What’s the catch? Aggressive ad load — reported by 44 users.
Analyzed automatically from 3 independent signals that had to agree — not a hands-on test, and not human-reviewed.
This analysis describes version 7.5.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 7.5.0, updated 2026-04-30.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 3
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Aggressive ad load
Paid Version is no different than free version — I subscribed / paid for a year and nothing has changed from the free version. Still full of ads , still can not view deep space objects or satellites. I can not get any customer support or…
Still ads and not showing what the deep space objects or the satellites are — I subscribed to get rid of the ads every time I click on anything and to be able to identify deep space objects and satellites but what do you know there are…
New Version Is Worse — I used to like Star Walk, even with the super annoying “music”. The new version doesn’t even work - it does not respond to phone movements, so you have to move the screen around with finger gestures. The addition of…
Hard to cancel
Great but can’t unsubscribe — Great app but having the worst time trying to unsubscribe. Contacted support, and went through every setting. I just want out and can’t get any help.
Fraud — The free version requires you to make an i app purchase before using it therefore it’s not free. The manage subscription links to a dead website so there is no way to cancel. There is no contact information within the app other…
Doesn’t work on my phone, no way to unsubscribe from membership — This app does not work properly on an iPhone 7. It’s about 45 degrees off and freezes constantly. It’s free to download but you have to pay to use. There’s no way to…
Paywall blocks the basics
Lemmon Locked behind paywall. — Been using this for almost two decades now. I’ve paid for premium features only for them to disappear and go behind a paywall. Will delete it, I’ve paid my dues. Let me use the application. I’m deleting it.
Free version is unusable with ads — I get you need to monetize but the free version is completely unusable with ads that force open. Really aggressive. I’d be fine paying if I even got a small taste of perrowmfe not cramming 3 video ads…
Violation of section 3.1.2(a) of App store guidelines by this app — App store guideline: section 3.1.2(a) explains that current paid customers must retain all functionality of the app that they paid for. I bought this app and now have to…
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
Show 1 more purchase we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.