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

221–230 of 364 posts

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

#221

Post by salawat »

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

...The too technical part being self-inflicted by the requirement for yearly hundred bux and a working mastery of cryptography utils.

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

#222

Post by ccouzens »

Apocryphon wrote: post #95
worble wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this, one of the things that really struck me about apps on fdroid is just how simple they are. They do one thing, and (usually) do it pretty well, probably because the developers probably don't have the time and resources to do anything more than that. But that's perfect for someone who just wants the thing on their phone to do what it says on the tin.

I'm convinced that if iOS was opened up to third party app stores, a potentially popular store wouldn't be a Facebook/Google monopoly store that exists solely for user tracking, but rather something boutique and niche like F-Droid (except maybe without the FOSS focus). The current App Store is huge and unwieldy, its search and discovery UX dated. There's ample room for third party app stores that specialize in high-q…

Couldn't better search and discovery by achieved today by building a curated website that links to the Apple app store?

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

#223

Post by Aeolun »

trebbble wrote: post #8

They've done this since the early days of the app store. Mostly-content apps without really broad appeal have long carried a high risk of rejection. > Homescreen widgets: utterly useless, but can't get more iOS-y and less webapp-y than this, right? This especially, but really the whole post reads like the system working as intended. Granted (as the author notes) way too much shit gets through anyway, but that's not a…

I don’t see why you’d reject ‘mostly content’ apps as long as they have the content to justify keeping on your phone? If I want an app instead of a website that is my business.

I’m all for rejecting ‘low effort’ apps, but this app clearly isn’t low effort.

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

#225

Post by vorpalhex »

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

It's 30 seconds to sideload an app on Android.

Many good apps are available by sideload only. They seem to do well enough.

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

#226

Post by Aeolun »

Gigachad wrote: post #187
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.

Especially now that you can add a website as an icon to the home screen and it largely feels like a real app.

That feature is much too hidden to consider it a viable option for the mainsteam.

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

#227

Post by LeoPanthera »

mjamesaustin wrote: post #188
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.

Ah, so Reddit for example should not be allowed an app?

I mean, that's a bad example, the Reddit app is absolute garbage.

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

#229

Post by Aeolun »

Biganon wrote: post #204
kube-system wrote: post #181

This sucks as a developer and I sympathize. But, I absolutely hate when I have to download an app for something that could have been a website.

A few years ago I had made a website that worked perfectly as a website. Many people asked "why isn't it an app??" Guess you can't make everyone happy

Only developers will ask for it to be a website. Normal people are perfectly fine with an app.

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

#230

Post by HWR_14 »

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…

Except what you just said isn't true. Yes, Apple charges for developer accounts that lets you publish to the AppStore or even privately. But you can get a free version that lets you push to devices locally. So if you want to distribute your app not in the store you can do so as long as you release the source so other people can build it on their free account.
Post reply on HN