3 ms·

We weren't upset because other people got away with something. In fact, I don't think anyone has created a remotely similar app. We were upset because it demon

We weren't upset because other people got away with something. In fact, I don't think anyone has created a remotely similar app. We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist. Moreover, it shows they clearly have no sense of humor.

fookyong 16y ago
Isn't this basically covered in every legal agreement since time began? "Apple reserves the right to refuse..." I'll bet there's a line in the developer agreement to that effect. A catch-all defense used at times like this. Shouldn't come as any surprise.
- EvilTrout 16y ago
  I don't disagree. But I offer this thought: do you feel like you might tell your kids or grandkids that you remember a time when any of your friends could try out the software your created on their own devices? When anyone had the ability to do whatever they wanted with their devices, without having to agree to a license agreement first?
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >when any of your friends could try out the software your created on their own devices? You can do this with the iPhone right now so long as "your friends" doesn't include all iOS owners.
mc32 16y ago
Hmm, ok. I think you actually compared yourself to happy-fart or something, but whatever. In any event, it's as if you would deny them "learning". I would refer to any legal code. You can observe it change with time in order to adjust to behavior, attitudes, mores, technology, etc. Imagine the crime boss "Hey, IRS (the US tax board), that was legal last year, how come you took away my loophole?" Now, granted, the IRS has to go thru a process to implement code changes, but this is an analogy to illustrate that codification requires change over time. It'd be shortsighted to want to limit the change regimen from ad hoc to periodic, for your convenience. Sense of humor; is that even germane to anything? Would it have been better if they had cited some cells from xkcd?
eps 16y ago
I'm sure you would get a laugh every time someone buys an upgrade, but that hardly qualifies as a humour.
darren_ 16y ago
> We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist. "We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn't do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted." Seems pretty clear to me, unless you're wanting to be pedantic about 'some form of lasting entertainment'. Their bar for this is obviously incredibly low, but you managed to shimmy under it while grinding an axe at the same time. Well done.
loewenskind 16y ago
>We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist. That's just good sense. They try to set up the rules as best they can, then some joker comes up with a way to do something that isn't in line with the spirit of the platform but not explicitly forbidden (you can't think of everything). Of course I would expect them to close the loophole at that point and protect the overall environment of the site rather then say "well, this breaks everything but we're so inflexible that we can't fix rules after the fact".

fookyong 16y ago

Isn't this basically covered in every legal agreement since time began? "Apple reserves the right to refuse..." I'll bet there's a line in the developer agreement to that effect. A catch-all defense used at times like this. Shouldn't come as any surprise.

EvilTrout 16y ago
I don't disagree. But I offer this thought: do you feel like you might tell your kids or grandkids that you remember a time when any of your friends could try out the software your created on their own devices? When anyone had the ability to do whatever they wanted with their devices, without having to agree to a license agreement first?
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >when any of your friends could try out the software your created on their own devices? You can do this with the iPhone right now so long as "your friends" doesn't include all iOS owners.

mc32 16y ago

Hmm, ok. I think you actually compared yourself to happy-fart or something, but whatever. In any event, it's as if you would deny them "learning". I would refer to any legal code. You can observe it change with time in order to adjust to behavior, attitudes, mores, technology, etc. Imagine the crime boss "Hey, IRS (the US tax board), that was legal last year, how come you took away my loophole?" Now, granted, the IRS has to go thru a process to implement code changes, but this is an analogy to illustrate that codification requires change over time. It'd be shortsighted to want to limit the change regimen from ad hoc to periodic, for your convenience. Sense of humor; is that even germane to anything? Would it have been better if they had cited some cells from xkcd?

eps 16y ago

I'm sure you would get a laugh every time someone buys an upgrade, but that hardly qualifies as a humour.

darren_ 16y ago

> We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist. "We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn't do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted." Seems pretty clear to me, unless you're wanting to be pedantic about 'some form of lasting entertainment'. Their bar for this is obviously incredibly low, but you managed to shimmy under it while grinding an axe at the same time. Well done.

loewenskind 16y ago

>We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist. That's just good sense. They try to set up the rules as best they can, then some joker comes up with a way to do something that isn't in line with the spirit of the platform but not explicitly forbidden (you can't think of everything). Of course I would expect them to close the loophole at that point and protect the overall environment of the site rather then say "well, this breaks everything but we're so inflexible that we can't fix rules after the fact".