[HN Gopher] Discontinuing FlickType Keyboard for iPhone ___________________________________________________________________ Discontinuing FlickType Keyboard for iPhone Author : keleftheriou Score : 185 points Date : 2021-08-16 17:01 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | znpy wrote: | I'm always happy to read this kind of stories. | | And I know that such things happen on Android too. | | The things is, apple/Google is a duopoly and the app market needs | to be regulated. | | To people going through this kind of issue, I say: you chose to | be in that position, bring Apple to court or just close your | business. | saagarjha wrote: | Perhaps it might bring about change, but until that happens a | lot of good developers are suffering...also, FWIW, the | developer of this app _has_ filed a court case against Apple | for exactly this. | mdoms wrote: | Apple will keep being Apple and you'll all keep buying shovelling | money into their pocketbooks. There's nothing new under the sun. | yarcob wrote: | People who critizise Apple in public often seem to have trouble | updating their apps. | | I'm sure Apple has their reasons for blocking this app, but I'd | prefer a world where customer choices what apps they can use | don't depend on the whims of a very secretive company. | wsc981 wrote: | _> I 'm sure Apple has their reasons for blocking this app ..._ | | Perhaps, but I found this Tweet interesting: | | _> App Review problems & broken APIs isn't even all. The | broader relationship Apple has with keyboard developers is | hostile, as my decade of relevant experience can confirm. And | it's not just my own assessment: the former head of keyboards | at Apple has admitted to this hostility._ | | I'd like to know more about Apple's hostility towards keyboard | devs. | itslennysfault wrote: | This is such a standard apple developer experience. I've been | rejected so many times without making changes related to the | rejection reason. I've re-submitted the same app 3 or 4 times and | eventually it just gets "approved" all of a sudden. Their review | process is complete BS. It's all just luck of which off-shore | vendor you got reviewing your app. | mdoms wrote: | And has any of this caused you to re-evaluate building software | for Apple devices or purchasing Apple devices for either home | or work? If so, what was the outcome of this re-evaluation? | banana_giraffe wrote: | It has for me. I've mentioned it before, but I had an app to | help with D&D stuff rejected for describing how to harm | someone in one of the descriptions of a spell somewhere. | | Some variation of this happened three times. Eventually the | level of stupid was too much for me to handle, and on the | third time, I just pulled the app rather than resubmit | things. | fatnoah wrote: | It really is. A past company made an application that was in | the app store for a couple years. Three different customers | paid us to white-label the app for them, so we ended up with | three additional versions that were new app packages and | differed from the original only in fonts, colors, and logos. | Two were approved after a short back and forth with different | questions for each, and we eventually gave up on the third | after 9 months of fruitless back and forth. | weimerica wrote: | Worked for a company with a similar approach (circa 2010) and | we got rejected and had to just use the one. Can't say I feel | Apple is wrong for fighting app spam, however. | tacker2000 wrote: | I also had random rejections, and a couple years ago, the | review process took some days to a week, making oneself pretty | anxious while waiting it out. | | These days I doubt I would create anything for iOS anymore, | since the risk of getting banned over some nonsense without any | recourse whatsoever is just too big and I just dont want to | deal with losing my precious time and money. There are better | alternatives, like the web, etc. | | Unfortunately macOS will be going down that path soon, once | they remove the ability to install from any source (and they | will do it, no doubt). | | It's a real shame. | mthoms wrote: | There's another angle to the App Store scam: Family Sharing. | | Most people don't know this but the "Parent" (read:credit card | holder) of a family sharing account can't _see_ , let alone | cancel, _any_ subscriptions a minor on the account has purchased. | | Let that sink in for a second. Apple will happily charge the | parents' credit card a _weekly_ recurring fee but there is | nowhere in their interface (on device nor on the web) where the | parent can even _see_ that subscription.