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

Apple rejected my dictation app for using the accessibility API

mitmllc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 200 posts

Re: Apple rejected my dictation app for using the accessibility API

#161

Post by Sophira »

jchw wrote: post #67
spiral90210 wrote: post #14

SpaceGremlin (mac alternative to WinDirStat) has a similar thing, where some features only work in the independent "SpaceGremlinPro" version downloaded from their site. However, they do some cool stuff with licensing - you can point it to the app store paid/installed version, and it detects the license and unlocks. If you're worried about people not trusting payment to you, might be worth seeing if you could implemen…

There is something amusing about the fact that WinDirStat, as far as I know, was based on KDirStat (now QDirStat), yet this doesn't even get mentioned on their Wikipedia page, and by and large a lot of people don't even know QDirStat exists. One time someone even asked me if they knew of a good alternative for Linux; good news!

To my knowledge, SequoiaView[0] predates even KDirStat - it just didn't have the tree view paired with it.

[0] https://sequoiaview.win.tue.nl/

Re: Apple rejected my dictation app for using the accessibility API

#162

Post by skykooler »

int0x29 wrote: post #156
Barbing wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but miffing to open Privacy & Security & see dozens of apps pretending to need “accessibility” features. Apple has a dozen+ categories there but many poweruser apps I want specifically need accessibility. Is there an opinionated reason not to break out capabilities?

> Is there an opinionated reason not to break out capabilities? If you have a disability and need tools to use your computer the last thing you want to do is have those things not only off by default but complicated and involved to turn on.

Is there a reason a capability has to be covered by only a single permission? Why not have one accessibility permission that covers all that and then a bunch of individual permissions for non-accessibility apps?

Re: Apple rejected my dictation app for using the accessibility API

#163

Post by jchw »

Sophira wrote: post #161
jchw wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something amusing about the fact that WinDirStat, as far as I know, was based on KDirStat (now QDirStat), yet this doesn't even get mentioned on their Wikipedia page, and by and large a lot of people don't even know QDirStat exists. One time someone even asked me if they knew of a good alternative for Linux; good news!

To my knowledge, SequoiaView[0] predates even KDirStat - it just didn't have the tree view paired with it. [0] https://sequoiaview.win.tue.nl/

No doubt KDirStat was based on SequoiaView, but WinDirStat was based directly on KDirStat, as in it was a port of it to Windows. I don't think it is incorrect to mention SequoiaView as the original, but it nonetheless feels weird to skip a hop too. It got not just the tree view but even the name from KDirStat.

Re: Apple rejected my dictation app for using the accessibility API

#164

Post by claviska »

They rejected mine too for the exact same reason, despite press-to-talk being a legitimate accessibility issue.

I wrote about this here [1], and even called out some of the most common disabilities that clearly benefit from it.

They also don’t allow microphone access from keyboard extensions in iOS, which prevented me from shipping an iPhone target (that I really wanted for myself tbh).

It’s a shame and I can only assume they’re trying to protect their built-in dictation, which historically has been laughably bad.

[1] https://tonguetype.app/accessibility

Re: Apple rejected my dictation app for using the accessibility API

#165

Post by coldtea »

Muhammad523 wrote: post #36
coldtea wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is what happens when you run an OS controlled by some random big corporation You get a channel for installing apps, where someone vetoes random apps that want to have access to control your whole computer and potentially steal sensitive data? > Install some GNU/Linux distro and you can do whatever you want. And any random app can get total control and steal your data, unless you know how to enable restrictions…

It's not true that any app can get total control of your system. If you install them via flatpak, the apps are sandboxed. Also, unless you log in as root, the apps can't do much. Wonder why the most important systems in the world and big tech's servers run GNU/Linux? There's a reason I dont wanna start a war over this btw, even though it may not seem :)

>Also, unless you log in as root, the apps can't do much.

On a personal computer, they "can't do much" to the things you can trivially re-create by reinstalling anyway. Apps, system files, etc.

They can however do everything to your own files, steal your documents, bank account data, and more.

That a progran run as you without root "can't do much" made sense for multi-user Unix services, not for a personal computer and your own files.

>Wonder why the most important systems in the world and big tech's servers run GNU/Linux? There's a reason

Yes, and it's not because "unless you log in as root, the apps can't do much" on your personal laptop.

Re: Apple rejected my dictation app for using the accessibility API

#166

Post by PaulHoule »

Is it really true you get more distribution from the MacOS App Store? I would never use that App Store to install something unless I had absolutely no other choice —- and that would mean I would take somebody else’s app which was a little less polished or functional. We’ve had an App Store in Windows since Windows 8 and it has been a big joke, like maybe you use it to download some crapplet to use the scanner attached to your printer or something.

Re: Apple rejected my dictation app for using the accessibility API

#167

Post by patates »

int0x29 wrote: post #153
marvin-hansen wrote: post #118

I actually had the almost same situation by building an offline voice dictation app for macOS and iOS, and in macOS I was confronted with the exact same situation. However, I would like to point out that Apple isn't totally wrong here because the accessibility API unfortunately is way too broadly scoped, and because of that you literally get access to everything on the computer like you you can screenshot listen and…

> However, I would like to point out that Apple isn't totally wrong here because the accessibility API unfortunately is way too broadly scoped, and because of that you literally get access to everything on the computer like you you can screenshot listen and and move the cursor... This is completely ridiculous and the proper engineering solution would actually be to phase out the accessibility API and replace it with…

> Chrome and anything electron based don't provide any accessibility information to the OS

Are we sure about this? At least on windows, NVDA works fine with chrome and any electron apps.

Re: Apple rejected my dictation app for using the accessibility API

#168

Post by thewebguyd »

exitb wrote: post #142
marvin-hansen wrote: post #118

I actually had the almost same situation by building an offline voice dictation app for macOS and iOS, and in macOS I was confronted with the exact same situation. However, I would like to point out that Apple isn't totally wrong here because the accessibility API unfortunately is way too broadly scoped, and because of that you literally get access to everything on the computer like you you can screenshot listen and…

Isn’t that just deliberate on their part? As in, they genuinely don’t want developers to use these APIs and just allow them for accessibility use cases.

If that were the case, and Apple suddenly decided that no apps are allowed to use the accessibility APIs, so many utilities would just cease to exist, it'd ruin the OS tbh.

You'd lose all window managers, things like alfred and textexpander, screenshot tools, computer use agents, etc.

Post reply on HN