4 ms·

You'd think the review process would catch this. But then I guess I should remember who apple does the reviews for. Not for customers, not for developers, but f

by waps 13y ago

You'd think the review process would catch this. But then I guess I should remember who apple does the reviews for. Not for customers, not for developers, but for apple.

LordIllidan 13y ago
Not catching that the screenshots do not represent the actual app seems like a pretty big goof. It's in Apple's best interest to project a quality image in the AppStore. Quality over quantity.
- ryandrake 13y ago
  Apple used to allow screenshots to be changed after the app was approved, so it wasn't necessarily a goof. They still allow the description and "What's New" text to be changed even after review.
  - jonlipsky 13y ago
    Apple changed their policy on screenshot updating back in January, so I'm pretty sure they approved the app and the screenshots together.
navs 13y ago
I've had an in-app purchase (newsstand magazine issue) rejected because the supplied screenshot didn't match. At times they can be a tad overzealous and the opposite is also true. End of the day, the App review team is made up of humans.
smackfu 13y ago
I think Apple tries to avoid being involved too much in policing other people's IP. It can be a very messy situation with licensing and such. They tend to approve it then take it down if they get complaints.
- _pmf_ 13y ago
  > I think Apple tries to avoid being involved too much in policing other people's IP. Given that they provide the sole means of performing this infringement (given that there are no other means to make money off iOS applications), this argument is a bit too generous towards what is basically Apple not giving a shit about developer's rights. They do not "avoid being involved too much in policing other people's IP"; they are providing the only infrastructure and act as payment processor (even taking their share!) of the infringements taking part. This is morally significantly worse than Pirate Bay and the like (who provide a service to the public), but unfortunately[1], there's no RIAA/MPAA equivalent for software developers. [1] It's debatable whether this is actually unfortunate for the general public
  - smackfu 13y ago
    To clarify, I mean that Apple does not consider it their job to require proof that a given developer owns the IP during the initial review process. They don't want to be policing contracts and stuff that they aren't a party to.

by waps 13y ago

You'd think the review process would catch this. But then I guess I should remember who apple does the reviews for. Not for customers, not for developers, but for apple.

LordIllidan 13y ago

Not catching that the screenshots do not represent the actual app seems like a pretty big goof. It's in Apple's best interest to project a quality image in the AppStore. Quality over quantity.

ryandrake 13y ago
Apple used to allow screenshots to be changed after the app was approved, so it wasn't necessarily a goof. They still allow the description and "What's New" text to be changed even after review.
- jonlipsky 13y ago
  Apple changed their policy on screenshot updating back in January, so I'm pretty sure they approved the app and the screenshots together.

navs 13y ago

I've had an in-app purchase (newsstand magazine issue) rejected because the supplied screenshot didn't match. At times they can be a tad overzealous and the opposite is also true. End of the day, the App review team is made up of humans.

smackfu 13y ago

I think Apple tries to avoid being involved too much in policing other people's IP. It can be a very messy situation with licensing and such. They tend to approve it then take it down if they get complaints.

_pmf_ 13y ago
> I think Apple tries to avoid being involved too much in policing other people's IP. Given that they provide the sole means of performing this infringement (given that there are no other means to make money off iOS applications), this argument is a bit too generous towards what is basically Apple not giving a shit about developer's rights. They do not "avoid being involved too much in policing other people's IP"; they are providing the only infrastructure and act as payment processor (even taking their share!) of the infringements taking part. This is morally significantly worse than Pirate Bay and the like (who provide a service to the public), but unfortunately[1], there's no RIAA/MPAA equivalent for software developers. [1] It's debatable whether this is actually unfortunate for the general public
- smackfu 13y ago
  To clarify, I mean that Apple does not consider it their job to require proof that a given developer owns the IP during the initial review process. They don't want to be policing contracts and stuff that they aren't a party to.