[HN Gopher] App Store doesn't accept "too simple" apps ___________________________________________________________________ App Store doesn't accept "too simple" apps Author : alin23 Score : 194 points Date : 2022-08-19 21:20 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (notes.alinpanaitiu.com) (TXT) w3m dump (notes.alinpanaitiu.com) | awinter-py wrote: | US legislature has been flirting with 3rd party app stores for a | while https://www.macobserver.com/news/open-app-markets-act/ | | As an alternative, would be interesting to offer third party | _review_ for the existing store. Offer pay-to-expedite, more | transparency, preapproval before people start building, clearer | guidelines on competition ( 'too many flashlight apps already'). | MiddleEndian wrote: | Let's ditch the stores entirely. | jeffybefffy519 wrote: | What a joke, if they reject it then there should be concrete | reasons given to the developer otherwise this is just nonsense. | epgui wrote: | I also don't think this app should have been rejected. | | However, if we assume that the rejection policy was correct (just | for the sake of argument), I don't see how adding things like | parallax, push notifications, or even a map, makes the | application substantially different in the context of this | rejection. | tomcam wrote: | Did you read TFA? Apple didn't explain why the app was too | simple, so OP had to complex it up blindly b/c they offered no | guidance. | epgui wrote: | I did read TFA, did you read TFC? haha. | trebbble wrote: | They've done this since the early days of the app store. Mostly- | content apps without _really_ broad appeal have long carried a | high risk of rejection. | | > Homescreen widgets: utterly useless, but can't get more iOS-y | and less webapp-y than this, right? | | This especially, but really the whole post reads like the system | working as intended. | | Granted (as the author notes) way too much shit gets through | anyway, but that's not an excuse to do _even worse_. I do, as a | user, wish they 'd tighten up the rules a lot and improve | enforcement. I'm quite sure it'd improve my experience on the | store (and probably on the web--imagine how much better the | Reddit site would get, probably overnight, if their app got | pulled over not being well-justified). | smoldesu wrote: | I think Apple has every right to tighten up their first-party | App Store, but they should _also_ acknowledge the user 's right | to install what they want. Maybe some people do want a "too | simple" app, and I don't think Apple has the right to tell the | user what is-and-isn't appropriate. It's common sense. This | would be a great time for them to add a Developer Mode a-la | Android, and also start purging their own shopfronts. If Apple | genuinely believes they can compete in a free market, they | should have no problem restocking their store. | tptacek wrote: | There are other products people can buy if they want to | install random apps. At this point, everybody knows what the | iPhone ecosystem is about. | Apocryphon wrote: | How are users aware of the existence of "too-simple" random | apps they're missing out on, if those apps were banned from | the App Store? | xg15 wrote: | I don't. Please tell me. | winkeltripel wrote: | anything running linux, windows 10, or a rootable android | device. | trebbble wrote: | macOS, for that matter, despite over a decade of | predictions that that'd be taken away. | smoldesu wrote: | Well, the EU is starting to think the iPhone ecosystem is | about anti competitive behavior and poor customer | experience. The intentions of a multinational corporation | are completely irrelevant when talking about the real-world | impact on thousands of developers. | | The deal is the same as it ever was: Apple can continue | selling their extremely safe applications with their | extremely secure payment system and state-of-the-art | curation team; the only condition is that other shops get | to play along too. There's zero downside to them going this | route, I think it would allow them to further secure the | iPhone by paring back the entitlements allowed for their | store. Nobody would criticize them for this, but Apple's | greed prevents them from conceding. | | Just think about how you'd feel if your Mac could only use | the App Store to install software. Personally, I wouldn't | even be able to do anything on it if that were the case. | Bud wrote: | Screw the impact on developers. As a user, I'm more | concerned about the impact on users. | | The EU is dead wrong. EU commissioners have absolutely | zero clue about what makes for good "customer | experience". There's one party that has proven, for 15 | years now, to have the most clue about that. It's Apple. | politician wrote: | That's a fine perspective to have, but many people feel | that a government of elected representatives is a