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

181–190 of 234 posts

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#181

Post by protimewaster »

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

One of my issues with this is that the market is often pretty slow. With a lot of things, it feels like the market won't have resolved it until I've been dead for 150 years, and, to me, that's just about as good as not solving the problem at all.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#183

Post by darkhours »

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.

[dead]

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#184

Post by makeitdouble »

crazygringo wrote: post #158
gervwyk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I read it as the "insane" part parent is pointing at.

It's nothing new, has been going on basically since the existence of the App store and Apple has explicitly built their whole business to put themselves as the arbiter of who gets to have their app on people's phones.

Still it's healthy that from times to time we stop and shout "that whole situation is insane" (short of finding a way to actually do something about it)

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#185

Post by foco_tubi »

wussboy wrote: post #165
jodrellblank wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

RIP Mitch Hedburg you would have loved the App Store

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#186

Post by Grombobulous »

lapcat wrote: post #111
Grombobulous wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really a bad thing. That's exactly what you want from an app reviewer. You want someone who has critical thinking skills but is looking at the app from the perspective of a typical customer. Anything involving technical code review of apps on Apple's scale should be automated anyway.

> has critical thinking skills That's not what the court testimony said. Could think does not imply could think critically, especially not when preceded by "could breathe", which is an absurdly low bar. Might as well say, "not literally dead".

You just chopped off the other part of the sentence to change the meaning.

> “Qualifications were that they could breathe, they could think,” he said.

“They could think” implies critical thinking skills.

Then the next sentence says they usually work at the Genius Bar, which is not at all an entry level role.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#187

Post by darkhours »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #125

Perhaps try and not collide your app's exact name with a horror survival video game [2024: Steam, Xbox, Playstation] that involves a trickster demonic clown who tosses mysterious game-changing cards at you? I mean, I'm just guessing here. [Spoiler alert: I asked Gemini LLM to cut to the chase] https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=33623... TRICKSTER This entity is a demon-like clown that plays tricks…

[dead]

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#188

Post by Rohansi »

ceejayoz wrote: post #180
Rohansi wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hell, you'll get in trouble if your gasoline is the wrong color. You've missed my point even though it's right in front of you. You won't get in trouble for using your Apple device in non-approved ways because it doesn't let you . Would you ban cars for everyone because it's not safe for grandma to drive anymore? Probably not - so why lock down devices for everyone? > Do we not take steps to try and reduce murder?…

> You won't get in trouble for using your Apple device in non-approved ways because it doesn't let you. The government won't let me use my car in non-approved ways. They will, in fact, stop me with guns at times. I'm not even allowed to purchase some items, let alone use as I please. I'm allowed to buy (or sell) a https://www.fairphone.com/ style device! But no one really wants them.

> But no one really wants them.

Not relevant. Most people don't choose their phone/platform based on how much freedom it gives you. An iPhone is a very good phone overall but the restrictions are unfortunately bundled in.

You're obviously fine with it but it is only going to get worse in the future. The whole Android developer verification thing is a step in the same direction from Google's side. Eventually macOS will be locked down or even phased out - most young people just do everything on their phone now so why not? I don't want to accept that future so I'm not supporting platforms that restrict it.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#189

Post by grishka »

ceejayoz wrote: post #166
grishka wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Tell them she doesn't own any devices that could connect to the internet. I'm sure they'll figure something out. They have to have procedures for this sort of thing.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#190

Post by grishka »

bigyabai wrote: post #154
iamnothere wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While we're at it, let's also mandate the destruction of every general-purpose computing device incapable of secure boot or allowing it to be deactivated. And if someone dares to build a homebrew CPU out of relays, transistors, or logic ICs, they should expect the FBI to break down their door.
Post reply on HN