5 ms·

I've checked couple of popular apps on the App Store and here are my findings: - Twitter: uses SFSafariViewController - Reddit: uses custom in-app web view, s

by rumori 8y ago

I've checked couple of popular apps on the App Store and here are my findings: - Twitter: uses SFSafariViewController - Reddit: uses custom in-app web view, shows page title and url on top, provides "open in Safari" option through share button - Instagram: uses custom in-app web view, shows page title and url on top, provides the built in share-sheet, interestingly disabling open in Safari, but enabling "Add to Reading list" Your current app on the App Store embeds third party content in an in-app web view, without showing the title or original URL on top and without being able to open the link in Safari. I suggest you to either use SFSafariViewController for the third party content or mimic something similar with a proper title bar and and share button with Open in Safari option.

zhobbs 8y ago
Personally, I feel like the correct thing to do for the user is to use SFSafariViewController. Custom webviews are pretty annoying IMO.
abalone 8y ago
That would make sense except the author said they have a “show in Safari” button for each article. Apple’s reply was very specific and said nothing about just adding titles and URLs or the safari view controller.
- rumori 8y ago
  In the current App Store version the share button embeds both the original and HN discussion link into a promotional message about the app. Not providing attribution in the form of the address bar (title + url) might be the main problem here but I personally feel fixing sharing would help as well.
  - ypeterholmes 8y ago
    Regardless the lack of communication from Apple about what needs to be done differently is infuriating.
elliekelly 8y ago
One key difference (from a legal perspective, rather than a developer perspective) is that all of the above apps first display user commentary and the user is then given the option to open the link to read the entire article. This is an important distinction under the fair use doctrine: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-fa...
- gnicholas 8y ago
  How does it make a difference from a legal perspective? I am a former lawyer and can't see how any of this matters. I have thought about this deeply in the past (dealing with the same issue for another app), and talked with IP lawyer friends, and we cannot determine what basis Apple has for singling out apps that are essentially specialized web browsers. I'm happy to be enlightened on why this practice makes sense, but so far I've come up with nothing.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    The Fair Use Doctrine allows someone to share copyrighted material for a limited and "transformative" purpose. Typically "transformative" falls into one of two buckets: parody or commentary/criticism. Reddit, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram all display the entire news article within their app only after it has been presented alongside the poster's commentary. OP's Hacker News Zero app does it the other way around. Click on the link and you're taken directly to the news article and, if you then choose, you can select the "comments" to view commentary/criticism. The initial viewing of the article doesn't fall within Fair Use because it's not transformative in any way. I suspect if the app is changed to operate more like Reddit (view the article title/source and view comments, if any, prior to opening the article) it would be approved by Apple. Alternatively, as suggested by Apple, the app could initially present only an excerpt of the article and fall within the exception but, as pointed out in the medium post, that probably isn't particularly valuable to HN users. You also could have tried reading the link I included with my original comment.
    - 8y ago
scarface74 8y ago
Not from a legal perspective. But from a technical perspective, I refuse to use any app that doesn’t use the SFSafariViewController for third party content - including Facebook. The web is an awful place. An app that doesn’t use an SFSafariViewController doesn’t take advantage of the built in content blocking framework.
raydev 8y ago
Hi! I actually just submitted my 1.0 app to App Store Review and I was just rejected for using SFSafariViewController, over the same guideline as OP. Imagine my surprise when ASR sent me screenshots of my app using iOS APIs as designed. So not even SFSafariViewController is protection from committing copyright infringement, apparently. I also got the same workaround from ASR: make the links exit the app to Safari. But now I'm curious what the point of SFSVC is beyond reading... a privacy policy for your own app? Web pages belonging to your own app? But then why not use a WKWebView?
- rumori 8y ago
  Sorry to hear about your troubles. Please read vikasnair's answer [0] below. I think that is the best answer to get your app approved right now. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18444197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18444197

by rumori 8y ago

zhobbs 8y ago

Personally, I feel like the correct thing to do for the user is to use SFSafariViewController. Custom webviews are pretty annoying IMO.

abalone 8y ago

That would make sense except the author said they have a “show in Safari” button for each article. Apple’s reply was very specific and said nothing about just adding titles and URLs or the safari view controller.

rumori 8y ago
In the current App Store version the share button embeds both the original and HN discussion link into a promotional message about the app. Not providing attribution in the form of the address bar (title + url) might be the main problem here but I personally feel fixing sharing would help as well.
- ypeterholmes 8y ago
  Regardless the lack of communication from Apple about what needs to be done differently is infuriating.

elliekelly 8y ago

One key difference (from a legal perspective, rather than a developer perspective) is that all of the above apps first display user commentary and the user is then given the option to open the link to read the entire article. This is an important distinction under the fair use doctrine: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-fa...

gnicholas 8y ago
How does it make a difference from a legal perspective? I am a former lawyer and can't see how any of this matters. I have thought about this deeply in the past (dealing with the same issue for another app), and talked with IP lawyer friends, and we cannot determine what basis Apple has for singling out apps that are essentially specialized web browsers. I'm happy to be enlightened on why this practice makes sense, but so far I've come up with nothing.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  The Fair Use Doctrine allows someone to share copyrighted material for a limited and "transformative" purpose. Typically "transformative" falls into one of two buckets: parody or commentary/criticism. Reddit, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram all display the entire news article within their app only after it has been presented alongside the poster's commentary. OP's Hacker News Zero app does it the other way around. Click on the link and you're taken directly to the news article and, if you then choose, you can select the "comments" to view commentary/criticism. The initial viewing of the article doesn't fall within Fair Use because it's not transformative in any way. I suspect if the app is changed to operate more like Reddit (view the article title/source and view comments, if any, prior to opening the article) it would be approved by Apple. Alternatively, as suggested by Apple, the app could initially present only an excerpt of the article and fall within the exception but, as pointed out in the medium post, that probably isn't particularly valuable to HN users. You also could have tried reading the link I included with my original comment.
  - 8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

Not from a legal perspective. But from a technical perspective, I refuse to use any app that doesn’t use the SFSafariViewController for third party content - including Facebook. The web is an awful place. An app that doesn’t use an SFSafariViewController doesn’t take advantage of the built in content blocking framework.

raydev 8y ago

Hi! I actually just submitted my 1.0 app to App Store Review and I was just rejected for using SFSafariViewController, over the same guideline as OP. Imagine my surprise when ASR sent me screenshots of my app using iOS APIs as designed. So not even SFSafariViewController is protection from committing copyright infringement, apparently. I also got the same workaround from ASR: make the links exit the app to Safari. But now I'm curious what the point of SFSVC is beyond reading... a privacy policy for your own app? Web pages belonging to your own app? But then why not use a WKWebView?

rumori 8y ago
Sorry to hear about your troubles. Please read vikasnair's answer [0] below. I think that is the best answer to get your app approved right now. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18444197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18444197