3 ms·

> an existence proof that I have half a dozen apps on my iOS device that do exactly what the poster said his app was rejected for Well, since the HN story does

> an existence proof that I have half a dozen apps on my iOS device that do exactly what the poster said his app was rejected for Well, since the HN story doesn't rely on the fact that no other apps exist with that capability, and actually uses that fact to make its point, I'm not sure what you're trying to use their existence to prove. "since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS."

scarface74 8y ago
It was never policy. There have been lots of cases with further investigation that there was more to the story. Why would Apple single out his app? The post said Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS. I've suspected a lot has had to do with Apple's ambitions in the streaming space and their desire to be in a position to offer bundling and other over the top services. There are literally dozens of cross platform streaming apps on iOS. There has been no policy change. Apple would be more than happy to take a 30% cut on a cross platform streaming service.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > There are literally dozens of cross platform streaming apps on iOS. There has been no policy change. So, your argument is that because some apps exist now with this behavior, the claim that some apps do or did experience unwarranted attention and extra requirements for non-policy and technical reasons must be false? I'm not sure I follow that reasoning.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    I’m saying that if I have a choice between believing knowing that cross platform streaming apps that require a login and that have IAP have existed since 2009, continue to exist in 2018, there is no published policy against it, and the only place where we have seen this is one post on HN, I’m more likely to believe that there is more going on. I’m definitely not willing to believe that he was singled out because Apple wants to build thier own streaming app seeing that they will already be competing with dozens of other providers on thier own platform when thier streaming service comes out.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      If you want to assume that since there's no policy against it, and there exist apps that utilize it, that Apple would not for bureaucratic or internal politicking reasons cause problems in the review process because you've only ever heard of this story, that's definitely your right. I believe that due to the numerous stories I've heard about the review process arbitrarily holding up some apps and not others, since they very beginning, and the fact that I believe large companies have lots of internal politicking and divisions competing and managers pulling rank to affect outcomes that the app review process is not always purely policy and technically driven, especially since there's essentially no negative consequences to apple for being arbitrary. I think we just have differing view on the likelihood of certain outcomes and how they combine into a likelihood of the specific outcome in question, so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.

scarface74 8y ago

It was never policy. There have been lots of cases with further investigation that there was more to the story. Why would Apple single out his app? The post said Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS. I've suspected a lot has had to do with Apple's ambitions in the streaming space and their desire to be in a position to offer bundling and other over the top services. There are literally dozens of cross platform streaming apps on iOS. There has been no policy change. Apple would be more than happy to take a 30% cut on a cross platform streaming service.

kbenson 8y ago
> There are literally dozens of cross platform streaming apps on iOS. There has been no policy change. So, your argument is that because some apps exist now with this behavior, the claim that some apps do or did experience unwarranted attention and extra requirements for non-policy and technical reasons must be false? I'm not sure I follow that reasoning.
- scarface74 8y ago
  I’m saying that if I have a choice between believing knowing that cross platform streaming apps that require a login and that have IAP have existed since 2009, continue to exist in 2018, there is no published policy against it, and the only place where we have seen this is one post on HN, I’m more likely to believe that there is more going on. I’m definitely not willing to believe that he was singled out because Apple wants to build thier own streaming app seeing that they will already be competing with dozens of other providers on thier own platform when thier streaming service comes out.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    If you want to assume that since there's no policy against it, and there exist apps that utilize it, that Apple would not for bureaucratic or internal politicking reasons cause problems in the review process because you've only ever heard of this story, that's definitely your right. I believe that due to the numerous stories I've heard about the review process arbitrarily holding up some apps and not others, since they very beginning, and the fact that I believe large companies have lots of internal politicking and divisions competing and managers pulling rank to affect outcomes that the app review process is not always purely policy and technically driven, especially since there's essentially no negative consequences to apple for being arbitrary. I think we just have differing view on the likelihood of certain outcomes and how they combine into a likelihood of the specific outcome in question, so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.