3 ms·

Respectfully, your arguments are weak, and you're playing the crowd with bluster rather than laying out compelling arguments. I've been a RescueTime user before

Respectfully, your arguments are weak, and you're playing the crowd with bluster rather than laying out compelling arguments. I've been a RescueTime user before, and it's a real shame it's not allowed on iOS, but again, your arguments here are not strong at all. > It also happened to capture screen time, obviously important to the app. Be clear here: Apple has not said this aspect is misuse. In your article, you link directly to a clause: "Your app is misusing background location for purposes other than location-related features and functionality." It would seem Apple are directly telling you that this aspect is misuse, on account of they call it that, and the actual disagreement here is "We do not ... agree that this is “misusing” the method". Apple's position seems clear. > Screen time recording is blessed by Apple What's your evidence for this? That they provide it themselves? There are plenty of things that Apple bless for themselves to do via apps, and not for 3rd parties to do. Is your evidence that the rules aren't being applied consistently? That's not evidence, that's an appeal to fairness. > Apple's issue here is there is no consistency for "misuse" where misuse is defined as location being secondary or primary to the API use. This seems an odd sentence to say just after "Apple has not said this aspect is misuse". You argument boils down to "everyone else is doing it so why can't we". A reply to your comment shows that Apple appears to be cracking down in general, and as a well-known brand, it shouldn't be that surprising that you're getting targeted first.

laohu 8y ago
"Your app is misusing background location for purposes other than location-related features and functionality." > It would seem Apple are directly telling you that this aspect is misuse, on account of they call it that, and the actual disagreement here is "We do not ... agree that this is “misusing” the method". Apple's position seems clear. The problem for is more that it's open and inconsistent interpretation, in their own words, when they decide that. Their position is "clear" with the respect to the other apps in our space that they banned, and then allowed back in. So "clear" to one entity combined (-1) * "clear" to another has the sum of zero clarity. > What's your evidence for this? That they provide it themselves? There are plenty of things that Apple bless for themselves to do via apps, and not for 3rd parties to do. Is your evidence that the rules aren't being applied consistently? That's not evidence, that's an appeal to fairness. This evidence is not shareable here for others privacy and respect. It is the combination of content of a number of conversations between app developers we communicate with, and with Apple's conversations with all of us. > This seems an odd sentence to say just after "Apple has not said this aspect is misuse". This is admittedly a poor and opaque hint at the above note. We haven't been targeted first, we are in the pool of targets, and some Apple has let back in. These apps list screen time management as their primary raison-d'etre.

laohu 8y ago

"Your app is misusing background location for purposes other than location-related features and functionality." > It would seem Apple are directly telling you that this aspect is misuse, on account of they call it that, and the actual disagreement here is "We do not ... agree that this is “misusing” the method". Apple's position seems clear. The problem for is more that it's open and inconsistent interpretation, in their own words, when they decide that. Their position is "clear" with the respect to the other apps in our space that they banned, and then allowed back in. So "clear" to one entity combined (-1) * "clear" to another has the sum of zero clarity. > What's your evidence for this? That they provide it themselves? There are plenty of things that Apple bless for themselves to do via apps, and not for 3rd parties to do. Is your evidence that the rules aren't being applied consistently? That's not evidence, that's an appeal to fairness. This evidence is not shareable here for others privacy and respect. It is the combination of content of a number of conversations between app developers we communicate with, and with Apple's conversations with all of us. > This seems an odd sentence to say just after "Apple has not said this aspect is misuse". This is admittedly a poor and opaque hint at the above note. We haven't been targeted first, we are in the pool of targets, and some Apple has let back in. These apps list screen time management as their primary raison-d'etre.