6 ms·

> this failed Apple App Store review because of Guideline 4.2 — Design — Minimum Functionality. They said “the usefulness of the app is limited because it seems

> this failed Apple App Store review because of Guideline 4.2 — Design — Minimum Functionality. They said “the usefulness of the app is limited because it seems to be intended for a small, or niche, set of users. Specifically, the app is intended for invited friends only.” This is why we need laws regulating mobile platforms. Apple shouldn't be able to dictate what you use your phone for, or what apps you can give to your users. Doesn't work that way for PCs, shouldn't work that way for computers in your pocket.

krupan 6mo ago
Have you heard of Android? Graphene OS? You do have freedom of choice here
- inventor7777 6mo ago
  Unless you want third party WebViews... (on normal Android) (Technically besides the point, but that is a broad statement)
  - krupan 6mo ago
    Well that's a totally different problem from restricting which apps you are allowed to install
  - Groxx 6mo ago
    "There's a small corner where they're just as bad! Checkmate!" I totally agree that should be swappable, but what is your point? Apple doesn't even allow installing stuff outside their store in most places, and had to be legally forced to do it in some because of how ridiculous that obviously is (thanks, EU!). And even there they still have some control with their notarization process. Android is wildly more open in major, meaningful ways, despite some failures.
- matheusmoreira 6mo ago
  Not for long if Google has any say about it. Hardware remote attestation is here, and it's the number one threat to mobile computing freedom. The future is one where everyone can, theoretically, install anything they want, but they get banned from everything should they actually do so. Rooted system? Attestation fails. "Oh no, looks like someone tampered with the system". Can't access your bank account. Can't communicate via WhatsApp. Can't watch something on the streaming services. Can't even play video games. Discrimination against "untrustworthy" devices, where "untrustworthy" means not corporate owned. Leading to complete ostracization.
  - doug-moen 6mo ago
    GrapheneOS already has their own attestation API that verifies the app is running on GrapheneOS. Since GrapheneOS is more secure than stock Android, security conscious apps like banking apps have a solid technical reason to use the API and support Graphene. We just need to raise the profile of GrapheneOS and convince more banking apps to use this API, if they are already using Google's attestation API. GrapheneOS's strategy for raising their profile and being seen as more legitimate is that they've formed a partnership with Motorola Mobility, who will be manufacturing Graphene compatible phones. <https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at-mwc-2026/ https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at...>
    - matheusmoreira 6mo ago
      > Since GrapheneOS is more secure than stock Android, security conscious apps like banking apps have a solid technical reason to use the API and support Graphene. Corporations don't use such things for technical reasons. Their reasons are political. They want control. The "security" they talk about isn't the user's security, it's their own security from the user. > We just need to raise the profile of GrapheneOS and convince more banking apps to use this API And until they do, GrapheneOS is permanently at risk of being shut out of the market. And even if they do, it just means we've become dependent on GrapheneOS. They won't trust our keys, only those of corporations. Our freedom is still compromised.
- themafia 6mo ago
  I can run Android on Apple hardware? I have freedom to purchase. There is no choice.
- 0xbadcafebee 6mo ago
  That would immediately exclude 124 million Americans. Freedom of choice would be giving us the same choice we already have on PCs. We shouldn't keep allowing the mobile duopoly to control this vital and ubiquitous resource for their profit at our expense.
ajmurmann 6mo ago
You can still install this just not through a public listing on the app store. Apple provides various solutions for different audiences.
- journal 6mo ago
  Apple provides various obstacles for different reasons.
simondotau 6mo ago
I often get in trouble on HN for being more sympathetic than most towards Apple. But that reasoning by Apple is ridiculous. They allow apps which only function if you buy a specific $100k+ EV, or some niche audiophile amp. Usefulness doesn’t get much more limited than that.
- card_zero 6mo ago
  What even is the idea, what would be the value in weeding out niche apps, if they did it consistently? To reduce the work involved in keeping everything in the garden lovely?
  - chihuahua 6mo ago
    None of the app store rules are used as guiding principles for ensuring some higher goal. It's just a bunch of random rules that allow them to ban anything they don't like at any moment in time. Sometimes it's because of the whims of a particular app store reviewer, and sometimes it's to get rid of apps that compete with something Apple wants to do.
    - card_zero 6mo ago
      [dead]
  - esperent 6mo ago
    I've been thinking about this because I'm working on an internal company tool. It's a web app but I was thinking about creating mobile apps. In the age of agentic coding, that's no longer a massive undertaking like it used to be. However, I'm completely blocked by Apple app store review. There's no way an app designed for 30 people would pass. I can't get an internal app onto people's phone. I could release it as a test app but that might get blocked at any point. I can at least release a PWA but as I understand even that might get notifications blocked at any point, with no recourse, and of course functionality is highly limited. So the goal here is clear: don't allow people to write small apps. Apple can then make sure they are only allowing apps that required enough work, both initially and ongoing, that nearly everyone will feel the need to charge, or include ads, and then Apple gets a 30% cut every time. As for why a car company's app passes, obviously they don't want anyone with enough power to challenge this in court, politically, or in the media. So those get a pass.
charcircuit 6mo ago
They dictate the capabilities that their device is offered and how the device is designed. It is up to the consumer to decide if that is worth the price of the device.
- Loughla 6mo ago
  You are correct and I don't get OP's point. Don't want apple rules, don't use apple products. They are the business, they can do what they want with it, right?
