3 ms·

Apple's App Review guidelines used to say something along the lines of "If you have a problem, trashing us in the press never helps." I'm not trying to place ju

Apple's App Review guidelines used to say something along the lines of "If you have a problem, trashing us in the press never helps." I'm not trying to place judgment on Puffin, but this seems to be the wrong strategy. False negative App Store rejections are typically due to a misunderstanding than a nebulous "corporate greed" angle... or sometimes they were even (at least sort of) justified in the first place [0]. See also: when Rollout got rejected, their open letter [1] didn't help them either. [0]: https://9to5mac.com/2016/10/10/apple-dash-removal-from-app-store https://9to5mac.com/2016/10/10/apple-dash-removal-from-app-s... [1]: https://rollout.io/blog/open-letter-to-apple-secure-javascript-injection-ios/ https://rollout.io/blog/open-letter-to-apple-secure-javascri...

lern_too_spel 9y ago
From the Medium post: Puffin releases were rejected citing app review guideline 2.5.6: “Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.” Our server-side web browser is based on Chromium instead of Apple’s WebKit, therefore, Puffin is rejected. We disputed and escalated but Apple insisted it has jurisdiction over our server-side technology.
- eridius 9y ago
  Seems like a pretty clear violation of the rules. Trying to find a loophole doesn't work, the rules aren't an Ethereum smart contract, they're actually subject to human judgement.
  - im3w1l 9y ago
    I thought the stated reasoning for the rules was that Apple for safety reasons didn't want apps downloading and running code (javascript in this case). Clearly that justification doesn't apply if the code runs on a server and not the device.
- feverishaaron 9y ago
  Most likely insisted upon due to the obfuscation of user privacy
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  Apple has always, since time immemorial, blocked apps that duplicated functionality of the core OS. Yes they make exceptions, but building a "better" web browser for iOS was a bad business choice, regardless of how long or well you skirted the rules. You made your bed. Sleep in it.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    Apple has not blocked apps that duplicate core functionality for years. There are plenty of alternatives apps for: 1. Podcasts 2. music 3. Mail 4. Maps 5. Movie 6. Ebook reading 7. Notes 8. Calendar 9. Messaging 10. Photos 11. Cloud storage.
cwyers 9y ago
In a duopoly condition, telling companies who want to sell products that can only be sold in the markets of two companies, putting "don't take disputes with us to the press" is rather insidious. It might not help. But Apple already has so much leverage against app developers. Yes, individual app rejections are likely not due to Apple being evil. But Apple doesn't have to be evil, just capricious and unresponsive, to turn their dominant market position into bullying smaller developer shops.

lern_too_spel 9y ago

From the Medium post: Puffin releases were rejected citing app review guideline 2.5.6: “Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.” Our server-side web browser is based on Chromium instead of Apple’s WebKit, therefore, Puffin is rejected. We disputed and escalated but Apple insisted it has jurisdiction over our server-side technology.

eridius 9y ago
Seems like a pretty clear violation of the rules. Trying to find a loophole doesn't work, the rules aren't an Ethereum smart contract, they're actually subject to human judgement.
- im3w1l 9y ago
  I thought the stated reasoning for the rules was that Apple for safety reasons didn't want apps downloading and running code (javascript in this case). Clearly that justification doesn't apply if the code runs on a server and not the device.
feverishaaron 9y ago
Most likely insisted upon due to the obfuscation of user privacy
FussyZeus 9y ago
Apple has always, since time immemorial, blocked apps that duplicated functionality of the core OS. Yes they make exceptions, but building a "better" web browser for iOS was a bad business choice, regardless of how long or well you skirted the rules. You made your bed. Sleep in it.
- scarface74 9y ago
  Apple has not blocked apps that duplicate core functionality for years. There are plenty of alternatives apps for: 1. Podcasts 2. music 3. Mail 4. Maps 5. Movie 6. Ebook reading 7. Notes 8. Calendar 9. Messaging 10. Photos 11. Cloud storage.

cwyers 9y ago

In a duopoly condition, telling companies who want to sell products that can only be sold in the markets of two companies, putting "don't take disputes with us to the press" is rather insidious. It might not help. But Apple already has so much leverage against app developers. Yes, individual app rejections are likely not due to Apple being evil. But Apple doesn't have to be evil, just capricious and unresponsive, to turn their dominant market position into bullying smaller developer shops.