4 ms·

Maybe they deliberately provoked Apple, so they'd get rejected, so they could write about their outrage, so it'd get picked up by news sites, and they did this

Maybe they deliberately provoked Apple, so they'd get rejected, so they could write about their outrage, so it'd get picked up by news sites, and they did this for marketing purposes? Or maybe it really was just accidental, who knows. But it is certainly having that effect, intended or not.

_qulr 6y ago
They did not deliberately provoke Apple. They did everything they could to conform to the rules: https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272974546438549504 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272974546438549504 "I don't think people understand. We did everything we were supposed to with the iOS app. Try downloading it (while you can?). You can't sign up, because Apple says no. We don't mention subscriptions. You can't upgrade. You can't access billing. We did all of it! Wasn't enough."
- benologist 6y ago
  I think people underestimate how poorly Apple have conducted themselves throughout their app store's history. The iOS developer guidelines used to officially state: If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps. https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer... What prompted such a bizarre official policy? Hundreds of cases of Apple unfairly, inconsistently and even stupidly rejecting apps, rejecting appeals, rejecting their own rules, stonewalling developers. All of this is apart from the platform abuse that caused their anti-trust cases. One of Apple's diligent prudes discovered that the Kama Sutra was among the books Eucalyptus could access https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-1... The dictionary app was denied access three times due to "objectionable" words users could find in its dictionary. https://www.cnet.com/news/behind-10-eyebrow-raising-app-store-rejections/ https://www.cnet.com/news/behind-10-eyebrow-raising-app-stor... our app was rejected simply because we published a news story about jailbreaking https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/19/app-store-review-ridiculousness-apple-rejects-appleinsiders-iphone-x-app-update-because-of-news-story-about-jailbreaking https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/19/app-store-review-...
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Apple approves tens/hundreds of millions of changes each year. They are going to make mistakes and there are going to be inconsistencies in how they approach certain apps. Especially since the policies have evolved over the last decade or so. Also the AppleInsider one is just wrong. I remember that one and it was approved shortly after that article.
    - e_y_ 6y ago
      I think part of the problem is the difficulty of challenging these inconsistent decisions -- and not just Apple; Google Play is probably just as bad at dealing with escalations. If developers and major companies have to resort to complaining publicly to get a decision revisited, there's a problem with the process that isn't simply due to getting a bad reviewer.
    - msandford 6y ago
      > Apple approves tens/hundreds of millions of changes each year. > They are going to make mistakes and there are going to be inconsistencies in how they approach certain apps. Especially since the policies have evolved over the last decade or so. Apple's the one who made it a walled-garden. They're the ones that made the rules. They're the ones that made the escalation procedures. They're the ones who have managed to not be consistent. If you make literally all the rules and the rules ABOUT the rules and you still have bad outcomes there's nobody to blame but you. Which is exactly what people are complaining about. Nobody put a gun to Apple's head for any of these things. One might argue that with YouTube the whole ContentID fiasco wasn't really their idea insofar as YouTube was going to get sued into oblivion by the music/movie industry if they didn't provide some tools. This is categorically Apple's domain and they're the ones who made all the problems. People's expectations aren't unreasonable in my opinion. It's pretty common to want rules to be enforced fairly and impartially.
- Despegar 6y ago
  DHH is very good at marketing and the theatrics are part of their roll-out strategy. It's also coordinated with this story [1]. The screenshot he posted from Apple actually undermines the whole thread because it makes it clear why it was rejected. If you download their app it just takes you to a login screen with no ability to do anything else in the app. Apple has a section in their developer guidelines for these kinds of "Reader" apps, but there are only specific categories of apps that fall under it [2]: >3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase. [1] https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection [2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
  - pier25 6y ago
    These terms are very vague. Email could fall under "cloud storage", no? Also, how come the Basecamp app has been allowed to operate for 7 years and is totally useless without a Basecamp user?
    - outworlder 6y ago
      If the basecamp app has a link you can click that says "go to this website to pay for basecamp", it's not allowed. You can sign in and purchase elsewhere, then get the credentials and login on the app. It's fine, countless apps are like that. But if you do offer purchases with the app, Apple requires that you use the in-app purchase mechanism.
      - pier25 6y ago
        Right, but AFAIK HEY doesn't do that. At least that's what DHH has said in his tweets.
dopamean 6y ago
This is a weird accusation to make
- cdolan 6y ago
  I don’t think its that strange of an “accusation”. In fact I’d call it a “hypothesis”. DHH is a popular person. He gets people to change their behaviors when he calls them out (see his prior Twitter rants, I can’t recall any examples other than Zoom, etc). DHH even admits that he is popular and may be able to get the rules changed for himself, which is probably a big reason he is being vocal - small developers do not have the same platform as a Formula 1 hundred-millionaire who also created RoR.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    He might be a vocal person online, but I think accusing him of purposefully sabotaging his app's approval process without supporting it with evidence is reaching a bit.
    - phaedryx 6y ago
      Agreed. Certainly fails the Occam's razor test for me.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    'Hypothesis' and 'accusation' are not mutually exclusive. This hypothesis is an accusation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hyperpape 6y ago
If you can come up with a credible theory on how spending two years developing a full email app, only to get it banned on launch day, isn't obviously a dumb idea, I will eat durian.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
buboard 6y ago
So what if they did. Its ok for Apple to be a bully?
- coronadisaster 6y ago
  Rich bullies paying bribes to politicians are "ok"

