101–110 of 215 posts
This is good in my opinion. The more the rejection, the more the developers will tend to flee away from arrogant Marketplaces like that of Apple's. It will also, in a way, probably force developers to try out other marketplaces like the Windows Phone Marketplace and the Google Play store. Now, I do understand 500px is trying to create a uni-platform experience for its users, but now that 500px isn't allowed to publis…
Yes I know I can buy a different phone, but that's not the point. It's about a company deciding for me what my morals should be.
The app was rated 4+, yet would show pictures of naked people http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:itunes.... I think trying to paint Apple as bad in this case is pretty crappy, as it's very clear what the different ratings mean and 500px didn't follow the VERY CLEAR list of what each thing means. http://www.internetsafetyproject.org/wiki/apple%E2%80%99s-ap... True nudity only belongs in 17+ in their…
If it was just a matter of being in the wrong rating category, it seems like it would make more sense for apple to just re-categorize it. Any insight into why they pulled the app instead of doing that?
The app was rated 4+, yet would show pictures of naked people http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:itunes.... I think trying to paint Apple as bad in this case is pretty crappy, as it's very clear what the different ratings mean and 500px didn't follow the VERY CLEAR list of what each thing means. http://www.internetsafetyproject.org/wiki/apple%E2%80%99s-ap... True nudity only belongs in 17+ in their…
4+, but only shows nudity if you go to the website in a browser, create an account, verify your age, then specify that you want to be able to see "mature" images. Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+, and deny a whole raft of people the ability to use it, on the chance that they might do the above to "get around" the Apple rating system. It's…
Yes, then parents can give the device to children, turn on whatever restrictions based on those ratings, and have it work, even if the kid is trying to get around it by doing all those things.
This is not only intended to defeat 5 year olds, but 14 year olds.
If 500px would prefer to turn that switch off for everyone, then 4+ is possibly the correct rating. If they do not, then the correct rating is 17+.
The only people it prohibits from getting the app, by setting to 17+ are those whom have another person setting 17+ as inappropriate for that user.
You do know the web browser and pretty much any apps can be turned off in restrictions right? You can give the thing to a 4 year old, and the only thing you have to worry about is "will they break it" once you've locked it down correctly.
500px mislabeled their app, and as a result were allowing industrious young people who were otherwise restricted to find stuff like http://500px.com/photo/10228807 (Which I don't view as harmful PERSONALLY, but LOTS of people would find that inappropriate for a kid).
A quick look shows any number 500px browsing apps still on the store. But they're all rated 12+ or 17+. Which makes me wonder if 500px didn't mark their app accordingly? Or perhaps they used to, but then switched it to a lower rating thinking their 'safe search' toggle was sufficient?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which in the larger scheme of things is a moronic position because the same device they are trying to keep pristine and pure through their app store can be used to see dirty things through the Web. We know what Apple has always been responded to these arguments with - what we are pointing out is that is that it is extremely douche-y to take such a position.
It's not about keeping the device "pure". It about not putting things in the App Store they don't like. https://xkcd.com/1150/
The app was rated 4+, yet would show pictures of naked people http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:itunes.... I think trying to paint Apple as bad in this case is pretty crappy, as it's very clear what the different ratings mean and 500px didn't follow the VERY CLEAR list of what each thing means. http://www.internetsafetyproject.org/wiki/apple%E2%80%99s-ap... True nudity only belongs in 17+ in their…
4+, but only shows nudity if you go to the website in a browser, create an account, verify your age, then specify that you want to be able to see "mature" images. Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+, and deny a whole raft of people the ability to use it, on the chance that they might do the above to "get around" the Apple rating system. It's…
Forcing a certain level of quality is fine. Protecting users from scamware is also fine. Apple goes far beyond this. They nanny the user and force upon them what Apple perceive is right and wrong.
I got my first iMac 5 years ago and I thought Apple were awesome and innovative. Now I just find them overbearing. Like success has lead to the corporate types making decisions instead of those that originally drove development and change.
I have an iPad for testing. I avoided getting a new Apple computer in favour of a Linux computer. First time I turned on my latest computer i felt somewhat liberated being away from an Apple logo. Looking back I had the same feeling firing up my Mac for the first time. I felt free of a virus filled Windows and I remember thinking that the future had finally arrived.
Its interesting how feelings and perceptions change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is good in my opinion. The more the rejection, the more the developers will tend to flee away from arrogant Marketplaces like that of Apple's. It will also, in a way, probably force developers to try out other marketplaces like the Windows Phone Marketplace and the Google Play store. People have been saying this for years, and it convinced me to make my Apps available on the android app store. The result, is a…
What's your app?
There's a history of people who produce Android versions of their software which aren't anywhere near as polished as the iOS one. If that's the case, then of course nobody's going to pay for it.
If you have two versions which are more or less identical, that's different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> due to the fear of the ridiculous approval process It's not ridiculous and pretty easy to understand. No questionable content. No trying to be clever about the rules. No private APIs. I have been involved in over 20 popular apps on the store and not one has ever been rejected. > their development efforts for the iOS platform may go a waste Developers aren't stupid. The iOS platform is by far the largest and most pr…
And then you do something as seemingly innocent as querying the NSComputer image on a Mac, sending it over the network, and showing it on an iPhone, and Apple rejects you. It's great that you've had no trouble, but please don't extrapolate that into a belief that there is no trouble.
There will always be people who try and get around the rules. Including using Apple's artwork without permission.