Live data from Hacker News

App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps

notes.alinpanaitiu.com

291–300 of 364 posts

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

#291

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.

> My general mental rule is "could this app be a website"?

More to the point: "Is this app interactive?"

I'm not convinced this one is. It displays information and allows the user to passively do things with that information (like adding shows to their calendar or buying tickets), but there's nothing the user can do to customize their experience within the app.

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

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... a beer glass that poured out beer when you tipped the phone, and a lightsaber app... Oh I remember those two. I think they were installed via Cydia[1] no? Or maybe it was right after, when the official AppStore was launched. Silly, but great wow factor in those early days. [1] for the youngsters here: Cydia was the only way to install apps in your iPhone before the AppStore was created (circa 2008). You had to…

They were on the app store for sure https://www.techeblog.com/ibeer/ https://www.macworld.com/article/191906/phonesaber.html

Thanks for linking these. What a fun read. The first few years of the App Store always seemed like the golden age. Users had no idea what these devices could do and were so eager to download and try new things, which fuelled some awesome indie creations.

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

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the first apps I remember on iOS were a beer glass that poured out beer when you tipped the phone, and a lightsaber app that made sheeewwwww sounds when you swung the phone around. We loved them It's ok to make stupid apps as long as you're not scamming. The oh-so-serious nature of the current online experience sucks

> ... a beer glass that poured out beer when you tipped the phone, and a lightsaber app... Oh I remember those two. I think they were installed via Cydia[1] no? Or maybe it was right after, when the official AppStore was launched. Silly, but great wow factor in those early days. [1] for the youngsters here: Cydia was the only way to install apps in your iPhone before the AppStore was created (circa 2008). You had to…

Wasn't there also a lightsaber sound effect application for Mac laptops, back when they had spinning hard drives with accelerometer sensors that triggered the head to disengage?

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

#295
post #64
post #9

Yep, I got this rejection when I made this tipping app ( https://apps.apple.com/us/app/tip-69/id1460610078 ). I went on to add OCR detection for receipts so you don't have to type in the amount, I added more tipping modes, I added split bill functionality, and eventually added an entire social network with the ability to share your receipt for the world to see, like or comment on. Must have spent months trying to get…

I have no love for Apple's walled-garden, and I absolutely appreciate 69 jokes, but this app is stupid.

take my eyes but not my app

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

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I completely got your point. The Android ecosystem is horrible for this kind of thing. There are roughly 200,000 varieties of calculator apps. Why? There should be some criteria to help consumers avoid poorly supported simplistic clones that are often just filled with adware.

Is there? If 200,000 calculator apps all fulfill your need, what is the problem? Just use one, and if it doesn't, use another. Use the stock one if you want, or ask some friends what they use. I agree rating systems are not an effective measure, and can be gamed, however.

Most of them probably don't fulfill my needs. They're likely stuffed with ads and spyware, have numberic precision issues, are missing functions I need, are subscription-based etc.

These days, I just use F-Droid for this sort of thing.

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

#298
post #177
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The user has no "right" to "install what they want". Words have meanings. If I own a gadget, I own it. That means that I _have the right_ to do whatever I want with it, including jailbreaking it, disassembling it, or throwing it from a cliff. Apple might not like it, and might take punitive action. Void the warranty, maybe even cancel your Apple account. But they can not send me to jail.

Relax. Nobody is talking about sending you to jail. What's at issue is whether you have the right to force Apple to carry any apps you want, in their App Store. And you don't. It's really that simple.

Relax. My post didn't talk only about jail.

> you have the right to force Apple to carry any apps you want

You might be talking about that, but I get the impression that the rest of us are talking about something else. I have, for example, specifically mentioned jailbreaking.

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have my entire life in my phone ... And that is precisely why you need control of your device, and not hand it over to some third-party, especially a corporate who has a vested interest to make as much money as possible from you, with the very data that you seek to protect! Would you really even be happy if some other third-party, like your government, took over this role of acting as your device's protectorate a…

Well now this is an argument for free (as in speech) software on the phone, not sure any closed source system will be able to satisfy what you're looking for (and that's a good thing, but it's a much stronger claim).

Unfortunately one of the reasons why active and passive advocates of right to privacy are losing this fight is because people don't intrinsically understand how important it is politically for them. The ignorant lightly mock us, asking what do you have to hide. Sure, it is easy to make them think about this by asking them to turn over their email / IM account credentials if they "don't have anything to hide", but it still doesn't really educate them.

People don't understand that our right to privacy protects us from becoming easy and vulnerable political targets. It is essential to provide us a sense of security that is essential for our mental well-being ("life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the US constitution puts it very simply). You may be a minority - a gay person or ethnic / religious / linguistic etc - and even if you live in a healthy democracy, you can be subject to light prejudice. Can you really feel secure if a Google search or a facial recognition software reveals everything about your identity to a stranger or a person in authority who can politically abuse it? Obviously, No. And this is not just confined to minorities. Even the majority community does experience anxiety and insecurity in a foreign or multi-cultural environment (a popular political saying in India is that everyone becomes a minority when they step out of their community). That sense of personal security and belonging can only come if you have a right of privacy and are in control of how much of your personal identity you want to reveal to someone. Democracies exist to protect minority rights. And everyone of us, sometime feel like a vulnerable minority because of some part of our identity. Without a right to privacy, our democracy fails us.

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

#300
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Screw the impact on developers. As a user, I'm more concerned about the impact on users. The EU is dead wrong. EU commissioners have absolutely zero clue about what makes for good "customer experience". There's one party that has proven, for 15 years now, to have the most clue about that. It's Apple.

That's a fine perspective to have, but many people feel that a government of elected representatives is a better place for determining and adjusting impacts on people.

A "government of elected representatives" (which is not what ruled in this case, of course, that's not what the EU body in question is) actually is the worst possible way to determine what a good customer experience.

Which is why God invented corporations for this purpose. I'm all for democracy, and there's a place for that. This isn't it.

Post reply on HN