better | place for determining and adjusting impacts on people. | Bud wrote: | The user has no "right" to "install what they want". Words | have meanings. | | Apple absolutely has the right to control what apps are | available on its store, and what apps are not. This isn't | about what is "appropriate"; you just made that up. | | This also has nothing to do with "common sense", or at least | what you think is common sense. | otikik wrote: | > The user has no "right" to "install what they want". | Words have meanings. | | If I own a gadget, I own it. That means that I _have the | right_ to do whatever I want with it, including | jailbreaking it, disassembling it, or throwing it from a | cliff. | | Apple might not like it, and might take punitive action. | Void the warranty, maybe even cancel your Apple account. | But they can not send me to jail. | winkeltripel wrote: | > the user's right to install what they want | | Apple has no interest in any right that won't make them | richer | SturgeonsLaw wrote: | > Maybe some people do want a "too simple" app | | In fact, aren't these preferable? I just want a weather app | that shows me the current weather and a forecast, without any | social bullshit, accounts, ads, etc. | | Also, if iOS users have that "one app" they can't live | without, surely it makes them stickier? Why would Apple want | to limit the chances of hitting that spot with their users by | curbing the number of apps available? | worble wrote: | Exactly this, one of the things that really struck me about | apps on fdroid is just how simple they are. | | They do one thing, and (usually) do it pretty well, | probably because the developers probably don't have the | time and resources to do anything more than that. But | that's perfect for someone who just wants the thing on | their phone to do what it says on the tin. | Apocryphon wrote: | I'm convinced that if iOS was opened up to third party | app stores, a potentially popular store wouldn't be a | Facebook/Google monopoly store that exists solely for | user tracking, but rather something boutique and niche | like F-Droid (except maybe without the FOSS focus). The | current App Store is huge and unwieldy, its search and | discovery UX dated. There's ample room for third party | app stores that specialize in high-quality design, or | high-functionality minimalism, or privacy and security. | They might even have higher standards than the official | App Store. | Jonovono wrote: | Yep, I got this rejection when I made this tipping app | (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/tip-69/id1460610078). | | I went on to add OCR detection for receipts so you don't have to | type in the amount, I added more tipping modes, I added split | bill functionality, and eventually added an entire social network | with the ability to share your receipt for the world to see, like | or comment on. | | Must have spent months trying to get approved by Apple. | | I'd rather no one ask me why. | mafen wrote: | Why? | Jonovono wrote: | Once you set your mind to something you gotta see it through. | jaywalk wrote: | I have no love for Apple's walled-garden, and I absolutely | appreciate 69 jokes, but this app is stupid. | mynameisvlad wrote: | If you're not the target audience, then _that's fine_ but | it's pretty rude to insult someone's work just because you're | too high brow for it. | | Not every app has to be a serious thing that revolutionizes | the world. Sometimes, people want and appreciate "stupid" | apps. | groffee wrote: | And somewhat sadly the dumb apps you shit out over a | weekend make more money than the 'serious' apps you can | spend months on, because the dumb apps are _fun_. | jaywalk wrote: | To be clear, I am absolutely not "too high brow" for such | an app. I, personally, wouldn't use it, but like I said I | appreciate a 69 joke. But if Apple is going to insist on a | curated App Store, then an app like this should not be | allowed. | skrtskrt wrote: | the first apps I remember on iOS were a beer glass that | poured out beer when you tipped the phone, and a lightsaber | app that made sheeewwwww sounds when you swung the phone | around. We loved them | | It's ok to make stupid apps as long as you're not scamming. | | The oh-so-serious nature of the current online experience | sucks | jaywalk wrote: | I have fond memories of the beer glass app. I showed it off | numerous times after I got my first iPhone | | In my ideal world, Apple wouldn't have a walled-garden at | all. But if they will, then there needs to be a certain bar | for apps to meet to be included. And to be clear, there are | _plenty_ of existing apps that don 't meet such a bar. But | Tip 69 definitely doesn't. | Apocryphon wrote: | Let the users decide. | | Actually, there's an interesting notion that could exist | on both the official App Store, or in a hypothetical