Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

readitlaterlist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#21

Post by edanm »

poundy wrote: post #5

I am a newbie in this space. Is it better to build webapps for Twitter, facebook and Gmail like applications that rely heavily on the data to be downloaded? Is this the best route for web developers to take? I have seen sencha mobile and it looks great for cross device compatibility as well iphone/ipad/android.

Hi, being new I think it might be a good idea to tell you why you're being downvoted. You're posting a comment that is a good question, but has nothing to do with this article. There are other places more suited for such questions (you can post it here as an "Ask HN" thread, but there are places that talk specifically about these kinds of issues which are even better).

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#22

Post by maushu »

Wouldn't be better to have registration optional for syncing? You could still use Read It Later without registering but only on the current platform without syncing.

Ps: If you follow this thread of logic then Apple is right, a person doesn't need to register to use the basic features of the application.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#23

Post by jrockway »

mkramlich wrote: post #16

I've rejected Apple's ability to tell me what programming language I'm allowed to use (whether I'm kept back in the 80's in terms of language sophistication, for example) and I've rejected their ability to make me wait weeks only to hear an update has been rejected for some dumb random reason which they shouldn't care about at all. I've rejected a marketplace full of fart apps that somehow do meet with their approval…

So has everyone else. They rejected AT&T, too, and Apple's market share went from "everyone" to "just the true believers".

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#24

Post by fhars »

barrkel wrote: post #17
credo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>This developer is an idiot. >>It's very simple. You can't make people register for no reason just to use an app. (e.g. just to harvest their information.) >>My guess is the author is using a fake controversy to drum up attention for his product. Astroturfing, methinks. I think you're being unduly harsh on this developer. "Read it later" is an instapaper-like app and it makes perfect sense for the app to need an acc…

It was at 6 when it was 3 minutes old, IIRC. (Or it might have been 3 at 6 minutes. What I do know is that I was struck by how oddly popular it was for a flamebaity comment from a new account.)

And now it is at -12, as you can see by looking at the total karma of -13 for this one-comment throwaway account. (Ha, I found an information disclosure vulnerability in the HN codebase ;-))

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#25

Post by buster »

Let's face it: Apple will and can reject whatever they want for whatever reasons and you can do nothing about (except by abandoning the appstore).

I personally couldn't invest weeks of time in an app where i can't be sure whether it may be rejected for some stupid reason.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#26

Post by allwein »

mikeknoop wrote: post #9
letmein2 wrote: post #3

This developer is an idiot. It's very simple. You can't make people register for no reason just to use an app. (e.g. just to harvest their information.) Twitter, facebook, evernote, all have account features so they were approved. Apple was crystal clear explaining this. The poster's muddled logic and inflamatory reaction shows me why Instapaper by Marco is a vastly superior product. My guess is the author is using a…

How would you expect a service like this to exist without tieing an account to the items which you marked to read later?

So it depends on what you view as the primary functionality of this app.

If the primary functionality is the syncing between multiple devices, then this rejection is invalid and I understand the developer's dismay since an account would absolutely be necessary.

If the primary functionality is "save this article to read later", then I can understand the reviewer's rejection. In theory, you could implement this software locally for single device, which wouldn't require any registration. And then you would only need an account if you wished to enable the "secondary" syncing functionality. I think this was the reviewer's frame of mind.

So I think this is simply a case of miscommunication and misunderstanding that will be corrected shortly.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#27

Post by wallflower »

mkramlich wrote: post #16

I've rejected Apple's ability to tell me what programming language I'm allowed to use (whether I'm kept back in the 80's in terms of language sophistication, for example) and I've rejected their ability to make me wait weeks only to hear an update has been rejected for some dumb random reason which they shouldn't care about at all. I've rejected a marketplace full of fart apps that somehow do meet with their approval…

Can you imagine the backlash if Apple raised the bar on what would be an acceptable app? Class action lawsuits and senators would get involved. They knew there was no way to get the best apps without allowing anyone (with restrictions) to submit an app.

As an iPhone developer, I agree with the seemingly too long eight to ten day approval queue. However, the App Store's closed marketplace is currently the only viable solution for independent developers to have the potential for making money. Unless Android decides to reign in part of its anarchist marketplace, the Apple App Store will be the marketshare leader. iTunes is a fuzzy safe place for people to buy stuff - before iTunes it was very difficult for people who wanted to buy music without time-bomb DRM involved. People like the feeling of security - locks on doors are a good thing.

Apple may be banning other languages (with exceptions like Lua) because it is a protectionist policy that benefits them and (to a lesser degree) their developers. Think of Objective C/Cocoa as a tariff that developers must pay to enter the closed marketplace. App makers like Titanium and Phonegap devalue the value of the marketplace because they allow anyone to participate and simultaneously release apps to multiple platforms.

In the long run, Google and Android will get the majority of market share. That is their strategy. It's like Windows v. Mac redux. Commodity against premium.

The reality is that before Apple - you had to court a mobile network operator to get an app on a mobile device. And they took 50%.

If Google cared about its Android developers, they would buy an app maker like Titanium and make it the Visual Basic of the mobile web.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#28

Post by vaksel »

msy wrote: post #18

I think the wording is poor here but this basically appears to boil down to 'you cannot ask for a bunch of personal information from users for no valid reason'. Which seems entirely reasonable and a good use of Apple's power to stop the harvesting of personal information. But lets not let that get in the way of a good outrage session.

I think all this will do, is just get the people to add one tiny functionality that meets this requirement.
Post reply on HN