4 ms·

Anyone that knows anything about the Apple App Store knows this piece is a little uninformed. 1. The two apps were probably reviewed by different people, and a

Anyone that knows anything about the Apple App Store knows this piece is a little uninformed. 1. The two apps were probably reviewed by different people, and approvals from Apple have always been all over the place depending on the reviewer. "The independent developers said getting approved with Google took less than one hour, while Apple’s denial came after an eight-hour wait." 2. 8 hour wait? Wow. I remember when the App Store had an 8 day review time. Let's keep in mind that Google rarely has a human review it's App submissions, Apple has a human review all of theirs, including updates. In any case, the second half of this article is a Clinton hit piece, dropping all mention of apps and app stores and recounting again the Clinton emails story and focusing on negative reactions to it. This was flagged and dead and should be again.

Jimmy 10y ago
>This was flagged and dead and should be again. Strange. It almost sounds like you're afraid of this article for some reason? And I'm saying that as someone who abhors Trump and is trying to get everyone I know to vote for Hillary. I just hate double standards is all.
- geofft 10y ago
  Not 'themartona, but, I'm afraid of this article. I'm afraid that we're not able to discuss interesting technical issues without the overtone of this presidential election's good-vs.-evil campaign (and both sides see themselves as good and the other as evil). We couldn't even have a rational discussion about a secretary of state not being able to use a mobile device with official email. It quickly became a discussion about the evil, corrupt secretary of state killing innocent ambassadors by using a private email server. Every interesting technical issue - and, in fact, every interesting political issue, about how the most powerful government in the world can't provide useful email services to its secretary of state, and how we got there - was drowned out by the good-vs.-evil talk. I'm afraid that comments about the candidates instead of the technical issues will dominate. I can't even come up with a more silly example than the present one: something happened to Trump but not Clinton, or Clinton but not Trump, and with no evidence that this is about the candidates, it must be that one of them is evil and silencing dissent or paying off Apple or something. I'm afraid that the tenor of us-vs.-them, good-vs.-evil arguments from the rest of the internet is infecting HN. I'm afraid that well-reasoned criticism of the political candidates is getting ignored just because so much of it is ill-reasoned. If we expect every single article to have paragraphs of "BTW Hillary sux" or "BTW Donald sux", how do we expect to have actual, serious discussions of where the candidates are good or bad. I'm afraid that articles like this are becoming normal. Yes, I'm afraid of this article.
bradleybuda 10y ago
You're 100% correct, the article is uninformed about normal app review processes. However, the point about Apple rejecting a satirical anti-Hillary app while approving a number of apps depicting and encouraging physical violence towards Trump stands. IMHO, the article is flawed, and clearly from a biased perspective, but there's enough of a valid point in there for it to stand.
mst 10y ago
They quoted the FBI statement directly, and ended with the point that all charges had been dropped. Calling that a "hit piece" does not, to me, seem particularly reasonable.
fenomas 10y ago
One suspects that the underlying story here is: "Of the dozens of political apps submitted recently, some have been accepted and some have been rejected, with no apparent rhyme or reason. Here are two."
hedora 10y ago
Regardless of Apple's review process, the article makes a good point -- go search the app store for election related terms. There is almost no mention of Hillary, one way or another. In addition to lots of trump themed games, you'll find Fox news, Bernie and foreign elections. When Hillary is mentioned, she is in a screenshot for trump themed games. Election news apps almost always show Trump in screenshots. It is hard to argue there is no supply of Hillary content if they are preferentially rejecting such apps. Anyway, Apple's vetting process doesn't seem to be helping get minority (of developer resources) content into the store, and that seems relevant to HN.

Jimmy 10y ago

>This was flagged and dead and should be again. Strange. It almost sounds like you're afraid of this article for some reason? And I'm saying that as someone who abhors Trump and is trying to get everyone I know to vote for Hillary. I just hate double standards is all.

geofft 10y ago
Not 'themartona, but, I'm afraid of this article. I'm afraid that we're not able to discuss interesting technical issues without the overtone of this presidential election's good-vs.-evil campaign (and both sides see themselves as good and the other as evil). We couldn't even have a rational discussion about a secretary of state not being able to use a mobile device with official email. It quickly became a discussion about the evil, corrupt secretary of state killing innocent ambassadors by using a private email server. Every interesting technical issue - and, in fact, every interesting political issue, about how the most powerful government in the world can't provide useful email services to its secretary of state, and how we got there - was drowned out by the good-vs.-evil talk. I'm afraid that comments about the candidates instead of the technical issues will dominate. I can't even come up with a more silly example than the present one: something happened to Trump but not Clinton, or Clinton but not Trump, and with no evidence that this is about the candidates, it must be that one of them is evil and silencing dissent or paying off Apple or something. I'm afraid that the tenor of us-vs.-them, good-vs.-evil arguments from the rest of the internet is infecting HN. I'm afraid that well-reasoned criticism of the political candidates is getting ignored just because so much of it is ill-reasoned. If we expect every single article to have paragraphs of "BTW Hillary sux" or "BTW Donald sux", how do we expect to have actual, serious discussions of where the candidates are good or bad. I'm afraid that articles like this are becoming normal. Yes, I'm afraid of this article.

bradleybuda 10y ago

You're 100% correct, the article is uninformed about normal app review processes. However, the point about Apple rejecting a satirical anti-Hillary app while approving a number of apps depicting and encouraging physical violence towards Trump stands. IMHO, the article is flawed, and clearly from a biased perspective, but there's enough of a valid point in there for it to stand.

mst 10y ago

They quoted the FBI statement directly, and ended with the point that all charges had been dropped. Calling that a "hit piece" does not, to me, seem particularly reasonable.

fenomas 10y ago

One suspects that the underlying story here is: "Of the dozens of political apps submitted recently, some have been accepted and some have been rejected, with no apparent rhyme or reason. Here are two."

hedora 10y ago

Regardless of Apple's review process, the article makes a good point -- go search the app store for election related terms. There is almost no mention of Hillary, one way or another. In addition to lots of trump themed games, you'll find Fox news, Bernie and foreign elections. When Hillary is mentioned, she is in a screenshot for trump themed games. Election news apps almost always show Trump in screenshots. It is hard to argue there is no supply of Hillary content if they are preferentially rejecting such apps. Anyway, Apple's vetting process doesn't seem to be helping get minority (of developer resources) content into the store, and that seems relevant to HN.