Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Money laundering seems like an interesting explanation, but there are far better and less risky ways to launder money. Cash businesses, or even bitcoin are superior to "selling" an app that could be taken down at any time, that requires credit cards on file to purchase, and whose transactions Apple or a credit card company could freeze, reverse, or cancel at will.

It would be fairly trivial for Apple, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, to source the transactions, map the patterns, and triangulate to likely points of origin. And it would probably arouse a lot of suspicion if an app of such obviously bullshit quality suddenly started raking in millions of dollars in sales -- thereby making sales of the app inefficient and risky as a laundry-integration method.

I suppose the whole thing relies on iTunes gift cards and credits, rather than credit cards, but why overcomplicate things beyond there? Buying and reselling gift cards at a moderate discount would launder your money just fine, while limiting your exposure to third-party risk.

Apropos of nothing, the dissection of the high-priced crapware reminded me of "I Am Rich," the infamous and short-lived iOS app from 2008. It cost $999.99, and all it did was display a glowing red gem and a tagline on your screen. Evidently, at least eight to ten people bought a copy before Apple swung the ban hammer.



  Apropos of nothing, the dissection of the high-priced crapware reminded me of "I Am Rich," the infamous and short-lived iOS app from 2008. It cost $999.99, and all it did was display a glowing red gem and a tagline on your screen. Evidently, at least eight to ten people bought a copy before Apple swung the ban hammer.
I never understood why Apple banned that application. There was no fraud involved. The application did exactly what the description said it does (show a glowing red gem for 999.99) and it didn't violate any of the (quite arbitrary at that time) Apple app store policies, or requirements.

If you want to put your douchiness on display by paying so much cash for no other reason than to yell out to the world that you can afford to throw 1000$ out of the window it shouldn't be up to Apple to put a stop to it.

I assume it was a matter of fear about bad publicity on Apple's side. Nevertheless I thought pulling this app was one of their more innane decisions.

Wikipedia has a brief entry on that app:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich


The official explanation is that a few people complained to Apple that they'd been "tricked" by the app. (Because somehow, paying $9.99 for a glowing gem is a more rational purchase.)

There was nothing technically deceptive about the app or its marketing. It was banned largely out of what I presume was a "broken window theory" approach to store curation: let stupid apps live, and more stupid apps will show up. I am not sure if I agree with the call that was made, but I understand the rationale behind it.


Iimperically this has had little effect on the quantity of stupid apps on the store.


Sure, but hindsight is 20/20. Apple was making this call back in 2008, when the app store was still really new, and a lot of developers were waiting in the wings to see if it was going to be worth building for.

Navigating the quality/quantity straits was by no means an easy task back then.


Iimperically [sic] this has had little effect ...

Do you by chance mean "empirically"?


The tabloid press (in the UK at least) used the story as evidence of how the App Store was pointless, overpriced and going nowhere. Given that it was early days for the iPhone, I don't think it was the kind of PR Apple wanted, so canned it.


I once spent a morning trying something similar with ringtones, see http://blingtones.bandcamp.com/

Zero sales, but making weird noises with my voice made for an amusing few hours


>Apple swung the ban hammer.

Does this mean the developers got to keep their money or not?


AFAIK, they had to refund anyone who had complained, but they probably kept the money from anyone who didn't. (We're talking about maybe 10 transactions, of which 2 or 3 complained.)




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: