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

App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 232 posts

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#141

Post by Rohansi »

ceejayoz wrote: post #128
Timon3 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your solution is to ban the sale of any kind of knife. Sucks that people can't really cook at home anymore, but do we have to make it trivially easy for murderers?

> So your solution is to ban the sale of any kind of knife. If you give a toddler a butcher's knife to play with and they get hurt, you'll likely get in trouble for child endangerment. Using my car requires it be registered, pass my state's safety standards, and that I possess a valid license and follow a wide variety of rules. Maybe a certain level of protection is, at times, acceptable?

Those are very different scenarios because your "protection" is the threat of consequences. You can freely buy and use knives, you can drive your own car, but you can only use your phone to do what Apple approves of? Sure, banning knives, replacing cars with public transport, and locking down all computers should be safer in theory... but murderers will still murder and scammers will still scam.

Social engineering is the weakest link even if your grandma is doing all her banking on Windows XP.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#142

Post by rkunde »

DrJokepu wrote: post #26

> But that’s not what happened at all. Godier proceeded through a series of escalations up to the App Review Board and the Review Board responded that they determined the original rejection was valid because, I shit you not, “We understand that the app includes a live tarot reading feature.” > It has no tarot function, no horoscopes, and nothing that I, or anyone else I’ve asked, would associate with astrology. I hav…

Ah yes, the Herobrine gambit

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#143

Post by jgruber »

lapcat wrote: post #124
madeofpalk wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The criticism of monopolies is that market forces aren't able to let a failing system fail. The App Store doesn't compete on its own merits because Apple actively prevents competition from letting it decide what the better system is.

I believe Gruber's view is that the market forces in question are between iPhone and competing smartphones.

No. It’s broader than that. The market forces are the entire realm of what’s possible, now and in the future. When Windows seemed entrenched forever, the platforms that eventually surpassed weren’t the competing desktop OSes (Mac and Linux). It was the web first, in the late 1990s-2000s, then mobile (iPhone and Android) in the 2010s.

Necessity really is the mother of invention, and the more we need something new, the sooner someone will invent it. But it will look no more like an iPhone than the iPhone looked like a PC.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#144

Post by paxcoder »

bladeacidic wrote: post #106
midtake wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you're lying. Why not add the comment "no tarot function" without reference to whether it existed in the past? A bit confusing because it's a trivial and seemingly unrelated statement but at least then you wouldn't be lying.

Why not just lie? The white lie is the most expedient thing to get the results you want, which is getting the app into the app store. It's not a slippery slope into a total moral decay of you as a human being. If a friend is hiding from an abusive partner, and that partner asks where your friend is, telling the truth would put your friend in danger, so lying is an important skill to have. The lie in this case gets pa…

[dead]

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#145

Post by grishka »

ceejayoz wrote: post #80
dgellow wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You grandma can keep the „restricted“ flag on then. I will be happy to disable it on my device

Grandma will also be happy to disable it when the nice man from Microsoft phone support calls in to remotely fix the viruses she has.

Then maybe everyone needs to be educated to never ever trust incoming calls from unknown numbers? Or maybe these need to be blocked at the carriers? We have all this AI crap now but for some reason we can't deploy it to detect scam calls. We instead use it to automate the work that doesn't need automation, like software engineering or copywriting or art.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#146

Post by grishka »

ceejayoz wrote: post #105
grishka wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how about her not having online banking?

You did the meme. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som... Last time I was in a bank branch they told me to go to the website for my issue.

> they told me to go to the website for my issue.

And this sort of attitude is exactly what needs to change.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#147

Post by kbelder »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #132
tantalor wrote: post #5

Is astrology not allowed in app store? That's kind of a weird thing to ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_Friends_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Cleo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward#Crossing_Over_with... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi

One of those things is not like the others...

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#148

Post by bigyabai »

macintux wrote: post #60
dgellow wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You grandma can keep the „restricted“ flag on then. I will be happy to disable it on my device

My concern has been that companies with a huge install base (hi, Meta) would take advantage of this: "in order to provide you with the best experience, you have to turn off the restricted flag to install the next release of our app". And then, billions of users cry out in pain as their private data is hoovered into the panopticon in the cloud.

> And then, billions of users cry out in pain as their private data is hoovered into the panopticon in the cloud.

That's not how data collection works? It's Apple's responsibility to prevent their application runtime from exposing private data or unnecessary entitlements. Enabling sideloading does not prevent Apple from protecting user data any more than the App Store does.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#149

Post by moonlighter »

guessbest wrote: post #63

This is funny because they aren't approving anything right now Developers are wondering if they are the only ones on their forums: https://developer.apple.com/forums/topics/app-store-distribu...

They are, but times vary between the iOS vs. the Mac App Store. I recently submitted a new app to the Mac App Store and it took about one week to get initially approved (with one rejection because I had the word "Mac" in the app description (they said it's redundant since they're all Mac apps anyway...). Could've been a quick regex check in the form submission, but anyway, after the initial approval any subsequent feature submission afterwards usually got approved within 2-3 hours, same day, which is pretty good IMHO.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#150

Post by burnte »

quentindanjou wrote: post #10
john_strinlai wrote: post #7

as much as i loathe astrology, im not sure why astrology would be blanket banned in the first place. and i am surprised that apps like "Night Sky" (great app, no affiliation) made it past review if the app store reviewers are incapable of telling the difference. https://darkhours.io/ does look really cool, i hope they get this sorted out.

The "Astrology" reason emphasized in the article isn't the main reason, they actually quickly talk about it: > the App Review Board and the Review Board responded that they determined the original rejection was valid because, I shit you not, “We understand that the app includes a live tarot reading feature.” So that's it, they need to remove the live tarot reading. Which to me while not being astrology, isn't much be…

> So that's it, they need to remove the live tarot reading. Which to me while not being astrology, isn't much better.

Further down he states there was never any tarot reading function. So how can he remove a function the app never had and thus a function the reviewer never could have seen?

Post reply on HN