38 ms·

App Review process updates

541 points by BigBalli 6y ago

9wzYQbTYsAIc 6y ago
> For apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. You’ll instead be able to address guideline violations in your next submission.
nixpulvis 6y ago
So we just slip in our third party app stores in "bug fixes" now? Or what exactly is a legal issue?
- foobarding 6y ago
  My question exactly.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 6y ago
  Presumably both those guidelines issues that stem from a guideline based on legislation (apps that support criminality, etc) and those that stem from active or pending court cases.
- Despegar 6y ago
  Bad faith actors probably aren't going to get away with rules lawyering.
- Gaelan 6y ago
  What used to happen is this: You release version v1.0, with something that's borderline under Apple's policies. Apple approves it. You release version v1.1, with just bug fixes. Apple decides what you did in 1.0 wasn't OK after all, so you can't release your bug fix until you're removed whatever apple thinks is noncompliant. This happened with Hey, for example.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    That happened 3 years after our app launched, a reviewer decided we were violating a guidelines and held up all our App releases until the WWDC when they announced changes to the guidelines that would permit what we were doing. We still had to an an executive involved for them to re-review the app and approve our backlog of bug fixes.
  - fooey 6y ago
    This happens to us constantly We sell a business tool, once the business account is upgraded, the rest of it just pay per seat linked to that org. All our sales are done over the phone, so we don't need to accept payments in app. We never ever tell you in the app how you can upgrade to the premium version. We never even link to our own damn website out of fear of Apple's wrath. About 1/4 of the times we submit big fixes or feature updates we lose the game of Apple Review Roulette, and get denied. So we have to do an appeal and explain it all, again, and so far at least, the 2nd tier always approves it. Practically, it just means that everything we do with Apple, you have to plan for it to take 2 weeks
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      > Practically, it just means that everything we do with Apple, you have to plan for it to take 2 weeks Not only that, there is always the chance that 2nd tier support will stop approving your app and then your users will be stuck with a version of the app that needs bug fixes that Apple won't allow to ship.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      You kids have it easy. My first App was held up for 6 weeks due to its name! Back then even standard App Review with no problems took a week minimum. It is so much faster now.
  - the_gipsy 6y ago
    Happened all the time at my old job. I will never, ever, work on apple software again.
- virgilp 6y ago
  > Or what exactly is a legal issue? A bugfix to Fortnite.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 6y ago
> And now, in addition to appealing decisions about whether an app violates guidelines, you can suggest changes to the guidelines.
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  And this has already been used successfully by GuardianVPN https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1299777657744142336 https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1299777657744142336
  - benologist 6y ago
    This story keeps floating around but the reality is Apple saw a $0.99 in-app purchase for a one-day pass, interpreted that as a one-day non-recurring subscription, which they don't support, but they demanded subscription billing be used instead of in app purchases. They conceded this utterly pointless problem they invented for the developer. Developers have been arguing against these for years, stupid rejections were once so common that Apple threatened against revealing them to the press in the official guidelines [1]. It's yet to be seen if they will cave on any issues like emulators, or apps mocking President Xi, or Xbox streaming, or external billing, full web browsers, transparency about their transaction fees, porn etc. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    Maybe. Their app already wasn't violating the guidelines. I suspect an Apple reviewer misunderstood and Apple's "we'll update the guidelines" is just "we'll clarify the existing policy without changing it".
_qulr 6y ago
My update, which has a new feature but no bug fixes, is currently in limbo because the reviewer is getting mysterious proxy connection errors that no customer of mine has ever reported. I saw another developer today say their app was "rejected" because the reviewer asked "How does the app utilize Touch Bar and where can we locate these features?" This kind of crap happens all the time, and I don't see anything in this announcement that will help. App review is just plain incompetent and terrible.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
  > the reviewer asked "How does the app utilize Touch Bar and where can we locate these features?" This kind of arrogant behavior really makes me mad.
  - donarb 6y ago
    Why is this arrogant? If they are asking about the Touch Bar, it's most likely because the developer mentioned adding some feature to the Touch Bar in the release notes and it is not apparent what that feature is. You can't advertise something that doesn't exist.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      No, the developer did not mention Touch Bar in the release notes, and the app has no specific Touch Bar features. Nothing about Touch Bar is required in the App Store guidelines.
      - dsl 6y ago
        You either referenced NSTouchBar or included a library that did so. Sometimes it is as simple as a error reporting library or ad network client trying to enumerate the device hardware. The Human Interface Guidelines explicitly lay out what is allowed and not allowed with the Touch Bar. For example, you can't turn it in to an extended display. https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/macos/touch-bar/touch-bar-overview/ https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
MBCook 6y ago
For those thinking ‘they already announced this’, you’re right. The change, as I understand it, is that today the policy goes into effect.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I wonder how intentional it is that Apple chose to terminate Epic Games' developer account one business day prior to this going into effect. Epic Games presumably can't access the form since it can't log in. (And obviously they don't want to screw with the Unreal Engine's Apple account on this fight.)
  - mythz 6y ago
    This was announced before Epic violated the ToS whose account was terminated after the 14 days to comply with the App Store rules had elapsed. This has an exception that still wouldn't allow Epic's games to remain in store: > bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      I agree this was indeed announced prior to the Epic Games event, but Apple chose when to remove their developer account. Apple absolutely had the leeway to remove an app violating their terms (which at that point, the account is no longer violating the policy), but not close out the entire account. The choice to do that was punitive, because they really want Epic to roll back the change for revenue reasons. I am not sure "they sued Apple" counts as a "legal reason" for blocking the app. Not giving Apple a cut of sales isn't illegal. (Note the judge during the TRO hearing felt both companies were being stubborn here, as whether Epic removed the payment method or Apple allowed the app, the winning company to get back their monetary impact upon the conclusion of the case. Keeping the app off the store is "making a point" more than actually protecting any revenue on either side.)
      - valuearb 6y ago
wlesieutre 6y ago
Original announcement for reference: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-developer-technologies-to-foster-the-next-generation-of-apps/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-dev... > Additionally, two changes are coming to the app review process and will be implemented this summer. First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself. Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission.
- croes 6y ago
  >First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself. Sounds good, but Apple still can just simply say no.
  - mmastrac 6y ago
    The supreme court of Apple's review process will still be the press and bad publicity, I see.
    - croes 6y ago
      That only works for big players like Epic. As a single developer doesn't get this kind of attention.
      - mmastrac 6y ago
        Oh yes, I totally agree and this is one of the reasons I think that Apple has abused their iOS AppStore monopoly. Only players with similar clout have the ability to fight back.
  - wlesieutre 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
root_axis 6y ago
I work on an e-commerce app, we were rejected because one of our screeenshots depicts a Microsoft surface. Only Apple products are allowed to be shown...
- ghostbrainalpha 6y ago
  That sucks, but at least you got a clear statement of their issue and its relatively quick to resolve. How long did it take them to approve you after you properly communicated your enthusiasm for Apple products?
  - matwood 6y ago
    App store review and release is normally counted as hours now. The rules around showing other products are very clear. I know everyone reads the problem stories, but for the large majority of cases the App store rejection/fix cycle is detailed and easy. For us, it's usually a doh! on our part, fix and resend.
- benrbray 6y ago
