8 ms·

I used to be a pretty ardent defender of Apple's right to control their platform. Then, recently, I submitted an app to the App Store and experienced the proces

I used to be a pretty ardent defender of Apple's right to control their platform. Then, recently, I submitted an app to the App Store and experienced the process first hand. Kafkaesque is an overused term, but I've not been able to think of a better description. One of my rejections had the following text: > Your app uses a third-party login service, but does not offer Sign in with Apple. Apps that use a third-party login service for account identification need to offer Sign in with Apple... Please see the attached screenshot for details. This was the screenshot they mentioned: https://i.imgur.com/7QGLE6J.png https://i.imgur.com/7QGLE6J.png Amusingly, almost everyone I've shown this to is like "So Apple's AI is messed up, huh? Were you able to get in touch with a human?"

MattGaiser 5y ago
I have had that issue with Microsoft and when it existed, Blackberry as well. I just resubmit if I don't think the problem is real and half the time it works.
- dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
  That's what I did, and fortunately it's not come up again—yet. But it was a trip to experience first hand, and on my very first submission ever (!), what I'd been reading on this forum and others for years.
MichaelZuo 5y ago
That reason sounds pretty straightforward. Where’s the ambiguity in it?
- david_allison 5y ago
  It's the first button on the screenshot
- Macha 5y ago
  The screenshot they cite as evidence for the app offering other third party vendors but not apple for sign ins... shows Apple as the first sign in option
- asddubs 5y ago
  that the screenshot features a sign in with apple option
- nimih 5y ago
  If only the OP had provided a picture of their login screen, so that we could evaluate whether they're missing a "login with Apple" button and Apple is making a reasonable request, or whether such a button already exists and the OP is caught in a byzantine maze of confusing and contradictory instructions that they will only be able to escape through a combination of perseverance and blind luck.
  - dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
    For what it's worth, I must stress that they sent me that screenshot. > escape through a combination of perseverance and blind luck. It's funny you say that, because you know what I did finally provide? A bunch of 15-30 second videos demonstrating the salient features (sign in with apple, user safety features, how to get to terms of service and privacy statement, etc) that Apple wants to know about. After that the back-and-forth ended and my app got approved. But that may have just been a coincidence.
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    Perhaps I woke up in a strange parallel world given the downvotes but isn’t the usual assumption that a button for a feature != the feature actually working correctly? In other words the button, or sign in pathway, could have had some sort of ‘bug’. I assume that is why Apple’s system flagged it, otherwise we would have to believe that the folks working on Apple’s app store ‘sign in with AppleID’ review team are bozos and flagged, or had an AI that flagged, a working implementation that followed their guidelines? If that is the case then I agree since tens of thousands of apps have now implemented ‘sign in with AppleID’ a few months after a splashy introduction with undoubtably lots of behind the scenes attention it’s a pretty bizarre maze to get caught in.
- jldugger 5y ago
  I think we found the Safari Extension reviewer's HN handle!
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    To be honest, if that’s a well intentioned comment, it’s pretty bizarre, given your profile background. You automatically assumed: visible button = working feature without any bugs
    - jldugger 5y ago
      It's a joke, relax =) And there's a saying: familiarity breeds contempt.
neither_color 5y ago
Was it because of the Sign in with Apple button color? Always make sure that people can instantly identify your custom button as a Sign in with Apple button. If your custom button differs too much from the standard one, people may not feel comfortable using it to set up an account or sign in. App Review evaluates all custom Sign in with Apple buttons. https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/sign-in-with-apple/overview/buttons/#creating-a-custom-sign-in-with-apple-button https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
- dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
  I thought that might be the case but it doesn't seem so different from the version on the HIG[0] or the sample project[1]. I ended up replying something like "it's there, please look again. It's the first one." And it hasn't come up since then. But I've only submitted one build. Will see when I submit the next. [0] https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/sign-in-with-apple/overview/introduction/ https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline... [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationservices/implementing_user_authentication_with_sign_in_with_apple?language=objc https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationserv...
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  They usually point that out specifically though. Although maybe they proved their point with their review staff.
busymom0 5y ago
So you already had Sign in with Apple implemented yet they told you to add it? I had a similar experience for my Hacker News client. Apple rejected my app initially because they require developers to use SFSafariViewController instead of WKWebView when displaying third party websites from the app. I replied back to them that my app was already using SFSafariViewController and I didn't even have any WKWebView in the app so I wasn't sure what they were referring to. Then it got rejected second time with: "- The layout does not take advantage of the full screen - When tapping on some of the content, the right part of the screen populates with a white page with no content." To this I replied: > My app did take advantage of the full screen iPad experience. In fact that was one of my selling points that my app supports the iOS UISplitViewController for iPads which lets you view 2 view controllers at the same Time size by side. From the screenshot the reviewer sent, it appears they clicked on "New" (I could tell because the number of points and comments in the screenshot are all zero). Now since they clicked on "New", obviously, it won't show any comments and is what the reviewer saw. I had to ask the reviewer to try going to the main page and clicking on "Trending" or "Home" or "Best Stories" where they will see the full content? There is plenty of content and this takes advantage of the iOS native SDK for UISplitViewController. When you select a story on the left side, the detail story on the right shows the story discussion, threaded comments, ability to upvote/downvote, favoriting stories and comments (swipe left on a story or comment), view the full article by clicking on the link image on the right of a story, tap the reply button to reply to comments or stories, use the date picker to go to articles from a specific date, view leader boards of the top users, search for stories and comments etc. You can tap on comments to collapse the comment thread (not possible using a website). You can also swipe on a comment or post to upvote (left swipe), favorite (right swipe) which is also not possible using a website as these are only possible on touch screen devices. These are all implemented using native iOS SDK. UISplitViewController isn't even possible using a website. It almost seems like the review team simply launches an app and rejects things without taking the purpose of the app in context. Now to be fair to Apple, I develop for android too and good lord, they are even worse if your app happens to get caught by their "Artificial Unintelligence". You end up having to deal with a computer without any human on the other side unless you can make enough noise on social media and get some tech blogs to write about you as it happened recently with Droidscript: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26956077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26956077
