4 ms·

Anecdotally, it caught a good 80-90%+ of instances where users touched their face. No, it's absolutely not perfect, but it was an app I built over a weekend and

Anecdotally, it caught a good 80-90%+ of instances where users touched their face. No, it's absolutely not perfect, but it was an app I built over a weekend and I never billed it as a medical app. On their request, I even removed all references to health. It was always meant to help nudge people towards awareness of touching their face and didn't need to be 100% accurate. By the end (and the website doesn't show the latest screenshots since I gave up updating it after getting the run around for weeks), it was even so neutral it didn't make a claim that touching your face was even good or bad. You could have interpreted it as a trainer to touch your face more if you wanted.

askafriend 6y ago
> No, it's absolutely not perfect, but it was an app I built over a weekend and I never billed it as a medical app. As a consumer, I'm glad Apple rejected your app. I don't want these kinds of amateur operations in the App Store when it has anything to do with health. I'd much rather Apple have an iron grip when it comes to this even if it pisses off developers.
- andrewmunsell 6y ago
  So rather than let consumers make educated choices, you'd rather Apple apply arbitrary guidelines to each app differently? Because that's what they've been doing. The app itself never was designed as a medical app, and is no different than any other "health" app that counted your jumping jacks. It doesn't make any health claims, and increases your awareness of a hand motion you make. It does nothing more.
  - askafriend 6y ago
    > So rather than let consumers make educated choices I'm a consumer. I've decided I want Apple to arbitrate relationships for me - so yes. I pay a premium to enter their ecosystem because they make decisions that I've been happy with for decades. They've also made decisions that I'm not happy about but on balance, over the multi-decade relationship - I cede control to them and am happy to. I explicitly want them to. This is the same reason I stuck with HomeKit - I trusted Apple despite HomeKit having far fewer compatible devices than other smart home ecosystem due to more stringent and more expensive certification required of 3rd parties. A couple years later, HomeKit still isn't perfect but now people are dealing with the explosion of insecure, shoddy 3rd party smart home / IOT devices. Turns out HomeKit is more secure against those kind of vulnerabilities and Apple does things like force 3rd parties to adopt secure streaming APIs before allowing any streaming video products onto the platform (like video doorbells, as an example). It's a very different approach and I explicitly appreciate it at the cost of 3rd parties. The choice I've made as a consumer is that I want a platform that is closed off and top down. If I didn't like it, I would have gone to Android to enjoy the benefits of a platform with a different perspective.
    - andrewmunsell 6y ago
      That's a totally valid opinion and I can respect that, and I have benefited from the "walled garden" approach myself. But as a developer, Apple seems to be going in a bad direction in terms of quality control. We clearly do not see a lot of the junk and malware they do reject, and I am 100% certain that their review process has screen many of this stuff out. But, there's numerous examples in the broader comment thread (and anti-trust investigations, etc.), that indicate they are being too heavy handed. That's entirely my opinion, though.
- benologist 6y ago
  Why do you think GitHub does not have this problem? There are actual "hello world" apps on GitHub but literally nobody is adversely affected by it even when they download popular software by other developers.
- graeme 6y ago
  This is a thin argument: the app seems genuinely useful. What harm are you envisioning? Please spell out what could go wrong with the app. If the app is terrible users can leave bad reviews and point out shortfalls.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  May I ask why are the vast majority of your comments about Apple? I'm not calling you a paid shill but I don't understand what it takes to defend a company on anonymous internet forum so much. Do you work for them?
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Anyone who disagrees with you can only be a shill? I’m an iOS developer who frequently defends Apple on these forums because the walked garden is hugely lucrative for me and other developers. I don’t want it to be permanently damaged by poorly thought through regulation or restrictions, just because Apple occasionally screws up in App Review or a wealthy game developer thinks revenue share is only for poor developers.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      No, because I’m not paid to defend Apple. I can say whatever I want, and nothing I say will add or subtract a single penny from my pocket. What it gives me is a different perspective, than the average developer who hasn’t thought through why the App Store is so lucrative fir developers.
    - bootloop 6y ago
      > Anyone who disagrees with you can only be a shill? > I’m an iOS developer who frequently defends Apple on these forums because the walked garden is hugely lucrative for me and other developers. If this is your only motivation isn't that the (exact) definition of a paid shill?
      - Chlorus 6y ago
        …That is not, in fact, the (exact) definition of a paid shill. Apple would have to be paying him conditionally, with the sole intent of him advertising / defending / whatever, regardless of his actual personal opinion. He just has a clear vested interest in the platform as is. Would we all be FOSS shills for making our living with OSS software & continuing to advocate for the conditions that make that possible?
valuearb 6y ago
I was just wondering if they had some reasonable basis for not wanting an inaccurate app doing this. But I can’t really see one.
- andrewmunsell 6y ago
  I cannot be 100% certain whether they tested the accuracy of the app, but it was never mentioned to me that it didn't perform to expectations, just that the app concept itself was in violation of their guidelines. In fact, the rejection in iTunes Connect shows a "Metadata Rejection".

