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

App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

notes.alinpanaitiu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 364 posts

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#211

Post by ausbah »

rickspencer3 wrote: post #209

What really galls me, and I know I have ranted about this here before, is that you can't even really load an app ON YOUR OWN PHONE without paying for a developer account, not to mention that I can't side load something someone else made. I get that iPhones are nifty and all, but I don't see how people can spend that money on a device that locks the owner out of basic functionally. Android is not perfect, but at least…

my guess is simple because 99% of people have their needs met by the app store and / or have no interest in side loading because it's too technical for too little benefit

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#212

Post by twobitshifter »

icelancer wrote: post #11
sp332 wrote: post #2

It's a bummer obviously, but is there an actual reason not to just use the website?

a huge amount of mobile users don't know what a "website" is and just use apps

But they usually use the google app to find info, rather than going to the app store.

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#213

Post by dylan604 »

josephcsible wrote: post #194
dylan604 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would that dev do without their 80% they are making now if there was no iDevices? That 80% looks pretty good compared to 0%

If there were no iDevices, the developers would make their apps for more open platforms instead. Don't pretend the apps just wouldn't exist at all.

Right, because the millions of people that have a mobile device as the one and only compute device would magically be buying a different type of computer?

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#214

Post by Loeffelmann »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #182

Maybe this is a controversial opinion but I think I agree with Apple here. The Google and Microsoft stores are absolutely full of completely useless featureless apps, many of which exist only to trick you into thinking that it is something else. My general mental rule is "could this app be a website"? And in this case it absolutely could be.

I guess airbnb shouldn't have an app

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#215

Post by dane-pgp »

mastazi wrote: post #163

Some apps are "too simple" but at the same time, something along these lines is OK by Apple's standards: "Thanks for purchasing the Acme Kettle! In order to boil your water, you need to download an app! But don't worry, it's easy! You just need to create an account, enter your personal data, accept our legally binding terms and conditions and verify your phone number and your email, "for your safety"! Oh and we will…

Or re-enabling the "boiling" functionality requires upgrading to their subscription plan, to help pay for their online service which checks that you are using official Acme branded water.

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#216

Post by j-bos »

ausbah wrote: post #211
rickspencer3 wrote: post #209

What really galls me, and I know I have ranted about this here before, is that you can't even really load an app ON YOUR OWN PHONE without paying for a developer account, not to mention that I can't side load something someone else made. I get that iPhones are nifty and all, but I don't see how people can spend that money on a device that locks the owner out of basic functionally. Android is not perfect, but at least…

my guess is simple because 99% of people have their needs met by the app store and / or have no interest in side loading because it's too technical for too little benefit

This applies to android as well

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#217

Post by Apocryphon »

Loeffelmann wrote: post #214
LeoPanthera wrote: post #182

Maybe this is a controversial opinion but I think I agree with Apple here. The Google and Microsoft stores are absolutely full of completely useless featureless apps, many of which exist only to trick you into thinking that it is something else. My general mental rule is "could this app be a website"? And in this case it absolutely could be.

I guess airbnb shouldn't have an app

Or Uber, Lyft, Spotify, Netflix, food delivery sites, basically any website (according to the GP)

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#218

Post by aendruk »

Loeffelmann wrote: post #214
LeoPanthera wrote: post #182

Maybe this is a controversial opinion but I think I agree with Apple here. The Google and Microsoft stores are absolutely full of completely useless featureless apps, many of which exist only to trick you into thinking that it is something else. My general mental rule is "could this app be a website"? And in this case it absolutely could be.

I guess airbnb shouldn't have an app

You say it sarcastically, but yes, I do hold that view. Our current norms are absurd.

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#219

Post by gcheong »

mastazi wrote: post #163

Some apps are "too simple" but at the same time, something along these lines is OK by Apple's standards: "Thanks for purchasing the Acme Kettle! In order to boil your water, you need to download an app! But don't worry, it's easy! You just need to create an account, enter your personal data, accept our legally binding terms and conditions and verify your phone number and your email, "for your safety"! Oh and we will…

This is exactly why I didn't get the Joule sous vide immersion circulator despite it being recommended by some big name sites when it first came out. Why would I get something for cooking that can't be used without an app on a phone?

Re: App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

#220

Post by writeslowly »

nate wrote: post #15

Ran into the exact same problem with a very simple camera app I made. Camera app was completely gesture based. So you never had to find a button to quickly flip the camera to the other side of the phone or find the button to start/stop recording. It made using a camera a lot quicker to get multiple shots of a scene and your reaction shot. Also added in stabilization to the front lens, which was easy but wasn't enable…

Not knowing Apple’s approval process, is it possible to pull a “Ship of Theseus” on the App Store, like release a full-blown social network app and then gradually replace features until it functions as a simple camera app instead?
Post reply on HN