Remember, all the spare parts and everything has to be bought from the Apple store only, Not like a car where you can buy from anywhere and hence the problem can arise.
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
What is the due diligence that Apple did here when it allowed a scam app to exist in the store? If it cannot do it, let it give control to somebody who can do it better. Break up Apple so that AppStore is the control of the right people who will be interested in the well-being of consumers rather than Apple.
I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works, but if it's your opinion, it's your opinion. It doesn't really matter if apple does nothing, it's their platform. You may not like apples fees and commissions but your only recourse is not to use the product. I'm pretty sure there is no way to catch 100% scams, using epic as an example here. But yeah the poor user can't be stupid either.
You tell me? Do you believe there are basic checks that apple can do. Do you believe Apple can catch 100% of apps that have a devious intent?
Nobody will be able to do it better. Because it takes time, money and resources to do a through investigation and will probably stifle competition. Nobody is going want to pay, thousands of dollars per app and have it take a month or more to do a through background check. Maybe there ought to be a super-secure part of the app store, where a dev will want to fund this type review, but an app store won't.
Well, nobody is stopping you or anyone else from building a platform with a digital storefront, and open up said platform to anyone else interested. Just don’t expect Apple to allow it on their platform. Whether anyone can do a better job is immaterial. In fact, if someone feels that they can do a better job, they should go ahead and build their own platform. I’m sure they can attract a lot of interested investors. Isn’t this the objective and idea of a free capitalist system?
If a user feels that Apple’s platform is too crowded with options for whatever reasons, they are free to choose other platforms with less options.
Did you actually understand what this scenario was about? Did you bother to read any of the other posts before you correcting and education others. Have you actually got a hardware wallet and understand how signing and security of such transactions work? Do you realise that the scams to illicit such codes don't even require an app?
I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but you really haven't got a clue about what happened here have you?
And who might these “right people” be?
I doubt you will find a country with law enforcement so efficient that zero crime exists. No matter how effective the police may be, there will still be crime. This doesn’t mean law enforcement sucks, nor does the presence of crime mean that you abolish your police force and allow criminals to run unchecked.
It just means that there is still areas for growth.
I also doubt you will find anyone willing to do the job that Apple does. The reason is simple. Apple is in the business of selling their users a great user experience, made possible by their control over hardware, software and services. This includes the App Store that comes preinstalled on every iOS device. For all their failings, Apple at least has the incentive to want to do right by their users.
I don’t see third party app stores having the inclination nor the leverage to be capable of doing a better job than Apple. Like it or not, Apple is still the best line of defence we have got.
As I said before there are many other things by other companies that have "no user serviceable parts inside" so this is not unique to Apple. Next.
Total nonsense. That is akin to saying Ford has a monopoly on selling new Ford cars. Besides you can run web programs on iOS so this you can only go to the Apple store tap dance is dead.
Last edited:
Opening it up for multiple app stores would a nightmare. Imagine all the lawsuits Apple would get because their iPhone doesn't work as advertised because they got hacked....
There's a contract between that consumer and Apple: Apple checks the apps, and Apple will refund the money if the app is not fit for its purpose. I can't quite see where this "consumer" told Apple that they wanted to handle $600,000 worth of bitcoin with an app and Apple agreed to take responsibility for their money.
I wouldn't be surprised if after all this mess there isn't some binding arbitration clause by Apple on both developers and consumers.
That’d be a feasible alternative if Apple didn’t (very intentionally) stunt PWAs on iOS by refusing to implement PWA features or implementing them such that they’re not meaningful to the development of a PWA.
But they do exactly that, and therefore web apps aren’t actually a feasible alternative for many use cases.
There seemingly, has been no statement by apple. So either this was fake news or settled under NDA.
Actually when this broke in the better versions of the story there was this:
"Apple claims that at the time of signing up, the app posed to be a cryptography app used to encrypt iPhone files and passwords and at the time the app developer had highlighted that the app has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. But after the app got submitted, it soon turned into a crypto wallet and slipped right under Apple’s radar. " - iPhone User Lost $600,000 Life Saving From Scam Bitcoin App On Apple's Store
Also someone thinks they found what the version of the program Apple reviewed looked like.
"Controlling the way you're sharing data has never been more comfortable. We maintain all leading cryptos in the market such as RSA (SHA 256, 128), AES, DES and many more.
Controlling the way you're sharing data has never been more comfortable. We maintain all leading cryptos in the market: RSA (SHA 256, 128), AES, DES.
Manage your communication efficiently. Start simply by picking up your crypto and finally write down the items you want to secure. it's that simple
(email snipped)
DISCLAIMER: We use the word "Crypto" to describe cryptography methods, such as RSA, AES, DES, and it has nothing to do with cryptocurrency."
There you are. In black and white. Apple did make a statement and someone found what appears to be the version of the App Apple reviewed.