askafriend 6y ago

> No, it's absolutely not perfect, but it was an app I built over a weekend and I never billed it as a medical app. As a consumer, I'm glad Apple rejected your app. I don't want these kinds of amateur operations in the App Store when it has anything to do with health. I'd much rather Apple have an iron grip when it comes to this even if it pisses off developers.

andrewmunsell 6y ago
So rather than let consumers make educated choices, you'd rather Apple apply arbitrary guidelines to each app differently? Because that's what they've been doing. The app itself never was designed as a medical app, and is no different than any other "health" app that counted your jumping jacks. It doesn't make any health claims, and increases your awareness of a hand motion you make. It does nothing more.
- askafriend 6y ago
  > So rather than let consumers make educated choices I'm a consumer. I've decided I want Apple to arbitrate relationships for me - so yes. I pay a premium to enter their ecosystem because they make decisions that I've been happy with for decades. They've also made decisions that I'm not happy about but on balance, over the multi-decade relationship - I cede control to them and am happy to. I explicitly want them to. This is the same reason I stuck with HomeKit - I trusted Apple despite HomeKit having far fewer compatible devices than other smart home ecosystem due to more stringent and more expensive certification required of 3rd parties. A couple years later, HomeKit still isn't perfect but now people are dealing with the explosion of insecure, shoddy 3rd party smart home / IOT devices. Turns out HomeKit is more secure against those kind of vulnerabilities and Apple does things like force 3rd parties to adopt secure streaming APIs before allowing any streaming video products onto the platform (like video doorbells, as an example). It's a very different approach and I explicitly appreciate it at the cost of 3rd parties. The choice I've made as a consumer is that I want a platform that is closed off and top down. If I didn't like it, I would have gone to Android to enjoy the benefits of a platform with a different perspective.
  - andrewmunsell 6y ago
    That's a totally valid opinion and I can respect that, and I have benefited from the "walled garden" approach myself. But as a developer, Apple seems to be going in a bad direction in terms of quality control. We clearly do not see a lot of the junk and malware they do reject, and I am 100% certain that their review process has screen many of this stuff out. But, there's numerous examples in the broader comment thread (and anti-trust investigations, etc.), that indicate they are being too heavy handed. That's entirely my opinion, though.
benologist 6y ago
Why do you think GitHub does not have this problem? There are actual "hello world" apps on GitHub but literally nobody is adversely affected by it even when they download popular software by other developers.
graeme 6y ago
This is a thin argument: the app seems genuinely useful. What harm are you envisioning? Please spell out what could go wrong with the app. If the app is terrible users can leave bad reviews and point out shortfalls.
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
May I ask why are the vast majority of your comments about Apple? I'm not calling you a paid shill but I don't understand what it takes to defend a company on anonymous internet forum so much. Do you work for them?
- valuearb 6y ago
  Anyone who disagrees with you can only be a shill? I’m an iOS developer who frequently defends Apple on these forums because the walked garden is hugely lucrative for me and other developers. I don’t want it to be permanently damaged by poorly thought through regulation or restrictions, just because Apple occasionally screws up in App Review or a wealthy game developer thinks revenue share is only for poor developers.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    No, because I’m not paid to defend Apple. I can say whatever I want, and nothing I say will add or subtract a single penny from my pocket. What it gives me is a different perspective, than the average developer who hasn’t thought through why the App Store is so lucrative fir developers.
  - bootloop 6y ago
    > Anyone who disagrees with you can only be a shill? > I’m an iOS developer who frequently defends Apple on these forums because the walked garden is hugely lucrative for me and other developers. If this is your only motivation isn't that the (exact) definition of a paid shill?
    - Chlorus 6y ago
      …That is not, in fact, the (exact) definition of a paid shill. Apple would have to be paying him conditionally, with the sole intent of him advertising / defending / whatever, regardless of his actual personal opinion. He just has a clear vested interest in the platform as is. Would we all be FOSS shills for making our living with OSS software & continuing to advocate for the conditions that make that possible?

valuearb 6y ago

I was just wondering if they had some reasonable basis for not wanting an inaccurate app doing this. But I can’t really see one.

andrewmunsell 6y ago
I cannot be 100% certain whether they tested the accuracy of the app, but it was never mentioned to me that it didn't perform to expectations, just that the app concept itself was in violation of their guidelines. In fact, the rejection in iTunes Connect shows a "Metadata Rejection".