9 ms·

Weird. I thought all the apps were already reviewed and approved by a specialized and trained committee before being blessed with a space in the App Store. What

Weird. I thought all the apps were already reviewed and approved by a specialized and trained committee before being blessed with a space in the App Store. What could we possibly need this button for?

Closi 5y ago
Eh, it’s pretty easy to hide things behind a feature flag during the review process.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jedberg 5y ago
  I think their point is that the App Store review process is random and arbitrary.
  - bilbo0s 5y ago
    Which is not to say that "Report a Scam or Fraud" is a bad policy. App Store review can be random, AND this can be a good policy. (Well, good for consumers. I could see it causing developers some issues if competitors weaponize it.)
- mcny 5y ago
  I, for one, like the f-droid model or you could say any sane package manager model. When I download a package from f-droid repository, I know the folks at f-droid have the source code of the bits I downloaded. Same thing with Debian and Fedora. Why can't Apple do the same thing? Require developers to submit machine-readable source code along with build instructions. Build them directly on Apple servers. Sign them with Apple's certificates. I am not an Apple developer. As a consumer, I would welcome such a change. Now, it is true that you could have a web view that fetches application chrome/content from a web server but I would argue Apple should disallow such apps anyway.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    While that might be a great idea, Apple is a competitor of many of the companies in the App Store. I'm not sure how they'd feel about their largest competitor having access to their absolutely-valuable-and-secret source code.
    - pabs3 5y ago
      They could require it be stored with a reputable escrow company.
- matsemann 5y ago
  Huh, what's the value in the review process then..?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    To limit competition.
endisneigh 5y ago
This is a strange comment. Do you think people are infallible? lol.
- bagels 5y ago
  I think the charitable take is that the comment is in jest.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- actusual 5y ago
  The comparison to HN is wrong. Moderators would first have to read the comments and let them through.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    My point is that even if moderators did read the comments and let them through, that wouldn't obviate the need, since moderators aren't perfect.
- cptskippy 5y ago
  Part of Apple's argument in the Epic case was that their screening process mitigated the need for things like this. This is essentially an admission that their review process has problems.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    Apple admitted that? They've never claimed it's perfect. Just that it's better than not having it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- didntknowya 5y ago
  if we had to pay to submit comments and wait a few days or even weeks for it to go through the company's "stringent" rules before it is approved, then yes a flagging button is counterintuitive.
bryan_w 5y ago
Yeah, they did say that these processes were part of the value that developers _gladly_ pay 30% + $100 for...
- martimarkov 5y ago
  They also don’t force developers to pay $99 or 30%
floatingatoll 5y ago
Human error.
happybuy 5y ago
Being an App Store developer is like intentionally walking into an abusive relationship and hoping that the pay-off will be worth the trouble. I'm sure you're aware but, as an app developer, the review process seems random at many times. Depending upon the phase of the moon certain features or metadata may be accepted or rejected in apps. Even when the exact same features have been accepted in prior app versions and app reviews (without changes to the actual guidelines). In such cases, perhaps Apple's interpretation of the guidelines have changed. If so, there's no way for app developers to know this until they get hit with a rejection. Rejections rarely include explanation of the interpretation so it's up to the developer to try and interpret what the real issue is. This is on top of the fact that, in many cases, Apple deliberately uses the guidelines and shifting interpretations to delay or destroy competitors. This occurs even if competitors are acting within the guidelines and all prior known interpretations of those guidelines.

Closi 5y ago

Eh, it’s pretty easy to hide things behind a feature flag during the review process.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jedberg 5y ago
I think their point is that the App Store review process is random and arbitrary.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  Which is not to say that "Report a Scam or Fraud" is a bad policy. App Store review can be random, AND this can be a good policy. (Well, good for consumers. I could see it causing developers some issues if competitors weaponize it.)
mcny 5y ago
I, for one, like the f-droid model or you could say any sane package manager model. When I download a package from f-droid repository, I know the folks at f-droid have the source code of the bits I downloaded. Same thing with Debian and Fedora. Why can't Apple do the same thing? Require developers to submit machine-readable source code along with build instructions. Build them directly on Apple servers. Sign them with Apple's certificates. I am not an Apple developer. As a consumer, I would welcome such a change. Now, it is true that you could have a web view that fetches application chrome/content from a web server but I would argue Apple should disallow such apps anyway.
- etchalon 5y ago
  While that might be a great idea, Apple is a competitor of many of the companies in the App Store. I'm not sure how they'd feel about their largest competitor having access to their absolutely-valuable-and-secret source code.
  - pabs3 5y ago
    They could require it be stored with a reputable escrow company.
matsemann 5y ago
Huh, what's the value in the review process then..?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  To limit competition.

endisneigh 5y ago

This is a strange comment. Do you think people are infallible? lol.

bagels 5y ago
I think the charitable take is that the comment is in jest.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
actusual 5y ago
The comparison to HN is wrong. Moderators would first have to read the comments and let them through.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  My point is that even if moderators did read the comments and let them through, that wouldn't obviate the need, since moderators aren't perfect.
cptskippy 5y ago
Part of Apple's argument in the Epic case was that their screening process mitigated the need for things like this. This is essentially an admission that their review process has problems.
- etchalon 5y ago
  Apple admitted that? They've never claimed it's perfect. Just that it's better than not having it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
didntknowya 5y ago
if we had to pay to submit comments and wait a few days or even weeks for it to go through the company's "stringent" rules before it is approved, then yes a flagging button is counterintuitive.

bryan_w 5y ago

Yeah, they did say that these processes were part of the value that developers _gladly_ pay 30% + $100 for...

martimarkov 5y ago
They also don’t force developers to pay $99 or 30%

floatingatoll 5y ago

Human error.

happybuy 5y ago

Being an App Store developer is like intentionally walking into an abusive relationship and hoping that the pay-off will be worth the trouble. I'm sure you're aware but, as an app developer, the review process seems random at many times. Depending upon the phase of the moon certain features or metadata may be accepted or rejected in apps. Even when the exact same features have been accepted in prior app versions and app reviews (without changes to the actual guidelines). In such cases, perhaps Apple's interpretation of the guidelines have changed. If so, there's no way for app developers to know this until they get hit with a rejection. Rejections rarely include explanation of the interpretation so it's up to the developer to try and interpret what the real issue is. This is on top of the fact that, in many cases, Apple deliberately uses the guidelines and shifting interpretations to delay or destroy competitors. This occurs even if competitors are acting within the guidelines and all prior known interpretations of those guidelines.