  - rileymat2 6mo ago
    We have consistently made exceptions to this rule in situations with limited choices. We would not abide by the electric company dictating a range of things, even of you have the option to run your own generator. The truth is there are two reasonable platforms, as long as that is the case we should apply scrutiny.
    - fc417fc802 6mo ago
      I'd go even farther than that. The US should adopt an equivalent of the second amendment regarding end user control over personal electronics and it should bind not only the government but also private enterprise. We are increasingly dependent on these devices to go about our day to day lives and they have not only been used against us for mass surveillance but are also quickly gaining the ability to exhibit intelligence and act autonomously.
    - jmye 6mo ago
      > We would not abide by the electric company dictating a range of things, even of you have the option to run your own generator. An absurdly dishonest comparison. Which you (hopefully) knew when you made it.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - necovek 6mo ago
kulikalov 6mo ago
[flagged]
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
eru 6mo ago
You know that websites are a thing, and you can visit them from your phone?
xhevahir 6mo ago
That rule reminds me of Raya. Isn't the whole idea of that service (which is only available on iOS, I think) that it's only intended for a small group of users, who've been invited?
- nerdsniper 6mo ago
  It's for rich people though, different rules apply when you're well-connected.
ventana 6mo ago
Not trying to defend App Store policies, but writing this just for those who are struggling with Guideline 4.2 trying to publish an app that is only intended for a small group of users. There is a less well-known option called "unlisted app distribution", similar to unlisted YouTube videos: the app is public and can be downloaded using the direct link, but it cannot be found in App Store search. The "small, or niche, set of users" guideline normally does not apply for such apps. To request unlisted distribution for your app, send it for review as usual, then file a special form [1], and mention that in the review notes. Source: I struggled with Guideline 4.2 when I tried to publish an app showing the bell schedule and other local information for the neighborhood school. Its audience is, indeed, not of Apple scale: the school parents living nearby. Apple refused it as 4.2 and only agreed to publish it as unlisted, which I was okay with, because sharing the link between the parents was not a big deal. Google had no problems with publishing the Android app normally though. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/support/unlisted-app-distribution https://developer.apple.com/support/unlisted-app-distributio...
- KPGv2 6mo ago
  > I struggled with Guideline 4.2 when I tried to publish an app showing the bell schedule and other local information for the neighborhood school. Why would you not just make this a webpage, and then the users could add it to home page as if it were an app? no Apple review necessary then. What does it being an app give you besides bureaucratic headaches?
  - ZeWaka 6mo ago
    Users are /very/ not used to how to install PWAs to their home screen. Also, in the EU it just opens the site up in your browser, no lack of browser UI like you'd expect. Apple is wonderful. Edit: It seems I never got the news they reversed course on that particular idea of theirs.
    - sshine 6mo ago
      I’m in the EU, and adding a website to Home Screen does hide the browser feel. Maybe this experience is different in different European jurisdictions. Your point about users not being used to this is very real. I didn’t know you could until some app author showed me. It really is as simple as sharing a link or copy-pasting, but if you don’t know it’s a think, it disappears into obscurity in the menus.
raymondgh 6mo ago
It’s uncomfortable to agree because I think companies should decide what they do and don’t allow in the ecosystems they own. But once an ecosystem becomes so pervasive & necessary, I think control must be turned over to the people.
j45 6mo ago
Wording can go a long way - calling it early access, and saying invitations will allow you to invite your friends as the platform opens up can paint a similar picture in a different way.
rTX5CMRXIfFG 6mo ago
I don’t believe that the government should police what types of computers I can build. I occasionally tinker with hardware myself and have been thinking up ways to build a smartphone differently. If I want to make the device so that it only interoperates with a certain class of items, I would rather build nothing at all than be forced by the government to interop with everything, which is also a costly thing to develop. I get it that people want more freedom from their iPhones but the thing about consumer devices is that they are an expression of a certain philosophy of how computers should work. Being a walled garden is one such approach. If you don’t agree with how a device operates on principle, you should not buy it—there’s Android or derivatives. You’re also likely to be a power user who’s in an incredible small minority because iPhone sales keep getting better every year and the walled garden approach has market (as in free market) validation. Now, if your objective is to regulate monopolies, I think that the policing should happen in the supply chain and production side instead of the consumer software side. You don’t have more options than iPhone and Android because big players like Apple and Samsung have captured manufacturing facilities with long-term exclusivity contracts, making innovation in the space prohibitively expensive. But the law shouldn’t dictate what sort of computer innovators are allowed to build.
- RobotToaster 6mo ago
  >I don’t believe that the government should police what types of computers I can build. They already do, one of the reasons it's so hard to make a smartphone is all the FCC regulations on radios.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 6mo ago
    That’s not related to the subject at hand, which is regulation preventing anti-competitive practices in monopolies and market failures. I thought that was clearly established, or you need to be over-prompted
leptons 6mo ago
Apple also shouldn't force you to use Safari if you install Chrome on iOS, but so far the DOJ hasn't followed through with the antitrust lawsuit started under the previous administration. I guess gold participation trophies are enough to work around lawsuits depending on who is in charge. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline

krupan 6mo ago

Have you heard of Android? Graphene OS? You do have freedom of choice here

inventor7777 6mo ago
Unless you want third party WebViews... (on normal Android) (Technically besides the point, but that is a broad statement)
- krupan 6mo ago
  Well that's a totally different problem from restricting which apps you are allowed to install
- Groxx 6mo ago
  "There's a small corner where they're just as bad! Checkmate!" I totally agree that should be swappable, but what is your point? Apple doesn't even allow installing stuff outside their store in most places, and had to be legally forced to do it in some because of how ridiculous that obviously is (thanks, EU!). And even there they still have some control with their notarization process. Android is wildly more open in major, meaningful ways, despite some failures.
matheusmoreira 6mo ago
Not for long if Google has any say about it. Hardware remote attestation is here, and it's the number one threat to mobile computing freedom. The future is one where everyone can, theoretically, install anything they want, but they get banned from everything should they actually do so. Rooted system? Attestation fails. "Oh no, looks like someone tampered with the system". Can't access your bank account. Can't communicate via WhatsApp. Can't watch something on the streaming services. Can't even play video games. Discrimination against "untrustworthy" devices, where "untrustworthy" means not corporate owned. Leading to complete ostracization.
- doug-moen 6mo ago
  GrapheneOS already has their own attestation API that verifies the app is running on GrapheneOS. Since GrapheneOS is more secure than stock Android, security conscious apps like banking apps have a solid technical reason to use the API and support Graphene. We just need to raise the profile of GrapheneOS and convince more banking apps to use this API, if they are already using Google's attestation API. GrapheneOS's strategy for raising their profile and being seen as more legitimate is that they've formed a partnership with Motorola Mobility, who will be manufacturing Graphene compatible phones. <https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at-mwc-2026/ https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at...>
  - matheusmoreira 6mo ago
    > Since GrapheneOS is more secure than stock Android, security conscious apps like banking apps have a solid technical reason to use the API and support Graphene. Corporations don't use such things for technical reasons. Their reasons are political. They want control. The "security" they talk about isn't the user's security, it's their own security from the user. > We just need to raise the profile of GrapheneOS and convince more banking apps to use this API And until they do, GrapheneOS is permanently at risk of being shut out of the market. And even if they do, it just means we've become dependent on GrapheneOS. They won't trust our keys, only those of corporations. Our freedom is still compromised.
themafia 6mo ago
I can run Android on Apple hardware? I have freedom to purchase. There is no choice.
0xbadcafebee 6mo ago
That would immediately exclude 124 million Americans. Freedom of choice would be giving us the same choice we already have on PCs. We shouldn't keep allowing the mobile duopoly to control this vital and ubiquitous resource for their profit at our expense.

