[HN Gopher] Got a rejection for mentioning Apple pre-release sof...
___________________________________________________________________
Got a rejection for mentioning Apple pre-release software, but I am
not
Author : tosh
Score : 184 points
Date : 2022-08-21 18:13 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| ezoe wrote:
| So the follower of Apple are living in literally a Paranoia TRPG
| world?
|
| "Good morning-cycle citizen. Your publication contains REDACTED
| which you have to remove because you are not allowed to mention
| it in your security clearance. Good day-cycle."
| [deleted]
| michelb wrote:
| Maybe there are two teams at Apple both working on a different
| feature with the same name but they never know because they still
| can't talk to eachother about it? ;)
| saagarjha wrote:
| "Fun fact": mentioning pre-release software is actually very much
| allowed by the App Store guidelines, and has been for several
| years. The App Store reviewers themselves have failed to keep up
| with the developer program license agreement changing and
| removing the "you can't talk about beta software" bit. As an app
| developer it's hilarious that we have to keep better track of
| that agreement than they are willing to but sadly kind of
| expected at this point.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _"Fun fact": mentioning pre-release software is actually very
| much allowed by the App Store guidelines, and has been for
| several years._
|
| FWIW, I'm reading the App Store guidelines now and can't find
| anything to support this. I must be missing it. What section
| are you thinking of?
| saagarjha wrote:
| It's not the guidelines specifically, beyond the fact that
| you must follow the developer program agreement, which is the
| actual thing they'll ding you for. See this thread for sample
| rejection verbiage and why it is invalid:
| https://twitter.com/_saagarjha/status/1438603898999083028
| vogt wrote:
| Why is Apple so hard on small developers with incredible scrutiny
| on releases and sometimes seemingly arbitrary eval criteria, and
| Tik Tok can run rampant with a keylogger injected with
| JavaScript? Genuinely asking in good faith here as this is way
| out of my domain of expertise. I worked as a UI/UX designer for a
| company that shipped iOS and Android games exclusively and they
| (Apple App Store reviewers) were always hard on us for every
| little thing we published. But it seems like the major social
| apps have some seriously invasive tech bundled in and I have to
| imagine if JoeBlowApp LLC wanted to ship an app with the level of
| data collection that Tik Tok has, they'd get reamed by Apple, no?
| Fuzzwah wrote:
| As with most things, "because money"
| vogt wrote:
| I had a hunch that may have been the case but I was hoping it
| wasn't that simple.
| aaronmcs wrote:
| Money
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _I literally haven't changed the text in my marketing
| description in many months._
|
| After 5 years in the App Store, and having my app featured in the
| Accessibility section, we were flagged for a characteristic that
| had remained unchanged since launch. In almost every case, our
| rejections were not related to newly-added features.
| altairprime wrote:
| > _In almost every case_
|
| What were the exception(s)?
| googlryas wrote:
| When this happens, I assume a shady competitor kept flagging
| your product until they got it taken off the app store.
| gnicholas wrote:
| This was for unrelated feature upgrades. I suppose it's
| possible people had flagged us and the flags weren't reviewed
| until we submitted an update though.
| Natsu wrote:
| You'd think this should be something they'd check for one way
| or another...
| projektfu wrote:
| Would it have killed Apple to highlight the offending words in
| the original review?
| neurostimulant wrote:
| I guess this depends on the reviewer. I had one rejected update
| where the reviewer listed the offending contents in the
| rejection message.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I've had a few rejections (not "dozens," as someone above
| mentioned), and, in my case, I have had to often deal with
| the vague, "canned" responses, but also, a couple of times, I
| actually had detailed indications, including screenshots.
|
| I am always unfailingly polite and professional, even though
| I may want to strangle them.
|
| I dunno. I consider this "the cost of doing business." Not
| thrilled with it, but it's better than friends of mine have
| had to deal with, when a couple of thugs walk into their new
| restaurant, and say "Where ya want the video games set up?"
| faeriechangling wrote:
| I understand the mistake that led to the rejection. The
| arrogant, obnoxious, unhelpful, and entitled way the mistake
| was handled is what's infuriating.
| userbinator wrote:
| _arrogant, obnoxious, unhelpful, and entitled_
|
| That's just Apple being Apple. It's also one of the reasons I
| don't use their products despite how nice they look. They
| always think they're right, and smugly so. "You're holding it
| wrong", etc. The attitude is endemic.
