5 ms·

> In November last year the App Review team made it clear that our apps were not welcome in the Store anymore as they actively removed our main app from the Sto

> In November last year the App Review team made it clear that our apps were not welcome in the Store anymore as they actively removed our main app from the Store. They pointed to the rule (2.26) created just a couple of years ago about what kind of apps can recommend apps other than its own (by the way I still believe my apps fit the description). We of course have been aware of this rule since it came out, as we already had a healthy business and significant payroll doing app journalism. When we saw some apps get removed, it made us more steadfast in our mission. Because we believed the fact that we were not bothered is because we were doing it the "right 11 way. We were really serving the user and the App Store. Not selling fake "recommendations" as deceptive ads. We literally turned down millions of dollars in revenues, as developers repeatedly asked to pay per install to be featured in our app (outside of tradition advertising). It was hard to turn down the money even though we knew it was not right to users. One thing that made it easier is our belief that playing it straight would keep us in the App Store and in Apple's good graces. The rule exists for precisely the reason this email notes: to prevent the selling of deceptive in-app ads. How are App Review personnel supposed to know if the in-app links to other apps are there to really "serve the user" or as paid advertising? They can't, hence the rule. I don't see this is a problem, I see this as a good thing - I don't want to be exposed to deceptive advertising.

dessant 6y ago
You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device, which is fine. But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices? Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval? You are free to stay in the walled garden if you wish, but I think there is something disturbing about rallying for others to also lose the rights that are not important to you.
- tptacek 6y ago
  This is a boring, off-topic response. You can litigate the entire concept of app review anywhere, and you can attach a response like this to practically any comment supporting any app review rule. A better response would take direct aim at the guideline this comment is referring to.
  - dessant 6y ago
    The main issue is not the app review process, but the missing alternatives to the App Store on iPhones, and I think arguing about more just App Store rules is not the solution, but a distraction to our eroding right to control our own devices.
    - Ansil849 6y ago
      > our eroding right to control our own devices. If you want to frame this as an ideological debate over freedom of user choice, instead of a very specific debate about a very specific App Store rule (even though the latter, and not the former, is what the email in the OP is about), then sure: you have the choice to select a device with a tightly-controlled ecosystem. You also have the choice not to. It was your choice to obtain this device, knowing full well that it would be tightly controlled. Or if you didn't know, you also have the right to return the device and no longer use it.
    - askafriend 6y ago
      > the missing alternatives to the App Store on iPhones Get an Android phone and use the Play Store (or any of the 3rd party Android stores). The magic of a smartphone isn't only on iPhone and there's nothing you can do on iPhone that you can't do elsewhere.
      - m-p-3 6y ago
        Let me know when you find a decent alternative to Hindenburg [1] that work as well and that field reporter might want to actually use on Android. [1]: https://hindenburg.com/products/hindenburg-field-recorder https://hindenburg.com/products/hindenburg-field-recorder
- Ansil849 6y ago
  > You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device I am unclear on how you have made that inference based on me saying that I do not want deceptive advertising in apps. > Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval? No, I think that if users _want_ to download malware, spyware, or simply ad-laden apps, then they should certainly have the capability to do so (hence, sideloading). My suspicions however, is that outside of malware researchers, users do not want this. Meanwhile, do you think that users should be exposed to deceptive advertising in their apps?
- phone8675309 6y ago
  > But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices? If they did thirty seconds of research in the market they would see that there is a large ecosystem of devices that allow unsigned apps to be installed by the owner that they could have chosen.
  - dessant 6y ago
    This argument keeps being repeated, and it's basically just "if you don't like it, find a different platform". Do you think that's how our rights should be preserved, by hopping to places and platforms that respect our rights? Where do we leave those who have to live with their devices, or simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time, or things have changed and now they need to install apps that have not been approved by Apple. Wouldn't the solution be to offer people that need to live with their right to sideload apps on their devices an escape hatch, instead of telling them to change platforms?
    - Ansil849 6y ago
      > simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time What about the users who lacked the important knowledge that the apps they downloaded had deceptive advertising, or malware?
      - dessant 6y ago
        Are you arguing that because of the current possibility to install apps from third-party sources that might turn out to be malware, Windows should only allow installing apps from the Windows Store? Should we no longer be able to run software that has not received third-party approval?
        Ansil849 6y ago
        No, I am not arguing any of those things. Users should be able to sideload apps if they wish to enable sideloading and are fully cognizant of the risks. However, users who wish to use the official installation channel should be protected from malicious behaviours. This is why the official distribution channels have rules which block behaviour very open to malicious gaming, such as in-app links, which is what the OP is about. My argument is that the OP author should not be complaining about being kicked out of the official channel for violating the established rules.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I think you have the motivations of iOS users a little backwards. I use an iPhone specifically because I want and benefit from Apple strong-arming developers. Software is in a lot of cases non-fungible and so I gain exactly zero choice and freedom when a piece of software I need decides in the name of "freedom" to switch payment systems and app stores. I at least chose to buy an iPhone and want to use the App Store, the same can't be said for a would-be game that's exclusively on the Epic store. My only real choice as a user on most platforms is just not using an app, but Apple actually has some weight to throw around in my interest. It's technically not "choice" or "freedom" in the way you want but broadly they make the decisions I would have made and actually have the power to make it happen.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval? There are barely any devices these days which cannot meet the definition of "general purpose computing device" without drawing some arbitrary line somewhere. Certainly every modern game console qualifies. Are Roku boxes general purpose if it weren't for their locked down nature? I mean, I'm all for legislation saying you can't lock down products like this, I just don't think that's what the people advocating for this want in most cases. They just want special rules for iPhones in particular.
  - lelandbatey 6y ago
    While it's true that almost all computers these days use "general purpose computer hardware" (x86/ARM CPU, GPU of some kind, fast RAM, slower disk, networking, etc), that's not the same thing as being a "general purpose device". A quick search for the term "general purpose device" gives me definitions such as the following: Any computer-based device that accepts different applications. With this definition in mind, I say that a general purpose device is one that you expect to be able to use for general computer tasks, factoring in the "out of the box" input and output methods included with that device. On a Roku, since I have only a simple remote, I do not expect to be able to write an email. However, on an iPhone, with it's touch screen keyboard, I do expect to be able to type out an email. Likewise, I don't expect to be able to edit pictures and video on a Nintendo switch (even though it can record pictures and video of games) since all you have are controllers, while on an iPhone I do expect to be able to edit videos and pictures. It is the breadth of tasks supported by the hardware and made easy by the input methods that make a device "general purpose".
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      Like I said, arbitrary line drawing. The only reason you can't do photo editing on a switch is that Nintendo hasn't approved a photo editing app on its store. How is that really different than what Apple does?
      - 6y ago
- statop 6y ago
  You can side load apps https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.iclarified.com/52314/how-to-sideload-apps-onto-your-iphone-using-xcode/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.iclarified.com/52314/how-to...
- viro 6y ago
  what makes something a general purpose computing device?
- nuker 6y ago
  > You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device, which is fine. Yep, i'm very happy that privacy/security audit is done already by the app store. > But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices? This is tricky question. Suppose they can, after opt-in. 1) Tons of crap weather and flashlight and Coupons apps gets user data breached, scams ensue. 2) Incentive to build quality apps drops, as people install clone apps your profits will evaporate. 3) Malware
anomaloustho 6y ago
The original author of the email posted in this thread shortly after this comment that might add some color here. “I subsequently spoke to Phillip Shoemaker, who confirmed that Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it.” > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24190694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24190694
8note 6y ago
Based on what people have said in these threads, said app couldn't recommend apps like that because the Apple review system makes sure that there's no such apps to recommend. That's only a danger if the app review program doesn't work

