"I did not like the app and their service, so I am breaking the law because I am so smart"
None of this is illegal.
Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)
221–230 of 571 posts
Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who uses apps, the hoops you have to jump through are one of the reasons I prefer apps. I'm glad Apple knows who you are and have scrutinized (to some degree) your app. I have no interest in installing a web app that could look innocuous today and be entirely different every time I hit F5.
> I have no interest in installing a web app that could look innocuous today and be entirely different every time I hit F5. Or as I have encountered several times over the years, it turned out to have vanished without a trace for whatever reason (author got bored, became ill, didn’t want to pay for the domain any more, etc) when I reach for it, sending me searching for an alternative in the midst of a task. Self-cont…
This highlights the differences between what developers want vs. what (some) end users want. Developers love the web because they can change things and deploy instantly, they can have a single version of their app "out there" and not have to worry about clients running old software, and they can take their software down when it becomes inconvenient to maintain. Users on the other hand, like apps: They don't want their app changing out from under them suddenly. They want to be allowed to use the old version they are comfortable with and that's not stuffed with ads. And they want the assurance that the software will actually be there the next time they want to use it.
I personally have no love for web apps either. No matter how many well-behaving developers are out there, the median web developer has ruined the web as an app platform to the point where I view web software as generally hostile, ad-filled, spyware, that's under the control of and serves the web developer's interests over the end user's interests.
Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)
#223I was recently raving about how NYC's metro payment system OMNI doesn't require an app, so you can use whatever contactless payment device you already have to get around NYC. That characteristic makes it so easy to just slide into the metro without having to deal with unfamiliar apps and all the mental overhead that comes with them on top of all the mental stress and sensory overload that comes with traveling.
Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)
#224YES!!! I fucking hate all these stupid web-pages-as-Apps
Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)
#225"I did not like the app and their service, so I am breaking the law because I am so smart"
None of this is illegal.
really? did you even read T&C of that app?
Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
How far down does this go? Should I be able to contact the individual person who picked the specific strawberries in my carton of strawberries? In the Walmart t-shirt example, should I have the contact info for not only the factory but the other suppliers who made the dyes, threads, cotton, the people who made the fuel for the harvester, the people who welded the tractor together? Sure, maybe your idealist answer is…
> How far down does this go? Should I be able to contact the individual person who picked the specific strawberries in my carton of strawberries? Down to the manufacturer of the whole product you're buying. In the case of your strawberries that would probably be the farmer. > In the Walmart t-shirt example, should I have the contact info for not only the factory but the other suppliers who made the dyes, threads, cot…
> Down to the manufacturer of the whole product you're buying.
In case of an app, what is the "product" you are buying? Because according to Apple, they add a lot of "value" by ensuring the software is safe, performant, etc etc. Am I not buying "a safe, checked app"? Or am I buying an app and then separately pay Apple for an added service of "checking the app for safety" etc etc. I'd very much presume the first.
But if its separate, "an app" can be rather ambigous. For a one-time-purchase game, its clear. But many apps are really a service or even more that happen to have "an app" as one of the ways to interact with the service: Netflix, Uber, protonmail, Vinted (or ebay), etc etc: the app isn't the thing I buy. It's a wrapper around a service. Or even just one of the portals through which I can buy stuff. Point being: It's not simple, so your answers don't fit the analogy of "wallmart".
Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)
#227Low-tech users don't give a damn if something has the guts of an "app" or not, they care about having a thing on the home screen they can click.
Businesses have the incentive to give their users that low friction experience (at the point of need) using already familiar rails (i.e. "install app from app store").
The makers of both iOS and Android treat the ability to "bookmark" a web URL onto your home screen as a power user feature that requires navigating through complex, technical-sounding menus. Does it have to be like that? Of course not. They just have a business interest in pushing users away from the open web and towards their walled gardens.
--
Mind you, I'm not saying, "advertising doesn't play a role in this". A clump of well aligned motivations is obviously going to be more powerful than a single isolated motivation. But let's not forget that apps built for non-technical users, which—I cannot stress this enough—IS MOST USERS, benefit greatly from lowest common denominator solutions where they never feel like they have to learn anything to get going.
Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)
#228We were supposed to be in the age of PWAs. That was the initial plan for iOS before the app store and 30% cuts on subscription apps. Most web apps suck too though so I guess pick your poison. My strong belief is they want apps because they can spam you with notifications to get your attention.
With the state of current Android locking down to iOS level of closeness ( https://keepandroidopen.org )
Since my last smart phone broke, I have held out on getting a smart phone for personal use. Sure for doing professional stuff for work, I'll use the work phone, but NOT going to pay my own money to get a surveillance device now.
If you are a business, and the you don't have a web site working, then yeah too bad.
Until Ubuntu Touch or something similar catches up and can run on old smart phone in a reliable way (not having to hunt down ROM like LineageOS ) it will be going back to before 2007 for me. It is more inconvenient sometimes, but life is also better in many ways.
Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who uses apps, the hoops you have to jump through are one of the reasons I prefer apps. I'm glad Apple knows who you are and have scrutinized (to some degree) your app. I have no interest in installing a web app that could look innocuous today and be entirely different every time I hit F5.
Exactly. I've published apps. When GP says their actual app is "pretty much garbage" and that there was red tape and nitpicking - Apple is trying to stop garbage !
It's hard to go look in the app store and see what a dumpster fire it actually is and then claim Apple is trying. They aren't. They're just claiming that as marketing to keep their money making machine.
Re: Your 'app' could have been a webpage (so I fixed it for you)
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were actually doing a good job this would make sense. Just weeks ago they published a sanctioned Russian bank's app masquerading as a pomedoro timer lmao.
It's not about a "good job" or a "bad job". It's a continuous game of cat and mouse. They're getting better at it just as some of the best funded bad actors are.
They only have 500 reviewers for the whole App Store, and in fact, they were chastised by the judge in the Epic case for investing very little in the review process six years ago when they also only had 500 reviewers for the whole App Store. This isn't cat and mouse it's theater while they're shielded by section 230 immunity and pocketing enormous profits.