| noveltyaccount wrote:
| 100%, and sadly I've had quite a few high-friction
| conversations with friends about iMessage. It's endemic and
| trickles down to some of their customers, too.
| fishfood23 wrote:
| This is the most annoying part of rejection. They won't point
| to anything specifically, but continue to send vague summaries
| of the issue. If you're staring at a plist file and there's an
| issue, why not just tell me you found an issue with the plist?
| It's infuriating.
| jeffparsons wrote:
| I haven't had to deal with Apple's reviewers much personally, but
| I've watched in amazement as my colleagues wade through the
| process. Sometimes reviewers get stuck in loops, repeatedly
| flagging "issues" (misunderstandings) that were already resolved
| earlier in the conversation. It's like talking to a chat bot with
| no conversational memory; I guess maybe because it's actually a
| different person on the other end each time?
|
| The most successful strategy I've seen so far is to summarise the
| entire conversation so far in every single message you send.
|
| I've also found, like other commenters in this thread, that we
| are now much better versed in Apple's rules than their own
| reviewers. So it can help to include quotes from their rules in
| the conversation summary.
| [deleted]
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Is there a website that lists a collection of all the times
| people complain about having their face eaten like this by App
| Store Review?
|
| I've thought about this from time to time and thought it might be
| a fun pastime to create a collection of these.
| detaro wrote:
| Ok, that's a particularly funny reason for on of these.
| borisgolovnev wrote:
| Recently it took me 7 re-submissions to get an app through app
| review. The reason? I was using a third-party SDK! One reviewer
| figured that the SDK is contained in the app and this means it
| counts as content. And any third-party content requires a written
| and signed agreement with me personally which for an open source
| code from github I obviously didn't have. I was trying to explain
| the situation but each consecutive reviewer was just copying and
| pasting the same rejection. The process is just so broken.
| [deleted]
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Getting rejected on Google Play sucks, but at least you can still
| sideload apps while you dispute it. Getting rejected by Apple
| should be illegal until they provide a way to use an alternative
| app store.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Getting rejected by Apple should be illegal until they
| provide a way to use an alternative app store.
|
| This is misinformation - you can still side-load apps on macOS.
| 1over137 wrote:
| This is for Mac though, the App Store is not obligatory.
| grishka wrote:
| I do wonder what makes people voluntarily publish their apps
| there. It's not like they can't DIY Mac app distribution.
| lapcat wrote:
| Some developers have versions both inside and outside the
| Mac App Store. Customers definitely request Mac App Store
| versions, for various reasons.
|
| Also, if you already have iOS App Store versions of your
| apps, then Mac App Store is not much of a stretch.
| threeseed wrote:
| Users like it.
|
| For example I almost never use apps outside of the App
| Store and brew.
|
| It's great to be able have updates and purchases managed in
| one place and if I ever get a new computer I can simply
| login to my account and re-download everything in seconds.
| [deleted]
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Exposure.
|
| Also, IIRC/AFAIK, only macOS App Store-distributed apps
| have the ability to use parts of iCloud, especially w.r.t.
| data synchronization.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| The little experience I had with AppStore approval is that it's
| mostly a game of persistence. They probably see some benefit from
| a little friction to prevent spam or perhaps it's just pure
| stupid bureaucracy.
|
| I was rejected for asking access to the camera. The App applied
| filters to images taken. I stated as much in XCode, something
| along: this app needs access to the camera in order to apply its
| effects. Rejected for not being clear enough. I reworded,
| basically adding more cruft: accepted.
|
| I doubt the second version was clearer, in fact, it probably
| wasn't. It feels much more like a test to see how much does this
| account want/need to publish and are willing to cooperate, than
| actually following rules that make any sense.
| lapcat wrote:
| > They probably see some benefit from a little friction to
| prevent spam or perhaps it's just pure stupid bureaucracy.
|
| More likely the latter, because the crApp Store
| spammers/scammers seem to have plenty of persistence and
| somehow manage to make it through review.
| rroot wrote:
| I wonder if the reviewers have a reject quota?
| 88913527 wrote:
| One of the main points of the App Store is for curating
| quality, and I'm sure there is some positive correlation
| between quality and persistence, but like any one-size-fits-all
| policy, it will have failure around the edge cases (persistent
| spammers and non-persistent but quality software publishers).
| threeseed wrote:
| You also need to have a little understanding. It's never going
| to be a perfect process when you have people who aren't
| technical making sometimes subjective decisions.
|
| The trick is to plan well. Assume delays and the need for re-
| reviews and don't tie anything to when you think it might be
| approved.