dessant 6y ago

You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device, which is fine. But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices? Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval? You are free to stay in the walled garden if you wish, but I think there is something disturbing about rallying for others to also lose the rights that are not important to you.

tptacek 6y ago
This is a boring, off-topic response. You can litigate the entire concept of app review anywhere, and you can attach a response like this to practically any comment supporting any app review rule. A better response would take direct aim at the guideline this comment is referring to.
- dessant 6y ago
  The main issue is not the app review process, but the missing alternatives to the App Store on iPhones, and I think arguing about more just App Store rules is not the solution, but a distraction to our eroding right to control our own devices.
  - Ansil849 6y ago
    > our eroding right to control our own devices. If you want to frame this as an ideological debate over freedom of user choice, instead of a very specific debate about a very specific App Store rule (even though the latter, and not the former, is what the email in the OP is about), then sure: you have the choice to select a device with a tightly-controlled ecosystem. You also have the choice not to. It was your choice to obtain this device, knowing full well that it would be tightly controlled. Or if you didn't know, you also have the right to return the device and no longer use it.
  - askafriend 6y ago
    > the missing alternatives to the App Store on iPhones Get an Android phone and use the Play Store (or any of the 3rd party Android stores). The magic of a smartphone isn't only on iPhone and there's nothing you can do on iPhone that you can't do elsewhere.
    - m-p-3 6y ago
      Let me know when you find a decent alternative to Hindenburg [1] that work as well and that field reporter might want to actually use on Android. [1]: https://hindenburg.com/products/hindenburg-field-recorder https://hindenburg.com/products/hindenburg-field-recorder
Ansil849 6y ago
> You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device I am unclear on how you have made that inference based on me saying that I do not want deceptive advertising in apps. > Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval? No, I think that if users _want_ to download malware, spyware, or simply ad-laden apps, then they should certainly have the capability to do so (hence, sideloading). My suspicions however, is that outside of malware researchers, users do not want this. Meanwhile, do you think that users should be exposed to deceptive advertising in their apps?
phone8675309 6y ago
> But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices? If they did thirty seconds of research in the market they would see that there is a large ecosystem of devices that allow unsigned apps to be installed by the owner that they could have chosen.
- dessant 6y ago
  This argument keeps being repeated, and it's basically just "if you don't like it, find a different platform". Do you think that's how our rights should be preserved, by hopping to places and platforms that respect our rights? Where do we leave those who have to live with their devices, or simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time, or things have changed and now they need to install apps that have not been approved by Apple. Wouldn't the solution be to offer people that need to live with their right to sideload apps on their devices an escape hatch, instead of telling them to change platforms?
  - Ansil849 6y ago
    > simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time What about the users who lacked the important knowledge that the apps they downloaded had deceptive advertising, or malware?
    - dessant 6y ago
      Are you arguing that because of the current possibility to install apps from third-party sources that might turn out to be malware, Windows should only allow installing apps from the Windows Store? Should we no longer be able to run software that has not received third-party approval?
      - Ansil849 6y ago
        No, I am not arguing any of those things. Users should be able to sideload apps if they wish to enable sideloading and are fully cognizant of the risks. However, users who wish to use the official installation channel should be protected from malicious behaviours. This is why the official distribution channels have rules which block behaviour very open to malicious gaming, such as in-app links, which is what the OP is about. My argument is that the OP author should not be complaining about being kicked out of the official channel for violating the established rules.
Spivak 6y ago
I think you have the motivations of iOS users a little backwards. I use an iPhone specifically because I want and benefit from Apple strong-arming developers. Software is in a lot of cases non-fungible and so I gain exactly zero choice and freedom when a piece of software I need decides in the name of "freedom" to switch payment systems and app stores. I at least chose to buy an iPhone and want to use the App Store, the same can't be said for a would-be game that's exclusively on the Epic store. My only real choice as a user on most platforms is just not using an app, but Apple actually has some weight to throw around in my interest. It's technically not "choice" or "freedom" in the way you want but broadly they make the decisions I would have made and actually have the power to make it happen.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval? There are barely any devices these days which cannot meet the definition of "general purpose computing device" without drawing some arbitrary line somewhere. Certainly every modern game console qualifies. Are Roku boxes general purpose if it weren't for their locked down nature? I mean, I'm all for legislation saying you can't lock down products like this, I just don't think that's what the people advocating for this want in most cases. They just want special rules for iPhones in particular.
- lelandbatey 6y ago
  While it's true that almost all computers these days use "general purpose computer hardware" (x86/ARM CPU, GPU of some kind, fast RAM, slower disk, networking, etc), that's not the same thing as being a "general purpose device". A quick search for the term "general purpose device" gives me definitions such as the following: Any computer-based device that accepts different applications. With this definition in mind, I say that a general purpose device is one that you expect to be able to use for general computer tasks, factoring in the "out of the box" input and output methods included with that device. On a Roku, since I have only a simple remote, I do not expect to be able to write an email. However, on an iPhone, with it's touch screen keyboard, I do expect to be able to type out an email. Likewise, I don't expect to be able to edit pictures and video on a Nintendo switch (even though it can record pictures and video of games) since all you have are controllers, while on an iPhone I do expect to be able to edit videos and pictures. It is the breadth of tasks supported by the hardware and made easy by the input methods that make a device "general purpose".
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    Like I said, arbitrary line drawing. The only reason you can't do photo editing on a switch is that Nintendo hasn't approved a photo editing app on its store. How is that really different than what Apple does?
    - 6y ago
statop 6y ago
You can side load apps https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.iclarified.com/52314/how-to-sideload-apps-onto-your-iphone-using-xcode/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.iclarified.com/52314/how-to...
viro 6y ago
what makes something a general purpose computing device?
nuker 6y ago
> You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device, which is fine. Yep, i'm very happy that privacy/security audit is done already by the app store. > But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices? This is tricky question. Suppose they can, after opt-in. 1) Tons of crap weather and flashlight and Coupons apps gets user data breached, scams ensue. 2) Incentive to build quality apps drops, as people install clone apps your profits will evaporate. 3) Malware

anomaloustho 6y ago

The original author of the email posted in this thread shortly after this comment that might add some color here. “I subsequently spoke to Phillip Shoemaker, who confirmed that Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it.” > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24190694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24190694

8note 6y ago

Based on what people have said in these threads, said app couldn't recommend apps like that because the Apple review system makes sure that there's no such apps to recommend. That's only a danger if the app review program doesn't work