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

161–170 of 232 posts

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#161

Post by jgruber »

catuscubitus wrote: post #135

> It’s actually exquisitely well-designed and painstaking crafted. It’s exactly the sort of app that the App Store ought to celebrate and highlight. Exactly what I thought at some point. Apple, or whoever they outsource their app store reviews to, certainly try hard to beat that kind of idealism out of people. I let my developer subscription run out and moved on to make web apps only. Never looked back.

Just fixed the /painstaking/painstakingLY/ typo in this sentence. Thanks for quoting it here.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#162

Post by duxup »

I’ve developed iOS and Android apps, store approvals are always a crap shoot, and it’s not just approvals, it’s paperwork… sudden rejections over something that was fine months earlier and getting pointed to a document that could mean ANYTHING.

I got rejected with a screenshot from an app that doesn’t have anything like the screenshot, it took me several rejections to realize someone reviewer watched some old YouTube video I submitted ages ago and didn’t like something that was fine before…. They have a login where they can see the first page , I gave it to them , but they chose to reject because of an old video.

I recently signed up for a personal dev account for the play store and I have to get 12 friends with android devices to “test” it before they’ll consider my app at all…

That is to say I have to go online and horse trade with 12 people (hell if I know who these people are or what their unapproved apps do…) and get them to test mine if I test theirs. That alone is suspicious kinda behavior but google all but requires it now.

Meanwhile on my work account I’m publishing just fine.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#163

Post by Biganon »

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…

Essaie de lire l'article en entier, Quentin.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#165

Post by wussboy »

jodrellblank wrote: post #126
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 say “app now has no tarot function” which can be read as implying that it used to but doesn’t actually say that.

It used to not have tarot function. It still doesn't. But it used to not too.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#166

Post by ceejayoz »

grishka wrote: post #146
ceejayoz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree!

But what's Grandma supposed to do in the meantime?

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#167

Post by eviks »

lapcat wrote: post #112
echelon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Gruber starting to realize Apple's monopoly is bad? App stores should not exist in a world where only two phone operating systems exist. All apps MUST be installable via web. Come on, EU. Help us out here. Free us from distribution tyranny. Do it before Google morphs into the same hell beast. Soon you won't be able to read unapproved, unattested bytes. It's coming. We need as many freedoms as we can get. Apple can…

> Is Gruber starting to realize Apple's monopoly is bad? "I do not see the conflict between the view that the App Store review system is failing and the view that it's not the government's business to intervene. Allowing failing systems to fail is how market forces work." https://mastodon.social/@gruber/117055639204173161

He's myopic to the actual conflict. The system isn't failing, it's a very profitable business for Apple.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#168

Post by cageface »

cdrnsf wrote: post #49

Building web apps is far more enjoyable if only because you don't have to deal with the capricious nature of Apple's App Store review. It's non-deterministic CI at best.

This is true but if you want to monetize it then there are similar review hurdles you're going to have to clear.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#170

Post by jgruber »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #152
jgruber wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a little simplistic, sure, but I mean how much nuance do you expect me to fit into a HN comment? What I left out is Windows Mobile, which was Microsoft's attempt to extend the Windows hegemony to mobile devices. Here are Windows Mobile's US market share numbers, per Wikipedia:

    2004 11%
    2005 17%
    2006 37%
    2007 42%
    2008 27%
    2009 15%
    2010  7%
    2011  3%
What do you think happened in 2007?
Post reply on HN