| saagarjha wrote:
| > Assume delays and the need for re-reviews and don't tie
| anything to when you think it might be approved.
|
| This also, you know, sucks majorly when planning anything. If
| Apple had to deal with this kind of review when releasing
| iPhone they'd put a billion dollars into lobbying it away.
| threeseed wrote:
| They do have to deal with this kind of reviews.
|
| There are numerous government and cellular company
| approvals they need in order to launch a phone.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I am aware. You can submit prototype devices to those
| companies. There are clear standards to meet and
| established ways to escalate or appeal reviews when
| necessary. You know, like a functional process.
| threeseed wrote:
| There are established way to escalate and appeal reviews
| with the App Store.
|
| And it's hilarious that you think complying with
| government regulations is a clear and functional process.
| behringer wrote:
| At least you can sue the government. Good luck getting
| anything but arbitration with apples lawyers when dealing
| with apple.
| tannedNerd wrote:
| After being an iOS dev for 10 years now, I would gladly
| deal with the franchise tax board over apple App Store
| review. Government regulations are set out to the be
| followed to the letter of the law. App Store guidelines
| can be tossed aside because a reviewer didn't like your
| tone. I've had at least two dozen App Store rejections
| that were magically approved the second I mentioned going
| to the press about discrimination.
| lapcat wrote:
| > The trick is to plan well.
|
| No, the trick is to run to the press and raise a big fuss,
| bypassing app review to get to Apple execs who want to
| quickly shut down bad PR.
| [deleted]
| blendergeek wrote:
| Update from original tweeter:
|
| > Long story short: Two features (one from iOS 12, one from iOS
| 16), and one name: Continuity Camera.
|
| https://twitter.com/eternalstorms/status/1560304401922854920...
| kylec wrote:
| So he _did_ mention features of pre-release software
| ignormies wrote:
| No he mentioned an iOS 12 feature which has the exact same
| name (Continuity Camera) as an upcoming iOS 16 feature.
|
| His app uses the iOS 12 feature
| pimlottc wrote:
| I couldn't find the quoted tweet from your link, here's a
| direct link:
|
| https://twitter.com/eternalstorms/status/1560311974034120704
| DawnQFunk2 wrote:
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| raverbashing wrote:
| I find it funny (no, not funny, tragic) how alledgedly the most
| efficient companies around can go down to Aristotzkian levels of
| bureaucratic gaslighting.
| dinobones wrote:
| Is Facebook funding some bad PR campaign against Apple here on
| HN? I feel like I've seen so many of these posts in the past few
| months.
| lapcat wrote:
| No, Matthias Gansrigler has been an indie Apple dev for well
| over a decade.
|
| Every Apple dev has stories like this.
| colonwqbang wrote:
| Such stories have been posted at regular intervals for as long
| as I have been reading this site. It seems to be the reality of
| publishing on app store.
|
| In which case, Apple is funding a bad PR campaign against
| themselves.
| jrockway wrote:
| Next they will take down all iOS apps, because there is a
| prerelease version of iOS and all of the existing apps refer to
| that word.
|
| Robots, saving us all time and energy!
| lapcat wrote:
| TL;DR Apple re-used the term "Continuity Camera", which now
| applies to both a preexisting feature from iOS 12 and a
| prerelease feature in iOS 16. The app's description refers to the
| preexisting feature, but app review metadata-rejected the app
| anyway.
|
| Also, app review initially neglected to mention the specific
| problem, instead simply hand-waving about the rule against
| mentioning prerelease features.
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| Appreciate the TLDR. I was reading the tweets and confused on
| what the problem was.. Apple's naming scheme here seems awful.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| they can't tell you which rule you broke, because that would
| give away the secrets </snark>
| smooc wrote:
| What I find interesting is that we seem to perceive the App Store
| Review process as some kind of black and white thing, while it
| isn't. Like a pure function that only works with the input
| variables provided and no side effects. Guess what, there is an
| actual human on the other side that is reviewing your app (with
| support of automation tools obviously). That person will make
| mistakes, will bring his/her own opinion and might not be
| consistent and often won't be very elaborate. Kind of refreshing
| actually.
|
| Interestingly, that's probably how most customers are handled by
| many of the submitted apps, if at all.
| friedman23 wrote:
| You must love going to the DMV
| rzwitserloot wrote:
| No, it's a distopian fucking horrorshow. You're right, of
| course. Humans are involved, it's not consistent, you're
| witnessing a state machine where 'opinion and carefulness of
| the human(s) that are part of this process' is a significant
| chunk of how it works.