[0] | | Apple expects _the child_ to go into their interface and cancel | the recurring subscription. Something many (most?) adults find | confusing. In my case, the child just deleted the App when the | trial was over. Which is of course perfectly logical thinking. No | bueno. | | So if the child is away at school (as in my case), or the phone | gets left at a friend's house, or worse... stolen. The only way | to get it cancelled is to call them. | | There's more to this story, including details on how the built in | parental controls are intentionally crippled (IMHO) but I've got | to run. In summary: The entire "Family Sharing" system is built | to rip off people while still maintaining plausible deniability. | | [0] A senior Apple rep told me this is for privacy reasons. But | two things: the minor should have no expectation of privacy when | spending their parents money (how is that a _good_ thing?). And | secondly, Apple _does_ email a receipt for the subscription to | the card holder... so the privacy excuse was pure bullshit. In my | case I missed the email because I have more than 6 or 7 recurring | Apple subscriptions. I do take partial blame because of that. But | I 've still not been given a good reason why a parent can't | easily cancel a childs subscription. | donmcronald wrote: | The whole scheme is such an obvious dark pattern. You have 2 | options: | | 1. About 5 prompts every time a child wants to "buy" something | including free stuff. | | 2. An absolute free for all where a child can have unlimited | spend. | | Competing app stores would have a MUCH better family sharing | setup with proper budgets and controls. Microsoft gets the | money end of it right, but sucks at the actual app sharing. | Google can't even make their gift cards work properly. | | We need app store competition. | GoOnThenDoTell wrote: | Then you get to learn 5 different systems with dark patterns | dumpsterdiver wrote: | > Apple does email a receipt for the subscription to the card | holder... so the privacy excuse was pure bullshit. | | I called Apple support today for an unrelated issue and | verified that what you say is true. That truly is egregious | that they're hiding that information, and you have to notice it | via your bank statement. At the very least the primary account | holder should be able to see that an unspecified member of | their family account has a subscription to an unspecified | service, and have the ability to summarily cancel it. It's not | unheard of to imagine that even with the "Ask me first" feature | enabled to allow members to make purchases, you might | accidentally click yes while trying to click something else - | I've unintentionally answered incoming calls that way. Granted, | there's likely a confirmation prompt, but between having your | fingers fly across the screen from muscle memory, and having | FaceID enabled - it seems like even with a confirmation prompt | it would still be possible to inadvertently approve purchases. | smoldesu wrote: | Receive a photo that an AI thinks is porn? Your parents will | now instantly receive a notification on their iPhone, for | safety reasons. | | Spend $500 on in-app-purchases? Your parents aren't even | allowed to know, since you're such a vulnerable little person. | Privacy is a human right, you know! | | Leave it to Apple to find the most ironic contradictions. | 73r7fudhdjduru wrote: | Being competent and not giving your child access to your credit | card or devices you can't also access seems like it solves this | problem. I don't understand how it's 2021 but we're still | giving parents a pass on being illiterate. | 40four wrote: | Thread reader version: | https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1427292830523744257.html | tyingq wrote: | This is a sort of interesting niche where it might open up Apple | to some litigation from an end user of the app. | AnonC wrote: | The submitter of this story here on HN is the developer of | FlickType. He had also filed a lawsuit against Apple for allowing | apps that have been outright cheating people with incredibly high | in-app purchases and has pointed out several instances of scammy | apps. | | I thought larger companies keep tabs on the "noisy and popular" | ones in media (and social media) and would take more care not to | annoy them further. But this story makes it seem like Apple has | decided to just keep pushing his buttons as some sort of | punishment. | | I don't believe there's anyone capable in Apple top leadership | who's spending any time in leading the App Store team | appropriately. The scammy apps and the contrasting meaningless | rejections of praiseworthy apps only tell one thing - the App | Store is an abandoned space run by "bots" with almost no | oversight. | | As an Apple iDevice user for long, this story (from the | beginning) as well as others have made me wish for alternate app | stores on iDevices enforced through regulation. The wait has been | too long already, and Apple isn't being the steward it imagines | itself to be or portrays itself in media to be. | post_break wrote: | The Appstore