  If this isn't an abusive monopoly position, I don't know what is.
  - dangus 6y ago
    Interesting, I didn’t know all it took was a 22.85% marketshare to become a monopoly. I wonder if Sony will let me put a picture of an Xbox One on my PS4 game.
    - qmarchi 6y ago
      Market share in this case is only one piece of the puzzle. Even if they make up 22% of market share (globally, it's 60% in the US), iOS usually makes it up in number of paying users.
      - dangus 6y ago
bambax 6y ago
> guideline violations What a language! How could "guidelines" ever be "violated"? Rules? Injunctions? Yes. Guidelines? No. Rules is too harsh certainly, so let's use guidelines instead. But since the underlying meaning does not change, words lose connection to reality. We think we are creating a softer and kinder world, but the opposite is true. If a guideline is actually an order, what's an order?
- dathinab 6y ago
  It would be fun to try to sue Apple for misleading their customers (devs are customers, they pay yearly) and try to force them (and Google) to change the wording to correctly use rules. That's if you have a lot of throwaway money and you don't like charity.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Customer protections in most countries do not apply to business deals.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - damnyou 6y ago
      Would that also be true if you are an independent developer? Why should individual developers releasing apps not get full customer protections? Treating all developers as businesses is part of the problem here I think. There should be more bespoke apps by individuals for small audiences — more of a community feel to things.
      - emteycz 6y ago
        Apple does not have to cater to independent developers - and it doesn't, per the Developer Agreement contract. Initially you weren't able to develop apps for the iPhone at all - that is okay too. You are not entitled to get a open computing platform if the thing resembles an... Actually, they defined this form factor!
dathinab 6y ago
Sounds good, but we will see if it fully honest. My guess is it still work well for all accidental friction but won't help at all with friction Apple put in place intentionally. Through if the appeal goes through a different person then the reviewer it might help with unreasonable reviewers (which Apple isn't probably to happy with either as they are prone to create bad PR)
- ehsankia 6y ago
  I'm curious to see too, because my instinct is that accidental frictions are actually a very large chunk of the problems people have. At the scale that Apple works, even a 0.1% of updates being wrongly flagged probably meant dozens per day, and it's really annoying for a dev to have to deal with the inconsistency of randomly getting flagged for something that was fine a week ago.
slg 6y ago
How does Apple determine if an update is a bug fix or a new submission?
- dmix 6y ago
  No new features, it just fixes bugs? Bugs being broken existing code. This was a big complaint that DHH was making for the Hey email app. Hey couldn't push a new bug fix update in the timeframe it took to mitigate an existing complaint regarding outside subscriptions. So they had to keep a buggy app in the App Store in the meantime.
- jmull 6y ago
  I’m guessing the way this is going to work in practice is an update would be allowed if it contains a violation but the violating behavior is substantially the same as the existing version but had not previously been flagged. New violating behaviors and existing violations behaviors that had previously been flagged would prevent the update from being approved.
- CodeWriter23 6y ago
  Probably by what you write in the release notes during submission.
- anticensor 6y ago
  Automatically by edit distance?
pier25 6y ago
I have a feeling these suggestions will basically be a black hole, much like all feedback mechanisms Apple provides. I would like to be proved wrong though.
arkokoley 6y ago
We think we are creating a softer and kinder world, but the opposite is true. If a guideline is actually an order, what's an order?
makecheck 6y ago
I was once rejected because my one-window app didn’t have a Minimize button...for a game...that primarily runs in Full Screen. Other rejections were at least as pointless, every time leaving a bad taste in my mouth and making me wonder why they wasted as much time as they did. The breaking point for me was when the reviewer refused to allow my minor update in because it “crashed” in an unreleased minor OS update that I literally could not acquire at the time. I removed my app from the Mac App Store the same day and haven’t been back. It is a petty, pointless, and infuriating experience, which wouldn’t bother me so much if it wasn’t abundantly clear how much trash still makes it into the store and how inconsistent they are. I recommend that everyone use the “suggestion” box to suggest removing App Review entirely.
- wp381640 6y ago
  If it's ever revealed that app reviewers have rejection quotas or some other bullshit internal metric that is driving this I would be the least surprised
  - krspykrm 6y ago
    Internal metrics, yes. If another reviewer finds an issue in an app that you reviewed, then you get your score docked, so reviewers have an incentive to whine about everything, since there's no penalty for bringing up issues that aren't actually issues and wasting everyone's time.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      Is this speculation, or do you have insider knowledge?
- Reason077 6y ago
  I think the first reason is a legitimate criteria. Any app that has a window is definitely expected to have a minimise button - it's very strange behaviour if it doesn't, and even games that normally run full screen should have this button when placed in windowed mode. The second reason certainly sounds infuriating, but it's odd that the reviewer had access to an OS update that you didn't. In general, a crash on the latest OS update is a good reason for rejection because you're going to have to fix it sooner or later anyway. Better to fix it now rather than have to come back to it later.
pier25 6y ago
An update to a Mac app I was working on was rejected because it used some permissions. The reviewer claimed those were not needed but, not only those permissions were needed, previous versions of the app had those same permissions. We sent our comments to the reviewer and never got an answer back. A couple of days later we appealed to the review board and the update was accepted in a matter of hours. Not sure what happened there. Our guess was that maybe Apple was testing some kind of automated process that failed. I don't remember the details, but we were using UDP features in the app and the permissions were related to being able to receive and send UDP packets.
- xxpor 6y ago
  I'm shocked they have permissions that are that granular. I can understand "network access" in general, but having to ask specifically for UDP?
  - pier25 6y ago
    Not so much required for UDP specifically, but for being able to open a socket and receive packets.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Veedrac 6y ago
    Better overly granular than overly coarse.
alex_c 6y ago
>Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission. This is good news. We've had instances in the past where a critical bug fix was delayed because of a completely unrelated and minor issue with the update (for example: issues with the store listing content that was approved in previous updates but now rejected). This was a bad experience for everyone involved. Obviously for developers, but I'm still not sure how much Apple cares about that. But more importantly for users, who may be stuck with a broken or unsafe app for another day or more for relatively trivial reasons. I think this change is made in good faith by Apple. Of course there are always bad actors who may try to game it, but overall it should improve the process for developers and users.
yarsanich 6y ago
Hmm...I have huge delays in reviewing my app to TestFlight from yesterday (previously it was maximum half day). Maybe that's the reason?
staysaasy 6y ago
It's interesting to observe the difference between Apple's great treatment of consumers and their actions towards businesses that they interact with, as the App Store is fundamentally a b2b experience. It really highlights the difference between consumer and enterprise DNA.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  Apple does not have great treatment of consumers. It’s very inconsistent, so it sometimes feels great. But if you’ve ever had an idiot at a store totally misdiagnose an issue with a MacBook and force you to pay for repairs to faulty hardware that’s under warranty, you’ll realize there is actually no official escalation process.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Apples customer satisfaction has been the highest in the industry for decades, and it’s never even been close. The occasional genius mistake doesn’t the undo the many, many interactions they get right, go the extra mile, and help customers beyond specific warranty limitations.
andrewmunsell 6y ago
A while ago, I developed an Apple Watch app that detected when you raised your hand and touched your face and notified you so that you could build a habit avoiding doing so (https://www.facealert.app https://www.facealert.app). Apple stretched out the review process before rejecting the app, and after I escalated to tcook's email address, I received a call from their team telling me my app took "measurements the Apple Watch was not designed to support". This, of course, is complete BS since the whole point of generalizable sensors and Apple's ML tools is to build apps to add new capabilities to the device, otherwise all we'd have are map and messaging apps. And it's slightly comical that they added the feature to detect hand washing in the newest WatchOS, something the Apple Watch "was not originally designed to support". I'm fairly certain they didn't want to have any part or apparent liability for the app if it "didn't work correctly", nevermind the app did not mention COVID, disease, or anything else controversial. There was always a way to "escalate" or "appeal" a review, so any new processes are smoke and mirrors. Apple will always reject whatever they want to reject until they're forced otherwise by a regulatory body.
