22 ms·
My story with App Review
- greatgib 6y agoIt's a very nice example of Stockholm syndrome: "They are the nice big brother inflicting pain to devs and users and restricting their rights, and it's probably my fault if they are not nice with me"
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- smnrchrds 6y agoI think despite gathering his courage to speak out, he is still afraid of Apple's reprisal, so he doesn't want to speak too harshly of Apple, lest Apple decides his apps are in violation and his account must be banned.
- clort 6y agoI am not sure that this app is for blind and visually impaired users, or for everybody but also useful enough that blind and visually impaired can use it (which would be pretty darned useful, for a keyboard) If it were explicitly an assistance app, would Apple be in violation of any discrimination laws by refusing to have it in the app store in that way?
- rbecker 6y ago> Pushing for an answer on how one of my apps can have a watch keyboard, but the other cannot, they could only "discuss via phone". What would Apple's response be if you started with "This call may be recorded"? Is recording without notice legal in any state?
- ravenstine 6y agoIn California, it is.
- 333c 6y agoCalifornia is a two-party consent state[0], which means everyone on a phone call must agree to it being recorded before it can be recorded. In general, many more US states are one-party consent[1], which means that only one member of the conversation has to agree to the recording. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#Two-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#One-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...
- a1369209993 6y ago> many more US states are two-party consent[1] ITYM "one-party" here.
- 333c 6y agoI did, thanks.
- pavel_lishin 6y agoI believe they're legal in any single-party-consent state, but I honestly don't know how that plays when the other person is in an all-party-consent state.
- bryanrasmussen 6y agobut if they say this call may be recorded aren't you consenting by continuing the call?
- rbecker 6y agoI believe so. But one can use "By continuing this call, you consent that it may be recorded" just in case.
- reaperducer 6y agoWhen I called the electric company yesterday the first thing that was stated on the IVR was, "If you don't want this call recorded, please let the representative know." I thought that was nice. New to me.
- pavel_lishin 6y agoI'm wary of the fact that it didn't actually say your phone call wouldn't be recorded.
- Figs 6y agoNow, that raises an interesting question I hadn't considered before. If you call a service that has an automated call recording consent message does that consent message imply that you are also allowed to record the call with no further notice, if you so choose? Both sides know that at least one recording is being produced by continuing the call; do additional recordings require additional consent? Has this ever actually been tested in court?
- jeroenhd 6y agoFrom what I know, the legality if this differs between state. In some you need consent from both parties, in others only your own. Given their hesitance to official statements, I'd guess the call would be terminated immediately.
- nanch 6y agoI made https://callrec.app https://callrec.app just for that. It records calls for you and emails you the recording. I made it just for me, but it works well enough for recording outbound calls.
- kmeisthax 6y agoLimiting the question specifically to "can you record your own phone calls for your own use", and ignoring questions about what you can do with the recordings (which is where things like CCPA or GDPR would apply), there are two regimes which cover the vast majority of telecommunications law: one-party consent and two-party consent. (India doesn't allow recording at all, but that's because they're stuck in the Ma Bell era of telecom law.) One-party consent means one party - i.e., yourself - needs to consent to recording for the recording to be legal. The latter means all parties need to consent to recording. (Evidently "two-party consent" was coined before conference calls were a thing.) About three quarters of the US is one-party consent but a quarter are two-party consent. California is part of the latter group and if any party to the call has California residence, then you need consent from all parties to the call before you can record. Yes, this has gone up to California supreme court. Yes, this includes all of the FAANG companies. So you would need some kind of notification that you were recording and for the person on the other line to consent to the recording, regardless of where you live, simply because Apple employees live in California. (Depending on jurisdiction, there are exceptions for a party to a call to record the call if it has something to do with specific crimes, but "violating antitrust law" isn't one of them.)
- ineedasername 6y agoI don't see the Federal Supreme Court weigh in on this, and without that I don't see how California can impose it's laws on people out of state. It's no different from any other law-- take open carry gun laws as an example. A state that prohibited open carry would not be able to assign liability to someone that open carried in a state where it was legal. It really doesn't matter what the California Supreme court says, they don't have authority outside of California. I suppose they could make laws about how such recording could be used if they entered in California, but not much else.
- cgriswald 6y agoThe problem I see is if you’re recording the call for legal reasons, you’re probably going to court in California where it wouldn’t be admissible even if they wouldn’t be able to charge you.
- ineedasername 6y agoDepends on the state. But that opens up room for some jurisdictional arbitrage: an app that routed the audio of your call to servers in a state that allowed single-party permission, and record the audio there.
- AbraKdabra 6y agoThese kind of tweets kinda defeats the true purpose of Twitter, why don't the people write a blog instead of making dozens of tweets? I mean, you can write a blog with exact o more words, you can express yourself more and make the article much richer, and then you can link it to your twitter account, it makes absolutely no sense to do what he did.
- satvikpendem 6y agoEngagement. The majority of the people that such a blog would be shared with won't read it because it requires clicking an extra link. Tweets can be read in-line. Also, tweets in a tweet thread can be commented on specifically rather than on the blog post entirely.
- reaperducer 6y agoAlso, tweets in a tweet thread can be commented on specifically rather than on the blog post entirely So it's like a college lecture where the professor stops after each sentence and has to answer questions from the audience. Pretty much the opposite of communication.
- satvikpendem 6y agoNot really. The tweeter in this case isn't stopping between each tweet to address comments. It is asynchronous versus the synchronous example you gave.
- reaperducer 6y agowhy don't the people write a blog instead of making dozens of tweets I agree. And it's why I didn't read his screed once I saw that it was a whole series of tweets. In the spirit of tl;dr, I propose "tr;dr" - Tweet rant; didn't read.