non- | Apple one: cull apps that have too low usage activity. | But give them a fair shake by attracting attention to | them, then seeing what users make of them. And when you | do remove low-to-nil use apps, don't remove their | listings, keep them as archived entries that users can | try to vote back to life. | | Obviously, a lot of these mechanisms would be exploited | by bots and the like, because the internet just can't | have fun experimental interactivity anymore. Doesn't | scale. | jaywalk wrote: | If we could have nice things, I absolutely agree. | guiambros wrote: | > ... _a beer glass that poured out beer when you tipped | the phone, and a lightsaber app..._ | | Oh I remember those two. I think they were installed via | Cydia[1] no? Or maybe it was right after, when the official | AppStore was launched. Silly, but great wow factor in those | early days. | | [1] for the youngsters here: Cydia was the only way to | install apps in your iPhone before the AppStore was created | (circa 2008). You had to jailbreak your phone, install | Cydia, and then we had a handful of apps that demonstrated | iPhone's capabilities. | | I remember my first app was some marble labyrinth game, | that served as a fantastic demonstration of iPhone's | accelerometers. Pretty surreal at the time. | | Saurik, Cydia's main developer, is frequently seen around | on HN threads. | jaywalk wrote: | The beer glass app definitely didn't require a jailbreak, | because I used it well before I even jailbroke my iPhone. | It was a legit App Store app. | Aloha wrote: | Huh, that looks useful for me! | Jonovono wrote: | That's what I tried telling them! "Apple, yes, there is lots | of tipping apps. But do any easily tell you what to tip so | your bill total ends in something dumb like 69? no!" | alin23 wrote: | Yep, the social network function is also my next go-to for | getting this app accepted. Glad to hear it at least worked for | someone, gives me hope. | | I'm thinking of adding an IRC client so that people that go to | the same festival can talk about it in the days before the | event, but it's all anonymous and ephemeral so I don't get into | GDPR and privacy territory. | SturgeonsLaw wrote: | > I'm thinking of adding an IRC client so that people that go | to the same festival can talk about it in the days before the | event, but it's all anonymous and ephemeral so I don't get | into GDPR and privacy territory. | | That's a really cool idea. One of the more unfortunate side | effects of this curated feed filter bubble people find | themselves isolated into, is the demise of the shared | experience. Festivals (and other real life events) are the | last bastion of shared experience, and you've found a good | way to translate that to the digital realm. | CharlesW wrote: | I'm honestly blown away that Apple approved an app to suggest | "funny" tip amounts in a thread where we're complaining that | that Apple's standards are too high. | wswope wrote: | Apple, by walling their garden, have essentially used their | hegemony to steal billions of dollars in potential revenue from | developers. Think of how much innovation has been blocked by them | intentionally gimping iOS Safari to prevent web apps from | competing with native ones. | | Remember this when reviewing job applications, folks. Apple, | Google, and Facebook employees, current and former, are morally | derelict and have profited from harming our society - treat them | with reciprocity. | ClassyJacket wrote: | Don't forget that, specifically, Apple has kicked apps off the | App Store whilst outright stealing their functionality. | | They think copyright law should apply to everyone except | themselves. Such bravery. | zerocrates wrote: | App functionality is generally not covered by copyright. Code | yes, some assets/images/etc. sure, look-and-feel maybe, but | functionality no. | user3939382 wrote: | We are living Stallman's Nightmare where some supernational | empire decides what programs we're allowed to run on our | computers. | yazzku wrote: | Indeed, though thankfully we have the alternatives. | smoldesu wrote: | "You won't be able to imagine the things we have in the | future. Supercomputers in your pocket, the size of a candy | bar!" | | > "Cool, does it play Doom?" | | "Funny thing, that..." | Aachen wrote: | "Can your computer do <insert something simple>?" | | No, it cannot do simple things anymore. We've just come | that far. | yazzku wrote: | It's always bothered me how they call it a "supercomputer | in your pocket". | | Not very super if it doesn't do the things I want, sigh. | SturgeonsLaw wrote: | Which is why Microsoft's attempts to make UEFI their own | little fiefdom need to be resisted. | | https://www.tomshardware.com/news/security-measure-forces- | wi... | | Even aside from the most egregious cases like that linked | above, operating systems like Linux