- digi59404 6y ago
  I too was confused by this. What they’re talking about in terms of escalate or appeal - Is to escalate or appeal the rule directly. I.e. Say “hey I’m blocked because I violate this rule. The rule needs to be changed.” Previously it was “hey, I’m blocked because you said I violate this rule. But I don’t really because X” One is saying a reviewer messed up, another is saying the guidelines are wrong.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ur-whale 6y ago
  To paraphrase a famous line: We don't care, we don't have to, we're Apple.
  - js4ever 6y ago
    This one also works pretty well if you replace Apple by Google
anfilt 6y ago
Till they allow users to side load any changes are just platitudes.
- valuearb 6y ago
  If iOS is ever forced to allow side-loading, it becomes far less attractive to its core market.
  - augustt 6y ago
    Its core market does not even know what side-loading refers to.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    You can already sideload on iOS (with no jailbreak) - it is admittedly janky though. I sideload a YouTube Vanced - like app on all my devices
    - judge2020 6y ago
      To clarify, side-loaded apps are only signed with a certificate valid for 7 days if you're on a regular, non-developer Apple account. If you pay $99/yr for the developer account, that is increased to 1 year. There are workarounds being worked on for this - one being AltStore [1] (does not allow arbitrary IPAs yet). You can also sideload on Windows/Linux with Cydia Impactor[0] - on Mac you can use either impactor or xcode/CLI tools to sign IPAs. 0: http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/ http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/ 1: https://altstore.io/ https://altstore.io/
      - valuearb 6y ago
        You can also use the enterprise program to distribute up to 10,000 copies duectly (might actually be more now).
      - tech234a 6y ago
        A few minor corrections: AltStore does allow sideloading arbitrary IPAs, even on the non-Patreon version, and IIRC Cydia Impactor is currently broken for free accounts.
trainerfu 6y ago
We’ve been making white-label apps for fitness businesses for a few years now. Our white label app allows fitness businesses to deliver better personal training experience to their clients. Personal trainers and their clients can use the app to plan and track workouts, track progress, chat with each other etc. Recently, Apple started rejecting our white-label app because allegedly we are breaking their "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline. As per the guideline, if a business is selling digital content on other platforms that’s accessible inside the iOS app then those items should also be available as an in-app purchase on the iOS app too. This was very surprising because we always thought personal training services to fall under the category of "goods and services" and not digital content. And as per guideline “3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App” we aren’t even allowed to use in-app purchase selling services. But Apple reviewers disagree that our app falls under the “services” category. According to reviewers, since clients are getting "digital value" from the app we therefore must add an in-app purchase to the app. We are ready to add a free tier to the app. But that is a no-go solution. We must add in-app purchases of some kind to get the apps approved. The "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline does not make sense. You can use the same guideline to force any for-profit business that offers anything useful inside an iOS app to add an in-app purchase. How is this even allowed? By the same reasoning apps built for physical therapists, doctors should add in-app purchases too? And why is Uber not giving a 30% cut? Their customers do get digital-value inside the app. Not sure if this new change can actually help us.
- pier25 6y ago
  So much is open to interpretation and Apple is not even consistently applying their own rules, ah sorry, guidelines.
  - holoduke 6y ago
    They are consistent. Bigger publishers get away with much less bullshit than smaller ones. Once you are big enough you get your own apple account manager which makes business a lot easier.
    - 6y ago
ehvatum 6y ago
It’s all become too much. I’m deprecating Apple support at my company. Current company-owned Apple devices may continue to be used, and any BYOD is fine if it doesn’t run an Oracle DB instance, but we will no longer pay for repairs to Apple devices and we will not pay to replace them with Apple devices. We have about $45k original MSRP of Apple equipment, so it’s not a big deal, except to us. The trend of Apple hardware and software problems soaking up an increasing amount of time would reach the ultimate limit of complete 24/7 time consumption by the year 2031, if the current trend were allowed to continue. We are in the robotic manufacturing sector, and also we have a lumber mill for some reason.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  As a developer of a couple of open source macOS apps, I couldn't have said it better myself.
  - grishka 6y ago
    I don't quite understand people complaining about macOS apps. You aren't forced to publish in the app store. You can still disable Gatekeeper. You can disable code signature and entitlement enforcement altogether, although the process is messy. There's still nothing technically stopping you from avoiding Apple policies.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      You can try to understand why macOS developers are frustrated with Apple by reading some of these[1] comments on HN. > You aren't forced to publish in the app store. If you don't pay $100 each year to Apple, macOS will treat your app as if it is radioactive. If your users don't know the magic security ritual to run un-notarized apps is, the app will just appear to be broken. > You can still disable Gatekeeper. Yes, if you're a power user. Apple is removing the ability to easily run un-notarized software in future macOS releases. > There's still nothing technically stopping you from avoiding Apple policies. Apple's literal technical limitations for distribution and execution of applications for apps that can't make it through Apple's approval process for notarization prevents users from using the applications they downloaded but Apple doesn't approve of. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24276406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24276406
fuu_dev 6y ago
I am not very knowledgeable of the US law but a law websiste² does point out that anti competitive behavior is punishable, a monopoly position is not. I personally would label a lot of things apple does (like e.g. not allowing game streaming from 3rd parties, not allowing the use of other browsers, not allow people to use existing payment infrastructure, ...) as anti competitive. A layer on youtube³ however says throughout multiple videos that epic has a (if even)very weak case and apple is in the right. I would be interested to have someone break it down to understand the case. [2]https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/ [3]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5RTzzeCFurWTPLm8usDkQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5RTzzeCFurWTPLm8usDkQ
rriepe 6y ago
Consumers are the discerning ones. Developers will put up with anything.
ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
That should be interesting. Most of my bounces are guideline issues. I just released four apps over the weekend, and one of them was like "guideline ping-pong," until I got it right. Usually, I am forced to agree with them, but every now and then, I get a true Whiskey Tango Foxtrot one.
greatgib 6y ago
There is so much corporate bullshit and hypocrisy in so few words, that if feel like vomiting when I read they announcement. Am I the only one?
klambda 6y ago
I would like the current state to improve so thought of submitting feedback on Apple's program page. Unfortunately the "Provide Feedback" (https://developer.apple.com/app-store/tell-us/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/tell-us/) page reads: "We’ll be back soon." No more comments...
munawwar 6y ago
I have deprecated my apps on Apple Store. I cant even put a message saying I am going to remove my app in couple months to my current users without another app review. Anyway, after reading the comments here, I am glad I am not supporting this mess.
szundi 6y ago
I submitted the same stuff with different comments 3 times. 3rd time it was accepted. lol
craigmcnamara 6y ago
Two weeks ago I had an update rejected because we decided to remove Login with Facebook from our app. The plugin that provides that support to Cordova is a dependency nightmare and not many people used it anyways so we removed it during a bugfix and dependency update. We got flagged for only supporting Google as a 3rd party login and basically forced to implement Apple ID sign in to release our fixes. Since adding support we've been further held up from releases because we require an existing account for Apple ID sign in to work and they rejected us for not allowing the QA account to sign in, while completely disregarding the use of the QA user account and password that we've always provided for the review process. tl;dr Because of the broken App Store review process we've just removed 3rd party auth support from our app, which is a shame because it's a really slick sign in experience, but we don't want to deal with bugfix releases being held up in review.
