely a possibility..

 

[ppc750fx]

first of all i wasnt acting surprised about it. merely pointing out that its quite obvious whats wrong with them.

What is wrong with them? You didn't point it out -- you just said "It's your problem if you don't see what's wrong with them." Fine. It's my problem. But just for our edification, what exactly is wrong with them?

secondly, it sounds like you don't even know what crackulous is.

It's an application ripper for App Store apps.

The other Hackulo.us tool of note is a client for their repository of pirated iPhone applications (Appulo.us). The client uses a combination of the iUI toolkit, an embedded WebKit control, and the Safari download plugin to allow the location, download, and installation of unofficial IPA bundles, distributed via public file upload sites such as Rapidshare and Megaupload. It formerly consisted of two separate applications (one for search/download, the other for installation), but c. 0.6 they were merged into a single application: Installous.

and no **** the concept of a software repository is not unique. but the only reason the app store even CAME TO BE was because of jailbreak and installer.

Funny, but I would have pointed to apt-get as prior art here...

 

[kas23]

I believe deadsoul is referring to the fact that, in order to crack an app using crackulous, one first has to buy the app from the app store. Thus, the person using crackulous may be enabling others to get the app for free, but he himself has to pay for it.

Yes, but everyone can still pirate the app, as long as the original buyer puts it out there. It's sort of like pirating music. At some point, someone is buying the CD, ripping it, and then throwing it up in the internet for thousands to steal for free. But there is still plenty incentive for the buyer to do this. This is how a sharing community is established. Next, someone else with use crackulous on a different app and share that one with the first buyer.

 

[t0mat0]

You forgot to add: Developers have no way to control the way the copy protection works on their App.

True, but then they could link the app with an account, and then use that to tally against their money in. Least you'd know how much being hacked. If the app gave a unique code, and called into the developer, presumably that might be a hack for it?

 

[Night Spring]

True, but then they could link the app with an account, and then use that to tally against their money in. Least you'd know how much being hacked. If the app gave a unique code, and called into the developer, presumably that might be a hack for it?

Wouldn't that be an invasion of privacy for the legitimate users?

 

[The General]

I'm having difficulty understanding how this is different then using cydia

Allow me to explain the difference:

Cydia allows you to install software not approved by Apple. These apps are not pirated, this is the legitimate way of installing them. Most are freeware or open source, but some cost money.

Crackulous/Appulous/Installous let you install pirate copies of AppStore apps for free.

True, but then they could link the app with an account, and then use that to tally against their money in. Least you'd know how much being hacked. If the app gave a unique code, and called into the developer, presumably that might be a hack for it?

When a sale is made, Apple could save a list of all Device IDs that have purchased a certain application. When the application is run for the first time, it can check the Device ID of the iPhone it's installed on and check to make sure that it's on Apple's list.

Their are some problems here, though:
1. If I sell my phone, how do I keep my apps? The buyer could get cracked versions of all the apps I purchased and they will validate correctly.
2. How do I put my apps on more than one device?

Wouldn't that be an invasion of privacy for the legitimate users?

No. If you have a problem with the developer of the application knowing your Device ID, then do not buy the program.

 

[jclardy]

first of all i wasnt acting surprised about it. merely pointing out that its quite obvious whats wrong with them.

secondly, it sounds like you don't even know what crackulous is.

and no **** the concept of a software repository is not unique. but the only reason the app store even CAME TO BE was because of jailbreak and installer.

sorry if you're having a hard time understanding such basic terms.

You know, if Apple did not want an App Store in the first place, they could have created feature phone software for the iPhone, not based on OS X. Then Installer would not have worked, because all it did was unlock a feature that was already there.

And second, yes ONE PERSON has to buy an app to crack it. Then everyone else can download for free. I do agree that Apple should allow developers to create trial versions, but that doesn't justify pirating apps. A simple solution: if you don't know if an app will fit your needs, don't buy it! Nobody is forcing you to buy apps, and besides, you can just check one of the 50 different review sites, usually a quick google search will find a review of most any app.

Lastly, about Apple charging a developer fee and taking 30%, do you know anything about software distribution? The only way to keep 100% of the money for selling software you have to accept cash or check only from your website. Credit cards charge fees from 2-5% if you process them directly. If you sell via an e-commerce site like Plimus or BMT Micro they take off anywhere from 10-45% depending on what services you use. Even so none of these solutions will get a piece of software in front of millions of users eyes like the App Store does. And if you compare that 30% to what developers have to pay publishers for console games it is on the other end of the spectrum. Also Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have much higher developer fees than $99 a year. Anyways this does not even have anything to do with the main topic.

 

[Night Spring]

No. If you have a problem with the developer of the application knowing your Device ID, then do not buy the program.

That's not quite what t0mat0 suggested, is it? Right now, I can buy an app, and load it onto as many iPhones/Touches as I want, as long as they are all set to sync with a computer that is authorized with my iTunes account. So I could legitimately be using an app on 10 different devices, or even a hundred. There is no theoretical limit to the number of devices I can sync to a single iTunes account. In order for a developer to know if my copy of the app is legal or not, they'd need to somehow access my iTunes purchasing history. Which, I think, is an invasion of my privacy.