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

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#51

Post by lzw »

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…

It's the ultimate quality control.... If you aren't willing to learn objective-C then you were likely not working on a worthwhile app.

Same thing if you already know objective c but are unwilling to develop in it.

Of course this is a side benefit, the realvreason was to keep flash crap off of the platform, so that apple wouldn't be hostage to adobe again.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#52

Post by lzw »

buster wrote: post #25

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.

I have invested months confident that my app wouldn't be rejected for a stupid reason, and i was right.

Still not aware of any apps rejected for stupid reasons. However there ares a lot of stupid reasons spread as misinformation to make people think apple is urneqsosnable in their review process.

Apple is pretty reasonable, even in this situation here.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#53

Post by dejb »

dejb wrote: post #32
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.

> But lets not let that get in the way of a good outrage session. I know it's an old argument and many people don't like to be reminded of it, but for some people, each an every one of these 'total platform rejections' represents an outrage.

Wow people are sensitive. Of course it's perfectly fine for the Apple apologists to rehash their justifications on each and every instance of this. But for somebody to reaffirm the basic problem with the app store model is deserving of censure. What a place of intelligent debate this is.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#55

Post by prime0196 »

aphyr wrote: post #48
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!

The Facebook and Twitter apps are actually web services that require a username/password and their apps are merely extensions of their website. Does his app have a standalone service that would justify a username/password? Or would it be equivalent to forcing me to register to play a game like Plant vs Zombies, which has no functionality that would justify password protecting it.

Re: New Rejection Reason From Apple May Have Major Implications

#56

Post by aphyr »

prime0196 wrote: post #55
aphyr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

The Facebook and Twitter apps are actually web services that require a username/password and their apps are merely extensions of their website. Does his app have a standalone service that would justify a username/password? Or would it be equivalent to forcing me to register to play a game like Plant vs Zombies, which has no functionality that would justify password protecting it.

TFA: "Read It Later is a simple account-based service. Read It Later does not collect ‘personal’ information, you just need a username and password to create an account. The account allows you to sync your reading list between your iPhone, iPad, computers, and browsers."
Post reply on HN