need their bootloader | signed by Microsoft in order to boot on a Secure Boot | enabled PC. The conflict of interest is obvious. | yazzku wrote: | Yeah, TPM 2.0 is a real ass. Looks like classic anti- | competitive lawsuit to me, has any org pursued this? | [deleted] | cercatrova wrote: | I agree with your first paragraph. However, I can't agree with | your second. Most people who work there are just regular | people, they are not "morally derelict" sociopaths. Indeed, the | main reason they work there is money and prestige, which is not | necessarily a bad thing. Blame the executives who make the | decisions, not the workers who implement them. | kjoedion wrote: | Apple, by creating the iPhone and a standardized App Store, | have essentially created billions of revenue for developers | throughout the years. | | I find your sense of entitlement morally derelict. | mypalmike wrote: | You have a reasonable counterpoint. Maybe ditch the personal | attack? | domador wrote: | Let's see if I can paraphrase your argument: | | "The iPhone and the App Store exist, therefore developers | should be thankful they exist regardless of how Apple treats | them as they try to get their apps approved." | dylan604 wrote: | What would that dev do without their 80% they are making | now if there was no iDevices? That 80% looks pretty good | compared to 0% | ClassyJacket wrote: | "Finally, developers are getting a tiny percentage of the | revenue they deserve. Therefore, it's okay to steal from | them, and destroy them completely." | nazgulsenpai wrote: | Prior to the iPhone and the AppStore, it wasn't possible to | monetize computer software. We should be grateful our | overlords allow us to develop the applications that are the | foundation of that business model. | andybak wrote: | And I find your preference for hyperbole mildly distasteful. | smoldesu wrote: | Apple, by creating the iPhone and taxing every app purchase, | have single-handedly lifted billions of dollars out of the | pockets of those developers they're supposedly helping. | | So yes, they're entitled to 'something' because clearly Apple | thinks they're entitled to the money of thousands of | developers. Maybe they are, but the only way to find out is | opening their platform, which they're obviously too afraid to | do even as an experiment. They know apps like TikTok, | Facebook and Fortnite have the ability to tip the scales away | from their favor; so why shouldn't they? Why doesn't the | customer have a right to decide? | [deleted] | ssalka wrote: | Is jailbreaking still a thing? Can it make a comeback? | factorialboy wrote: | If the mafia doesn't like your store, you can't offer your | product. | yazzku wrote: | Fanboys triggered. | fevangelou wrote: | Out of curiosity, since iOS seems to have a ~20% share in | Romania, why not launch on Android first (which makes business | sense at ~80% market share)? And if Apple keeps dicking around, | at least make it easy for the mobile site to be installed as a | web app to iOS homescreens. | | @Apple Seriously? | haunter wrote: | Android users are significantly less likely to pay for an app | because by default you can install any apk file on Android. | Basically piracy is rampant. | | On iOS you have to go through the jailbreaking process first to | do the same. | smoldesu wrote: | > Basically piracy is rampant. | | This is true in a limited sense. Pretty much any app that | relies on Google Play Services has a sort of DRM built-in, | you can package it into an APK but it won't let you use the | app without buying it. Installing it on a device without | Google Play Services won't let it run at all. | | Kinda scummy, but a decent tradeoff to keep pure AOSP devices | without DRM. | _aavaa_ wrote: | Three big and important reasons: | | 1. What the dev themselves use. I don't want to use an app that | the dev doesn't use daily. | | 2. What the development experience is like (tooling and API) | | 3. If you wish to monetize your app at all, iOS users spend | disproportionately more. It's not about % of devices so much as | it is about % paying users. (Same idea for the % of the target | market, how many music festival goers use iOS?) | perfectstorm wrote: | maybe there's an app on Android already or maybe OP wants to | learn iOS programming/SwiftUI/Swift. | EGreg wrote: | This is actually great news for web developers. Everything he | listed on the second try will soon be available on the Web. Why | make a native app, indeed? | | Notifications coming in iOS 16 | | Share button has long been available (navigator.share) | | Location - implemented long ago | | Buy - ApplePay for the Web | | Add to calendar, subscribe to calendar is possible | | Sending emails and SMS is possible | | WebRTC and speaking with people in real time | | Even the Contact Picker for adding contacts from your address | book! You can turn