3 ms·

What's more likely here? That there's a nefarious plot inside Apple to let some developers use forbidden functionality hoping no one else notices the double sta

What's more likely here? That there's a nefarious plot inside Apple to let some developers use forbidden functionality hoping no one else notices the double standard, or that a human app reviewer missed this and it slipped through? I invoke Occam's Razor on this non-story.

rsuttongee 16y ago
Which is actually what the article says: "Apple can’t stick to its own rules with the gigantic iOS App Store." and at the end: "App Store reviewers are not consistent with enforcing the rules, and therefore censorship still seems arbitrary." Also, there's no allegations of special treatment in the article at all. Did we even read the same thing?
- senorprogrammer 16y ago
  Indeed we did. My comment is more a remark on the sensational tone of the headline, which I read as implying by the author a deliberate intent on Apple's part. I find the article disingenuous in that, since it does, as you note, leave the salient part for the very bottom. However I certainly take your point.
  - jdc 16y ago
    However pendantic, I feel compelled to point out that including the word 'want' in the title does imply intent.
joe_the_user 16y ago
Even if this happened entirely by accident, your claim that this is a "non-story" is wrong. When a particular desirable UI feature is available to some but not others, the playing field has become skewed. If Apple is allowing the appstore process to pick winners entirely at random, it is weeding the best apps since most of these won't be picked in a random draw.
synxer 16y ago
While true, there is a much bigger point here that you're missing. What is the point of the App Store approval process if it's not inherently reliable to the developer who has spent countless hours bringing him/herself up to speed on the guidelines of the store? And this isn't really a secret Easter egg, either. The supposed rigorous approval process should catch something this obvious, I would hope.
- senorprogrammer 16y ago
  Your comment seems to assume that this is a permanent state and won't be rectified by Apple. That's a bit like saying "what's the point of writing any unit tests if some bugs are going to exist anyhow?" I see no loss of reliance on the guidelines here, but rather a simple one-off mistake to be corrected by Apple. We are of course in agreement that something this obvious should really be caught beforehand though.

rsuttongee 16y ago

Which is actually what the article says: "Apple can’t stick to its own rules with the gigantic iOS App Store." and at the end: "App Store reviewers are not consistent with enforcing the rules, and therefore censorship still seems arbitrary." Also, there's no allegations of special treatment in the article at all. Did we even read the same thing?

senorprogrammer 16y ago
Indeed we did. My comment is more a remark on the sensational tone of the headline, which I read as implying by the author a deliberate intent on Apple's part. I find the article disingenuous in that, since it does, as you note, leave the salient part for the very bottom. However I certainly take your point.
- jdc 16y ago
  However pendantic, I feel compelled to point out that including the word 'want' in the title does imply intent.

joe_the_user 16y ago

Even if this happened entirely by accident, your claim that this is a "non-story" is wrong. When a particular desirable UI feature is available to some but not others, the playing field has become skewed. If Apple is allowing the appstore process to pick winners entirely at random, it is weeding the best apps since most of these won't be picked in a random draw.

synxer 16y ago

While true, there is a much bigger point here that you're missing. What is the point of the App Store approval process if it's not inherently reliable to the developer who has spent countless hours bringing him/herself up to speed on the guidelines of the store? And this isn't really a secret Easter egg, either. The supposed rigorous approval process should catch something this obvious, I would hope.

senorprogrammer 16y ago
Your comment seems to assume that this is a permanent state and won't be rectified by Apple. That's a bit like saying "what's the point of writing any unit tests if some bugs are going to exist anyhow?" I see no loss of reliance on the guidelines here, but rather a simple one-off mistake to be corrected by Apple. We are of course in agreement that something this obvious should really be caught beforehand though.