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

331–340 of 364 posts

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

#331

Post by geraneum »

nullwarp wrote: post #255
geraneum wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not basic functionality for everyone. I’m a developer. I have an iPhone which contains personal photos, bank apps, etc. (basic functionality) I have another device with Android which I can run my custom http server on, or i.e compile some code on the plane for fun. I don’t want to worry about what the app that I side loaded last month is now doing with my photos or or if the phone is spying on me for an ad com…

This comes up every time and I have such a hard time believing it's not some kind of weird bot response. The entire line of reasoning makes no sense to me. You login to bank websites, store photos on computers, and those are not locked down. Yes somehow, for some reason, your mobile devices needs it? It makes no sense to me, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic. It just doesn't line up.

So if I have a desktops which is not locked down, does it mean that increasing the chance that I loose my data (on a portable device) doesn’t matter?

What if I copy my data to two portable devices? Do you now see the flaw in your reasoning?

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

#332

Post by Curzel »

> Buy tickets button (which should always point you to the correct website to get tickets from) There you go, being tickets "digital", Apple wants a 30% cut, and they are basically forcing you to implement in-app payments. It sucks man!

Try change the wording from "Buy Tickets" to "Get more information" or "Visit Website" to get around the review process, and work from there

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

#334

Post by butz »

Please, build MORE simple apps. I would pay for a suite of simple Android applications that respect privacy, take least amount of "disk" space and RAM, load and work as fast as platform allows it. Replacements for bloated system apps, like calendar, messages, email etc., also some other apps like qr reader, notes and similar.

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

#335

Post by jakear »

ccouzens wrote: post #246
jakear wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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)

As horrendously user hostile as that is, the use case here seems to be you find an event to attend when in service range and want to check back on it when you’re nearby, which may be out of service. The 7 day expiry wouldn’t be hit.

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

#337

Post by JimDabell »

Apocryphon wrote: post #327
JimDabell wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "if iOS is opened up, Meta will put Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp on their own app store and steal user data" doomsday scenario has always seemed a little half-baked to me. Meta was literally already caught doing this by abusing enterprise certificates to bypass the App Store to spy on people, including children, until Apple stopped them. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/31/apple-fac...

Yes, and presumably the authorities would not go easy on them next time, with the greater political pressure to rein them in. And if Meta was doing that on their own third party store where all attention can be focused on them, misbehavior would be even more visible because they would not be hiding it behind someone else’s platform.

This happened after GDPR was in force and the EU was pushing hard on privacy. I just think it’s a little silly to dismiss as “half-baked” the idea that Meta might do something they have already been caught doing before. This is not a company that is afraid to break the rules when it comes to privacy.

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

#338

Post by otikik »

Bud wrote: post #302
otikik wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, jailbreaking. You mean that thing that you can now, and have always been able to do, without anyone interfering? Having trouble seeing which tiny sliver of a point you have left.

Have a very nice day

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

#339

Post by 8note »

JimDabell wrote: post #326
Apocryphon wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "if iOS is opened up, Meta will put Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp on their own app store and steal user data" doomsday scenario has always seemed a little half-baked to me. Regulators on both sides of the pond are scrutinizing tech companies for all sorts of issues now. I doubt the EU will just be asleep at the wheel if Meta sets up a massive data collection op on European citizens. User data and privacy is just as…

> The "if iOS is opened up, Meta will put Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp on their own app store and steal user data" doomsday scenario has always seemed a little half-baked to me. Meta was literally already caught doing this by abusing enterprise certificates to bypass the App Store to spy on people, including children, until Apple stopped them. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/31/apple-fac...

So what you're saying is that the app store is just as good as the government in this case? If meta will do this anyways, I'd rather have the openness and democratic oversight

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

#340

Post by ace2358 »

thunky wrote: post #274
ace2358 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you believe it or not, most people have sensitive information on their phone and not their ‘computer’ (I guess a desktop thing, if they have one!). For most people, they couldn’t care what happens to their computer. Not everyone is the same, but it’s not an uncommon situation. So security for the phone is more important for some people than computer security.

Not buying it. You thing people just use their computer to play solitaire and nothing else?

People just don’t have desktops or laptops. Their phone is their computer. I know this is true for some of my family members!
Post reply on HN