GhostVII 6y ago
Apple should make a two tiered app review process - one which checks if the app meets their guidelines around UI/advertising/etc and one which just checks if it is malware or not. Then in the app store they can downrank anything that doesn't meet their guidelines, keeping the quality apps more visible, without entirely removing apps for dumb things like not having a minimize button.
jariel 6y ago
Someone, including a few very big names like Netrlix, Wikipedia etc. need to coordinate an 'app store strike' and pull their apps for a week. Big brands won't have to worry as their downloads will pick up the week after, though it will piss off some of their customers. It will however create a massive, international PR storm over the issue, and every press outlet in the world will be talking about it widely. If the PR is well messaged and coordinated, it can be made into an anti-trust populist issue, which will hit the vein of some Democratic lawmakers who may in a couple of months be empowered to move on it.
Dahoon 6y ago
It is hilarious to read threads about Apple's app reviews. Every single time there's something about Google Play lots of commenters praise Apple but in reality it is at least just as bad.
jordansmithnz 6y ago
Like other commenters here, I’ve also experienced app rejections that seem arbitrary and fail to look at the bigger picture. I don’t have any proof of this, but I have a suspicion that app reviewers may need to meet some sort of rejection quota. It would certainly explain some of the frivolous rejections I’ve seen. Reviewers must be evaluated and held to account by some standards, so it doesn’t seem too far fetched to think that some sort of rejection ratio may be applied, or at least tracked somewhere. If this is the case, it’s not necessarily an easy problem to solve. How you you enforce a consistent quality bar without using some reviewer KPI/metric that’s inherently flawed? This being said: rejecting apps for menial reasons does not seem like the right compromise to make.
Yetanfou 6y ago
Stop releasing software for Apple products. Release for Windows, release for Android, release for Linux where applicable but ignore Apple. If enough people do this Apple will either give in and loosen their stranglehold or they'll see their platforms loose shine. I predict they'll loosen their stranglehold to keep up sales and their stock price. This will be a good thing for both users and - in the end - the company.
zakki 6y ago
Reading the threads, I can see that Apple AppStore is not a gate to keep their customers safe (security, frauds, etc) anymore. It is to get more profits for the company by forcing more rule on 30% sales on every app.
no_wizard 6y ago
I see a lot of comments regarding the App Review process and lack of competition in this space as to why the App Review process is broken, in regards to App review. A different take: I don't think App Review would exist on a competing 'App Store' on iOS. Fundamentally, if any review took place at all, it's going to be automated only. I don't see any competitor being able to withstand the cost of having humans review Apps going into their stores, nor do I see any players who could afford it have an incentive to do so if they can just push users to an App Store they don't have deal with in this way. For instance, I couldn't find any indication that the Amazon AppStore has any human intervention for the reviewing of applications submitted [0][1], and not without issues[2]. Notoriously, Google is automating everything they can about the app review process, across both Google Play and The Chrome WebStore[3][4] and its a dumpster fire[5]. Comparing this to the iOS App Store, its at least a league cut above the rest here, and there are many justified criticisms and problems with it as well. I think what we need is firm transparency of app store policies, and frankly I think App Review should include more about what code is exactly the issue (or at least, what APIs aren't being used correctly, or what have you), and give specific, detailed examples, rather than often undetailed responses that help nobody through the submission process. The hostility here is the problem, as with other issues that are re-occurent recently, I think Apple wins by providing more transparency and less opaque in the process. I don't know if the consumer really wants an alternative app store (I know developers do, but thats really not the question at the end of the day, if Apple suitably changes course on managing the existing store) I don't think its competition thats the problem, as we've seen on Android, it doesn't show merit that this actually makes things better, or that consumers are really interested in having this competition in the space. [0]https://developer.amazon.com/docs/app-submission/understanding-submission.html#overview-of-the-app-submission-process https://developer.amazon.com/docs/app-submission/understandi... [1]Granted, I read through their docs, and I never saw any reference to a "reviewer". Everything about this makes it sound like an automated API that runs a bunch of tests, responds back to you with failures, rinse and repeat. Not saying this is bad, but its worthwhile to consider, perhaps [2]https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/07/amazon-appstore-game-developer-pulls-app-highlights-problems/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/07/amazon-appstore-game... [3]https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/faq#faq-gen-08 https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/faq#faq-gen-08 [4]https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/02/15/tasker-briefly-disappears-from-the-play-store-due-to-automated-removal/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/02/15/tasker-briefly-disa... [5]https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41111992/google-play-android-review-process https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41111992/google-play-and...
Waterluvian 6y ago
Everyone’s anecdotes make me wonder if the review drones have an implicit or explicit rejection quota they’re pushed to meet.
sgc 6y ago
How do you guys put up with this level of arbitrary and have your livelihood depend on it? I am working on a new business plan and cannot work around that we most likely absolutely must have an ios app. And if that app is rejected our business might fold once we are on that path. It just feels like an insane amount of risk to engage with a very money hungry company with capricious rule enforcement.
herf 6y ago
App Review should be more transparent and more public. For instance, even without naming an app, the reasons for rejection by category could be public. In the bigger discussion, we don't know if "difficult" cases like the ones in this thread are common, if the approval process is used against whole categories of apps, if competitors are being harmed, or perhaps if it's more about fine-tuning user experience, and bad developer experiences are rare. Right now, there are many awful stories (and many successful apps), and we don't know how long companies and developers spend trying to resolve problems like these. If the App Store is the modern market for software, the lack of transparency is a big issue, and developers would feel more comfortable making a multiple-year investment to bring a product to iOS if they could see what's likely to happen in advance.
bww 6y ago
The fact that Apple seems to think it is effectively responding to the mounting discontent with their stewardship of the App Store by offering developers a form to complain into demonstrates how far out of touch they’ve become. We know from court documents that exactly these sorts of developer concerns have been discussed at the highest levels of Apple's leadership and they have consistently failed to make any meaningful policy changes. What Apple is offering now is merely an official process for disregarding this sort of criticism. I’m sure anyone who is considering investing significant effort or resources into products built on Apple platforms will be completely reassured by this gesture – especially knowing how receptive Apple has been to criticism of its policies in the past. This press release reads to me like “Here’s Your Complaint Form, Jerk”[1]. [1] https://slate.com/technology/2010/07/apple-s-condescending-iphone-4-press-conference.html https://slate.com/technology/2010/07/apple-s-condescending-i...
throwaway69123 6y ago
Its afraid.
tekkiweb 6y ago
that's good!
tommilukkarinen 6y ago
This kind of change would be welcome to Google Play as well. I would submit immediately.
rcarmo 6y ago
Ah, so this is probably why I couldn’t log in to a fresh Xcode install yesterday to get signing certs.
MobileVet 6y ago
Our latest update was failed because the first screen didn’t respond to touch on iPad. We pulled our hair out trying to replicate it. I asked what model iPad and they just replied with ‘13.6.1 on an iPad.’ We started digging further. We ran it on Xcode 12 (beta) and reproduced the problem. I asked if they were testing on a physical device or the simulator. They directly denied that... but said the issue had cleared up and we were passed. No code change of course... so tell me how this magically ‘cleared up’? Frustrating
tyrex2017 6y ago
Maybe an opportunity to change their 30% model? It could be a path towards building a case to change their pricing. I may be be wishfulthinking, though.

