4 ms·

Wow, that gallery of Wordle clones is really infuriating, especially when seen in the context of OP's submission. The absolute gall of Apple to reject OP's sub

Wow, that gallery of Wordle clones is really infuriating, especially when seen in the context of OP's submission. The absolute gall of Apple to reject OP's submission repeatedly despite him providing differentiating features... but then to allow all those trash-tier blatant clones into the app store. That's what infuriates me the most.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
If I were Apple, the clones should not be on the App Store and Apple appears to be removing them. However, I don't really know if the OP's original submission should be approved either. Yes, it uses a different language, but the name is very similar, it's being released around the same time as a trend, it looks like a clone.
- InTheArena 5y ago
  Yes. Apple still sucks at curation (as does google, as does Steam), and needs to be more consistent here.
  - Semaphor 5y ago
    Steam curates? I always thought they let anything in considering what you can see on the later pages of some search.
    - nazgulsenpai 5y ago
      Steam basically doesn't moderate content unless its illegal as a matter of policy. https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/27766192/view/ https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/27766192/view/
  - wintermutestwin 5y ago
    Exactly this. I am all too happy for a walled garden on my phone, but spend some of your $$$ actually curating it to prove that your walled garden is worthy. What we need is an ecosystem of competing curated app stores.
- andjd 5y ago
  How does it benefit the Swedish consumer to ban a game that uses their native language because it's a clone of a game in English?
  - coldtea 5y ago
    By also banning Swedish I.P. apps when somebody makes a foreign clone of them.
    - NoSorryCannot 5y ago
      And stealing bread is illegal for rich and poor alike!
- pmarreck 5y ago
  There is no sale of a Swedish Wordle app that would impinge on a sale of an English Wordle app, so this reasoning makes no sense.
- amanzi 5y ago
  An interesting question, which the author raises, is why Apple's App Store reviewers should care about a copycat of a third party website or app that does not exist on the App Store. (I can understand them not wanting copycats of existing App Store apps.)
JKCalhoun 5y ago
It points out to me another issue with the App Store though. While the author's "Wordle" was Swedish and different in other regards, why would you even want to submit a Wordle-like app into that fray? I think it's almost a given that you cannot charge for your app. A neighbor's adult daughter down the street told me (and this was perhaps eight years ago), "No one wants to even pay 99 cents for an app." In-App purchase? Do people do that? Isn't that a little distasteful? I just don't see a way to monetize your effort. And if you're going to essentially give it away, just make it web-based (like everyone's beloved Wordle).
- jonatanheyman 5y ago
  The main drive for me (OP) was that I loved the game idea. Also, when I first decided to build the app, there were no Wordle-style games in the store (that I could find). > And if you're going to essentially give it away, just make it web-based (like everyone's beloved Wordle). Oh, you bet I regret I didn't take that road.
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  Apple needs to reign in subscriptions. I was looking for a "photo vault" app the other day, basically a place to store photos that is password protected. I didn't need cloud storage, no fancy features, just a place to store photos with a passcode lock. So I went looking for an app and I must have reviewed close to 50, every single one had a "subscription". Now I get it, apps aren't easy to make and aren't free either, I get paying $2, $3, hell $5 or $10 for the app, but don't make me pay you $2.50 per month for all eternity. Now I get subscriptions, I happily pay for Netflix, Spotify, and even some lesser known apps that have a subscription. But in every case those apps are providing me with a great value, 1Password is another great example. But to charge for a subscription to just use an offline app? No.
  - imoverclocked 5y ago
    > But to charge for a subscription to just use an offline app? So, if they make you sign in to their service to use the app, you would be ok with a subscription? Do you want/expect that app to be updated/supported over time? As someone who grew up with purchased box software followed by the pervasive availability of open source software, I severely dislike subscriptions for software products. In fact, auto-renew subscriptions in general are often a dark pattern IMHO. OTOH, I have to imagine that as a developer, if an app I produce is going to be used by 100 people, I can't financially sustain it by selling it for $2 one time. Also, if it's niche enough or novel enough to be difficult to reproduce, I can get away with a subscription. I think you hit the nail on the head with "But in every case those apps are providing me with a great value." Each developer is effectively a small business trying to create a product in exchange for money. If they price it too high or have unlikeable terms, they lose customers.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

If I were Apple, the clones should not be on the App Store and Apple appears to be removing them. However, I don't really know if the OP's original submission should be approved either. Yes, it uses a different language, but the name is very similar, it's being released around the same time as a trend, it looks like a clone.

