Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bitcoin Scam App Approved by Apple Robs iPhone User of $600,000+
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Learning is fun
These are the most secure Android phones 2025
Safeguard your privacy by switching to one of these phones.
www.androidcentral.com
So called hard currency (back by gold, silver, whatever) has also failed as history has shown again and again.
Apple is entitled to rake in as much as they can - but only legally. If the regulators mandate alternative app stores, Apple will still be entitled to rake in as much as they can but it's probably going to be smaller amount. As far as privacy and security considerations are concerned: today Apple can't really check the apps, tomorrow multiple app store vendors won't be able to do it. The end result - same level of security but lower prices. Win-win for everyone (maybe except for Apple).
Last edited:
In short the same kind of change how the application works after Apple approved it BS Epic pulled. Or what many developers do regarding the ESRB. The ESRB gives their rating and suddenly that T for Teen turns into an M for mature thanks to an after rating/sale patch.
Lol, that's like blaming Chevrolet for one of their cars getting used to rob a bank.
What I find laughable about all of this is that human nature being what it is, I know full well that all those who are on Apple's side over this would scream blue murder and be blaming Apple if they were unfortunate enough to install a trusted approved app that turned out to be fake and as a result had emptied their bank account.
Could you just picture it 'oh no, my bank account/savings account has been emptied and it was due to an app I installed from the app store. Oh well, such is life, cannot blame Apple, is all my fault'.
yeah right!!!!.
Could you just picture it 'oh no, my bank account/savings account has been emptied and it was due to an app I installed from the app store. Oh well, such is life, cannot blame Apple, is all my fault'.
yeah right!!!!.
Prices aren’t really going to drop for consumers. Regardless of how much developers pay Apple or any other App Store. It’s simple demand-side economics.
The key benefit of third party app stores would be the ability to access apps otherwise not available on the iOS App Store, but that also calls into question what kind of apps these are in the first place, and what other shenanigans they could accomplish under more permissive app stores rules.
There’s really nothing in it here for me as a consumer. Apps are not going to be any cheaper. Apps that I use may no longer be bound by App Store rules. Which amongst other things, may mean that they are not required to implement features like “sign in with Apple”, which would ironically result in less choice for the consumer. Sure, I may be able to access otherwise blocked apps like vaping, gambling or pornography apps, but I presume those were initially blocked from the iOS App Store for good reason.
The bigger developers are the ones pushing for this because they are the ones who understandably have the most to gain financially from this, but it doesn’t mean that I as the consumer have to get on board of it with them.
It's really not. Chevrolet is not requiring you to use certified mechanics or taking a profit when you choose to add third party accessories. You can only get apps from Apple, and Apple exclusively controls how apps deal with payments, taking 15-30% of those transactions, even after buying the app, but lol, where are you buying your Chevy from?
Errr, excuse me, the case with Epic ring a bell??? Epic had an app that was originally approved. They made an update which was obviously checked because it had things in it that Apple did not like and it resulted in the app being banned from the store. This therefore proves that updates for apps get checked or could this be a case that because millions of $$$ are involved, Apple made a point of checking Epic's app and subsequent updates and ignored updates from developers who bring nothing financially to Apple?. I would hope Epic's lawyers are looking at this. An app that is categorised as cryptography get approved and added to the app store. The developer makes an update which fundamentally changes the category of the app from cryptography to cryptocurrencies which due to it's criminal nature, steals the personal information and login data of those who are unfortunate to use the app and empties their crypto currency account and Apples checking process approved the update???!!!.
Epics update made a fundamental change to it's app and Apple banned the app from the store
The developer of the cryptography app makes a fundamental change which allows it to steal users login data and clear out their cryptocurrency accounts and Apple approves the update.
Something is fundamentally wrong here. Apple is not blameless in this as far as I am concerned.
lol thats fair. The Chevy comment may have been a bad analogy. I still stand by what I said previously though. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because our logic reflects our bias. But I will again ask, can you show me a place digitally or even physically where you are 100% protected that's not a solitary confinement in a prison? Or some deep dark underground military installation? How do you protect people from making bad decisions, even in the best or worst environments?
Not talking about android. The classic Apple defense. Try to change subject to android. Lol
so you can’t. Not a surprise.
so wait, if it happened on Android the response would be different? You wouldn't blame Google for not being secure enough, you would have just said, huh another sucker of a an app?
A more likely scenario with multiple app stores are:
- consumers will see little if any price decreases for apps or IAP
- increase in malware, stealth ware, credential stealing and the like
The end result, less security, which Apple will be blamed for, lower prices will be a pipe dream. Lose-lose for everybody.
Except for the third party app stores that likely also charges a 30% commission.
That's a good question. I'm not sure such a place exists, esp. not digitally. Mature adults shouldn't necessarily be protected from making bad decisions either. I think that when certain freedoms are limited for safety and profit, though, liability should be shared.
Apple's ecosystem is limited and widely promoted as safe, secure, private, etc, partly because of those limitations, and it doesn't allow access to external app stores, partly for all the reasons I just mentioned--but it really doesn't allow access to them for profit. To even get access to other apps, you have to "jailbreak" your phone. So you have to get out of that confined space to use apps that Apple doesn't vet.
If this person did what he did through Chrome or Safari, neither Google nor Apple could be held accountable. Browsers don't have closed ecosystems in the way that the app store does. Browsers don't claim responsibility for overseeing transactions made through them.
Ultimately this person is a victim of the app that swindled him, and perhaps as many argue, poor decisions. Apple, in this case, also made a poor decision by letting this app through and is also (at least somewhat) liable because of its control and profit.
We may not agree on this one, but I guess that's my really long (!) take
That also goes to show the double standards revolving around Apple relative to the rest of the competition. Every way, scams and malware are abound on the google play store and you don’t really hear a peep about this from anyone. Nobody cares, and it seems like people have come to accept this as a common occurrence.
Conversely, each misstep in the iOS App Store is easily a multi-page thread and a “scandal” in itself.
I guess I should see it as a happy problem of sorts. It doesn’t mean the App Store is bad in an absolute sense, just that it’s held to a much higher standard and subject to far more scrutiny relative to the rest of the competition.
Claiming on big letters water resistance in the middle of the page and adding in the smallest font possible at the bottom of the page “yeah, but only in a lab”, yep, I’d call that misleading.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Have to agree, this should actually be celebrated. This man should be happy Apple gave him the opportunity to lose his life savings on the App Store.
I mean, the word resistant isn't the same as immune or proof right? It is still an English word yes? I say this with some banter, because I don't think anything should be advertised with footnotes, but I mean, the word used is resistant, so someone may need to use a dictionary... le sigh, and then I looked it up and am at a loss that the dictionary tied the word to similar words like impervious. It's not until you look at the parent word, resistance that it becomes obvious it's not total, but partial and shouldn't be compared to immunity or imperviousness.
Last edited:
Water resistance benefits the consumer not the manufacturer. Instead of water damage, in which you (the now wet iphone owner) would have to use insurance or applecare or pay out of pocket to get the phone fixed, your phone has a modicum of water resistance saving, you, the consumer $$$.
You do know how much profits Apple makes, right? There is plenty of room there for prices to drop. Demand side works like this: if App Store sells an app for, say, $10 and some other app store sells the same app for $8, I am buying it from this other store. That's how I as a consumer would act. You are not talking as a consumer. You are talking as an Apple fan (and maybe a shareholder)
You have no idea how this would work. All we know is that there are only two mechanisms for lowering the prices:
* price control
* market
Your claim that market/competition won’t lower the prices is absolutely baseless.