541 points by BigBalli 6y ago

> For apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. You’ll instead be able to address guideline violations in your next submission.

nixpulvis 6y ago

So we just slip in our third party app stores in "bug fixes" now? Or what exactly is a legal issue?

foobarding 6y ago
My question exactly.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 6y ago
Presumably both those guidelines issues that stem from a guideline based on legislation (apps that support criminality, etc) and those that stem from active or pending court cases.
Despegar 6y ago
Bad faith actors probably aren't going to get away with rules lawyering.
Gaelan 6y ago
What used to happen is this: You release version v1.0, with something that's borderline under Apple's policies. Apple approves it. You release version v1.1, with just bug fixes. Apple decides what you did in 1.0 wasn't OK after all, so you can't release your bug fix until you're removed whatever apple thinks is noncompliant. This happened with Hey, for example.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  That happened 3 years after our app launched, a reviewer decided we were violating a guidelines and held up all our App releases until the WWDC when they announced changes to the guidelines that would permit what we were doing. We still had to an an executive involved for them to re-review the app and approve our backlog of bug fixes.
- fooey 6y ago
  This happens to us constantly We sell a business tool, once the business account is upgraded, the rest of it just pay per seat linked to that org. All our sales are done over the phone, so we don't need to accept payments in app. We never ever tell you in the app how you can upgrade to the premium version. We never even link to our own damn website out of fear of Apple's wrath. About 1/4 of the times we submit big fixes or feature updates we lose the game of Apple Review Roulette, and get denied. So we have to do an appeal and explain it all, again, and so far at least, the 2nd tier always approves it. Practically, it just means that everything we do with Apple, you have to plan for it to take 2 weeks
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > Practically, it just means that everything we do with Apple, you have to plan for it to take 2 weeks Not only that, there is always the chance that 2nd tier support will stop approving your app and then your users will be stuck with a version of the app that needs bug fixes that Apple won't allow to ship.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    You kids have it easy. My first App was held up for 6 weeks due to its name! Back then even standard App Review with no problems took a week minimum. It is so much faster now.
- the_gipsy 6y ago
  Happened all the time at my old job. I will never, ever, work on apple software again.
virgilp 6y ago
> Or what exactly is a legal issue? A bugfix to Fortnite.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 6y ago

> And now, in addition to appealing decisions about whether an app violates guidelines, you can suggest changes to the guidelines.

wlesieutre 6y ago
And this has already been used successfully by GuardianVPN https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1299777657744142336 https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1299777657744142336
- benologist 6y ago
  This story keeps floating around but the reality is Apple saw a $0.99 in-app purchase for a one-day pass, interpreted that as a one-day non-recurring subscription, which they don't support, but they demanded subscription billing be used instead of in app purchases. They conceded this utterly pointless problem they invented for the developer. Developers have been arguing against these for years, stupid rejections were once so common that Apple threatened against revealing them to the press in the official guidelines [1]. It's yet to be seen if they will cave on any issues like emulators, or apps mocking President Xi, or Xbox streaming, or external billing, full web browsers, transparency about their transaction fees, porn etc. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...
- IshKebab 6y ago
  Maybe. Their app already wasn't violating the guidelines. I suspect an Apple reviewer misunderstood and Apple's "we'll update the guidelines" is just "we'll clarify the existing policy without changing it".

_qulr 6y ago

My update, which has a new feature but no bug fixes, is currently in limbo because the reviewer is getting mysterious proxy connection errors that no customer of mine has ever reported. I saw another developer today say their app was "rejected" because the reviewer asked "How does the app utilize Touch Bar and where can we locate these features?" This kind of crap happens all the time, and I don't see anything in this announcement that will help. App review is just plain incompetent and terrible.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
> the reviewer asked "How does the app utilize Touch Bar and where can we locate these features?" This kind of arrogant behavior really makes me mad.
- donarb 6y ago
  Why is this arrogant? If they are asking about the Touch Bar, it's most likely because the developer mentioned adding some feature to the Touch Bar in the release notes and it is not apparent what that feature is. You can't advertise something that doesn't exist.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    No, the developer did not mention Touch Bar in the release notes, and the app has no specific Touch Bar features. Nothing about Touch Bar is required in the App Store guidelines.
    - dsl 6y ago
      You either referenced NSTouchBar or included a library that did so. Sometimes it is as simple as a error reporting library or ad network client trying to enumerate the device hardware. The Human Interface Guidelines explicitly lay out what is allowed and not allowed with the Touch Bar. For example, you can't turn it in to an extended display. https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/macos/touch-bar/touch-bar-overview/ https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...

MBCook 6y ago

For those thinking ‘they already announced this’, you’re right. The change, as I understand it, is that today the policy goes into effect.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I wonder how intentional it is that Apple chose to terminate Epic Games' developer account one business day prior to this going into effect. Epic Games presumably can't access the form since it can't log in. (And obviously they don't want to screw with the Unreal Engine's Apple account on this fight.)
- mythz 6y ago
  This was announced before Epic violated the ToS whose account was terminated after the 14 days to comply with the App Store rules had elapsed. This has an exception that still wouldn't allow Epic's games to remain in store: > bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    I agree this was indeed announced prior to the Epic Games event, but Apple chose when to remove their developer account. Apple absolutely had the leeway to remove an app violating their terms (which at that point, the account is no longer violating the policy), but not close out the entire account. The choice to do that was punitive, because they really want Epic to roll back the change for revenue reasons. I am not sure "they sued Apple" counts as a "legal reason" for blocking the app. Not giving Apple a cut of sales isn't illegal. (Note the judge during the TRO hearing felt both companies were being stubborn here, as whether Epic removed the payment method or Apple allowed the app, the winning company to get back their monetary impact upon the conclusion of the case. Keeping the app off the store is "making a point" more than actually protecting any revenue on either side.)
    - valuearb 6y ago

wlesieutre 6y ago

Original announcement for reference: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-developer-technologies-to-foster-the-next-generation-of-apps/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-dev... > Additionally, two changes are coming to the app review process and will be implemented this summer. First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself. Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission.

croes 6y ago
>First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself. Sounds good, but Apple still can just simply say no.
- mmastrac 6y ago
  The supreme court of Apple's review process will still be the press and bad publicity, I see.
  - croes 6y ago
    That only works for big players like Epic. As a single developer doesn't get this kind of attention.
    - mmastrac 6y ago
      Oh yes, I totally agree and this is one of the reasons I think that Apple has abused their iOS AppStore monopoly. Only players with similar clout have the ability to fight back.
- wlesieutre 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

root_axis 6y ago

I work on an e-commerce app, we were rejected because one of our screeenshots depicts a Microsoft surface. Only Apple products are allowed to be shown...

ghostbrainalpha 6y ago
That sucks, but at least you got a clear statement of their issue and its relatively quick to resolve. How long did it take them to approve you after you properly communicated your enthusiasm for Apple products?
- matwood 6y ago
  App store review and release is normally counted as hours now. The rules around showing other products are very clear. I know everyone reads the problem stories, but for the large majority of cases the App store rejection/fix cycle is detailed and easy. For us, it's usually a doh! on our part, fix and resend.
benrbray 6y ago
If this isn't an abusive monopoly position, I don't know what is.
- dangus 6y ago
  Interesting, I didn’t know all it took was a 22.85% marketshare to become a monopoly. I wonder if Sony will let me put a picture of an Xbox One on my PS4 game.
  - qmarchi 6y ago
    Market share in this case is only one piece of the puzzle. Even if they make up 22% of market share (globally, it's 60% in the US), iOS usually makes it up in number of paying users.
    - dangus 6y ago

bambax 6y ago

> guideline violations What a language! How could "guidelines" ever be "violated"? Rules? Injunctions? Yes. Guidelines? No. Rules is too harsh certainly, so let's use guidelines instead. But since the underlying meaning does not change, words lose connection to reality. We think we are creating a softer and kinder world, but the opposite is true. If a guideline is actually an order, what's an order?

