4 ms·

Stupid Apple Rejection of the Day

11 points by coneybeare 13y ago

cageface 13y ago
If you choose to be a sharecropper you must accept the landlord's rules. As for myself I'm through with it and my future apps will be Mac/Windows/Linux desktop apps. Mobile has a lot of potential but I won't bow down to the gatekeepers any more.
hmottestad 13y ago
It's like the Mafia, lot's of unwritten rules.
- joeblau 13y ago
  All of the rules are written down. It's just that developers don't read them.
  - hmottestad 13y ago
    The whole article is about how there was no rule written down. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a problem. He was following the rules to the point already.
ceejayoz 13y ago
Christ, dude, they're asking for a disclaimer in the description. There are true problems with the App Store review process, but this doesn't strike me as one. Add the line and get your app in the store.
- seivan 13y ago
  Agree, feels like a cheap marketing stunt by OP.
- w0utert 13y ago
  Or just re-submit it another time and see what happens, try to negotiate, try to get an explanation why this requirement is not in the submission guidelines, whatever. The people reviewing submitted apps are just that: people. They sometimes make mistakes just like you and me. If you're unlucky an overzealous reviewer looked at your app, or someone misinterpreted the guidelines. Could be anything. Or maybe Apple simply changed their guidelines and you have to comply, as an end-user I can see why Apple would want to include a warning about battery life for apps that do continuous GPS tracking. Big deal...
- darkchasma 13y ago
  My thought exactly, what's the problem here. It would have taken less time to add it and resubmit than to whine on a blog post.
cgtyoder 13y ago
Don't you know Apple doesn't allow complaining about their decisions? They are listening! IT KNOWS.
iamkoby 13y ago
Sometimes legal litigation forces companies to take extra measures and describing the obvious is something that already was tested in court. You feel that's obvious because you understand the tech behind it but some users (maybe the less educated ones) don't understand this, and then they sue apple for shorter than published battery life. By forcing you to include this label in your terms it releases legal responsibility. For absurdity in warning labels follow one of the most famous cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  That case wasn't as absurd as people think. From the article: > Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. She got third-degree burns from coffee stored at an unsafe temperature. McDonalds had ample evidence that this was a problem.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Coffee snob here. Optimal brewing occurs at 195-205 degrees F, and is consumed soon after. Good coffee is served HOT, and people in general know this - yet continue to demand it at the drive-thru, and continue to do stupid things with it. Heck, the very existence of the drive-thru is a much bigger problem: dwarfing the 700 complaints of coffee burns, eating while driving reportedly contributes to some 80% of all automotive accidents, more dangerous than the much-maligned texting while driving - yet there is no call to eliminate drive-thrus for obvious on-the-run consumption. Yes, people get severe burns by placing properly brewed coffee between their legs while driving. This is well-known, and there is little to stop it short of people not doing stupid things.
    - projct 13y ago
      "eating while driving reportedly contributes to some 80% of all automotive accidents, more dangerous than the much-maligned texting while driving" Source?
jcampbell1 13y ago
I hope this app is rejected. > To fall in line with Apple’s expectations that iOS 7 apps always stay up to date in the multitasker, background GPS is necessary here so that I can keep the multitasker preview up to date with current information on the closest station. This guy thinks it is a good idea to trash the user's battery so the app switcher screenshot is up to date. Is this guy serious?
- joeblau 13y ago
  Apple does encourage you to update your switcher screenshot especially in gaming. This could be a valid use, but it could kill the battery and the dev should warn users of that.
- glimmung 13y ago
  He does say that it's off by default, so I don't think that your speculation about his thinking is warranted.
wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
My battery is not your playground :)
nathas 13y ago
You're publishing to a closed system. Apple isn't exactly a paragon of openness and acceptance. What did you expect?
joeblau 13y ago
I would rather see that disclaimer then download your app, install it, and wonder why my battery is dying so fast. That is a problem that I had on the Windows Phone. I downloaded a few apps and one of them was killing my battery so I had to go one by one disabling each app every day to figure out that the culprit was a GroupMe. I'm surprised they also aren't rejecting you for the .99 cent In-App Purchase just to remove ads. They discouraged that practice at the last Tech Talk that I went to.
ctdonath 13y ago
Apple has realized that by publishing strict rules, many developers will fight the explicit letter of the law while ignoring the spirit thereof. Ergo, general rules have been published but the reviewers have great leeway to determine that a submission has missed the obvious point (ex.: a battery-sucking background app should at least inform a user that it will do so). They're not going to explicitly declare exactly what is/isn't allowed to perfect clarity precisely because written language isn't perfectly clear when readers don't want it to be (ex.: USA's Bill Of Rights). Rather than get into ongoing fights over what exact wording should be, Apple understandably opts for a verbose but imperfect description of the point of their limitations, and hires gatekeepers to make sensible per-case decisions on whether an app adheres to the point of the rules. Wording of a rule may sensibly apply in one case but not another, based on culture & context. User experience does not decompose well into precise requirements. If all it takes is a brief disclaimer in a description, and that disclaimer is a fair notification to the user of some behavior that reasonably isn't expected, then put it in and resubmit.
russelluresti 13y ago
Reasonable request is reasonable.

