NEWS: Mystery IPhone Book Apps Disappear From Store

A group of iPhone apps that had received top rankings on the iTunes
Store have disappeared from the top 50 book applications following
complaints from developers.

The developers said they noticed dozens of applications by the same
author surge into the top rankings, although the applications frequently
had few or no user reviews and appeared to be roughly coded.

The incident coincided with reports that iTunes Store users were charged
for applications they say they did not purchase, suggesting that their
accounts may have been compromised.

MORE:
<http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/200495/mystery_iphone_book_apps_disappear_from_store.html>

COMMENT: Apple controls what you want, not what you don't want.

--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

---

› See More: NEWS: Mystery IPhone Book Apps Disappear From Store

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> A group of iPhone apps that had received top rankings on the iTunes
> Store have disappeared from the top 50 book applications following
> complaints from developers.
>
> The developers said they noticed dozens of applications by the same
> author surge into the top rankings, although the applications frequently
> had few or no user reviews and appeared to be roughly coded.
>
> The incident coincided with reports that iTunes Store users were charged
> for applications they say they did not purchase, suggesting that their
> accounts may have been compromised.
>
> MORE:
>
> <http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...hone_book_apps
> _disappear_from_store.html>
>
> COMMENT: Apple controls what you want, not what you don't want.

nice snip job. are you that threatened by apple that you must resort to
blatant lying?

here's more, from the same article that *you* gave:

"It looks like the Books category has been hijacked by an app publisher
named mycompany/Thuat Nguyen," Thomson wrote in an e-mail to Brie. "His
apps now occupy 40 of the top 50 ranks in the Books category on the app
store. These are apps that typically wouldn't rank in the Books
category and most of them don't have any ratings or reviews."

more info here:
<http://www.alexbrie.com/archives/205>

the apps were based on stolen content and purchased from hacked
accounts to skew the ratings.

apple canceled his developer account and app rankings are back to
normal.

of course you don't mention that google has *removed* apps from user's
devices, something apple has never done. the hypocrisy is astounding.

On 7/5/10 11:11 AM, in article 050720100911295176%[email protected],
"nospam" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A group of iPhone apps that had received top rankings on the iTunes
>> Store have disappeared from the top 50 book applications following
>> complaints from developers.
>>
>> The developers said they noticed dozens of applications by the same
>> author surge into the top rankings, although the applications frequently
>> had few or no user reviews and appeared to be roughly coded.
>>
>> The incident coincided with reports that iTunes Store users were charged
>> for applications they say they did not purchase, suggesting that their
>> accounts may have been compromised.
>>
>> MORE:
>>
>>
<http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/200495/mystery_iphone_book_app>>
s
>> _disappear_from_store.html>
>>
>> COMMENT: Apple controls what you want, not what you don't want.
>
> nice snip job. are you that threatened by apple that you must resort to
> blatant lying?
>
> here's more, from the same article that *you* gave:
>
> "It looks like the Books category has been hijacked by an app publisher
> named mycompany/Thuat Nguyen," Thomson wrote in an e-mail to Brie. "His
> apps now occupy 40 of the top 50 ranks in the Books category on the app
> store. These are apps that typically wouldn't rank in the Books
> category and most of them don't have any ratings or reviews."
>
> more info here:
> <http://www.alexbrie.com/archives/205>
>
> the apps were based on stolen content and purchased from hacked
> accounts to skew the ratings.
>
> apple canceled his developer account and app rankings are back to
> normal.
>
> of course you don't mention that google has *removed* apps from user's
> devices, something apple has never done. the hypocrisy is astounding.

NavASS is nothing but a man-child who never grew up. The maturity level is
that of an 11 year old brat.

nospam <[email protected]> wrote in
news:050720100911295176%[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> the
> hypocrisy is astounding.

Astounding ? ..... or did you mean expected ?

According to multiple customer reports, Apple iTunes accounts have been
hacked to purchase an e-book application.

A rogue Vietnamese developer called Thuat Nguyen reportedly hacked into
iTunes accounts and gamed the Books category in the Apple App Store to
artificially inflate the ratings and sales for his book apps. Both The
Next Web and Engadget websites reported Sunday that Nguyen apps
accounted for 42 of the top 50 books by revenue in the Books section of
the iTunes App Store.

At the site MacRumors, one forum contributor complained of seeing
multiple unexplained iTunes charges totalling more than $500. The
suspicious rise in the Vietnamese books' rankings was noticed by two
competing iPhone developers, Alex Brie and Patrick Thomson, who were
alarmed by their apps slipping in rankings in favor of those from
Nguyen.

Two users also indicated in the ratings for Nguyen's apps that their
iTunes accounts have been hacked and purchases of those apps were made
on their behalf. Up to $200 from these hacked accounts were reportedly
used to buy the developer's apps.

MORE:
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/200492/apple_app_store_and_itunes_accounts_hacked_say_reports.html?tk=nl_dnx_h_crawl>

COMMENT: Change your password, noW! And make it a secure password.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

Apple is using the immense amount of data that it has collected from its
150 million iTunes accounts to help its iAd advertisers target their
pitches to users of iOS 4 devices.

MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/06/apple_targets_ads/>

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Apple is using the immense amount of data that it has collected from its
> 150 million iTunes accounts to help its iAd advertisers target their
> pitches to users of iOS 4 devices.

guess what google does, only on a much bigger scale.

guess what the third party ad networks were doing.

if you don't want ads, don't buy apps with ads in them. very simple.

you're on some sort of crusade.

nospam <[email protected]> wrote in news:060720102001026180%
[email protected]d:

> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Apple is using the immense amount of data that it has collected from its
>> 150 million iTunes accounts to help its iAd advertisers target their
>> pitches to users of iOS 4 devices.
>
> guess what google does, only on a much bigger scale.
>
> guess what the third party ad networks were doing.
>
> if you don't want ads, don't buy apps with ads in them. very simple.
>
> you're on some sort of crusade.
>

Er, ah, I believe he was reporting a news item to the group.

Just because it's Apple, does that make it heresy or a criminal offense?

--
Global Warming and Creationism are to science what iPhone 4 is to
antennas...

Larry

> Just because it's Apple, does that make it heresy or a
> criminal offense?

That is the inference.

It would probably be more newsworthy if Apple didn't use purchase history to
target their pitches. This doesn't seem to me to be a rare occurrence.

Ron P

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Apple is using the immense amount of data that it has collected from its
> 150 million iTunes accounts to help its iAd advertisers target their
> pitches to users of iOS 4 devices.
>
> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/06/apple_targets_ads/>

Apple bans 'fraudulent' developer from iTunes

According to Apple, Thuat Nguyen hacked around 400 iTunes accounts, in
order to use their credit card details to boost sales of his comic book
apps.

Apple said it had tightened its security as a result of the hack.

It has put fraudulent activity on iTunes into the spotlight.

....

It will now ask users to enter their credit card security code more
frequently when making purchases on iTunes.

It is not the first time that users have complained about their iTunes
accounts being hacked but it is one of the first that an app bought
using compromised accounts has dominated the charts.

....

Amit Klein, the chief technology officer of Trusteer, a company which
provides security for online payments, thinks Apple could do more to
prevent such breaches.

"Hacks on iTunes are not so rare, there is a constant stream of reports
even though they don't make the headlines. Apple could have better fraud
detection and interact with iTune users better," he said.

MORE: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10535703.stm>

The JavaScript engine in Google's Android 2.2 running on a Nexus One
phone soundly spanks Apple's iOS 4 incarnation running on an iPhone 4.

....

The Ars testing discovered that in pure JavaScript performance, there's
really no contest between Android 2.2 and iOS 4. When running the
industry-standard SunSpider benchmark, Android 2.2 was nearly twice as
fast as Apple's offering.

iOS 4's comparative performance was even worse on Google's own V8
benchmark. Ars found Android 2.2 was well over four times as fast. Of
course, V8 is a Googly benchmark, but 4X is 4X.

MORE:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/javascript_and_browser_tests/>

COMMENT: Let the iExcuses begin!

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The JavaScript engine in Google's Android 2.2 running on a Nexus One
> phone soundly spanks Apple's iOS 4 incarnation running on an iPhone 4.
>
> COMMENT: Let the iExcuses begin!

your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

last year i told you safari was benchmarked as faster than other
browsers and you wanted nothing to do with it. now that google has a
faster javascript engine (*) you are happy as ****.

and that's separate from your blatant condescending pejorative comments
such as iexcuses and ifans, as opposed to your perception about what
other people say when they use ordinary words.

(*) javascript is just one test. now try it again with flash installed.
pocketnow showed that the nexus one browser went from fastest to
slowest when flash was installed.

Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, nospam
chose the tried and tested strategy of:

> (*) javascript is just one test. now try it again with flash installed.
> pocketnow showed that the nexus one browser went from fastest to
> slowest when flash was installed.

Bet it still renders Flash faster than the iPhone's browser, though.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ([email protected])
21:56:45 up 12 days, 9:25, 6 users, load average: 2.46, 1.21, 0.68
Qua illic est accuso, illic est a vindicatum

nospam <[email protected]> wrote in
news:070720101344566033%[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The JavaScript engine in Google's Android 2.2 running on a
>> Nexus One phone soundly spanks Apple's iOS 4 incarnation
>> running on an iPhone 4.
>>
>> COMMENT: Let the iExcuses begin!
>
> your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
>
> last year i told you safari was benchmarked as faster than
> other browsers and you wanted nothing to do with it. now
> that google has a faster javascript engine (*) you are
> happy as ****.
>
> and that's separate from your blatant condescending
> pejorative comments such as iexcuses and ifans, as opposed
> to your perception about what other people say when they
> use ordinary words.

That just shows that Navas has a very blatant bias against
Apple, so that makes any of his comments or opinions regarding
them moot and meaningless.