dathinab 6y ago
It would be fun to try to sue Apple for misleading their customers (devs are customers, they pay yearly) and try to force them (and Google) to change the wording to correctly use rules. That's if you have a lot of throwaway money and you don't like charity.
- emteycz 6y ago
  Customer protections in most countries do not apply to business deals.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - damnyou 6y ago
    Would that also be true if you are an independent developer? Why should individual developers releasing apps not get full customer protections? Treating all developers as businesses is part of the problem here I think. There should be more bespoke apps by individuals for small audiences — more of a community feel to things.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      Apple does not have to cater to independent developers - and it doesn't, per the Developer Agreement contract. Initially you weren't able to develop apps for the iPhone at all - that is okay too. You are not entitled to get a open computing platform if the thing resembles an... Actually, they defined this form factor!

dathinab 6y ago

Sounds good, but we will see if it fully honest. My guess is it still work well for all accidental friction but won't help at all with friction Apple put in place intentionally. Through if the appeal goes through a different person then the reviewer it might help with unreasonable reviewers (which Apple isn't probably to happy with either as they are prone to create bad PR)

ehsankia 6y ago
I'm curious to see too, because my instinct is that accidental frictions are actually a very large chunk of the problems people have. At the scale that Apple works, even a 0.1% of updates being wrongly flagged probably meant dozens per day, and it's really annoying for a dev to have to deal with the inconsistency of randomly getting flagged for something that was fine a week ago.

slg 6y ago

How does Apple determine if an update is a bug fix or a new submission?

dmix 6y ago
No new features, it just fixes bugs? Bugs being broken existing code. This was a big complaint that DHH was making for the Hey email app. Hey couldn't push a new bug fix update in the timeframe it took to mitigate an existing complaint regarding outside subscriptions. So they had to keep a buggy app in the App Store in the meantime.
jmull 6y ago
I’m guessing the way this is going to work in practice is an update would be allowed if it contains a violation but the violating behavior is substantially the same as the existing version but had not previously been flagged. New violating behaviors and existing violations behaviors that had previously been flagged would prevent the update from being approved.
CodeWriter23 6y ago
Probably by what you write in the release notes during submission.
anticensor 6y ago
Automatically by edit distance?

pier25 6y ago

I have a feeling these suggestions will basically be a black hole, much like all feedback mechanisms Apple provides. I would like to be proved wrong though.

arkokoley 6y ago

We think we are creating a softer and kinder world, but the opposite is true. If a guideline is actually an order, what's an order?

makecheck 6y ago

I was once rejected because my one-window app didn’t have a Minimize button...for a game...that primarily runs in Full Screen. Other rejections were at least as pointless, every time leaving a bad taste in my mouth and making me wonder why they wasted as much time as they did. The breaking point for me was when the reviewer refused to allow my minor update in because it “crashed” in an unreleased minor OS update that I literally could not acquire at the time. I removed my app from the Mac App Store the same day and haven’t been back. It is a petty, pointless, and infuriating experience, which wouldn’t bother me so much if it wasn’t abundantly clear how much trash still makes it into the store and how inconsistent they are. I recommend that everyone use the “suggestion” box to suggest removing App Review entirely.

wp381640 6y ago
If it's ever revealed that app reviewers have rejection quotas or some other bullshit internal metric that is driving this I would be the least surprised
- krspykrm 6y ago
  Internal metrics, yes. If another reviewer finds an issue in an app that you reviewed, then you get your score docked, so reviewers have an incentive to whine about everything, since there's no penalty for bringing up issues that aren't actually issues and wasting everyone's time.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    Is this speculation, or do you have insider knowledge?
Reason077 6y ago
I think the first reason is a legitimate criteria. Any app that has a window is definitely expected to have a minimise button - it's very strange behaviour if it doesn't, and even games that normally run full screen should have this button when placed in windowed mode. The second reason certainly sounds infuriating, but it's odd that the reviewer had access to an OS update that you didn't. In general, a crash on the latest OS update is a good reason for rejection because you're going to have to fix it sooner or later anyway. Better to fix it now rather than have to come back to it later.

pier25 6y ago

An update to a Mac app I was working on was rejected because it used some permissions. The reviewer claimed those were not needed but, not only those permissions were needed, previous versions of the app had those same permissions. We sent our comments to the reviewer and never got an answer back. A couple of days later we appealed to the review board and the update was accepted in a matter of hours. Not sure what happened there. Our guess was that maybe Apple was testing some kind of automated process that failed. I don't remember the details, but we were using UDP features in the app and the permissions were related to being able to receive and send UDP packets.

xxpor 6y ago
I'm shocked they have permissions that are that granular. I can understand "network access" in general, but having to ask specifically for UDP?
- pier25 6y ago
  Not so much required for UDP specifically, but for being able to open a socket and receive packets.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Veedrac 6y ago
  Better overly granular than overly coarse.

alex_c 6y ago

>Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission. This is good news. We've had instances in the past where a critical bug fix was delayed because of a completely unrelated and minor issue with the update (for example: issues with the store listing content that was approved in previous updates but now rejected). This was a bad experience for everyone involved. Obviously for developers, but I'm still not sure how much Apple cares about that. But more importantly for users, who may be stuck with a broken or unsafe app for another day or more for relatively trivial reasons. I think this change is made in good faith by Apple. Of course there are always bad actors who may try to game it, but overall it should improve the process for developers and users.

yarsanich 6y ago

Hmm...I have huge delays in reviewing my app to TestFlight from yesterday (previously it was maximum half day). Maybe that's the reason?

staysaasy 6y ago

It's interesting to observe the difference between Apple's great treatment of consumers and their actions towards businesses that they interact with, as the App Store is fundamentally a b2b experience. It really highlights the difference between consumer and enterprise DNA.

akvadrako 6y ago
Apple does not have great treatment of consumers. It’s very inconsistent, so it sometimes feels great. But if you’ve ever had an idiot at a store totally misdiagnose an issue with a MacBook and force you to pay for repairs to faulty hardware that’s under warranty, you’ll realize there is actually no official escalation process.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Apples customer satisfaction has been the highest in the industry for decades, and it’s never even been close. The occasional genius mistake doesn’t the undo the many, many interactions they get right, go the extra mile, and help customers beyond specific warranty limitations.

andrewmunsell 6y ago

A while ago, I developed an Apple Watch app that detected when you raised your hand and touched your face and notified you so that you could build a habit avoiding doing so (https://www.facealert.app https://www.facealert.app). Apple stretched out the review process before rejecting the app, and after I escalated to tcook's email address, I received a call from their team telling me my app took "measurements the Apple Watch was not designed to support". This, of course, is complete BS since the whole point of generalizable sensors and Apple's ML tools is to build apps to add new capabilities to the device, otherwise all we'd have are map and messaging apps. And it's slightly comical that they added the feature to detect hand washing in the newest WatchOS, something the Apple Watch "was not originally designed to support". I'm fairly certain they didn't want to have any part or apparent liability for the app if it "didn't work correctly", nevermind the app did not mention COVID, disease, or anything else controversial. There was always a way to "escalate" or "appeal" a review, so any new processes are smoke and mirrors. Apple will always reject whatever they want to reject until they're forced otherwise by a regulatory body.

