351–360 of 483 posts
I ended up removing my app from the app store after I realized that Apple would never actually allow me to do what I wanted to do without having me go through hoops to get it approved every time i made an update.
Never been happier. I am sure Dash will do just fine outside the app store too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't give you advanced notice for "fraud" though. If your app actually commits fraud it's got to go right away to limit the amount of fraud you commit. They at least think some kind of fraud was happening, correctly or not.
No, they still could. The message could say: “We have received X complaints of fraud for your app, "Totally Not a Scam Lite", and it will be removed in 2 days unless you contact us immediately at number >. In addition, if this is found to be true, any sales of your app will be refunded and not credited to your developer account.”.
First of all, if it's actually fraud that totally doesn't scale.
But in a more nuanced case, look at the iMessage App that allowed people to send images that looked like a stock Messages blue bubble. Good idea for humor, not so good for non-trolling UX. Apple pulls it but gives the developer a week to see if there's any way to salvage the situation to ease the heartstrings and pocketbook.
IMMEDIATELY calls go out to download the infringing app, several thousand more than anyone who might otherwise (full Streisand effect)...
Then imagine that app actually has Malware! Lots to think about, and if people hate on Apple for this, fair enough — as an iOS dev it's tough to defend. Really love Dash. Hope it gets straightened out. 8 years in on the platform and you can do a ton of things you couldn't do back in 08, and vice versa.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We also weren't using as many walled-garden devices and ecosystems a decade ago. There are certainly a lot of issues with the app store model. But using a service like download.com was also rife with issues.
A curated app-store should not be considered synonymous with walled garden. android allows side-loading. windows has "install.exe", the microsoft store and steam co-existing side-by-side. linux distros have their package managers, container images and `curl ... | sudo bash`. Anyone who argues that all users must be herded into a walled garden in the name of security and alternatives are not acceptable is essentially…
That is the herpes of the Linux world. That is one of the worse things that someone can suggest to install something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's enraging is you pay 30% of your sales for that abusive treatment.
In their eyes, it's more like "we give you 70% of OUR sells in OUR platform, to OUR captive customers, they just happen to buy your App but they will buy something else if we want to ban you..." It's a matter of perspective. In their eyes, they are being incredibly generous with that deal.
I am annoyed by something else: today Apple stepped on the wrong toe, the community will cry foul and someone from Apple who reads HN will rush to salvage the situation. We have seen this pattern before (usually but not exclusively with Apple). But what about the thousands of small and nameless developers that were crushed by some script bug or killed by operator misclick? Who will ever help them?
Human support is supposed to help them. What I found unacceptable is "We are banning you and we won't tell you anything about it". This pattern is extremely common. And extremely frustrating. You can't put one in jail without telling why (and right to defend). In many developed countries you can't even fire a worker without a solid reason. It should be prohibited for companies to halt service someone without providin…
I'm in no way implying that such activity happened in this case, just that the policy makes sense.
An appeal process should be in place though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You act like there's a choice -- customers get apps through the app store, so that's where developers have to be if they want to eat.
Can we drop the whole "need to eat" language when talking about software development? We're talking about people with abundant opportunity to make tons of money. Tugging on the heartstrings with "they need to eat" or "feed their families" is preposterously over the top rhetoric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human support is supposed to help them. What I found unacceptable is "We are banning you and we won't tell you anything about it". This pattern is extremely common. And extremely frustrating. You can't put one in jail without telling why (and right to defend). In many developed countries you can't even fire a worker without a solid reason. It should be prohibited for companies to halt service someone without providin…
I also see the need for a company to be able to close an account for truly fraudulent activity and not disclose how they caught the misconduct. I'm in no way implying that such activity happened in this case, just that the policy makes sense. An appeal process should be in place though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human support is supposed to help them. What I found unacceptable is "We are banning you and we won't tell you anything about it". This pattern is extremely common. And extremely frustrating. You can't put one in jail without telling why (and right to defend). In many developed countries you can't even fire a worker without a solid reason. It should be prohibited for companies to halt service someone without providin…
>It should be prohibited for companies to halt service someone without providing a reasonable explanation. By US standards, that would require an absurd level of legislative and/or judicial overreach. I don't think I'd even want to do business in that kind of regulatory climate.