it on right now in "experimental" features. | Does anyone know if it's coming in iOS 16? | nate wrote: | Ran into the exact same problem with a very simple camera app I | made. Camera app was completely gesture based. So you never had | to find a button to quickly flip the camera to the other side of | the phone or find the button to start/stop recording. It made | using a camera a lot quicker to get multiple shots of a scene and | your reaction shot. Also added in stabilization to the front | lens, which was easy but wasn't enabled at the time in the native | camera app. | | I got the "too simple" response. | | Which was the whole point. A camera with zero buttons. I still | pointed out the 5 or 7 features it had that technically the iOS | camera wasn't doing. I would get a different reason back then. So | I'd argue a different point. Then after weeks of this, it came | back with the "too simple" reason again. | | And I was left with the same conclusion. I don't think Apple | wants anyone "outsimpling" their camera app. Maybe if I had added | a social network to it or filters or something I could have | finally gotten it approved. But I lost the desire to keep | fighting :) | | (Just by posting this, now I fear I broke some kind of TOS, and | can never publish an iOS app again?) | cowtools wrote: | >Ran into the exact same problem with a very simple camera app | I made. | | >[...] | | >(Just by posting this, now I fear I broke some kind of TOS, | and can never publish an iOS app again?) | | This is how your loyalty to Apple's racket is rewarded. This is | your prize for buying hundreds of dollars of their equipment | and paying hundreds to license their development kit and get | your software reviewed for their locked-down phones. | xwdv wrote: | Poor software developers, how could they ever afford to | overcome these massive barriers to entry. Every. Year. | | If only they had a decent source of steady income. | dylan604 wrote: | > paying hundreds to license their development kit | | hundreds or hundred? | menzoic wrote: | After year 1 | cowtools wrote: | I don't know, I'm not a iOS developer and I probably never | will be. hundreds is the figure from a couple years ago | when I last looked into it. | [deleted] | OJFord wrote: | Hundred per year isn't it? So 'hundreds' seems reasonable. | crobertsbmw wrote: | One hundred. Every year. | rurp wrote: | This kind of story, along with many others, is why I have no | interest in developing on iOS. I've made a handful of web apps | for fun, and have mulled over ideas that could be a real | business, but they're always web first. The aggravation and | risk that comes from having your platform owned by Apple scares | the hell out of me. | 1-6 wrote: | You probably embarrassed Apple for how simple a camera app can | be. | fzfaa wrote: | Create an app with complex filters and social shit and make the | app hit an HTTP endpoint to see if they should be enabled on | startup. Once the app is accepted into the store, hide the | stupid features remotely. :-) | bombcar wrote: | Or just make an app with a bunch of weird filters and shit, | and an option in the settings to turn it to a simple app. | alin23 wrote: | (author here) Man that camera app sounds so good! I love | gesture based apps, and I'm tired of going looking for buttons | on the most used functions of a device.. | | The biggest problem I try to convey is that you have no way of | knowing you'll get the rejection without putting the work in | first. | | So you, like me, wasted probably days (if not weeks) to create | a fully functional app, spent much of that time on user-facing | functions that you would have probably not needed, only to find | that it was for nothing. | | It's not like on Android where you can just share an APK with | your friends. | | TestFlight still has to review your betas, if you want to at | least share the app with someone else. | nate wrote: | Thanks! Yeah, exactly. Even put in the work and a little but | of money to create a slightly fancy icon. Called it | Somersault to convey how easy it was now to switch lenses, | and the icon was a camera somersaulty conveying kind of | thing. But alas, not published, and haven't touched iOS dev | again. | kyleee wrote: | Disgusting, I am sorry. I love gestures and it sounds like | you came up with a very neat app | koheripbal wrote: | The real reason is that they don't want more apps. There are | too many, so any small independent dev has an uphill battle | getting their app approved. | quickthrower2 wrote: | Which would be weird, because that means, like an oracle | investor they need to predict which new apps will be a hit | and are worth adding, and which will be flops and will add to | the noise. | | If they ban all new indie apps, then the next hits are going | to happen over in Android land, and Apple miss out on a lot | of