New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications • Hacker News Board

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#41

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 3:51 PM UTC

allwein wrote: post #26

mikeknoop wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 softwar…

[deleted]

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#42

Post by rimantas » Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 4:41 PM UTC

wallflower wrote: post #37

rimantas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad you did not reject an urge to rant about the things you neither care about nor use them.

The poster of the parent comment is a published iPhone developer with substantial experience in delivering games and custom apps. http://synisma.com/iphone.html

Thanks for pointing that out. Now I am confused…

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#43

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 5:01 PM UTC

dieterrams wrote: post #15

The email is confusingly worded, but I think it's simply saying that 1. you can't require account registration if the app does not provide account-specific functionality, and 2. if your app has both account-specific and non-account-specific functionality, registration can only be required to access the former. I'm going to agree with houseabsolute and chalk this up to a mistake. That is, the app reviewer mistakenly a…

[deleted]

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#44

Post by kqueue » Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 5:11 PM UTC

so every time an app gets refused we have to whine and blog about it? bloggers are becoming obnoxiously louder every day.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#45

Post by interlock » Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 5:17 PM UTC

In my experience, this is similar to the notice I got when they wanted the submission to include information for login without registration. A resubmit with a dumby account satisfied Apple in my case.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#46

Post by boucher » Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 5:42 PM UTC

16s wrote: post #36

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…

How can you reject C and fart apps in the same rant? One is a serious technological breakthrough, the other is a mockery of technology. The OpenBSD guys have a point when they are critical of much of the new-fangled technology. When a significant percentage of power consumption and band-width are used for fart apps and Farmville, you have to wonder if that is a wise use of the technology. Edit: Clarified C's place in…

I think the policy is stupid, but I have a soft spot in my heart for Objective-C. It may be a product of the 80s but it remains very relevant, especially in its 2.0 form.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#47

Post by bcl » Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 6:54 PM UTC

Did you forget to give Apple a demo account for the reviewer to use?

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#48

Post by aphyr » Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 7:11 PM UTC

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.

Uhh, the article states it's only a username and password required. That's not really personal information, and it's for a valid reason. I say, outrage session approved. Especially for an app already in the store, whose explicit purpose is account specific!

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#49

Post by Sapslzr » Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 7:22 PM UTC

this is my favorite ff addon,

and apple may be evil, but if they products are the best, the market will buy them, no matter what

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#50

Post by mkramlich » Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 8:27 PM UTC

wallflower wrote: post #37

rimantas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad you did not reject an urge to rant about the things you neither care about nor use them.

The poster of the parent comment is a published iPhone developer with substantial experience in delivering games and custom apps. http://synisma.com/iphone.html

yes, thank you!

and I've sold non-iPhone software outside the App Store so I know what the alternatives are like. It is definitely a bigger challenge getting eyeballs but is better in most every other way.