InTheArena 5y ago
Yes. Apple still sucks at curation (as does google, as does Steam), and needs to be more consistent here.
- Semaphor 5y ago
  Steam curates? I always thought they let anything in considering what you can see on the later pages of some search.
  - nazgulsenpai 5y ago
    Steam basically doesn't moderate content unless its illegal as a matter of policy. https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/27766192/view/ https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/27766192/view/
- wintermutestwin 5y ago
  Exactly this. I am all too happy for a walled garden on my phone, but spend some of your $$$ actually curating it to prove that your walled garden is worthy. What we need is an ecosystem of competing curated app stores.
andjd 5y ago
How does it benefit the Swedish consumer to ban a game that uses their native language because it's a clone of a game in English?
- coldtea 5y ago
  By also banning Swedish I.P. apps when somebody makes a foreign clone of them.
  - NoSorryCannot 5y ago
    And stealing bread is illegal for rich and poor alike!
pmarreck 5y ago
There is no sale of a Swedish Wordle app that would impinge on a sale of an English Wordle app, so this reasoning makes no sense.
amanzi 5y ago
An interesting question, which the author raises, is why Apple's App Store reviewers should care about a copycat of a third party website or app that does not exist on the App Store. (I can understand them not wanting copycats of existing App Store apps.)

JKCalhoun 5y ago

It points out to me another issue with the App Store though. While the author's "Wordle" was Swedish and different in other regards, why would you even want to submit a Wordle-like app into that fray? I think it's almost a given that you cannot charge for your app. A neighbor's adult daughter down the street told me (and this was perhaps eight years ago), "No one wants to even pay 99 cents for an app." In-App purchase? Do people do that? Isn't that a little distasteful? I just don't see a way to monetize your effort. And if you're going to essentially give it away, just make it web-based (like everyone's beloved Wordle).

jonatanheyman 5y ago
The main drive for me (OP) was that I loved the game idea. Also, when I first decided to build the app, there were no Wordle-style games in the store (that I could find). > And if you're going to essentially give it away, just make it web-based (like everyone's beloved Wordle). Oh, you bet I regret I didn't take that road.
_fat_santa 5y ago
Apple needs to reign in subscriptions. I was looking for a "photo vault" app the other day, basically a place to store photos that is password protected. I didn't need cloud storage, no fancy features, just a place to store photos with a passcode lock. So I went looking for an app and I must have reviewed close to 50, every single one had a "subscription". Now I get it, apps aren't easy to make and aren't free either, I get paying $2, $3, hell $5 or $10 for the app, but don't make me pay you $2.50 per month for all eternity. Now I get subscriptions, I happily pay for Netflix, Spotify, and even some lesser known apps that have a subscription. But in every case those apps are providing me with a great value, 1Password is another great example. But to charge for a subscription to just use an offline app? No.
- imoverclocked 5y ago
  > But to charge for a subscription to just use an offline app? So, if they make you sign in to their service to use the app, you would be ok with a subscription? Do you want/expect that app to be updated/supported over time? As someone who grew up with purchased box software followed by the pervasive availability of open source software, I severely dislike subscriptions for software products. In fact, auto-renew subscriptions in general are often a dark pattern IMHO. OTOH, I have to imagine that as a developer, if an app I produce is going to be used by 100 people, I can't financially sustain it by selling it for $2 one time. Also, if it's niche enough or novel enough to be difficult to reproduce, I can get away with a subscription. I think you hit the nail on the head with "But in every case those apps are providing me with a great value." Each developer is effectively a small business trying to create a product in exchange for money. If they price it too high or have unlikeable terms, they lose customers.