revenue. | | Maybe that is the idea, make a hit on Android first, then you | are allowed in the Apple store! | _aavaa_ wrote: | Or they could let the users and developers decide how many | apps are too many apps.z | MiddleEndian wrote: | Letting people install programs without a store!? | Ridiculous! | dylan604 wrote: | If only they'd go and cull the list of already | accepted/approved apps that are nothing but clones. that | would probably make the list so small that it would look bad. | Victerius wrote: | Now that would be a fascinating development. Apple blocking | most new apps because there are already too many of them. I | can imagine some scenarios. | | "Candidates for this job are required to have released an app | on the iOS store" | | "Fortune 100 corporation is suing Apple because it won't | accept its app" | | "Only 1 in 154 app applications is accepted by Apple" | | "College admission consultants are starting to recommend high | school students seeking admission to top colleges to release | an app on the Apple store" | | "Study shows college applicants who have release an app on | the iOS store are twice as likely to gain admission to an Ivy | League school" | | "82% of Harvard's class of 2028 released an app on the Apple | store prior to admission" | | "Study shows that releasing an app on the Apple store and | advertising that fact in your online dating profile triples | your odds of a match" | CharlesW wrote: | > _The real reason is that they don 't want more apps. There | are too many..._ | | Is your thought process here that 3.7 million apps is where | Apple decided to draw a line in the sand? | DiggyJohnson wrote: | I don't see how that wouldn't make sense... | | It's not that they decided to set an arbitrary threshold of | 3.7M apps, but that they have become more stringent on app | approvals in light of the growth and quantity of apps in | their store. I don't think GP's comment requires an | incredulous snarky response, despite me not doing a great | job making this point... | mikeyouse wrote: | FWIW, I completely got your point. The Android ecosystem | is horrible for this kind of thing. There are roughly | 200,000 varieties of calculator apps. Why? There should | be some criteria to help consumers avoid poorly supported | simplistic clones that are often just filled with adware. | jabbany wrote: | Ratings were supposed to be the criteria but we all know | how well that worked... | drekipus wrote: | Is there? | | If 200,000 calculator apps all fulfill your need, what is | the problem? Just use one, and if it doesn't, use | another. Use the stock one if you want, or ask some | friends what they use. | | I agree rating systems are not an effective measure, and | can be gamed, however. | Marsymars wrote: | Yeah... I'm a relatively sophisticated consumer, and the | state of the Play Store means that if I'm looking for any | app to "do a thing" (as opposed to an official app for a | company), it's effectively impossible for me to get that | app only via my phone. I have to wait until I'm at a | desktop with a big screen and mouse/keyboard where I can | efficiently browse through reddit comments and GitHub | repositories to figure out what's worthwhile, what's | junk, and what's spam. | CharlesW wrote: | My comment was sincere. I'm interested in what the parent | commenter believes triggered Apple to start specifically | targeting small, independent developers. | [deleted] | megablast wrote: | Exactly. The reviewer isn't thinking about the big picture. | It's so weird people think this. As if the Ceo is reviewing | every app. | cercatrova wrote: | I want app stores to be opened up, by law if necessary, but I | also agree with Apple here that this app is too similar to a | webpage to really be necessary. Users can simply visit a website | that has all this data already, and so I believe Apple was | correct in their rejection. However, you should have an alternate | way of installing such an app, through sideloading or simply | being able to be distributed on another app store, analogous to | Android's F-Droid. | Barrin92 wrote: | With the Digital Markets act coming into power and the author | hailing from Romania the one light at the end of the tunnel is | that this soon will be over and at the very least users will be | able to sideload your app. At this point I wouldn't waste any | more time trying to appease the App Store bureaucracy. | T3RMINATED wrote: | ralusek wrote: | Please just support PWAs. | normalhappy wrote: | Apple is likely denying you because they are stealing your idea | for iOS 16 and don't want the competition. | kurupt213 wrote: | you have to include a feature that allows apple to further | monetize your users | Pulcinella wrote: | The weird thing is I wouldn't even consider this to be "too | simple." There are far, far more simple apps on the App Store. | This is