digi59404 6y ago
I too was confused by this. What they’re talking about in terms of escalate or appeal - Is to escalate or appeal the rule directly. I.e. Say “hey I’m blocked because I violate this rule. The rule needs to be changed.” Previously it was “hey, I’m blocked because you said I violate this rule. But I don’t really because X” One is saying a reviewer messed up, another is saying the guidelines are wrong.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ur-whale 6y ago
To paraphrase a famous line: We don't care, we don't have to, we're Apple.
- js4ever 6y ago
  This one also works pretty well if you replace Apple by Google

anfilt 6y ago

Till they allow users to side load any changes are just platitudes.

valuearb 6y ago
If iOS is ever forced to allow side-loading, it becomes far less attractive to its core market.
- augustt 6y ago
  Its core market does not even know what side-loading refers to.
- jjcon 6y ago
  You can already sideload on iOS (with no jailbreak) - it is admittedly janky though. I sideload a YouTube Vanced - like app on all my devices
  - judge2020 6y ago
    To clarify, side-loaded apps are only signed with a certificate valid for 7 days if you're on a regular, non-developer Apple account. If you pay $99/yr for the developer account, that is increased to 1 year. There are workarounds being worked on for this - one being AltStore [1] (does not allow arbitrary IPAs yet). You can also sideload on Windows/Linux with Cydia Impactor[0] - on Mac you can use either impactor or xcode/CLI tools to sign IPAs. 0: http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/ http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/ 1: https://altstore.io/ https://altstore.io/
    - valuearb 6y ago
      You can also use the enterprise program to distribute up to 10,000 copies duectly (might actually be more now).
    - tech234a 6y ago
      A few minor corrections: AltStore does allow sideloading arbitrary IPAs, even on the non-Patreon version, and IIRC Cydia Impactor is currently broken for free accounts.

trainerfu 6y ago

We’ve been making white-label apps for fitness businesses for a few years now. Our white label app allows fitness businesses to deliver better personal training experience to their clients. Personal trainers and their clients can use the app to plan and track workouts, track progress, chat with each other etc. Recently, Apple started rejecting our white-label app because allegedly we are breaking their "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline. As per the guideline, if a business is selling digital content on other platforms that’s accessible inside the iOS app then those items should also be available as an in-app purchase on the iOS app too. This was very surprising because we always thought personal training services to fall under the category of "goods and services" and not digital content. And as per guideline “3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App” we aren’t even allowed to use in-app purchase selling services. But Apple reviewers disagree that our app falls under the “services” category. According to reviewers, since clients are getting "digital value" from the app we therefore must add an in-app purchase to the app. We are ready to add a free tier to the app. But that is a no-go solution. We must add in-app purchases of some kind to get the apps approved. The "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline does not make sense. You can use the same guideline to force any for-profit business that offers anything useful inside an iOS app to add an in-app purchase. How is this even allowed? By the same reasoning apps built for physical therapists, doctors should add in-app purchases too? And why is Uber not giving a 30% cut? Their customers do get digital-value inside the app. Not sure if this new change can actually help us.

pier25 6y ago
So much is open to interpretation and Apple is not even consistently applying their own rules, ah sorry, guidelines.
- holoduke 6y ago
  They are consistent. Bigger publishers get away with much less bullshit than smaller ones. Once you are big enough you get your own apple account manager which makes business a lot easier.
  - 6y ago

ehvatum 6y ago

It’s all become too much. I’m deprecating Apple support at my company. Current company-owned Apple devices may continue to be used, and any BYOD is fine if it doesn’t run an Oracle DB instance, but we will no longer pay for repairs to Apple devices and we will not pay to replace them with Apple devices. We have about $45k original MSRP of Apple equipment, so it’s not a big deal, except to us. The trend of Apple hardware and software problems soaking up an increasing amount of time would reach the ultimate limit of complete 24/7 time consumption by the year 2031, if the current trend were allowed to continue. We are in the robotic manufacturing sector, and also we have a lumber mill for some reason.

heavyset_go 6y ago
As a developer of a couple of open source macOS apps, I couldn't have said it better myself.
- grishka 6y ago
  I don't quite understand people complaining about macOS apps. You aren't forced to publish in the app store. You can still disable Gatekeeper. You can disable code signature and entitlement enforcement altogether, although the process is messy. There's still nothing technically stopping you from avoiding Apple policies.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    You can try to understand why macOS developers are frustrated with Apple by reading some of these[1] comments on HN. > You aren't forced to publish in the app store. If you don't pay $100 each year to Apple, macOS will treat your app as if it is radioactive. If your users don't know the magic security ritual to run un-notarized apps is, the app will just appear to be broken. > You can still disable Gatekeeper. Yes, if you're a power user. Apple is removing the ability to easily run un-notarized software in future macOS releases. > There's still nothing technically stopping you from avoiding Apple policies. Apple's literal technical limitations for distribution and execution of applications for apps that can't make it through Apple's approval process for notarization prevents users from using the applications they downloaded but Apple doesn't approve of. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24276406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24276406

fuu_dev 6y ago

I am not very knowledgeable of the US law but a law websiste² does point out that anti competitive behavior is punishable, a monopoly position is not. I personally would label a lot of things apple does (like e.g. not allowing game streaming from 3rd parties, not allowing the use of other browsers, not allow people to use existing payment infrastructure, ...) as anti competitive. A layer on youtube³ however says throughout multiple videos that epic has a (if even)very weak case and apple is in the right. I would be interested to have someone break it down to understand the case. [2]https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/ [3]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5RTzzeCFurWTPLm8usDkQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5RTzzeCFurWTPLm8usDkQ

rriepe 6y ago

Consumers are the discerning ones. Developers will put up with anything.

ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago

That should be interesting. Most of my bounces are guideline issues. I just released four apps over the weekend, and one of them was like "guideline ping-pong," until I got it right. Usually, I am forced to agree with them, but every now and then, I get a true Whiskey Tango Foxtrot one.

greatgib 6y ago

There is so much corporate bullshit and hypocrisy in so few words, that if feel like vomiting when I read they announcement. Am I the only one?

klambda 6y ago

I would like the current state to improve so thought of submitting feedback on Apple's program page. Unfortunately the "Provide Feedback" (https://developer.apple.com/app-store/tell-us/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/tell-us/) page reads: "We’ll be back soon." No more comments...

munawwar 6y ago

I have deprecated my apps on Apple Store. I cant even put a message saying I am going to remove my app in couple months to my current users without another app review. Anyway, after reading the comments here, I am glad I am not supporting this mess.

szundi 6y ago

I submitted the same stuff with different comments 3 times. 3rd time it was accepted. lol

craigmcnamara 6y ago

Two weeks ago I had an update rejected because we decided to remove Login with Facebook from our app. The plugin that provides that support to Cordova is a dependency nightmare and not many people used it anyways so we removed it during a bugfix and dependency update. We got flagged for only supporting Google as a 3rd party login and basically forced to implement Apple ID sign in to release our fixes. Since adding support we've been further held up from releases because we require an existing account for Apple ID sign in to work and they rejected us for not allowing the QA account to sign in, while completely disregarding the use of the QA user account and password that we've always provided for the review process. tl;dr Because of the broken App Store review process we've just removed 3rd party auth support from our app, which is a shame because it's a really slick sign in experience, but we don't want to deal with bugfix releases being held up in review.