is just so broken. No support, no communication. | Just like the bug bounty program. It feels like throwing a | message in a bottle into the ocean. They aren't alone, Google can | do it too, but damn, this is an embarrassment. I always love the | topics about how the iPhone would be a dumpster fire with | sideloading, meanwhile Apple promotes apps that charge $10 a week | known scams. | qzw wrote: | My theory of why the App Store sucks so much is that every | manager at Apple is aware of the risk that antitrust action | could kill its profitability at some point, therefore nobody | good wants to be at the wheel when this particular titanic goes | down. So it gets no real love or investment, even though it's | still a major profit center right now. | g_p wrote: | To back up at least the outline hypothesis of this point, | this is in Apple's 10-K SEC filing: | | > If developers reduce their use of the Company's platforms, | including in-app purchases, then the volume of sales, and the | commission that the Company earns on those sales, would | decrease. If the rate of the commission that the Company | retains on such sales is reduced, or if it is otherwise | narrowed in scope or eliminated, the Company's financial | condition and operating results could be materially adversely | affected. | | This does feel like the kind of situation that few would want | to be at the helm of, if blame was to be passed around in the | event of an adverse approach being taken. | | There's now a number of international regulators all looking | at Apple and the competition aspects of their App Store | model, and legislators in the US seem to claim to have bi- | partisan support as well on the point. If individuals feel | they might be blamed, that might explain why nobody wants to | step up and improve things. | vbezhenar wrote: | It's useful to look at Mac AppStore. You can use it to | estimate how many apps will prefer alternative ways to reach | users. | Razengan wrote: | But how many users would prefer to get all their apps from | the MAS instead of elsewhere? | bsder wrote: | The anti-trust is just one more nail in the coffin. | | The primary issue is that _any_ solution to App Store | "problems" means reduced profitability. So, quite simply, | nobody is going to pass that up the management chain. | | Sure, Apple gets a PR bruise, but they know that everybody is | locked into their iOS ecosystem, so who cares? | | "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company." | https://vimeo.com/355556831 | passivate wrote: | What makes this insidious is that Apple became successful on the | backs of App developers, and now they're kicking down the ladder | after reaching the top. | mortenjorck wrote: | I've been bearish on the Open App Markets bill because I just | can't see a hyper-efficient, trillion-dollar company being | defeated by our dysfunctional, infighting-plagued congress, but | the more stories like this that reach senators and | representatives, the less of a moonshot such legislation becomes. | wsc981 wrote: | I think a Steam managed AppStore on iOS would be great. I don't | particularly like the Steam app with it's web based interface, | but it's much more responsive than Apple's native app and | features like wish lists, content discovery queues and such are | really great and help apps and games reach a larger audience. | qzw wrote: | There are some players with fairly deep pockets on the other | side as well. Nobody on the scale of Apple or Google, perhaps, | but not mom-n-pop shops either. Plus if I were Microsoft or | Amazon, I would be salivating at the chance to run an alternate | store on iOS and Android, so there could be some dark money | flowing through K Street lobbyists for all we know. | jareds wrote: | As a Voiceover user this is disappointing. If the law changes to | allow third party app stores or side loading this is the app that | would convince me to go down that road. | klyrs wrote: | https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1427292830523744257.html | MBCook wrote: | As Miguel de Icaza said on Twitter today, this is exactly the | kind of behavior that makes Apple look terrible to regulators. | Big popular app that has been promoted in the past and Apple just | seems to want to keep screwing with them. | makecheck wrote: | It's such a "perfect" circle of non-communication that benefits | only the fruit company, isn't it? | | - Can I update my app _inside_ your store? Fruit company: No. | | - Can I find out why? Fruit company: No. | | - Can I find out who or what makes this decision? Fruit company: | No. | | - Can I update my app _outside_ your store? Fruit company: No. | | - Can I contact my customers? Fruit company: No. | | - Can I even _identify_ my customers in order to help them? Fruit | company: No. | | - Can I directly give my own customers a refund? Fruit