basically just a conference app, which arent usually much | more complex than this and are basically just a (usually very | ugly) wrapper for a website. At least this is trying to fit in | with the visual style of the platform. | akmarinov wrote: | And that's why we should open up stores by law if necessary. | | Apple shouldn't be the one to tell me what kind of apps I can | have on the device I've bought with my money. | CharlesW wrote: | > _Apple shouldn 't be the one to tell me what kind of apps I | can have on the device I've bought with my money._ | | I'm confused. Did you buy an iPhone not knowing that it's not a | general purpose computer? | detaro wrote: | How would that preclude the belief that Apple _shouldn 't_ do | that? | CharlesW wrote: | Anyone can believe anything, but if one is buying products | that don't do what they need or want, that seems like a | poor use of funds. | | Example: I can buy an Xbox and curse Microsoft that I can't | play _The Last of Us_ on it, but that 's really on me. | fzfaa wrote: | You already knew what you were getting into when you bought it, | and Apple is far from having a monopoly. | BitwiseFool wrote: | I feel like this is a counter productive non-solution. The | free market, in this case, isn't as free and full of | competition as we would like. Smartphone OS's are _basically_ | a duopoly, and Android has serious challenges of its own. | | That being said, a choice has to be made because two | different entities have mutually exclusive rights: Do you | side with an individuals' right to install whatever they want | on a device they purchased? Or, a large company's right to | restrict devices however they see fit? | eastof wrote: | Except that it takes 5 mins even for a non-technical person | to install CalyxOS and you get full control over your | device and what apps you install using between FDroid and | Aurora Store with 100% feature parity with mainline | Android. | trebbble wrote: | There's competition of _regulatory regimes_ --mandatory and | strict (could be stricter, IMO) vs. optional and looser. | | Absent government outlawing a bunch of the bad behavior | Apple tries to curb, I like being _free_ to have that | choice to opt into their regime. When corporate dragnet | spying and other hostile bullshit is outlawed and the laws | are effectively enforced, sure, I 'd want Apple to tear | down the walls on their garden. | | (please don't just post "but you wouldn't have to use alt | stores!" in response--it's been done to death on here, and | everywhere else, differences opinion are apparently | irreconcilable and we're not likely to gain any ground here | today, and Android's still kickin', so the option for that | kind of environment does exist for those who want it) | | Amusingly, advocacy of optional regulatory regimes enforced | by corporations is usually a right-Libertarian position. | Not that that's necessarily a point in its favor (see | again: I'd much prefer this crap simply be illegal) but | those folks do _love_ free markets. | Goosey wrote: | Personally I side with an individuals' right to install | whatever they want on a device they purchased. Without that | "right to repair" individuals are only renting their | devices from a duopoly. Very unsatisfying! | jiggywiggy wrote: | App store submissions are a pain in the ass. And a mess. | | The appstore connect website keeps giving timeouts and errors. | One client took me 2 hours to create all products manually. | Scripts wouldn't run. | | I submit around 5-10 apps per month. Much more more automized | updates, same codebase, sort of same content. | | The process is pretty standardized. | | 50 procent is accepted no problem. 50 procent is rejected. | | They refer to vague guidelines written by lawyers. And when asked | for specification often refuse to give an answer. | | IAP products are reviewed independently so if they are not in | sync that causes an app reject without notifying you. | | All of it sucks. | | Apple makes it complicated on purpose and they don't care much | for new small developers. | strongpigeon wrote: | Seriously, what's up with App Store Connect crapping out so | often. It's just generally so slow too. | | And the IAP thing you mention... Happened to me except they | approved the app without the IAPs?! Users would just see these | IAPs as unavailable until I had to resubmit a whole new build. | jiggywiggy wrote: | Yeah that also happened this week. It's one big mess. And | they dare giving developers any form of criticism. | | I submitted a bug issue once over the phone. She was nice. | Took me two weeks to submit all kinds of request of screen | recordings and browser details. All i got back was after 2 | weeks is to update my safari and see if it keeps happening. | | Once the giant is taken down, there will be few left rooting | for them. | fawres wrote: | NotYourLawyer