|
| But, __the escalation features__ are cliched Catch-22-esque
| lunacy, and the actual information you receive in order to
| ascertain which part of the big state machine caused the
| rejection is non-existent.
|
| If this was how a government worked, I'd expect literal "shoot
| a leader in broad daylight and storm their palace" levels of
| unrest in a week.
|
| Apple (and other corps) are perfectly capable of reasoning
| beyond the almighty dollar. Tim Cook did it, presumably, in a
| rather famous incident yelling down someone on the earnings
| call questioning apple's decision to spend extra cash on
| environmentally friendlier packaging and distribution
| processes. Possibly Tim really is a short sighted moron who
| just thinks its worth wasting money on the environment
| ('wasting money' in the sense of the amoral stockholder only,
| of course!), but I'm assuming someone of Tim's caliber is a bit
| more intelligent than that, and Tim's thought through the
| (potential) brand damage, let alone the benefits of exuding an
| imagine of being environmentally friendlier than needed. Which
| isn't just "brand", but also staving off government
| intervention.
|
| So, given that Tim and co are presumably capable of thinking
| through the repercussions of how the company operates, are they
| truly making the call that causing people the kind of pain and
| frustration that makes posts like this rise to the top of
| hackernews is somehow 'worth it', or are they, at least in this
| highly specific regard, short-sighted morons / dangerously
| uninformed about how their own company's processes work?
|
| I just do not understand. Whatever it costs to stop pissing off
| and chasing away developers for your platform whilst arming the
| masses to demand regulatory intervention HAS to be worth it.
| And if Apple and co can't see that, I say; Heck yeah. Bring on
| the fucking regulators. I know and accept it'll suck and
| they'll make a hash of it, but odds are good it won't be such a
| shitshow as what app review is today, and examples need to be
| made.
| threeseed wrote:
| If Apple makes you this unhinged then don't buy their
| products and avoid reading anything about them.
|
| Because these posts have been here for over a decade and will
| be here for decades to come. Because the App Store is not
| about developers. It's about users. And being a human-curated
| process there will often be mistakes and people on Twitter
| complaining. But users really like curation and so the status
| quo is very much likely to remain.
| dinkledunk wrote:
| Me not buying their products doesn't stop my users from
| doing so, or my employer from demanding we support them.
| Also you've clearly never been on the submitting side of
| the app store, this "careful curation" often misses blatant
| violations and instead nags for weeks on minor or non-
| existent issues while refusing to elaborate.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Is it truly about users if scammy paid apps rise to the
| tops of the charts?
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/06/07/study-finds-scam-top-
| pa...
| CharlesW wrote:
| "Guess what, there is an actual human on the other side
| that is reviewing your app (with support of automation
| tools obviously). That person will make mistakes..."
|
| Those mistakes work both ways. Sometimes apps are
| approved that shouldn't have received approval.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Yes but it's incredibly concerning that greater scrutiny
| isn't being paid to apps _at the top of the charts_. What
| are their priorities if they're going after cases like
| the OP?
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Isn't this only a good thing if the human being on the other
| end makes reasonable decisions in the interest of (1) the App
| Store and (2) iOS developers?
|
| I understand I am biased by only seeing stories from developers
| who have issues getting apps approved, but these stories rarely
| end with a reasonable outcome.
| smooc wrote:
| Do we get to read the stories that end with a reasonable
| outcome? I highly doubt it.
| yesbabyyes wrote:
| Are you suggesting that GP is biased by only seeing stories
| from developers who have issues getting apps approved? It
| sure seems so.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I thought my comment made my awareness of this bias crystal
| clear...
| amelius wrote:
| So if there is a human on the other side that makes mistakes
| all the time, we can't complain about it?
|
| Perhaps they should put another human on the other side that
| checks the first human.
| ffhhj wrote:
| Someone should make a game like Papers Please, in which you are
| an app store reviewer.
| cglong wrote:
| Something tells me the App Store would reject this game :)
| mook wrote:
| > That person will make mistakes, will bring his/her own
| opinion and might not be consistent and often won't be very
| elaborate.
|
| That's fine, but anything coming out from Apple (including the
| reasonable mistakes) are treated as the word of God, so
| correcting those mistakes are more difficult than they should
| be.
| croes wrote:
| That's exactly the reason why a rejection has to point to the
| exact point that causes the rejection
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-21 23:00 UTC)