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

151–160 of 232 posts

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#151

Post by ceejayoz »

grishka wrote: post #145
ceejayoz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The average layperson doesn't even know caller ID can be trivially spoofed.

Or they accept the push notification dialog on some random site and start getting "COMPUTER HACKED, CALL MICROSOFT AT FAKE NUMBER" notifications that look like they come from the OS.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#152

Post by applfanboysbgon »

jgruber wrote: post #143
lapcat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a ridiculous take. The iPhone was enabled by unrelated advances in computer hardware miniaturization, it had absolutely nothing to do with Windows' dominance creating "necessity". It was not competing with, and never did, replace Windows. Regulation is needed to ensure that people can compete within a market, not just create an entirely new market as enabled by technological advances which would have happened anyways.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#153

Post by ceejayoz »

Rohansi wrote: post #141
ceejayoz wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> You can freely buy and use knives…

No, not necessarily. Quite a few countries have restrictions on knives, including some parts of the US - a switchblade will get you in trouble in NYC.

> you can drive your own car

Only in approved ways!

Hell, you'll get in trouble if your gasoline is the wrong color.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dye#Fuel_dye_in_North_Ame...

"Detection of red-dyed fuel in the fuel system of an on-road vehicle will incur substantial penalties."

> murderers will still murder and scammers will still scam

Do we not take steps to try and reduce murder?

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#154

Post by bigyabai »

iamnothere wrote: post #116
zimpenfish wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great until your device is weaponised against others (see: open HTTP proxies, open DNS resolvers, open SMTP servers, several billion IoT devices, and countless other examples)

Exactly, which is why we shouldn’t be allowing user “software installs” on any device, not just phones. The world would be a lot better if all tech were fully locked down, “freedom” be damned.

Ideally we should just let the government write the software, and they'd be able to verify that there's no dangers to grandma anywhere in the system.

It would be foolproof, maybe the most trustworthy system ever conceived.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#155

Post by burnte »

eek2121 wrote: post #93

My immediate thought upon clicking the link referenced in the article, is that the first thing I see is at first glance looks like astrological signs taking up the entire height of the page. I'm not defending Apple at all (I'm a developer, I've not specifically worked on apps for iDevices, however I've worked closely with those that take our platforms and tie them into those apps at many companies and startups) I've…

> My immediate thought upon clicking the link referenced in the article, is that the first thing I see is at first glance looks like astrological signs taking up the entire height of the page.

Sadly this is unavoidable as constellations are used in astronomy and astrology. They both also use letters and numbers. That doesn't mean they're the same thing.

> Something that I think folks really need to pay attention to, however, is the first impression. The app reviewer doesn't just hit a reject button and call it a day.

With respect I think you need to reread the actual blog post about the app rejection. It's pretty clear the app reviewer took a quick look and rejected it without any understanding at all. I don't know why you think these reviewers are so conscientious, they're line workers and sometimes they just get sick of the grind and it's easy to reject. They're human.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#156

Post by lapcat »

jgruber wrote: post #143
lapcat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The market forces are the entire realm of what’s possible, now and in the future.

I actually suspected as much and left "competing smartphones" somewhat vague.

> When Windows seemed entrenched forever

It's still entrenched! Microsoft got a slap on the wrist by the government right before September 11, and antitrust enforcement has been on a holiday ever since.

> the platforms that eventually surpassed weren’t the competing desktop OSes (Mac and Linux)

In terms of revenue, desktop computers were surpassed by smartphones, but they were not replaced by smartphones. I don't consider them to be directly competing products, and most of us who can afford it own both. A smartphone fits in your pocket, whereas a keyboard and pointing device and large screen will never fit in your pocket.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#157

Post by bdangubic »

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…

this often works even if you did in fact have “tarot function” and didnt remove it

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#158

Post by crazygringo »

gervwyk wrote: post #27
Jonovono wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They arn't against Astrology apps. It's that there are a few categories where apple has just stopped allowing new ones since there are so many.

if true. this is insane

It's not. Apple regularly rejects apps when they appear to be functionally identical to 10+ existing apps.

They don't want 100 apps that do the exact same thing.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#160

Post by applfanboysbgon »

turtlebits wrote: post #95
Arodex wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then Apple should do its fucking job correctly. It is not a poor little company, they have no excuse for this rank incompetence. None.

I'm sure the number of submissions has gone up exponentially due to AI. Since real people review apps, Apple should charge per app / version submission.

> Since real people review apps, Apple should charge per app / version submission.

Or they could let developers upload apps to another app store. Apple isn't reviewing them out of charity, they're doing it to enforce a monopoly where they get a 30% cut of every developer's income.

Post reply on HN