company: | No. | | - Can I be removed from your list of featured apps? Fruit | company: No. | | - Can customers prevent this one app from being auto-updated into | brokenness? Fruit company: No. | | - Can you tell customers that this new brokenness is _your_ fault | and not the developer's? Fruit company: No. | | And on, and on, and on, and on. | | This is a completely absurd system that has never, ever, _ever_ | benefited customers _or_ developers nearly as much as fruit | companies. | | Congress can't act soon enough. | IlliOnato wrote: | https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5675 | | seems to be relevant | [deleted] | donmcronald wrote: | It's such a nasty side effect of demand aggregation platforms | which is what _everyone_ has been trying to build for the last | decade+. It 's a real prisoner's dilemma too. Earlier adopting | developers get to be "fart app millionaires", but there's a | definite tipping point where the supply side becomes | commoditized. | | I think Ballmer got unfairly criticized for laughing at the | iPhone. I always thought he looked at it and thought it was | such a ridiculously bad deal for both developers and users that | no one would adopt it. His biggest mistake was underestimating | the ability for people to act in their own long term self | interest. | cageface wrote: | Don't forget - can I use common PWA features to build my app on | the web instead? No because Apple doesn't allow that either. | hexis wrote: | Conquest's third law - "The behavior of any bureaucratic | organization can best be understood by assuming that it is | controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies." | NelsonMinar wrote: | The ability to sideload APKs is the single thing I appreciate | most about Android vs iPhone. I don't use it often; the main app | I sideload is Mendhak's GPS Logger. (He finally gave up trying to | comply with the Google Play Store's changing restrictions on | location trackers.) But it's nice to be able to install the | software I choose to on my phone without having to have Apple or | Google's approval. | | Unlike iOS there's no complicated jailbreak required, I can't | remember if you even have to enable developer mode (an easy | supported thing). And there's a reasonable ecosystem of safe | alternative app stores. F-Droid mostly, APKMirror also comes in | handy for things that have disappeared. | | I understand the value of a curated app store. I get the benefit | of that too on Android! But it's nice to have an override in the | cases it's needed. | stefan_ wrote: | What on earth is "curated" about the Google Play store? It is | the most spyware ridden, spam filled "store" I've ever had the | displeasure of using. | | If I need an utility app, I now just look for it on F-Droid. | Need something to track AirPods charge? You can find the | original open-source app for it on F-Droid, or download one of | 100 ad-filled, GPL-breaking clones of it on Google Play. | Causality1 wrote: | Sadly Android is becoming more user-hostile all the time. For | example there are fewer and fewer devices that will give you | root access. Imagine buying a PC and finding the manufacturer | decided you can't have access to an administrator account. | mschuster91 wrote: | To my knowledge every Samsung can be rooted with Magisk, but | at the cost of losing Knox, which makes a _bunch_ of apps | relying on biometrics go bonkers - Telegram, Chrome and the | unlock screen work, but some banking apps outright crash or | lose their data, even with "SafetyNet Fix" - they are | expecting the presence and usability of Knox vault. | | For Google's Pixel lineup, the situation is similar. | | The _really_ problematic stuff are Huawei (which can 't be | rooted at all with something trustable and open source such | as Magisk), Xiaomi (these need to flash a custom recovery | first, IIRC) and all the fly-by-night ops that don't have any | kind of support other than hoping for a web/apk exploitable | bug (I _believe_ KingoRoot is using that method, but since it | 's closed source I wouldn't use it!). | Causality1 wrote: | Only Exynos-based Samsung handsets can be easily rooted, | which requires unlocking their bootloader. An exploit | exists for Snapdragon based devices running Android 10 and | below but it's a paid service and isn't cheap. To | complicate things, Exynos based galaxy devices will lose | access to the AT&T network and every sub-carrier that | operates on it in February when AT&T adopts a whitelist | model. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Really? What about roaming travelers? Are they going to | cut them all off? Here in Europe all Samsung phones are | Exynos. Weird. | Causality1 wrote: | As far as I can tell, yes. They're dropping their 3G | network and anything not on their VoLTE whitelist will no | longer be usable. | | https://www.att.com/idpassets/images/support/wireless/Dev | ice... | phh wrote: | I'm looking at Wikipedia page of most sold Android devices ( | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best- | selling_mobile_... ). We've got Samsung, Xiaomi and Huawei | devices. Samsung and Xiaomi are root able (as far as I know | without issue, having 4 Samsung devices in my collection, | though sibling says otherwise). Only Huawei isn't (and it's | actually much lower than Samsung and Xiaomi). I'm speaking | only of root ability without security flaw (Huawei had | some.), Since we're discussing user hostility | | That being said, there is one feature that is user hostile | with regard to owning your software, it's contactless | payment. Contactless payments all require stupid security | requirements, that the community well knows how to circumvent | (so it doesn't provide any actual security), but are pretty | annoying for the user. I would guess Google isn't to blame | there (even though GPay does have this anti-feature just like | all other services, and Google being more monopolistic manage | to make it even more annoying. But still insecure) | LeoPanthera wrote: | As someone who is beginning to really dislike both Google and | Apple, is it possible to buy/use an Android phone without the | Google store where you _only_ sideload software? | NathanielK wrote: | Yes, but it may require you update things manually. You can | disable the Play store and any other apps and only use | F-Droid. | throwawayboise wrote: | With one or two exceptions, I only install Google software on | my Android phone. Since I'm already on their platform, I | don't guess that makes me any more open to their data | gathering. And I don't trust any of the other apps. | ttctciyf wrote: | There's a few different approaches to this. | | Here's one page about it, I'm sure there are plenty more. | | https://fsfe.org/activities/android/liberate.en.html | donmcronald wrote: | This is why I don't understand how Microsoft can't compete in | the mobile market. They could be successful just by using | AOSP with Office and an alternate app store that doesn't | screw developers and users. | rchaud wrote: | Look for Android models that have been confirmed to work with | LineageOS or E-foundation OS. Both are de-Googled, I believe. | boudin wrote: | It is definitely possible with some limitations. | | Totally ungoogled you won't have the google service layer, if | you still want to use some proprietary apps, it is possible | but some won't work. The biggest constraint is often push | notifications not working. | | As an alternative you can use microg [1] which is a client | side re-implementation of google services. Some part uses | alternative service as backend, some will use google though, | like push notifications. | | Side loading can have its limitations has you need to find | sources for APK that you can trust. | | The best non google store is f-droid [2] in my opinion, all | open source and build reproducible. | | If you need some proprietary apps from google store, you can | use the client Aurora Store [3] which still sources app from | google play store. | | In term of buying a phone with most of that, /e/ does sell | phones with android + microg + their own store [4] | | Otherwise plenty of phones allow to easily replace the | operating system. You can look for phones supported by | lineageos which comes with no google apps. [5] | | [1] https://github.com/microg [2] https://f-droid.org/ [3] | https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/AuroraStore [4] | https://e.foundation/ [5] https://lineageos.org/ | GekkePrutser wrote: | Another option: you can choose not to sign in to Google | play. And just use other app stores. This limits Google's | data collection somewhat as they don't know your account. | | It's not as good as micro g or a completely ungoogled phone | but the benefit is you can use manufacturer roms with all | security features like bootloader locking turned on. | | I do this with my OnePlus as I don't like leaving the | bootloader unlocked. Anyone can pull a disk image off it | through recovery then. | | Another benefit of this is that Google play services like | location and push still work, they don't require an | account. But you do give up extra privacy compared to the | other options. | | There are grapheneos and calyx which do allow bootloader | locking but they only work on pixel phones and those are | really poor value for money IMO (expensive but still having | fingerprint on the back, midrange soc etc). And really hard | to get in Europe now. The 5a 5G is not coming here and | probably the 6 isn't either. | | So this is why I ended up with this option. At least | Android has a wide spectrum of choices. With Apple it's | take it or leave it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-16 23:00 UTC)