App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

Post by lapcat » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 6:07 PM UTC

Grombobulous wrote: post #219

lapcat wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you’re purposefully misinterpreting the meaning of the quote to be a contrarian or to hate on Apple. "Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html By the way, I'm a longtime App Store developer, so my criticism of the App Store is not shallow. > It’s clear that the meaning of the quote is that Apple doesn’t look for strict technical qualifications (“they could breathe”), they instead…

I was not assuming bad faith, I was interpreting your meaning based on the words you said. I’m also an iOS developer and while there are a lot of things about the app review process that should be changed, I wouldn’t describe any of my reviewers as clueless. Maybe you’ve submitted more apps than me, though, and maybe you got a bad one. Like you said, app volumes are huge, so that’s probably a statistical inevitabilit…

Post by NetMageSCW » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 6:24 PM UTC

preg_match wrote: post #206

zbentley wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two big problems with this (not that Apple’s caprice is the only alternative): 1. The vast majority of people are Grandma, and they do not have a Johnny available to administer their tech. Most people are not technical. 2. The vast majority of Grandmas will follow instructions on a “how do I share cute photo” website even when that website directs them to dig deep into configuration settings and ignore six…

I think the bigger question is whether this is even worth solving. If people really want to give someone root access and do it willingly, maybe we just say this is out of our purview and allow it. And then, slowly, people will learn. They will be hard lessons but evidently baby proofing the entire world is not really working, so we might just abandon ship on that idea.

Post by NetMageSCW » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 6:28 PM UTC

Rohansi wrote: post #141

ceejayoz wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So your solution is to ban the sale of any kind of knife. If you give a toddler a butcher's knife to play with and they get hurt, you'll likely get in trouble for child endangerment. Using my car requires it be registered, pass my state's safety standards, and that I possess a valid license and follow a wide variety of rules. Maybe a certain level of protection is, at times, acceptable?

Those are very different scenarios because your "protection" is the threat of consequences. You can freely buy and use knives, you can drive your own car, but you can only use your phone to do what Apple approves of? Sure, banning knives, replacing cars with public transport, and locking down all computers should be safer in theory... but murderers will still murder and scammers will still scam. Social engineering is…

Post by NetMageSCW » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 6:34 PM UTC

VCFundedGenYer wrote: post #204

Stuff like this is always why I ruthlessly and aggressively push back against any Apple fanboyism claiming that the App Store protects users or makes them safer somehow. This kind of behavior from Apple is unacceptable. Sideloading needs to be forced upon them.

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 7:04 PM UTC

iamnothere wrote: post #217

ceejayoz wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather than passing laws to require a non-digital option for these things... Do you think I oppose this?

Seems like you’re pushing for control over user tech here over any sort of other regulation. Other regulation which would be much simpler to coordinate and which wouldn’t infringe on end user freedoms! Removing end user control, repairability, and hackability/repurposing (all related) should be the very last resort, not the first!