busymom0 5y ago
> I used to be a pretty ardent defender of Apple's right to control their platform. Then I submitted an app to the App Store and experienced the process first hand. Kafkaesque is an overused term, but I've not been able to think of a better description. One of the main reasons I use against censorship of "offensive" content and why I have become a free speech absolutist. In fact, this whole Apple rejection thread applies to free speech too: https://twitter.com/thomasareed/status/1420831606227488772 https://twitter.com/thomasareed/status/1420831606227488772 > My last experience with a rejection that required appeal didn’t go so nicely. We ended up having to spend a couple months ripping a feature out and replacing it with something lesser… when other apps were already doing the thing we wanted to do. This was a few years ago, tho. > I feel you. We’ve had similar experiences. Really not fun and definitely not cheap for a small business. The worst thing is that you don’t always get the confidence that “fixing” what annoys apple will secure an approval. Definitely kills you inside. > Yeah, very true. Sometimes the rejection is very vague on exactly what needs to be fixed. That’s very frustrating. Have to say, though, I’m impressed with the outcome in this case, given how badly it started. > And the “ptsd” lingers a long time after experiencing that type of rejection from the app review. It’s definitely something tough as a business or even a dev to feel that powerlessness. You tend to self limit yourself which is not good for the product or the users in the end. The "PTSD" referred to here is what happens with censorship too where people self-censor because they don't want to get caught in the big tech "community guidelines" trap.
colordrops 5y ago
It's kind of bullshit too though that you are required to add an apple login.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  As a user I love it. More privacy for me.
  - elefanten 5y ago
    Agree. It's made me sign up for many services that I never would have otherwise.
  - ljm 5y ago
    Lol, privacy? You think that's what it is? Apple forces you to use in-app purchases, Apple forces you to stick with their crippled browser ecosystem, it has no compatibility outside of Apple. Their protocols for messaging and device interop are closed-source; they have tech that tracks all your devices + these new beacons, and all your devices are those beacons too. You are more heavily tracked under Apple than you are in any other system. Did you think your iphone would be a location tracker for another device?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      You're mixing up "privacy from Apple" and "privacy from random third-party developers when using 'Login with Apple' specifically".
    - fay59 5y ago
      You could have saved yourself a fair amount of embarrassment with just a little bit of reading. Apple can’t decrypt beacon locations. https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/sece994d0126/1/web/1 https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/sece994d0126/...
  - sneak 5y ago
    No. You can't get an Apple ID without providing a phone number, street address, and email address.
tasogare 5y ago
There are so much rules, yet for some reasons apps that are free to download but require a subscription at $30/month to do any action (so, not even a freemium model and arguably qualifiable of scam) are present in the store... Edit for the downvoters: I'm speaking of apps doing local data manipulation (in my case, I tried few photo collage apps), not something linked to a web service. Those should be one time purchase, not subscription based.
throwawaysea 5y ago
That’s just monopolist behavior masked as some kind of privacy user benefit. These companies are enjoying too much power and we need new modern anti trust regulations that can deal with companies that are operating in a market with more than one competitor but with reduced competitive elements.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  That is a bit harsh. I haven't once experienced a virus, or malware, with Apple. I'm not a fanboy. A human shouid review every app submission though. Maybe they do? The minute Apple lightens up on security, they know they will lose a lot of customers.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    If a company can achieve 70% margin (apple services), it's a clear sign that there's a lack of competition, or structurally anti-competitive elements. Why? Because normally if profit is that high, other players will see that and seek to compete in that market, thus driving down those margins. Certainly legislation shouldn't be based on a specific margin number, but if a company can achieve these kind of margins over the long run, then it's a clear warning sign. Where to draw the line for anti-trust is philosophical and up for debate, of course. In Apple's case, taking a 30% cut on all app store purchases is something that probably will be legislated against in the future. For AWS, charging excessively to egress your data and move to another platform is an anti-competitive tactic that will likely be disallowed. Current law does not appropriately account for the scale, power, and network effects that are of themselves anti competitive.
    - lbotos 5y ago
      > If a company can achieve 70% margin (apple services), it's a clear sign that there's a lack of competition, or structurally anti-competitive elements. "most SaaS companies should achieve gross margins in the 75%–80% range, depending on the level of professional services required to deploy the solutions." - https://leadedge.com/why-we-like-saas-businesses/ https://leadedge.com/why-we-like-saas-businesses/ Dropbox: " GAAP gross margin was 78.6%, as compared to 77.3% in the same period last year. Non-GAAP gross margin was 80.2%, as compared to 78.3% in the same period last year." - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210506006050/en/Dropbox-Announces-Fiscal-2021-First-Quarter-Results https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210506006050/en/Dro... You do realize that most SaaS based software business are targeting 70%+ margin? Are they all structurally anti-competitive?
eljimmy 5y ago
This happened to us on an update submission we made. We hadn’t changed anything with the sign in screen and they suddenly rejected us for it. Turned out they were just being more strict about the actual styling of the Apple sign in button as they want it to look identical in every app essentially.
- userbinator 5y ago
  Turned out they were just being more strict about the actual styling of the Apple sign in button as they want it to look identical in every app essentially. Then why couldn't they have just said that, instead of an (almost passive-aggressive) "your app doesn't have Sign in with Apple" bullshit reason?
  - samename 5y ago
    Bureaucracies love boilerplate text
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      So do software developers, especially with respect to error messages.

