This isn't an Apple problem, it's a problem with every business review platform. If a shady marketing firm takes a contract to give an app fake 5 star reviews, there's no way for the review platform to know if that shady marketing firm was hired by the app's developer or their competitor. Only the marketing firm knows.

If the App Store is the only vehicle for selling mobile apps on Apple devices, then by virtue of their monopoly, they have a duty to be entirely transparent and fair. It’s entirely an Apple problem.

What monopoly are you speaking of? Most phones aren't Apple.

Are you claiming that Apple has a "monopoly" on devices Apple designs and builds? That's kind of like saying you have a monopoly on the comments by your HN handle.

Not OC but exactly. They have a "monopoly" on the comments by their HN handle so they're responsible for what's written from that handle.

The same way Apple holds a monopoly on an ecosystem they created so they are responsible for what's happening there.

the app store is the monopoly. afaik there's no other way to get apps on your apple device.

You are free to buy a non-Apple phone... because Apple does not have a monopoly.

No.

This is a disingenuous line of reasoning.

Once you buy a phone you are locked into using a specific marketplace, where Apple has complete control.

This doesn't need to occur. An open marketplace or multiple marketplaces could be possible.

For all intents and purposes, Apple does have a monopoly.

So how do you get an app onto the iphone if they don't have a monopoly on apps on their phones? What other store can I use to get apps on a iPhone?

You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is. You can't arbitrarily put an app onto their hardware because they built it so you couldn't.

However, not all hardware is created by them. You're free to purchase a different phone, and you can even make the number of app stores supported a primary buying decision.

It isn't Apple's hardware. It's your hardware. You bought it.

This kind of reasoning is perfect if you want to halt all future innovation.

Why would someone advance the state of the art in any device if the immediate result is attacks for the new device being a "monopoly" within the scope of the new device or improvements?

The legal term is abuse of a dominant market position, which does not only apply to pure monopolies ...

What? Aren't AMD, ARM, and Intel advancing the state of the art of CPUs because they have open platforms, and have no monopoly or gatekeeper position on what software can run on their platform?

I can't see why you would be unable to advance the state of the art if you don't block (thus allow) everyone from building on your platform.

What about fridges, toasters, smart TVs, playstations, watches, etc.

All devices made with purpose in-mind and only allow the manufacturer's firmware to be installed and are not "open platforms". In the case of smart TVs and many game consoles, you have a direct comparison to phones as they have a single app store with no competitors allowed on their platform.

Should all of these single purpose decives have to bare the burden and cost of opening up their platform for competitors too?

In one sentence you say "direct comparison," and in the next you contradict yourself by using the words "single purpose devices." A phone is a general computing device. A smart refrigerator is not. Is there even an app store on a smart fridge which contains third party apps?

It seems YOU don't understand what monopoly means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

> exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action > exclusive possession or control

You seem to be under the impression that only one type of monopoly exists (IE: Android exists so Apple doesn't have a monopoly).

But do you realize that that's no the only thing that can be monopolized?

So again... on the iPhone platform? who has "exclusive possession or control" over apps on the iPhone?

Whether or not it is a monopoly is a red herring, since being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a dominant position in a marketplace is. Apple has dominance in the Apple app marketplace, which they could theoretically abuse by discriminating against competitors. Thus, it is in their interest to be transparent about how they're managing their app store.

They are transparent and fair. Fake reviews are not allowed. Apple has no way to know if you hired a fake review company or if some competitor did. Their moderation team can only check for fake reviews, not who paid for them. Of course, if they ask developers if they did something wrong and they did, they will get lied to.

And it shouldn't be Apple's problem. Apple is not a court of law. They have no business knowing about their developers internal affairs, imagine the conflicts of interest. This is a matter for an actual court of law, that can issue warrants and subpoenas, where perjury is a thing, where there is fair trail and where you can ask damage and the guilty party get charged for fraud. You obviously don't want to give these powers to a private company.

Plus, they point to their 30% take as helping to prevent these kind of issues. So if that 30% isn’t helping to police the Apple Store, what is it doing?

Except that Apple ist the gatekeeper here.

Apple engages in a lot of anti-competitive practices. I think in the case of App Store it's called captive supply, it is detrimental for both users and developers but good for Apple

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_supply

There is a way for the platform to handle that scenario... Manual review. Apple chooses not to rely on manual review and we shouldn't discount this decision of theirs.

How would you be able to tell by manual review if a fake review from a SEO firm was paid for by that app's developer or by their competitor? There is no signal there. The ads are identical.

Then maybe they shouldn’t use fake reviews as a heuristic for termination?

This is and has always been the fundamental problem with Apple owning the app ecosystem.

Isn't this kind of the core of the problem with Yelp ?

I think you just said any company that cannot practice moderation with absolute perfection should not be in business?

I'd say to "an acceptable level of moderation" - not perfect. But I agree with that statement if the company is itself profiting from the moderation. I think there's a separate example to be considered when the company is a "dumb host" - but as soon as the company starts promoting certain content with a complex algorithm (smarter than "most recent", "has most updoots", or even "has most updoots with a decay function") instead of just being a place people park their content then I think they adopt that responsibility. I feel quite similarly about things like Instagram and Facebook - I'd give a pass to Reddit because it basically does nothing outside of hosting discussions (similar to this platform).

But yea, if you're a business that makes money promoting other people's content then you're responsible for that content. Similarly, I'd argue that a skywriting company that writes libel in the sky should be held responsible as an accessory to the client if they were aware the statements were libelous.