5 ms·
Apple seriously needs to make all internal coms about rejecting apps public to the person being rejected. I do mean all this way, when people blog about it, the
by giancarlostoro 2y ago
Apple seriously needs to make all internal coms about rejecting apps public to the person being rejected. I do mean all this way, when people blog about it, there's no more ambiguity and it can be assessed. Also, you can see if they're rejecting it for something they already approved of prior. It feels like some people doing the reviews dont look at prior history at all. Maybe they dont even get access to it, or maybe they dont want to do it. Let the applicant see their entire history, let them better clarify.
This is so embarassing to see every time.
- lawgimenez 2y agoI have the same weird Apple review experience a couple of years ago too. Sorry for hijacking this post. But every year Apple is just throwing random rejections with our app. https://law.gmnz.xyz/2022/02/02/submitting-urgent-hotfix.html https://law.gmnz.xyz/2022/02/02/submitting-urgent-hotfix.htm...
- jncfhnb 2y agoIt should be illegal for them to prohibit an app on their store and alternative distribution. Triply so if it at all competes with them.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago> It should be illegal for them to prohibit an app on their store and alternative distribution. Triply so if it at all competes with them. My very amateur reading of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773883 is that it probably literally is (edit: in the EU, to be clear). It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
- jncfhnb 2y agoWell it very simply is because the EU has demanded third party app stores
- bhawks 2y agoThis type of chest beating principal lacks nuance, there are certainly reasons why a reasonable person would agree it is in Apple (or any marketplace operator) not to share rationale directly with the creator. The easiest example would be comms indicating that Apple is detecting malicious behaviors (spam, fraud, abuse, etc) in the app. Disclosing information what can (and implicitly what cannot be detected) is self defeating. There are literally hundreds of reasonable variations in these situations. I think what is effective is that all violations where the creator is working in good faith to abide by guidelines should be treated with reasonable transparency about how the conclusion Apple came to was reached. What fraction of Apple devs are working in good faith? Obviously the vast majority. So therefore most rejections should have clear rationale.
- realusername 2y agoThey won't provide any rationale the same way a justice court in a dictatorship doesn't need to refer to actual laws to justify their decision. The appstore process is arbitrary by design, to keep power inside the company.
- saagarjha 2y agoI mean, even a court doesn't publish all the deliberation that goes into arriving at a decision. They prepare a final verdict and deliver it–while it would be interesting to see, we have reasons we don't post things like "juror 2 thinks what you did was barely legal".
- troupo 2y agoCourts at least try to justify these decisions with supporting documents, evidence, and links to precedent. Apple just rejects, or approves, or approves and rejects and often cannot say why.
- saagarjha 2y agoSure. But I don't think them showing their internal discussions would help solve the problem here, because their internal discussion is likely to be inconsistent and poorly documented.