MattGaiser 5y ago

I have had that issue with Microsoft and when it existed, Blackberry as well. I just resubmit if I don't think the problem is real and half the time it works.

dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
That's what I did, and fortunately it's not come up again—yet. But it was a trip to experience first hand, and on my very first submission ever (!), what I'd been reading on this forum and others for years.

MichaelZuo 5y ago

That reason sounds pretty straightforward. Where’s the ambiguity in it?

david_allison 5y ago
It's the first button on the screenshot
Macha 5y ago
The screenshot they cite as evidence for the app offering other third party vendors but not apple for sign ins... shows Apple as the first sign in option
asddubs 5y ago
that the screenshot features a sign in with apple option
nimih 5y ago
If only the OP had provided a picture of their login screen, so that we could evaluate whether they're missing a "login with Apple" button and Apple is making a reasonable request, or whether such a button already exists and the OP is caught in a byzantine maze of confusing and contradictory instructions that they will only be able to escape through a combination of perseverance and blind luck.
- dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
  For what it's worth, I must stress that they sent me that screenshot. > escape through a combination of perseverance and blind luck. It's funny you say that, because you know what I did finally provide? A bunch of 15-30 second videos demonstrating the salient features (sign in with apple, user safety features, how to get to terms of service and privacy statement, etc) that Apple wants to know about. After that the back-and-forth ended and my app got approved. But that may have just been a coincidence.
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  Perhaps I woke up in a strange parallel world given the downvotes but isn’t the usual assumption that a button for a feature != the feature actually working correctly? In other words the button, or sign in pathway, could have had some sort of ‘bug’. I assume that is why Apple’s system flagged it, otherwise we would have to believe that the folks working on Apple’s app store ‘sign in with AppleID’ review team are bozos and flagged, or had an AI that flagged, a working implementation that followed their guidelines? If that is the case then I agree since tens of thousands of apps have now implemented ‘sign in with AppleID’ a few months after a splashy introduction with undoubtably lots of behind the scenes attention it’s a pretty bizarre maze to get caught in.
jldugger 5y ago
I think we found the Safari Extension reviewer's HN handle!
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  To be honest, if that’s a well intentioned comment, it’s pretty bizarre, given your profile background. You automatically assumed: visible button = working feature without any bugs
  - jldugger 5y ago
    It's a joke, relax =) And there's a saying: familiarity breeds contempt.

neither_color 5y ago

Was it because of the Sign in with Apple button color? Always make sure that people can instantly identify your custom button as a Sign in with Apple button. If your custom button differs too much from the standard one, people may not feel comfortable using it to set up an account or sign in. App Review evaluates all custom Sign in with Apple buttons. https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/sign-in-with-apple/overview/buttons/#creating-a-custom-sign-in-with-apple-button https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...

dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
I thought that might be the case but it doesn't seem so different from the version on the HIG[0] or the sample project[1]. I ended up replying something like "it's there, please look again. It's the first one." And it hasn't come up since then. But I've only submitted one build. Will see when I submit the next. [0] https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/sign-in-with-apple/overview/introduction/ https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline... [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationservices/implementing_user_authentication_with_sign_in_with_apple?language=objc https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationserv...
MattGaiser 5y ago
They usually point that out specifically though. Although maybe they proved their point with their review staff.

busymom0 5y ago

So you already had Sign in with Apple implemented yet they told you to add it? I had a similar experience for my Hacker News client. Apple rejected my app initially because they require developers to use SFSafariViewController instead of WKWebView when displaying third party websites from the app. I replied back to them that my app was already using SFSafariViewController and I didn't even have any WKWebView in the app so I wasn't sure what they were referring to. Then it got rejected second time with: "- The layout does not take advantage of the full screen - When tapping on some of the content, the right part of the screen populates with a white page with no content." To this I replied: > My app did take advantage of the full screen iPad experience. In fact that was one of my selling points that my app supports the iOS UISplitViewController for iPads which lets you view 2 view controllers at the same Time size by side. From the screenshot the reviewer sent, it appears they clicked on "New" (I could tell because the number of points and comments in the screenshot are all zero). Now since they clicked on "New", obviously, it won't show any comments and is what the reviewer saw. I had to ask the reviewer to try going to the main page and clicking on "Trending" or "Home" or "Best Stories" where they will see the full content? There is plenty of content and this takes advantage of the iOS native SDK for UISplitViewController. When you select a story on the left side, the detail story on the right shows the story discussion, threaded comments, ability to upvote/downvote, favoriting stories and comments (swipe left on a story or comment), view the full article by clicking on the link image on the right of a story, tap the reply button to reply to comments or stories, use the date picker to go to articles from a specific date, view leader boards of the top users, search for stories and comments etc. You can tap on comments to collapse the comment thread (not possible using a website). You can also swipe on a comment or post to upvote (left swipe), favorite (right swipe) which is also not possible using a website as these are only possible on touch screen devices. These are all implemented using native iOS SDK. UISplitViewController isn't even possible using a website. It almost seems like the review team simply launches an app and rejects things without taking the purpose of the app in context. Now to be fair to Apple, I develop for android too and good lord, they are even worse if your app happens to get caught by their "Artificial Unintelligence". You end up having to deal with a computer without any human on the other side unless you can make enough noise on social media and get some tech blogs to write about you as it happened recently with Droidscript: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26956077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26956077

busymom0 5y ago

> I used to be a pretty ardent defender of Apple's right to control their platform. Then I submitted an app to the App Store and experienced the process first hand. Kafkaesque is an overused term, but I've not been able to think of a better description. One of the main reasons I use against censorship of "offensive" content and why I have become a free speech absolutist. In fact, this whole Apple rejection thread applies to free speech too: https://twitter.com/thomasareed/status/1420831606227488772 https://twitter.com/thomasareed/status/1420831606227488772 > My last experience with a rejection that required appeal didn’t go so nicely. We ended up having to spend a couple months ripping a feature out and replacing it with something lesser… when other apps were already doing the thing we wanted to do. This was a few years ago, tho. > I feel you. We’ve had similar experiences. Really not fun and definitely not cheap for a small business. The worst thing is that you don’t always get the confidence that “fixing” what annoys apple will secure an approval. Definitely kills you inside. > Yeah, very true. Sometimes the rejection is very vague on exactly what needs to be fixed. That’s very frustrating. Have to say, though, I’m impressed with the outcome in this case, given how badly it started. > And the “ptsd” lingers a long time after experiencing that type of rejection from the app review. It’s definitely something tough as a business or even a dev to feel that powerlessness. You tend to self limit yourself which is not good for the product or the users in the end. The "PTSD" referred to here is what happens with censorship too where people self-censor because they don't want to get caught in the big tech "community guidelines" trap.