11 points by coneybeare 13y ago

If you choose to be a sharecropper you must accept the landlord's rules. As for myself I'm through with it and my future apps will be Mac/Windows/Linux desktop apps. Mobile has a lot of potential but I won't bow down to the gatekeepers any more.

hmottestad 13y ago

It's like the Mafia, lot's of unwritten rules.

joeblau 13y ago
All of the rules are written down. It's just that developers don't read them.
- hmottestad 13y ago
  The whole article is about how there was no rule written down. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a problem. He was following the rules to the point already.

ceejayoz 13y ago

Christ, dude, they're asking for a disclaimer in the description. There are true problems with the App Store review process, but this doesn't strike me as one. Add the line and get your app in the store.

seivan 13y ago
Agree, feels like a cheap marketing stunt by OP.
w0utert 13y ago
Or just re-submit it another time and see what happens, try to negotiate, try to get an explanation why this requirement is not in the submission guidelines, whatever. The people reviewing submitted apps are just that: people. They sometimes make mistakes just like you and me. If you're unlucky an overzealous reviewer looked at your app, or someone misinterpreted the guidelines. Could be anything. Or maybe Apple simply changed their guidelines and you have to comply, as an end-user I can see why Apple would want to include a warning about battery life for apps that do continuous GPS tracking. Big deal...
darkchasma 13y ago
My thought exactly, what's the problem here. It would have taken less time to add it and resubmit than to whine on a blog post.

cgtyoder 13y ago

Don't you know Apple doesn't allow complaining about their decisions? They are listening! IT KNOWS.

iamkoby 13y ago

Sometimes legal litigation forces companies to take extra measures and describing the obvious is something that already was tested in court. You feel that's obvious because you understand the tech behind it but some users (maybe the less educated ones) don't understand this, and then they sue apple for shorter than published battery life. By forcing you to include this label in your terms it releases legal responsibility. For absurdity in warning labels follow one of the most famous cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...

ceejayoz 13y ago
That case wasn't as absurd as people think. From the article: > Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. She got third-degree burns from coffee stored at an unsafe temperature. McDonalds had ample evidence that this was a problem.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Coffee snob here. Optimal brewing occurs at 195-205 degrees F, and is consumed soon after. Good coffee is served HOT, and people in general know this - yet continue to demand it at the drive-thru, and continue to do stupid things with it. Heck, the very existence of the drive-thru is a much bigger problem: dwarfing the 700 complaints of coffee burns, eating while driving reportedly contributes to some 80% of all automotive accidents, more dangerous than the much-maligned texting while driving - yet there is no call to eliminate drive-thrus for obvious on-the-run consumption. Yes, people get severe burns by placing properly brewed coffee between their legs while driving. This is well-known, and there is little to stop it short of people not doing stupid things.
  - projct 13y ago
    "eating while driving reportedly contributes to some 80% of all automotive accidents, more dangerous than the much-maligned texting while driving" Source?

jcampbell1 13y ago

I hope this app is rejected. > To fall in line with Apple’s expectations that iOS 7 apps always stay up to date in the multitasker, background GPS is necessary here so that I can keep the multitasker preview up to date with current information on the closest station. This guy thinks it is a good idea to trash the user's battery so the app switcher screenshot is up to date. Is this guy serious?

joeblau 13y ago
Apple does encourage you to update your switcher screenshot especially in gaming. This could be a valid use, but it could kill the battery and the dev should warn users of that.
glimmung 13y ago
He does say that it's off by default, so I don't think that your speculation about his thinking is warranted.

wrongc0ntinent 13y ago

My battery is not your playground :)

nathas 13y ago

You're publishing to a closed system. Apple isn't exactly a paragon of openness and acceptance. What did you expect?

joeblau 13y ago

I would rather see that disclaimer then download your app, install it, and wonder why my battery is dying so fast. That is a problem that I had on the Windows Phone. I downloaded a few apps and one of them was killing my battery so I had to go one by one disabling each app every day to figure out that the culprit was a GroupMe. I'm surprised they also aren't rejecting you for the .99 cent In-App Purchase just to remove ads. They discouraged that practice at the last Tech Talk that I went to.

ctdonath 13y ago

Apple has realized that by publishing strict rules, many developers will fight the explicit letter of the law while ignoring the spirit thereof. Ergo, general rules have been published but the reviewers have great leeway to determine that a submission has missed the obvious point (ex.: a battery-sucking background app should at least inform a user that it will do so). They're not going to explicitly declare exactly what is/isn't allowed to perfect clarity precisely because written language isn't perfectly clear when readers don't want it to be (ex.: USA's Bill Of Rights). Rather than get into ongoing fights over what exact wording should be, Apple understandably opts for a verbose but imperfect description of the point of their limitations, and hires gatekeepers to make sensible per-case decisions on whether an app adheres to the point of the rules. Wording of a rule may sensibly apply in one case but not another, based on culture & context. User experience does not decompose well into precise requirements. If all it takes is a brief disclaimer in a description, and that disclaimer is a fair notification to the user of some behavior that reasonably isn't expected, then put it in and resubmit.

russelluresti 13y ago

Reasonable request is reasonable.