We analyzed this app across 3 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 11.4.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 11.4.2, updated 2026-10-01.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
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.
Upgrade prompts use guilt-trip wording
wish app was as good as content — Constantly tells me I am not a subscriber when I have been for years. Right now it is just blank pages…nothing appears when I open the app. Terrible.
Terrible App, Constant Bugs — Very buggy, frustrating, hard to use app. The app frequently will not allow me to access recent issues of the magazine and constantly prompts me to subscribe even though already I have an active subscription…
Online Service Stinks — I've been having problems logging in using my still valid subscription for over at least two weeks now and their support staff is either unable or unwilling to fix my issue. I keep getting asked to renew my…
Hard to cancel
No way to manage account — I was recently charged for a year’s subscription. I never initiated this and believe someone else did. On the website, it says I do not have an active subscription. However, the app says that I am active. There…
Horrible app and bad customer service — App never leaves the loading page. It was constantly logging me out. Never recognized my active subscription; I would click on an article then would say “please subscribe.” I had to log out and log…
Get Me Out Of Here — It’s almost impossible to cancel my subscription and I still haven’t found a way yet.
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.