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

241–250 of 364 posts

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

#241

Post by lstamour »

HWR_14 wrote: post #230
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.

Except with a free account (“ADP” according to Apple) there are limitations: https://help.apple.com/developer-account/#/dev21218dfd6

On top of that, apps installed this way expire after a number of days, possibly as few as 7 days? And there’s a limit to how many can be installed this way, might be as few as 5 apps.

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

#242

Post by josephcsible »

dylan604 wrote: post #213
josephcsible wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In what world can anyone afford an iDevice but not an Android device?

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

#243

Post by gtvwill »

bitwize wrote: post #196
andrepd wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's okay because [vague arguments about "protection" and "privacy"]

It's about making sure the apps are on brand with Apple delivering the best experience to its users.

Lol @ claims to make best environment for users by alienating a whole segment of users...

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

#244

Post by ja27 »

Been there. I have an iOS app that’s been a solid top 100 in it’s category and has been featured multiple times on the App Store. I decided to port it to macOS mostly as an experiment but a few reviews had asked for it. It was a big pain (pre-Catalyst or anything else). But I got it working well enough and thought it looked decent. I submitted it only to get it kicked back with the “too simple” rejection. Yeah, it’s simple, but people love it and use it. I didn’t even bother appealing.

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

#245

Post by paulryanrogers »

CharlesW wrote: post #111
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how that wouldn’t make sense… It’s not that they decided to set an arbitrary threshold of 3.7M apps, but that they have become more stringent on app approvals in light of the growth and quantity of apps in their store. I don’t think GP’s comment requires an incredulous snarky response, despite me not doing a great job making this point…

My comment was sincere. I'm interested in what the parent commenter believes triggered Apple to start specifically targeting small, independent developers.

Tightening guidelines can be an emergent behavior of an app store's growth. Reviewers' incentivizes likely play a huge role in this, and the power trip they get from rejecting things.

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

#246

Post by ccouzens »

jakear wrote: post #35
dmitriid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- available without internet - you can have personalisation in the app without needing to create an account - can have access to location without asking the user every time

- use a service worker - use local storage - persist previous location, have quick way to use a map or request location if needed

Doesn't local storage expire if you don't use a site for 7 days in Safari?

https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocki...

("7-Day Cap on All Script-Writeable Storage" heading about half way down)

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

#247

Post by LeoPanthera »

gerash wrote: post #233
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'm sure you'd love it when Apple starts pushing a whitelist of "high quality" URLs to your phone banning you from going to any other website to keep you safe from the trashy parts of the web.

That's a slippery slope argument, and a bad one.

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

#249

Post by DiggyJohnson »

CharlesW wrote: post #111
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how that wouldn’t make sense… It’s not that they decided to set an arbitrary threshold of 3.7M apps, but that they have become more stringent on app approvals in light of the growth and quantity of apps in their store. I don’t think GP’s comment requires an incredulous snarky response, despite me not doing a great job making this point…

My comment was sincere. I'm interested in what the parent commenter believes triggered Apple to start specifically targeting small, independent developers.

Well then I do apologize for my bluntness. The sibling comment put it much better: RE: “emergent behavior.”

Cheers, it is a good question.

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

#250

Post by ericmay »

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…

This is incorrect. You do not need to pay the developer fee to load apps that you create on your own phone.
Post reply on HN