ajmurmann 6mo ago

You can still install this just not through a public listing on the app store. Apple provides various solutions for different audiences.

journal 6mo ago
Apple provides various obstacles for different reasons.

simondotau 6mo ago

I often get in trouble on HN for being more sympathetic than most towards Apple. But that reasoning by Apple is ridiculous. They allow apps which only function if you buy a specific $100k+ EV, or some niche audiophile amp. Usefulness doesn’t get much more limited than that.

card_zero 6mo ago
What even is the idea, what would be the value in weeding out niche apps, if they did it consistently? To reduce the work involved in keeping everything in the garden lovely?
- chihuahua 6mo ago
  None of the app store rules are used as guiding principles for ensuring some higher goal. It's just a bunch of random rules that allow them to ban anything they don't like at any moment in time. Sometimes it's because of the whims of a particular app store reviewer, and sometimes it's to get rid of apps that compete with something Apple wants to do.
  - card_zero 6mo ago
    [dead]
- esperent 6mo ago
  I've been thinking about this because I'm working on an internal company tool. It's a web app but I was thinking about creating mobile apps. In the age of agentic coding, that's no longer a massive undertaking like it used to be. However, I'm completely blocked by Apple app store review. There's no way an app designed for 30 people would pass. I can't get an internal app onto people's phone. I could release it as a test app but that might get blocked at any point. I can at least release a PWA but as I understand even that might get notifications blocked at any point, with no recourse, and of course functionality is highly limited. So the goal here is clear: don't allow people to write small apps. Apple can then make sure they are only allowing apps that required enough work, both initially and ongoing, that nearly everyone will feel the need to charge, or include ads, and then Apple gets a 30% cut every time. As for why a car company's app passes, obviously they don't want anyone with enough power to challenge this in court, politically, or in the media. So those get a pass.

charcircuit 6mo ago

They dictate the capabilities that their device is offered and how the device is designed. It is up to the consumer to decide if that is worth the price of the device.

Loughla 6mo ago
You are correct and I don't get OP's point. Don't want apple rules, don't use apple products. They are the business, they can do what they want with it, right?
- rileymat2 6mo ago
  We have consistently made exceptions to this rule in situations with limited choices. We would not abide by the electric company dictating a range of things, even of you have the option to run your own generator. The truth is there are two reasonable platforms, as long as that is the case we should apply scrutiny.
  - fc417fc802 6mo ago
    I'd go even farther than that. The US should adopt an equivalent of the second amendment regarding end user control over personal electronics and it should bind not only the government but also private enterprise. We are increasingly dependent on these devices to go about our day to day lives and they have not only been used against us for mass surveillance but are also quickly gaining the ability to exhibit intelligence and act autonomously.
  - jmye 6mo ago
    > We would not abide by the electric company dictating a range of things, even of you have the option to run your own generator. An absurdly dishonest comparison. Which you (hopefully) knew when you made it.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- necovek 6mo ago

kulikalov 6mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

eru 6mo ago

You know that websites are a thing, and you can visit them from your phone?

