[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)