3 ms·

I agree that when they make a mistake in the form of applying the rules inequitably, get called out, and fix it, that's a mistake. But I claim that when they m

I agree that when they make a mistake in the form of applying the rules inequitably, get called out, and fix it, that's a mistake. But I claim that when they make a mistake in the form of applying the rules inequitably, get called out, and double down on applying the rules inequitably, that is not a mistake, that is capricious. There may only be a small number of times they have been capricious, but they are not "making a mistake." They are applying the rules capriciously. And while nobody is getting killed, the principle of justice is the same here as in our society. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. One person imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit and the police knew they didn't commit taints the entire justice system. It removes confidence for everyone. It's the same principle here. Mistakes, fine. But applying the rules inequitably and doubling down on that even once taints the system for everyone. TL;DR I agree that the system usually works. But for a mistake to be a mistake, Apple has to be prepared to fix the mistake, not double down on continuing to have different rules for different developers.

zepto 6y ago
Ok - but then the issue is - what actually constitutes a mistake? In the Hey case it does seem like Apple was simply applying it’s rules, and DHH didn’t quite understand them. As for the justice system - all justice systems are radically tainted in this way. No system has ever been created which does not have this problem, in all of human history. If you are expecting Apple to achieve perfect justice, that is fair enough, but it’s also fair to acknowledge that it’s an unsolved problem. It’s also simply not reasonable for developers to be ‘in fear of capricious rejections’. It’s fairly predictable, or easily resolved in most cases.
- adamlett 6y ago
  In the Hey case it does seem like Apple was simply applying it’s rules, and DHH didn’t quite understand them. I was far from simply applying the rules. The only documented rule they were applying was the one, which states that you must use Apple's in-app purchase if you offer sign-up within the app. There are many high profile apps (Netflix, Kindle, Fastmail etc) that require paid memberships but which don't offer sign-up within the app (not to mention several apps that Basecamp already offer in the app store), and Apple has apparently been fine with those for a long time. For that reason, Basecamp had every reason to think that they were in compliance with both the letter of the guideline as well as Apple's interpretation of it. The distinction between what Apple calls reader apps and whatever they deem an email app to be, as well as the consumer/business distinction that an Apple spokesperson also offered as an explanation to one publication, are not mentioned in the app store review guidelines, and Apple has not talked about them before, so how on earth can DHH be blamed for not understanding that these distinctions mattered?

zepto 6y ago

Ok - but then the issue is - what actually constitutes a mistake? In the Hey case it does seem like Apple was simply applying it’s rules, and DHH didn’t quite understand them. As for the justice system - all justice systems are radically tainted in this way. No system has ever been created which does not have this problem, in all of human history. If you are expecting Apple to achieve perfect justice, that is fair enough, but it’s also fair to acknowledge that it’s an unsolved problem. It’s also simply not reasonable for developers to be ‘in fear of capricious rejections’. It’s fairly predictable, or easily resolved in most cases.

adamlett 6y ago
In the Hey case it does seem like Apple was simply applying it’s rules, and DHH didn’t quite understand them. I was far from simply applying the rules. The only documented rule they were applying was the one, which states that you must use Apple's in-app purchase if you offer sign-up within the app. There are many high profile apps (Netflix, Kindle, Fastmail etc) that require paid memberships but which don't offer sign-up within the app (not to mention several apps that Basecamp already offer in the app store), and Apple has apparently been fine with those for a long time. For that reason, Basecamp had every reason to think that they were in compliance with both the letter of the guideline as well as Apple's interpretation of it. The distinction between what Apple calls reader apps and whatever they deem an email app to be, as well as the consumer/business distinction that an Apple spokesperson also offered as an explanation to one publication, are not mentioned in the app store review guidelines, and Apple has not talked about them before, so how on earth can DHH be blamed for not understanding that these distinctions mattered?