- aspenmayer 6y agoI wish these kinds of complaints were considered off-topic on HN, for the same reason paywall complaints are, because they are detracting from the content in an entirely obvious, predicable, uninteresting way. There are apps to summarize tweets to help them to be more legible for those who prefer that. It makes sense to use Twitter to reach his Twitter followers. That’s reason enough to use Twitter.
- ezoe 6y agoThe moral is, don't relies on Platform vendor's official distribution system as a sole way to distribute your software. If that platform doesn't allow you to distribute the software outside of it, don't bother to support such a platform. You have been lost already. Don't waste your time on dealing with such hideous non-free platform.
- close04 6y agoI understand the sentiment but there's a reason developers still flock o develop for Apple and Google even under these conditions. Despite the restrictive nature of the app stores they're the only chance most small developers have of ever reaching a wide enough paying audience. Many apps are pretty much just a feature bolted onto the OS and could easily be shipped by Apple or Google as an integral part of the OS thus taking the whole reason foe that app's existence. So for many devs the whole income stream depends on Apple or Google far more than just by using their app store.
- AndrewDucker 6y agoI'm not sure why you included Google there, as you can install on Android without going through their store. You just have to confirm that you're really sure you want to.
- close04 6y agoI was pretty clear why I included Google. Because using their app store is the single best chance for a dev to monetize their app on Android, or at least to get it noticed. Sure, they can use another store like F-Droid but while the possibility is there, they'd severely limit the audience. And most people are discouraged (for good reasons) from installing APKs from random places on the internet. Few Android apps are distributed exclusively outside of the Play Store and even fewer get any traction with users, not to speak of being a financial success for the dev.
- saagarjha 6y agoI live in a country that has been know to conduct extrajudicial assassinations. Should I simply renounce my citizenship and go live on an offshore platform or work towards getting them to stop doing that?
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago> But getting it on the store has been one of the most difficult, non-technical obstacles I've had to overcome, and this was only one of many other hoops I've had to go through. We were very careful in our app to not push the boundaries at all. Nothing even remotely outside the norm for this very reason. Now... contrast this “code chilling effect” with how great innovations have happened. Apple is clearly preventing any App company from ever having the same opportunity that Apple themselves had. Bad moves I think.
- jedberg 6y agoIt seems like a simple law could fix this: Phone device makers that provide an application store must also allow the user to load non-approved applications with equivalent API access to approved applications, and must make it possible for the user to load a third-party application store with equivalent access to the first-party application store.
- anchpop 6y agoI would like this to be extended to game consoles and any other kind of personal computing device, too! Although phones are clearly the most egregious example, game console manufacturers create a weird two-party market where they subsidize the purchase of the console so they can rent-seek off the larger playerbase by taking a cut of game sales.
- jedberg 6y agoExcellent point. It should probably apply to any hardware where you can load applications. There should always be a way for a user to load their own applications.
- threeseed 6y agoThat would completely destroy the gaming console market. Nintendo would largely be fine. Sony and Microsoft however would be forced into anti-consumer practices like putting advertising everywhere and selling your data. Not to mention a complete consolidation of the studios where most games would be made by Sony Studios and only sold on the Sony app store.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago> like putting advertising everywhere and selling your data Ever used Xbox Live on the Xbox you paid for and seen ads? We're already there.
- threeseed 6y agoWell it would go to a whole new level if you want to take away their only revenue source. Microsoft may even just decide not to build consoles at all.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y agoMy app has been repeatedly rejected because I do not offer free in-app trials (but offer money-back guarantee on my website) and also do not offer in-apps purchases. I asked if I offered in-app purchases, would the app be approved? No, since I offer 3-day money-back guarantee on website-based purchses, I must ALSO offer a free trial in the app. But I don’t want to offer free trials. I’m ok offering a 3-day money-back guarantee, but Apple says that’s not an option for apps. They insist that I (1) change my business model from 3-day money back guarantee to free trial and (2) purchase a shit ton more infrastructure to handle the audience that free trials attract (I’ve tried free trial business model and it created a lot of use but no more revenue than 3-day money back guarantee). The money-back guarantee seems to weed out a lot of free loaders, at least in this domain — not necessarily others.
- drchiu 6y agoIs yours a b2c or b2b app? Been following all this closely because we were thinking of developing a mobile client for our b2b SAAS.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y agoIt's targeted for both audiences. There is a large b2b customer base but also a large b2c customer base. Sorry I dont have a more clear answer for you. I'm not sure if apple interpreted it as b2b to b2c, or if they even care. My guess, after spending months in this review process with 2 different reviewers and multiple rejected submissions and tens of thousands of dollars invested in app development, is they don't look at such things as b2b or b2c.
- threeseed 6y agoYou say that Apple is demanding you change your business model but actually you're demanding that Apple accomodate yours. If someone buys your app and doesn't like it then how do they know about the money back guarantee ? Because depending on how visibly you communicate that to the user at best you could make it hard for users to know about it and at worst you could be flat out being deceptive. Either way Apple takes on the significant chargeback risk for your app which is far more concerning for them than whatever revenue they get.
- londons_explore 6y agoI assume the policy is based on the fact someone at Apple has decided that keyboards on the Apple Watch can never be designed to have a satisfactory user experience, therefore all watch keyboards are banned. However OP's app is grandfathered in, but when he tries to make other similar apps, they aren't allowed.
- bredren 6y agoApple felt this way about web pages on Apple Watch also. But I believe they have since relented.
- caiobegotti 6y agoThe more people speak up about these situations the faster they will be fixed permanently to avoid a neverending flow of PR nightmares.
- agelefthe 6y agoWell said