xhevahir 6mo ago

That rule reminds me of Raya. Isn't the whole idea of that service (which is only available on iOS, I think) that it's only intended for a small group of users, who've been invited?

nerdsniper 6mo ago
It's for rich people though, different rules apply when you're well-connected.

ventana 6mo ago

Not trying to defend App Store policies, but writing this just for those who are struggling with Guideline 4.2 trying to publish an app that is only intended for a small group of users. There is a less well-known option called "unlisted app distribution", similar to unlisted YouTube videos: the app is public and can be downloaded using the direct link, but it cannot be found in App Store search. The "small, or niche, set of users" guideline normally does not apply for such apps. To request unlisted distribution for your app, send it for review as usual, then file a special form [1], and mention that in the review notes. Source: I struggled with Guideline 4.2 when I tried to publish an app showing the bell schedule and other local information for the neighborhood school. Its audience is, indeed, not of Apple scale: the school parents living nearby. Apple refused it as 4.2 and only agreed to publish it as unlisted, which I was okay with, because sharing the link between the parents was not a big deal. Google had no problems with publishing the Android app normally though. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/support/unlisted-app-distribution https://developer.apple.com/support/unlisted-app-distributio...

KPGv2 6mo ago
> I struggled with Guideline 4.2 when I tried to publish an app showing the bell schedule and other local information for the neighborhood school. Why would you not just make this a webpage, and then the users could add it to home page as if it were an app? no Apple review necessary then. What does it being an app give you besides bureaucratic headaches?
- ZeWaka 6mo ago
  Users are /very/ not used to how to install PWAs to their home screen. Also, in the EU it just opens the site up in your browser, no lack of browser UI like you'd expect. Apple is wonderful. Edit: It seems I never got the news they reversed course on that particular idea of theirs.
  - sshine 6mo ago
    I’m in the EU, and adding a website to Home Screen does hide the browser feel. Maybe this experience is different in different European jurisdictions. Your point about users not being used to this is very real. I didn’t know you could until some app author showed me. It really is as simple as sharing a link or copy-pasting, but if you don’t know it’s a think, it disappears into obscurity in the menus.

raymondgh 6mo ago

It’s uncomfortable to agree because I think companies should decide what they do and don’t allow in the ecosystems they own. But once an ecosystem becomes so pervasive & necessary, I think control must be turned over to the people.

j45 6mo ago

Wording can go a long way - calling it early access, and saying invitations will allow you to invite your friends as the platform opens up can paint a similar picture in a different way.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 6mo ago

I don’t believe that the government should police what types of computers I can build. I occasionally tinker with hardware myself and have been thinking up ways to build a smartphone differently. If I want to make the device so that it only interoperates with a certain class of items, I would rather build nothing at all than be forced by the government to interop with everything, which is also a costly thing to develop. I get it that people want more freedom from their iPhones but the thing about consumer devices is that they are an expression of a certain philosophy of how computers should work. Being a walled garden is one such approach. If you don’t agree with how a device operates on principle, you should not buy it—there’s Android or derivatives. You’re also likely to be a power user who’s in an incredible small minority because iPhone sales keep getting better every year and the walled garden approach has market (as in free market) validation. Now, if your objective is to regulate monopolies, I think that the policing should happen in the supply chain and production side instead of the consumer software side. You don’t have more options than iPhone and Android because big players like Apple and Samsung have captured manufacturing facilities with long-term exclusivity contracts, making innovation in the space prohibitively expensive. But the law shouldn’t dictate what sort of computer innovators are allowed to build.

RobotToaster 6mo ago
>I don’t believe that the government should police what types of computers I can build. They already do, one of the reasons it's so hard to make a smartphone is all the FCC regulations on radios.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 6mo ago
  That’s not related to the subject at hand, which is regulation preventing anti-competitive practices in monopolies and market failures. I thought that was clearly established, or you need to be over-prompted

leptons 6mo ago

Apple also shouldn't force you to use Safari if you install Chrome on iOS, but so far the DOJ hasn't followed through with the antitrust lawsuit started under the previous administration. I guess gold participation trophies are enough to work around lawsuits depending on who is in charge. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline