4 ms·

The developer has clearly made a choice here to build something that looks incredibly suspicious. Having made that choice it is a bit rich to be complaining tha

The developer has clearly made a choice here to build something that looks incredibly suspicious. Having made that choice it is a bit rich to be complaining that app review is giving them trouble.

yoz-y 5y ago
It’s not in the least suspicious. The full access mode was put there by Apple in the first place and most keyboards do use it. They still kind of halfway work without it but usually in a very restricted manner.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  Consider my old age: a keyboard to me was plastic and had rows of plastic keys across it. If someone tells me the keyboard needs "network access" I'm going to have to get up out of my rocking chair and ask, "Why for?" I guess I am naturally suspicious about such things.
  - yoz-y 5y ago
    From user perspective it’s a different thing. However Apple should know better. If they wish to reject apps because they use APIs they have provided, they should have not made those APIs in the first place.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      They did not reject the app for using an API they have provided.
      - yoz-y 5y ago
        They rejected it for (allegedly) requiring it. Apple’s obsession with “all apps must work for everybody” is losing them potentially original or deep apps. The same goes for example for the rule than any iOS game must be playable without a controller. I get the idea that you don’t want people to download programs they can’t use, but I think a better solution would be to update the App Store to better communicate the requirements and make the refunds easier.
        user-the-name 5y ago
        > They rejected it for (allegedly) requiring it. Yes. You are allowed to use this API, but it is a very risky API, and people will not feel comfortable allowing it. Apple wants people to feel comfortable and safe using their device, and if apps can randomly force you to turn on unsafe APIs, that is ruined. Therefore, you are not allowed to require accesses to protected services to function. It is a very good rule for users.
        yoz-y 5y ago
        We’ll disagree here. I’m all for warnings and keeping the user knowledgable about what is going to happen if you enable this or that api. However forcing developers to make crippled modes of their apps even though nobody will actually use them in this way is a waste of everybody’s time.

The developer has clearly made a choice here to build something that looks incredibly suspicious. Having made that choice it is a bit rich to be complaining that app review is giving them trouble.

yoz-y 5y ago

It’s not in the least suspicious. The full access mode was put there by Apple in the first place and most keyboards do use it. They still kind of halfway work without it but usually in a very restricted manner.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
Consider my old age: a keyboard to me was plastic and had rows of plastic keys across it. If someone tells me the keyboard needs "network access" I'm going to have to get up out of my rocking chair and ask, "Why for?" I guess I am naturally suspicious about such things.
- yoz-y 5y ago
  From user perspective it’s a different thing. However Apple should know better. If they wish to reject apps because they use APIs they have provided, they should have not made those APIs in the first place.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    They did not reject the app for using an API they have provided.
    - yoz-y 5y ago
      They rejected it for (allegedly) requiring it. Apple’s obsession with “all apps must work for everybody” is losing them potentially original or deep apps. The same goes for example for the rule than any iOS game must be playable without a controller. I get the idea that you don’t want people to download programs they can’t use, but I think a better solution would be to update the App Store to better communicate the requirements and make the refunds easier.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        > They rejected it for (allegedly) requiring it. Yes. You are allowed to use this API, but it is a very risky API, and people will not feel comfortable allowing it. Apple wants people to feel comfortable and safe using their device, and if apps can randomly force you to turn on unsafe APIs, that is ruined. Therefore, you are not allowed to require accesses to protected services to function. It is a very good rule for users.
        yoz-y 5y ago
        We’ll disagree here. I’m all for warnings and keeping the user knowledgable about what is going to happen if you enable this or that api. However forcing developers to make crippled modes of their apps even though nobody will actually use them in this way is a waste of everybody’s time.