91–100 of 369 posts
> It's very weird to be in love with and scared of the same thing: Apple. Sound like an abusive relationship, and like what an abused partner would say to try to rationalize the fact that they're economically dependent on the abuser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you want on your device, which is fine. But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices? Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing an…
> Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is, should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party auditing and approval? There are barely any devices these days which cannot meet the definition of "general purpose computing device" without drawing some arbitrary line somewhere. Certainly every modern game console qualifies. Are Roku boxes general purpose if it weren't…
A quick search for the term "general purpose device" gives me definitions such as the following:
Any computer-based device that accepts different applications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something. Seems like an app recommendation app.
I wouldn't mind one of those. Especially if it helped me find games that don't have in-app purchases and don't have in-game advertising. I'd buy those. But it's fucking impossible to find them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument keeps being repeated, and it's basically just "if you don't like it, find a different platform". Do you think that's how our rights should be preserved, by hopping to places and platforms that respect our rights? Where do we leave those who have to live with their devices, or simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time, or things have changed and now they need to install a…
Why would you buy a device where much of the value it provides is derived from its walled garden, then complain about the walls around the garden?
I mean, there’s a point to be made about how much monopoly power Apple holds, and it’s now clear these questions weren’t asked until now because lawmakers were really sweet on the maker of their shiny iPhone - but this letter ain’t it. The author is grovelling to the point of it being honestly pitiful. The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motiv…
I guess I was groveling. This was my livelihood and I was employing 20+ people. I did not want to give up on this and have to tell the team our work and their jobs were over. I tried to be honest and explain the situation, because I believed if Tim Cook understood what happened, he would make it right.
I mean, there’s a point to be made about how much monopoly power Apple holds, and it’s now clear these questions weren’t asked until now because lawmakers were really sweet on the maker of their shiny iPhone - but this letter ain’t it. The author is grovelling to the point of it being honestly pitiful. The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motiv…
What? I think the motivation behind the letter is pretty transparent -- trying to get the app back in the app store. Groveling is pretty consistent with that.
Were you thinking the motivation was something else? What motivation are you questioning?
Wow. I am the author of this email. I have no idea how it resurfaced after 5 years, I was only made aware of this when a friend emailed me the HN link. The sad thing is it was not just my company which was targeted, but Apple removed this entire product category. We never knew the real reason why, or if it was bigger than just a random app reviewer trying to apply Apple policy, until May 2019. That's when Bloomberg i…
The most alarming part of this is actually the clear evidence that they use arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of vague rules to actually enforce OTHER secret rules. In this case "no app recommendation engines", or more broadly "nothing that drives downloads". They didn't just say that. They pretended it was some other rule. Which means what people suspected is true -- they lie to you about the reason for your ap…
I've experienced this directly a few times. In one case, we had an app in the store for several years and a random update that fixed a crash was blocked for violating the rule around allowing out of app purchases. It took a couple weeks to appeal and get it approved. In that process, we changed nothing functional and resubmitted with a couple bits twiddled to make the package different and that passed.
In another instance, we made three white-labelled versions of the app. Both differed from the original app only in the colors in the design palette, and the name of the publisher since these were to be published under our customers' own accounts. One passed review without comment, and the other was abandoned after several months of back-and-forth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> simply lacked the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time What about the users who lacked the important knowledge that the apps they downloaded had deceptive advertising, or malware?
Are you arguing that because of the current possibility to install apps from third-party sources that might turn out to be malware, Windows should only allow installing apps from the Windows Store? Should we no longer be able to run software that has not received third-party approval?