colordrops 5y ago

It's kind of bullshit too though that you are required to add an apple login.

threatofrain 5y ago
As a user I love it. More privacy for me.
- elefanten 5y ago
  Agree. It's made me sign up for many services that I never would have otherwise.
- ljm 5y ago
  Lol, privacy? You think that's what it is? Apple forces you to use in-app purchases, Apple forces you to stick with their crippled browser ecosystem, it has no compatibility outside of Apple. Their protocols for messaging and device interop are closed-source; they have tech that tracks all your devices + these new beacons, and all your devices are those beacons too. You are more heavily tracked under Apple than you are in any other system. Did you think your iphone would be a location tracker for another device?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    You're mixing up "privacy from Apple" and "privacy from random third-party developers when using 'Login with Apple' specifically".
  - fay59 5y ago
    You could have saved yourself a fair amount of embarrassment with just a little bit of reading. Apple can’t decrypt beacon locations. https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/sece994d0126/1/web/1 https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/sece994d0126/...
- sneak 5y ago
  No. You can't get an Apple ID without providing a phone number, street address, and email address.

tasogare 5y ago

There are so much rules, yet for some reasons apps that are free to download but require a subscription at $30/month to do any action (so, not even a freemium model and arguably qualifiable of scam) are present in the store... Edit for the downvoters: I'm speaking of apps doing local data manipulation (in my case, I tried few photo collage apps), not something linked to a web service. Those should be one time purchase, not subscription based.

throwawaysea 5y ago

That’s just monopolist behavior masked as some kind of privacy user benefit. These companies are enjoying too much power and we need new modern anti trust regulations that can deal with companies that are operating in a market with more than one competitor but with reduced competitive elements.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
That is a bit harsh. I haven't once experienced a virus, or malware, with Apple. I'm not a fanboy. A human shouid review every app submission though. Maybe they do? The minute Apple lightens up on security, they know they will lose a lot of customers.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  If a company can achieve 70% margin (apple services), it's a clear sign that there's a lack of competition, or structurally anti-competitive elements. Why? Because normally if profit is that high, other players will see that and seek to compete in that market, thus driving down those margins. Certainly legislation shouldn't be based on a specific margin number, but if a company can achieve these kind of margins over the long run, then it's a clear warning sign. Where to draw the line for anti-trust is philosophical and up for debate, of course. In Apple's case, taking a 30% cut on all app store purchases is something that probably will be legislated against in the future. For AWS, charging excessively to egress your data and move to another platform is an anti-competitive tactic that will likely be disallowed. Current law does not appropriately account for the scale, power, and network effects that are of themselves anti competitive.
  - lbotos 5y ago
    > If a company can achieve 70% margin (apple services), it's a clear sign that there's a lack of competition, or structurally anti-competitive elements. "most SaaS companies should achieve gross margins in the 75%–80% range, depending on the level of professional services required to deploy the solutions." - https://leadedge.com/why-we-like-saas-businesses/ https://leadedge.com/why-we-like-saas-businesses/ Dropbox: " GAAP gross margin was 78.6%, as compared to 77.3% in the same period last year. Non-GAAP gross margin was 80.2%, as compared to 78.3% in the same period last year." - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210506006050/en/Dropbox-Announces-Fiscal-2021-First-Quarter-Results https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210506006050/en/Dro... You do realize that most SaaS based software business are targeting 70%+ margin? Are they all structurally anti-competitive?

eljimmy 5y ago

This happened to us on an update submission we made. We hadn’t changed anything with the sign in screen and they suddenly rejected us for it. Turned out they were just being more strict about the actual styling of the Apple sign in button as they want it to look identical in every app essentially.

userbinator 5y ago
Turned out they were just being more strict about the actual styling of the Apple sign in button as they want it to look identical in every app essentially. Then why couldn't they have just said that, instead of an (almost passive-aggressive) "your app doesn't have Sign in with Apple" bullshit reason?
- samename 5y ago
  Bureaucracies love boilerplate text
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    So do software developers, especially with respect to error messages.