3 ms·
This is exactly the kind of "Apple is infallable" logic I'm talking about. How exactly does it benefit customers to limit access to safe, cool apps that violate
by knucklesandwich 10y ago
This is exactly the kind of "Apple is infallable" logic I'm talking about. How exactly does it benefit customers to limit access to safe, cool apps that violate some arcane rule they have? If they actually wanted to do right by their customers it stands to reason that they should work with developers to come up with a more precise set of rules that still keeps their reputation intact and their customers happy so that customers have access to more varied kinds of apps. I'm an iOS customer (and not an app developer) who is irked by this, so there's at least an existence proof of people that feel the opposite.
- IBM 10y agoWhat apps are being made elsewhere that aren't being made for iOS? And how successful/popular are they? Saying there are plenty, without evidence, is a counterfactual that can't be proven. There may be some apps that aren't made on the margins, but on the whole the rules make the App Store a better experience, and it's their prerogative to choose that over the marginal app.
- mcphage 10y ago> If they actually wanted to do right by their customers it stands to reason that they should work with developers to come up with a more precise set of rules that still keeps their reputation intact and their customers happy so that customers have access to more varied kinds of apps. I'm an iOS customer (and not an app develop Apple's general MO around restrictions against abuse is to make them too strong, see what kind of useful apps get developed in other app stores that would be against Apple's rules, and then change the rules to allow for just those examples. So if there's an overly strict Apple rule, but no other good apps come out elsewhere, then the rule will stay.