3 ms·

What's ironic is that people think nothing of google keeping spam out of its index, but have a problem with Apple keeping spam out of the AppStore. Apple's bee

by MCRed 12y ago

What's ironic is that people think nothing of google keeping spam out of its index, but have a problem with Apple keeping spam out of the AppStore. Apple's beef with Google started when they counterfeited iOS, which occurred while the Google chairman was on the Apple board of directors. (Something I would think would be pretty actionable.) Apple is not a centralized authority because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones. The decision making is neither hierarchical or secretive, as they have published the rules, and will cite chapter and verse when they reject you. I got rejected. I didn't cry, but I was pretty pissed for about 4 hours. It sucks and it's hard not to take it personally. But once I was objective, I realized they were right, I fixed the problem, and got published. Like OP, I realize they were right. Given the number of apps I've submitted to the Appstore and the few rejections I've gotten, it's clear Apple is playing fair. But it is ironic that google fans who never submit apps to the store generate so much grief and noise over Apple's rejections while being mum about googles actively shaping the the entire web to be lower quality. And unlike Apple, google does have an effective monopoly.

lazerwalker 12y ago
I generally agree with you, but the tricky part is that Apple only selectively enforces their stated guidelines. A large number of common rejection reasons are completely subjective and enforced purely at the discretion of the reviewer you get. That sort of rejection is fairly common - I personally had an app that I'd been using daily for months and had people waiting to pay me money for rejected for being "too simple". It's pretty widely known that if you're rejected for one of those stupid reasons, you're better off resubmitting rather than appealing the rejection, since re-rolling the dice is more likely to get you a different reviewer who doesn't care. Apple's system is better than the alternative (at least in my opinion), but it's far from perfect or "fair".
digitailor 12y ago
It's so refreshing to hear the attitude in this article, and MCRed's above. It's completely reasonable, this understanding that Apple has a right to decide what it sells in its own store. Unfortunately, other comments here often reflect the opposite attitude: "fAscIsm cLoseD anDroid aRRgh." Imagine this: A designer walks into corporate headquarters of Macy's with his sample garments that he wishes to sell there. He is given the opportunity to talk to a Macy's buyer (the person who selects garments to sell). The shirt the man shows says "So sO seKsy" on the right sleeve, there is what looks like a mustard stain on the collar (he defends that it is "the beautiful sun", and the construction is terrible- a button falls off while the buyer is looking at it. Buyer: "I'm sorry sir, this shirt is grotesque in my view. Best of luck to you." Designer: "Screw you! I'm going to sell it to Target! I'll never shop here again!!" Apple has no responsibility to sell shirts that it believes are ugly. And the OP recognized this and took his own responsibility. Kudos! Note: Not an Apple fanboy, see previous comments, but i do use some of their products
- jimmaswell 12y ago
  Yes but at least a Macy's shopper doesn't have to resort to hacks to even be allowed to wear that shirt. (Installing third-party APKs on an Android without the app store, not possible without jailbreak on iOS) Could they just go to the other store? In this instance that would have an upfront cost (getting a new phone)

by MCRed 12y ago

lazerwalker 12y ago

I generally agree with you, but the tricky part is that Apple only selectively enforces their stated guidelines. A large number of common rejection reasons are completely subjective and enforced purely at the discretion of the reviewer you get. That sort of rejection is fairly common - I personally had an app that I'd been using daily for months and had people waiting to pay me money for rejected for being "too simple". It's pretty widely known that if you're rejected for one of those stupid reasons, you're better off resubmitting rather than appealing the rejection, since re-rolling the dice is more likely to get you a different reviewer who doesn't care. Apple's system is better than the alternative (at least in my opinion), but it's far from perfect or "fair".

digitailor 12y ago

It's so refreshing to hear the attitude in this article, and MCRed's above. It's completely reasonable, this understanding that Apple has a right to decide what it sells in its own store. Unfortunately, other comments here often reflect the opposite attitude: "fAscIsm cLoseD anDroid aRRgh." Imagine this: A designer walks into corporate headquarters of Macy's with his sample garments that he wishes to sell there. He is given the opportunity to talk to a Macy's buyer (the person who selects garments to sell). The shirt the man shows says "So sO seKsy" on the right sleeve, there is what looks like a mustard stain on the collar (he defends that it is "the beautiful sun", and the construction is terrible- a button falls off while the buyer is looking at it. Buyer: "I'm sorry sir, this shirt is grotesque in my view. Best of luck to you." Designer: "Screw you! I'm going to sell it to Target! I'll never shop here again!!" Apple has no responsibility to sell shirts that it believes are ugly. And the OP recognized this and took his own responsibility. Kudos! Note: Not an Apple fanboy, see previous comments, but i do use some of their products

jimmaswell 12y ago
Yes but at least a Macy's shopper doesn't have to resort to hacks to even be allowed to wear that shirt. (Installing third-party APKs on an Android without the app store, not possible without jailbreak on iOS) Could they just go to the other store? In this instance that would have an upfront cost (getting a new phone)