Rampant App Store Fraud Indicates Changes In Apple's Review Policy
February 5, 2012
Before Alexander Vaughn, our former editor-in-chief, departed AppAdvice for greener (Bah!) startup pastures, he and I spoke at length about Apple's increasing failure to properly police every facet of its app submission process. We'd been throwing the idea back and forth for some time, and, while waiting and hoping our assertions were wrong, the time has come to finally spearhead the argument of the obvious: Apple's app reviews -- once so lauded and strict and specific -- are gone as we know them. It is Alexander's idea that the process is now completely automated. It is my idea that Alexander's right. At least, mostly.
Now, before I write any further, you must understand one thing: I have no proof to unequivocally support these claims. Indeed, this entire argument could very well turn out to be complete (and completely) bunk. That said, there's certainly a lot of evidence in support of our notion, and, though I can't possibly include every example in this short piece, I've chosen the few that I believe most sufficiently represent the current state of affairs.
Temple
The most recent app to cause an uproar was the (fraudulently) top-rated Temple Jump from developer Anton Sinelnikov. This fraudulent thing, created for the sole purpose of scamming buyers, mimicked the name, look, and presentation of the hit Temple Run app. To the skeptical and savvy, it was plainly a grift, but hundreds of App Store shoppers bought the "game" thinking it was an official follow-up to the official title. And, even though it was overwhelmingly panned with one-star reviews, Temple Jump garnered enough downloads to place atop Apple's top app lists. Of course, that fame quickly brought the offender to the attention of mainstream blogs, news outlets, and Apple itself. Temple Jump was pulled within hours. (We were actually in the process of editorializing a Temple Jump announcement when it was pulled, so we pulled that in favor of this.)
Naturally, Apple is refunding all affected users -- the ones who complain, anyways -- and have banned several more of the developer's apps from the App Store (like this Tiny Birds! atrocity).
But think about it: Like I said before, all of this happened only after Temple Jump made it up the sales charts, into the news, and across Apple's desk. Across Apple's desk! The end result, to anyone with half a brain, was obvious.
Here's the thing. Why would such a clear violation of all things app submission need to get to Apple's desk twice? How in Hades did Temple Jump make it past Apple's auditors the first time around? The easiest explanation, of course, is that there was no first time.
And this is far from the first time that's happened.
Temple Run Jump
The most recent app to cause an uproar was the (fraudulently) top-rated Temple Jump from developer Anton Sinelnikov. This fraudulent thing, created for the sole purpose of scamming buyers, mimicked the name, look, and presentation of the hit Temple Run app. To the skeptical and savvy, it was plainly a grift, but hundreds of App Store shoppers bought the "game" thinking it was an official follow-up to the official title. And, even though it was overwhelmingly panned with one-star reviews, Temple Jump garnered enough downloads to place atop Apple's top app lists. Of course, that fame quickly brought the offender to the attention of mainstream blogs, news outlets, and Apple itself. Temple Jump was pulled within hours. (We were actually in the process of editorializing a Temple Jump announcement when it was pulled, so we pulled that in favor of this.)
Naturally, Apple is refunding all affected users -- the ones who complain, anyways -- and have banned several more of the developer's apps from the App Store (like this Tiny Birds! atrocity).
But think about it: Like I said before, all of this happened only after Temple Jump made it up the sales charts, into the news, and across Apple's desk. Across Apple's desk! The end result, to anyone with half a brain, was obvious.
Here's the thing. Why would such a clear violation of all things app submission need to get to Apple's desk twice? How in Hades did Temple Jump make it past Apple's auditors the first time around? The easiest explanation, of course, is that there was no first time.
And this is far from the first time that's happened.
Alas!
Remember Alas eBook and the Flash Video Expose debacle? This unscrupulous developer had been peddling a variety of "utility" apps which were, as was the case with Flash Video Expose, little more than one-page reference descriptions of what such utilities are designed to do. Users thought they were getting a fully-capable piece of software; what they actually got was a paragraph on the given product's history, a few static photographs, and links to some external, browser-based content. Completely unnecessary, completely shady, and only remedied once the internet spoke out. Our own Casey Tschida opined at the time:How do these apps and developers make it past the stringent App Store review team? That’s a very good question, and one I can’t answer with any real certainty. It is by no means unheard of for apps with clever descriptions and screenshots to slip by. The App Store review team is after all just people, and likely instructed to more thoroughly scrutinize certain things above others. Hopefully, with enough complaints, Apple will realize their mistake and revoke this developer’s iTunes App Store privileges.Apple hasn't done that. However, Alas eBook no longer falsely markets its titles, so some good was ultimately achieved. But the problem persists.
