It's not about a "good job" or a "bad job". It's a continuous game of cat and mouse. They're getting better at it just as some of the best funded bad actors are.
replyThey only have 500 reviewers for the whole App Store, and in fact, they were chastised by the judge in the Epic case for investing very little in the review process six years ago when they also only had 500 reviewers for the whole App Store. This isn't cat and mouse it's theater while they're shielded by section 230 immunity and pocketing enormous profits.
replyI'm not sure why it matters that they have 500 reviewers, or had six years ago. Is this a "that number seems small" argument?
replyIt matters in the context of trusting their review process, and certainly "seems small" considering these 500 people oversee 2 million apps while scams and fraud have been prolific for years.
replyI think if they didn't have immunity for all the scams and fraud - and that's being challenged by both the EU regulators and in US courts - they'd probably have a lot more than 500 people. Multiples of it.
How many exactly would they have and why?
replyBTW, good recent comment on the difference between Apple and Google reviews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48911599
And it's a long running practice, they've been at it for years now
reply