Bitcoin Scam App Approved by Apple Robs iPhone User of $600,000+

[I7guy]

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.

In that vein, you have no idea of how this would work either, and your claim about market/competition is baseless, since you don't know how this will form and develop. You are speculating the prices will go down when fees go down, but cannot prove it as a fact.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

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.

If Epic made a change to the app, that was subsequently used to defraud Apple and they couldn't catch that change, how are they (Apple) supposed to catch some subtle change to defraud people from their bitcoin?

Apple can't catch everything and no app store can catch everything and all of this other hubris, multiple app stores, payment methods, doesn't take away from the fundamental truth, that someone clever out to get can always find someone to be gotten.

That doesn't mean the app store isn't fundamentally safe, but I would use my due diligence twice over before handing over close to $1M in assets.

 

[Maximara]

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).

That is IMHO very naive. Apple knows it code and even then things will get through...its a little thing called reality.

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.

This is the reality. I've used an android simulation program and that platform is a cesspool of deceptive game ads and questionable casino like games.

This guy is the reason car sun shields have the label "do not drive with this in the windshield" - because somebody somewhere would do something that crazy and blame the company that made the car sunshield.

 

[Abazigal]

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)

I don’t hold any Apple stock, and I have never understood this line of arguing.

If I were a developer, I would still sell an app for the same $10 even if I didn’t have to pay Apple a cut because my experience with the App Store has shown that this is the price that my customers are willing to pay for. It’s simple revenue maximisation.

Just look at the current programme where Apple is lowering the revenue cut from 30% to 15% for developers earning 1 million in annual revenue. App prices are not going to drop simply because they are now earning more. Nor did the subscription I paid for Fantastical decrease after a year either (but maybe that is more a technical limitation of iTunes). The developer will simply pocket the difference, and I am indifferent to this because none of this is ever going to trickle down to me as the consumer.

I am simply talking as someone who understands a little bit of how economics works.

 

[Maximara]

In that vein, you have no idea of how this would work either, and your claim about market/competition is baseless, since you don't know how this will form and develop. You are speculating the prices will go down when fees go down, but cannot prove it as a fact.

If past behavior of the majority of businesses is any guide they will keep the old price and rake in the extra profit. The Free Market never really existed. It is on par with a unicorn.

 

[Maximara]

Just look at the current programme where Apple is lowering the revenue cut from 30% to 15% for developers earning 1 million in annual revenue. App prices are not going to drop simply because they are now earning more. Nor did the subscription I paid for Fantastical decrease after a year either (but maybe that is more a technical limitation of iTunes). The developer will simply pocket the difference, and I am indifferent to this because none of this is ever going to trickle down to me as the consumer.

The last 40 years have shown that "trickle down" economics is a fairy story and it is incredible that people still believe in it. It like the free market - it doesn't work and has never worked.

 

[Abazigal]

The last 40 years have shown that "trickle down" economics is a fairy story and it is incredible that people still believe in it. It like the free market - it doesn't work and has never worked.

Don’t get me wrong - I have nothing against developers earning more money the honest way. I just hold no illusions that any of this will go towards lower app prices for the end user in any way.

 

[falainber]

In that vein, you have no idea of how this would work either, and your claim about market/competition is baseless, since you don't know how this will form and develop. You are speculating the prices will go down when fees go down, but cannot prove it as a fact.

All I am claiming is that there is plenty of evidence that market and competition lower prices. That’s why we have all those anti-monopoly laws. These are facts. Saying that this logic is baseless clearly shows your bias and refusal to deal with arguments.

 

[falainber]

I don’t hold any Apple stock, and I have never understood this line of arguing.

If I were a developer, I would still sell an app for the same $10 even if I didn’t have to pay Apple a cut because my experience with the App Store has shown that this is the price that my customers are willing to pay for. It’s simple revenue maximisation.

Just look at the current programme where Apple is lowering the revenue cut from 30% to 15% for developers earning 1 million in annual revenue. App prices are not going to drop simply because they are now earning more. Nor did the subscription I paid for Fantastical decrease after a year either (but maybe that is more a technical limitation of iTunes). The developer will simply pocket the difference, and I am indifferent to this because none of this is ever going to trickle down to me as the consumer.

I am simply talking as someone who understands a little bit of how economics works.

Developers are not competing with Apple, they compete with other app developers. This is what is going to prevent them from raising the prices. Without 40+% Apple tax the developers can keep the same prices (before Apple tax) and maintain their profits. The consumers will benefit.