It was a version of the old bait and switch. We have seen this with games submitted to reviewers and after they have rated it some piece of code they didn't know about was activated changing the way the game worked. Do we blame the reviews who effectively got scammed? No, we blame the maker of the program.
After their statement exactly what else is Apple going to say? One of the first rules in legal cases is to say as little as possible because it can bite you in the butt.
If you have paid attention to how the media reports stuff like this is there are big headlines for a while and than silence. Then years latter there is an update buried to the point unless you actively looked for it you would miss that the situation went the opposite way from what the original headline suggested.
The Yellow Kid never went away...he just got a wifi connection and the ability to post.
Last edited:
You are forgetting the code of the onboard computer. That you have to go to the manufacturer as do you really want to jailbreak your car and compromise its safety?
You realize that one of the limitations is no notifications, right? That's an immediate non-starter for a lot of apps.
"You can gracefully fallback to SMS notifications." So no biggie.
More over "Most of the request are often not even possible with a native app. Others violate Apple, Google and Microsoft's terms, which means native apps are rejected and the stakeholders are hoping they can use the web to achieve their goals."
Bbbbbut it's apples fault. They should have detected it. That's what the 30% outrageous fee is for, to keep us safe. Apple failed. /sActually when this broke in the better versions of the story there was this:
"Apple claims that at the time of signing up, the app posed to be a cryptography app used to encrypt iPhone files and passwords and at the time the app developer had highlighted that the app has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. But after the app got submitted, it soon turned into a crypto wallet and slipped right under Apple’s radar. " - iPhone User Lost $600,000 Life Saving From Scam Bitcoin App On Apple's Store
Also someone thinks they found what the version of the program Apple reviewed looked like.
"Controlling the way you're sharing data has never been more comfortable. We maintain all leading cryptos in the market such as RSA (SHA 256, 128), AES, DES and many more.
Controlling the way you're sharing data has never been more comfortable. We maintain all leading cryptos in the market: RSA (SHA 256, 128), AES, DES.
Manage your communication efficiently. Start simply by picking up your crypto and finally write down the items you want to secure. it's that simple
(email snipped)
DISCLAIMER: We use the word "Crypto" to describe cryptography methods, such as RSA, AES, DES, and it has nothing to do with cryptocurrency."
There you are. In black and white. Apple did make a statement and someone found what appears to be the version of the App Apple reviewed.
It was a version of the old bait and switch. We have seen this with games submitted to reviewers and after they have rated it some piece of code they didn't know about was activated changing the way the game worked. Do we blame the reviews who effectively got scammed? No, we blame the maker of the program.
After their statement exactly what else is Apple going to say? One of the first rules in legal cases is to say as little as possible because it can bite you in the butt.
If you have paid attention to how the media reports stuff like this is there are big headlines for a while and than silence. Then years latter there is an update buried to the point unless you actively looked for it you would miss that the situation went the opposite way from what the original headline suggested.
The Yellow Kid never went away...he just got a wifi connection and the ability to post.
The sad thing is there are people who would take your post seriously rather than the obvious sarcasm (/s) it is. The reality is no system is perfect and mistakes happen.
A quick search shows things like Bitcoin loses half of its value in two-day plunge. for 2020 and "Cryptocurrency investors could 'lose all their money,' UK regulator warns as Bitcoin price drops from all-time high" for early 2021. The US stockmarket of 1929 would be a better investment.
Also it is claimed "In particular, Bitcoin creates a permanent public record of all transactions. Once an individual is linked to an address, that person can be connected to other transactions using that address."
Why? While it's not data oriented like imessage (which in and of itself can incur charges) many national and international plans come with SMS included?
Sending them isn't free or even close to it.
Let’s make up a service. 75,000 monthly active users in the U.S. who each receive an average of 30 notifications per month — or about one a day just to keep engagement up — via SMS. (If we’re treating SMS as a replacement for push notifications, that is a really freaking conservative send rate for some types of services, but we’ll run with it.)
Twilio, a prominent SMS service provider, charges $0.0075 per SMS message sent. Plug those numbers into a calculator and you’ll see that you wind up paying over $200,000 a year just to send these messages, not including other fees like reserving a number/shortcode from which to send messages, which can run up to another $1,000/month.
Over $200,000 annually just for this “graceful” replacement for push notifications, even though it’s not “graceful” at all — since even setting the cost aside, it’s an awful user experience.
Apple has no issue with websites (with an active Apple Developer Program membership) sending push notifications via Safari on macOS, over APNs, just like macOS and iOS apps do. So what gives on iOS, then?
On IOS:
If one wants to bypass app store restrictions with a web app, one has to think about their business use case. A for profit subscription web app that expects to generate $$$ in revenue should have no problem paying $.xx per SMS.
A free web app that is based on notifications, where the app would violate the app store guidelines I guess would think twice about what is being accomplished and why notifications are needed.