_qulr 6y ago

They did not deliberately provoke Apple. They did everything they could to conform to the rules: https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272974546438549504 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272974546438549504 "I don't think people understand. We did everything we were supposed to with the iOS app. Try downloading it (while you can?). You can't sign up, because Apple says no. We don't mention subscriptions. You can't upgrade. You can't access billing. We did all of it! Wasn't enough."

benologist 6y ago
I think people underestimate how poorly Apple have conducted themselves throughout their app store's history. The iOS developer guidelines used to officially state: If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps. https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer... What prompted such a bizarre official policy? Hundreds of cases of Apple unfairly, inconsistently and even stupidly rejecting apps, rejecting appeals, rejecting their own rules, stonewalling developers. All of this is apart from the platform abuse that caused their anti-trust cases. One of Apple's diligent prudes discovered that the Kama Sutra was among the books Eucalyptus could access https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-1... The dictionary app was denied access three times due to "objectionable" words users could find in its dictionary. https://www.cnet.com/news/behind-10-eyebrow-raising-app-store-rejections/ https://www.cnet.com/news/behind-10-eyebrow-raising-app-stor... our app was rejected simply because we published a news story about jailbreaking https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/19/app-store-review-ridiculousness-apple-rejects-appleinsiders-iphone-x-app-update-because-of-news-story-about-jailbreaking https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/19/app-store-review-...
- threeseed 6y ago
  Apple approves tens/hundreds of millions of changes each year. They are going to make mistakes and there are going to be inconsistencies in how they approach certain apps. Especially since the policies have evolved over the last decade or so. Also the AppleInsider one is just wrong. I remember that one and it was approved shortly after that article.
  - e_y_ 6y ago
    I think part of the problem is the difficulty of challenging these inconsistent decisions -- and not just Apple; Google Play is probably just as bad at dealing with escalations. If developers and major companies have to resort to complaining publicly to get a decision revisited, there's a problem with the process that isn't simply due to getting a bad reviewer.
  - msandford 6y ago
    > Apple approves tens/hundreds of millions of changes each year. > They are going to make mistakes and there are going to be inconsistencies in how they approach certain apps. Especially since the policies have evolved over the last decade or so. Apple's the one who made it a walled-garden. They're the ones that made the rules. They're the ones that made the escalation procedures. They're the ones who have managed to not be consistent. If you make literally all the rules and the rules ABOUT the rules and you still have bad outcomes there's nobody to blame but you. Which is exactly what people are complaining about. Nobody put a gun to Apple's head for any of these things. One might argue that with YouTube the whole ContentID fiasco wasn't really their idea insofar as YouTube was going to get sued into oblivion by the music/movie industry if they didn't provide some tools. This is categorically Apple's domain and they're the ones who made all the problems. People's expectations aren't unreasonable in my opinion. It's pretty common to want rules to be enforced fairly and impartially.
Despegar 6y ago
DHH is very good at marketing and the theatrics are part of their roll-out strategy. It's also coordinated with this story [1]. The screenshot he posted from Apple actually undermines the whole thread because it makes it clear why it was rejected. If you download their app it just takes you to a login screen with no ability to do anything else in the app. Apple has a section in their developer guidelines for these kinds of "Reader" apps, but there are only specific categories of apps that fall under it [2]: >3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase. [1] https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection [2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
- pier25 6y ago
  These terms are very vague. Email could fall under "cloud storage", no? Also, how come the Basecamp app has been allowed to operate for 7 years and is totally useless without a Basecamp user?
  - outworlder 6y ago
    If the basecamp app has a link you can click that says "go to this website to pay for basecamp", it's not allowed. You can sign in and purchase elsewhere, then get the credentials and login on the app. It's fine, countless apps are like that. But if you do offer purchases with the app, Apple requires that you use the in-app purchase mechanism.
    - pier25 6y ago
      Right, but AFAIK HEY doesn't do that. At least that's what DHH has said in his tweets.

dopamean 6y ago

This is a weird accusation to make

cdolan 6y ago
I don’t think its that strange of an “accusation”. In fact I’d call it a “hypothesis”. DHH is a popular person. He gets people to change their behaviors when he calls them out (see his prior Twitter rants, I can’t recall any examples other than Zoom, etc). DHH even admits that he is popular and may be able to get the rules changed for himself, which is probably a big reason he is being vocal - small developers do not have the same platform as a Formula 1 hundred-millionaire who also created RoR.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  He might be a vocal person online, but I think accusing him of purposefully sabotaging his app's approval process without supporting it with evidence is reaching a bit.
  - phaedryx 6y ago
    Agreed. Certainly fails the Occam's razor test for me.
- catalogia 6y ago
  'Hypothesis' and 'accusation' are not mutually exclusive. This hypothesis is an accusation.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

hyperpape 6y ago

If you can come up with a credible theory on how spending two years developing a full email app, only to get it banned on launch day, isn't obviously a dumb idea, I will eat durian.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

buboard 6y ago

So what if they did. Its ok for Apple to be a bully?

coronadisaster 6y ago
Rich bullies paying bribes to politicians are "ok"