 

[I7guy]

All I am claiming is that there is plenty of evidence that market and competition lower prices. That’s why we have all those anti-monopoly laws. These are facts. Saying that this logic is baseless clearly shows your bias and refusal to deal with arguments.

All that is above is an opinion. No government agency has deemed Apple to be a monopoly of any sort, especially with a market share must less than android. That’s a fact.

You should be able to easily show and cite where independent developers en-masse, lower prices of their apps when they pay less commission.

And in the vein of the thread, competing app stores are safer.

 

[falainber]

All that is above is an opinion. No government agency has deemed Apple to be a monopoly of any sort, especially with a market share must less than android. That’s a fact.

You should be able to easily show and cite where independent developers en-masse, lower prices of their apps when they pay less commission.

And in the vein of the thread, competing app stores are safer.

You have no idea about the reality. In US, iOS market share is close to 50%. Depending on how one looks at it (sales vs active users etc.) Apple share is higher than 50%.

 

[Stephen.R]

So are humans yet none of you are saying all people need to go.
Flawed thinking!

Humans are not, in fact. computationally expensive.

 

[NathanWind]

Good thing it wasn't real money!

Much ignorance in this thread.

This is like someone hijacking another's stock portfolio and then the mob crying out "Good thing it wasn't real money!"

OK, NPCs.

 

[MacBH928]

The App was submitted to Apple as a "cryptography app" - and specifically declared that it was unrelated to "cryptocurrencies".

If Apple does spend weeks re-vetting every update to already published Apps: people complain the update process is too slow.

If Apple does not spend weeks re-vetting every update to already published Apps: people complain when bad-actors prey on stupid people.

I dont care, Apple says the store apps is pre-approved they should be held accountable. If this guy downloaded off the net then its not their fault.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

This story doesn't make sense. The whole point of a Trezor (or Ledger) device is that you don't have crypto assets within an app. If an app is linked to such an hardware device then they'd still need the actual physical device to sign the transaction.

Surely this user wasn't so dumb to enter the key of an offline hardware device into a software application? Really? That would defeat the point of him having a Trezor in the first place.

Scam app or not, this is a PIBCAK case. It also highlights that there is still a role to play for banks as not everyone has the understanding on how to protect their own assets.

 

[Stephen.R]

I dont care, Apple says the store apps is pre-approved they should be held accountable.

The manufacturer of the hardware device in question states this, in their "Security Best Practices" (emphasis theirs):

Do not enter your recovery seeds anywhere unless the physical Trezor device instructs you to do so and you confirm your choice on your Trezor. Always trust only the instructions on your Trezor device.

I find it highly unlikely the guys physical device told him to download an app from the App Store (they don't have their own official iOS app) and put in whatever 'secrets' it asked for.

There are numerous stories about apps using deliberate deception to pass App Store review, before becoming malicious in some way after published.

The fake Trezor app got through the app store through a bait-and-switch, according to Apple. Though it was called Trezor and used the Trezor logo and colors, it represented itself as a “cryptography” app that would encrypt iPhone files and store passwords, according to Apple. The developer of the fake Trezor app told Apple’s review team it “is not involved in any cryptocurrency.” Apple approved the app and it appeared in the App Store on Jan. 22, according to mobile analytics firm Sensor Tower.

Some time later, unbeknown to Apple, the Trezor cryptography app changed itself into a cryptocurrency wallet. Apple does not allow these sorts of changes, but Apple says it does not know when they occur. It relies on users and customers to report it when it happens, the company said.

After Trezor reported the fake app to Apple, Apple says it removed the app and banned the developer. Two days later, another fake Trezor app appeared. Apple removed that app, too. Apple did not say how it found out about the fake apps, but said it removed them because they were fraudulent.

Imagine if you will, a bank that markets itself as being for the ultra-paranoid, in the modern world of phishing scams and card skimmers.

They issue no physical card. They offer no phone apps. They offer _just_ a website, that you use with a physical token plugged into your device, and they tell you to only ever enter your super secret password when the physical device tells you to.


You then download an app that bears their name/logo, and proceed to enter your super secret password into the screen, without any connection to the physical token, much less the token telling you to do so.


Software cannot prevent stupidity.

 

[Stephen.R]

Surely this user wasn't so dumb to enter the key of an offline hardware device into a software application? Really? That would defeat the point of him having a Trezor in the first place.

No ****. It's almost like the guy had no ****ing idea what he was doing, and wants to blame others for his losses.