GhostVII 6y ago

Apple should make a two tiered app review process - one which checks if the app meets their guidelines around UI/advertising/etc and one which just checks if it is malware or not. Then in the app store they can downrank anything that doesn't meet their guidelines, keeping the quality apps more visible, without entirely removing apps for dumb things like not having a minimize button.

jariel 6y ago

Someone, including a few very big names like Netrlix, Wikipedia etc. need to coordinate an 'app store strike' and pull their apps for a week. Big brands won't have to worry as their downloads will pick up the week after, though it will piss off some of their customers. It will however create a massive, international PR storm over the issue, and every press outlet in the world will be talking about it widely. If the PR is well messaged and coordinated, it can be made into an anti-trust populist issue, which will hit the vein of some Democratic lawmakers who may in a couple of months be empowered to move on it.

Dahoon 6y ago

It is hilarious to read threads about Apple's app reviews. Every single time there's something about Google Play lots of commenters praise Apple but in reality it is at least just as bad.

jordansmithnz 6y ago

Like other commenters here, I’ve also experienced app rejections that seem arbitrary and fail to look at the bigger picture. I don’t have any proof of this, but I have a suspicion that app reviewers may need to meet some sort of rejection quota. It would certainly explain some of the frivolous rejections I’ve seen. Reviewers must be evaluated and held to account by some standards, so it doesn’t seem too far fetched to think that some sort of rejection ratio may be applied, or at least tracked somewhere. If this is the case, it’s not necessarily an easy problem to solve. How you you enforce a consistent quality bar without using some reviewer KPI/metric that’s inherently flawed? This being said: rejecting apps for menial reasons does not seem like the right compromise to make.

Yetanfou 6y ago

Stop releasing software for Apple products. Release for Windows, release for Android, release for Linux where applicable but ignore Apple. If enough people do this Apple will either give in and loosen their stranglehold or they'll see their platforms loose shine. I predict they'll loosen their stranglehold to keep up sales and their stock price. This will be a good thing for both users and - in the end - the company.

zakki 6y ago

Reading the threads, I can see that Apple AppStore is not a gate to keep their customers safe (security, frauds, etc) anymore. It is to get more profits for the company by forcing more rule on 30% sales on every app.

no_wizard 6y ago

I see a lot of comments regarding the App Review process and lack of competition in this space as to why the App Review process is broken, in regards to App review. A different take: I don't think App Review would exist on a competing 'App Store' on iOS. Fundamentally, if any review took place at all, it's going to be automated only. I don't see any competitor being able to withstand the cost of having humans review Apps going into their stores, nor do I see any players who could afford it have an incentive to do so if they can just push users to an App Store they don't have deal with in this way. For instance, I couldn't find any indication that the Amazon AppStore has any human intervention for the reviewing of applications submitted [0][1], and not without issues[2]. Notoriously, Google is automating everything they can about the app review process, across both Google Play and The Chrome WebStore[3][4] and its a dumpster fire[5]. Comparing this to the iOS App Store, its at least a league cut above the rest here, and there are many justified criticisms and problems with it as well. I think what we need is firm transparency of app store policies, and frankly I think App Review should include more about what code is exactly the issue (or at least, what APIs aren't being used correctly, or what have you), and give specific, detailed examples, rather than often undetailed responses that help nobody through the submission process. The hostility here is the problem, as with other issues that are re-occurent recently, I think Apple wins by providing more transparency and less opaque in the process. I don't know if the consumer really wants an alternative app store (I know developers do, but thats really not the question at the end of the day, if Apple suitably changes course on managing the existing store) I don't think its competition thats the problem, as we've seen on Android, it doesn't show merit that this actually makes things better, or that consumers are really interested in having this competition in the space. [0]https://developer.amazon.com/docs/app-submission/understanding-submission.html#overview-of-the-app-submission-process https://developer.amazon.com/docs/app-submission/understandi... [1]Granted, I read through their docs, and I never saw any reference to a "reviewer". Everything about this makes it sound like an automated API that runs a bunch of tests, responds back to you with failures, rinse and repeat. Not saying this is bad, but its worthwhile to consider, perhaps [2]https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/07/amazon-appstore-game-developer-pulls-app-highlights-problems/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/07/amazon-appstore-game... [3]https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/faq#faq-gen-08 https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/faq#faq-gen-08 [4]https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/02/15/tasker-briefly-disappears-from-the-play-store-due-to-automated-removal/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/02/15/tasker-briefly-disa... [5]https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41111992/google-play-android-review-process https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41111992/google-play-and...

Waterluvian 6y ago

Everyone’s anecdotes make me wonder if the review drones have an implicit or explicit rejection quota they’re pushed to meet.

sgc 6y ago

How do you guys put up with this level of arbitrary and have your livelihood depend on it? I am working on a new business plan and cannot work around that we most likely absolutely must have an ios app. And if that app is rejected our business might fold once we are on that path. It just feels like an insane amount of risk to engage with a very money hungry company with capricious rule enforcement.

herf 6y ago

App Review should be more transparent and more public. For instance, even without naming an app, the reasons for rejection by category could be public. In the bigger discussion, we don't know if "difficult" cases like the ones in this thread are common, if the approval process is used against whole categories of apps, if competitors are being harmed, or perhaps if it's more about fine-tuning user experience, and bad developer experiences are rare. Right now, there are many awful stories (and many successful apps), and we don't know how long companies and developers spend trying to resolve problems like these. If the App Store is the modern market for software, the lack of transparency is a big issue, and developers would feel more comfortable making a multiple-year investment to bring a product to iOS if they could see what's likely to happen in advance.

bww 6y ago

The fact that Apple seems to think it is effectively responding to the mounting discontent with their stewardship of the App Store by offering developers a form to complain into demonstrates how far out of touch they’ve become. We know from court documents that exactly these sorts of developer concerns have been discussed at the highest levels of Apple's leadership and they have consistently failed to make any meaningful policy changes. What Apple is offering now is merely an official process for disregarding this sort of criticism. I’m sure anyone who is considering investing significant effort or resources into products built on Apple platforms will be completely reassured by this gesture – especially knowing how receptive Apple has been to criticism of its policies in the past. This press release reads to me like “Here’s Your Complaint Form, Jerk”[1]. [1] https://slate.com/technology/2010/07/apple-s-condescending-iphone-4-press-conference.html https://slate.com/technology/2010/07/apple-s-condescending-i...

throwaway69123 6y ago

Its afraid.

tekkiweb 6y ago

that's good!

tommilukkarinen 6y ago

This kind of change would be welcome to Google Play as well. I would submit immediately.

rcarmo 6y ago

Ah, so this is probably why I couldn’t log in to a fresh Xcode install yesterday to get signing certs.

MobileVet 6y ago

Our latest update was failed because the first screen didn’t respond to touch on iPad. We pulled our hair out trying to replicate it. I asked what model iPad and they just replied with ‘13.6.1 on an iPad.’ We started digging further. We ran it on Xcode 12 (beta) and reproduced the problem. I asked if they were testing on a physical device or the simulator. They directly denied that... but said the issue had cleared up and we were passed. No code change of course... so tell me how this magically ‘cleared up’? Frustrating

tyrex2017 6y ago

Maybe an opportunity to change their 30% model? It could be a path towards building a case to change their pricing. I may be be wishfulthinking, though.