wrote: | jjcon wrote: | I assume you have to pay the $99 annual dev fee to submit apps | for review? I wonder how much Apple makes on unused dev fees, I'm | sure not tons but it does seems like they should offer partial | refunds if they refuse to work with devs. | strongpigeon wrote: | This sucks... I'm sorry you had to go through this. The App Store | review process is just pretty bad. It's especially frustrating | when you see downright shitty apps on the store. The "black-box" | aspect of it makes it that much more kafkaesque too. | | When I first submitted my app on there, they rejected it and | complained that I used HealthKit but didn't mention it in the app | description. The thing is, I did. My app description had a list | of "highlighted features", one them being "Apple health | integration". | | I was about to file an appeal, but then I saw a couple other apps | with "Integrates with Apple Health" on its own line in the | description. Figured that's probably what they were looking for | (even though the guidelines don't explicitly say that) so I | changed it and boom, the app was approved. I hate it, but it's | not worth my time or the risk to fight it. | | For what it's worth, I think your app looks really good! | sp332 wrote: | It's a bummer obviously, but is there an actual reason not to | just use the website? | mongol wrote: | Apps are more monetizable. | icelancer wrote: | a huge amount of mobile users don't know what a "website" is | and just use apps | dmitriid wrote: | - available without internet | | - you can have personalisation in the app without needing to | create an account | | - can have access to location without asking the user every | time | unreal37 wrote: | The app pulls in a CSV with the list of events, so the app | requires internet to work right? | alin23 wrote: | (author here) the data is always cached so even with no | internet, you can still access the newest data, filter it, | see it on a map etc. | | But really, the biggest reason why I wanted this to be an | app is because I like how native apps feel as opposed to a | website. | | Push Notifications, map panning and zooming and the | calendar integration have a low quality feel when used on | the web (in iOS). | jakear wrote: | - use a service worker | | - use local storage | | - persist previous location, have quick way to use a map or | request location if needed | samsepi0l wrote: | Write the same app but in React Native. All the extra boilerplate | it includes will pad the code out a lot, and they'll probably | assuming that it must be a legit use case for someone to go to | that effort. But resubmit under a different app name. I bet it | goes through. | kevingadd wrote: | Mildly frustrating to see the author waste so much time and | energy before coming to the correct conclusion: | | > But I think they just don't like the idea of the app, and no | matter what I add to it, they won't accept it. | | It's awful how gatekeepers usually behave this way instead of | coming out and telling you that you should stop and they're never | going to approve your product, since that usually is how it | works. | | On the bright side if he was actually using Google Sheets as his | data backend, Google was going to shut the sheet down permanently | eventually and maybe ban the account, so he dodged a bullet. | xmonkee wrote: | >On the bright side if he was actually using Google Sheets as | his data backend, Google was going to shut the sheet down | permanently eventually and maybe ban the account, so he dodged | a bullet. | | I thought google encouraged using their google sheets APIs? I'm | clearly wrong. Do you have a source for this? | joeld42 wrote: | I don't agree with apple that this should be rejected, but it | does seem like something that would work better as a web app. | Also then it would be available to people on other platforms as | well. | kevingadd wrote: | They have a weird little back and forth going in this regard, | lots of the stuff on their app store is basically a webpage (or | literally one, if it's a webview app) but then they keep | holding features back from Safari so you need to be on the | store to access them. I don't envy people in that situation, | where you've got a good website but your iOS users want one or | two small features that can only be offered via the app store. | cortesoft wrote: | I honestly sometimes wish apple had kept to its original plan | of only having web apps instead of native apps. I hate | constantly being told to download some app for something that | works perfectly fine as a website. | RicoElectrico wrote: | With the nerfing of web apps this is too fscking anti- | competitive of Apple. If web apps were in fact first-class (or | even first-and-a-half class) citizens, I would give them a | pass. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-19 23:00 UTC)