 

[quarkysg]

It looks to me like the fraudulent Trezor app is able re-generate the actual bit-coin wallet from the recovery seed. If true, the Trezor device is not safe.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

No ****. It's almost like the guy had no ****ing idea what he was doing, and wants to blame others for his losses.

Indeed. I really don’t get how some suggest Apple (or any other company) is to blame for this.

The funny thing is as well, I bet the chap can’t actually proof without reasonable doubt that he had those holdings

 

[Abazigal]

Developers are not competing with Apple, they compete with other app developers. This is what is going to prevent them from raising the prices. Without 40+% Apple tax the developers can keep the same prices (before Apple tax) and maintain their profits. The consumers will benefit.

It's not the point I am trying to make.

Say I am a developer who made a game that is currently selling for $10 in the App Store. Going with basic economic theory, a higher price would mean fewer downloads, while too low a price may not net me much money despite having more purchases. I would have arrived at this price because I will determine that is what will generate me the most amount of revenue, and which is a fair representation of the value and work that went into crafting the game.

Whether Apple takes 30% or 15% or even 0% will have no impact on my final pricing because once it is done, software on the App Store has zero marginal or distribution costs. It's all pure profit at this point. The only thing that matters is to maximise revenue.

Say Apple allows a third party App Store on iOS in the future and I have the option of selling the same game on both the iOS App Store and the Epic game store. Even if the Epic game store collects just 12% from me, I would still charge $10, and keep the difference for myself. I wouldn't lower the price because again, I would (based on some guesstimates) not earn enough from the increased sales to offset the lower profits.

What this means from the customer's perspective is that the price of my app or IAP is not going to change regardless of which App Store it can be found on. There is no money to be saved for them, and as such, there is no upside to having multiple app stores on iOS at all (with regards to price at least).

That's why I believe Epic overplayed their hand back last year. No support came from their use base, not least because consumers don’t care about a 30% fee that they never see, and surprise surprise, people don’t actually dislike closed, sandboxed app ecosystems (which is why Epic eventually brought Fortnite to Google Play after initially launching it as a standalone launcher).

TL;DR - the benefits you and a few others love to tout here online probably will not resonate much with Apple's user base in general. Not least because it will not be giving them more of what they want.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

It looks to me like the fraudulent Trezor app is able re-generate the actually bit-coin wallet from the recovery seed. If true, the Trezor device is not safe.

Oh dear. I’m sorry but you really don’t have a clue on how these things work. That is the purpose of a recovery seed. If it couldn’t do that then how would you deal with hardware failure, a fire?, a flood? Etc.

 

[I7guy]

You have no idea about the reality. In US, iOS market share is close to 50%. Depending on how one looks at it (sales vs active users etc.) Apple share is higher than 50%.

It depends how these numbers are presented.

Android vs iOS Market Share 2020: Stats and Facts | MobileApps.com

Is Android or iOS more popular? Short answer, Android. Long answer, it depends. Although the global Android vs iOS market share statistics name Android as the...

www.mobileapps.com

 

[macintoshmac]

Again... your logic assumes that Apple staff should be and are perfect.
Criminals sometimes can be smarter than those who try to stop them.
That does not mean they are to be blamed when they took reasonable measures.

No, I am not assuming they should be perfect and neither want them to be, since that is always a pursuit, never to be attained.

What I am saying, again, is that this is pretty basic thing to test out in an app when submitted - that it does what it claims to do and it is not a malicious app. That is all I am saying, and yes, this most basic check is unforgivable. Every other check builds on this most basic check when it comes to user safety.

 

[macintoshmac]

No because your logic assumes that people are perfect and that criminals are stupid.

So you are telling me that is not how Apple's app-checking process goes? They only check if their own revenue system is circumvented, that's it? Why must you be so defensive of Apple, not even being admitting the fact that a major blunder has occurred? Would you say this for a car manufacturer whose doors didn't lock properly and a passenger fell off, saying that the passenger should have checked THAT'S IT? Would you not even be open to blaming BOTH parties at least? What is the reason you are being so, so Apple-sided with this?

Also, I am not providing any logic at all. I am firstly conjecturing about the app-vetting process and then opining about what it ought to be, at the most basic level. I am not even saying this is logical or anything. I am simply offering my thoughts and opinion.

When failures such as these occur, there really is no logic to speak of, hide behind, or throw at.

 

[I7guy]

I dont care, Apple says the store apps is pre-approved they should be held accountable. If this guy downloaded off the net then its not their fault.

Can you actually point to the wording “pre-approved?” Or even guaranteed to be virus and malware free?