111–120 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/
And what strategic purpose does it serve Apple by "not putting things it doesn't like" in the App Store?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your app?
This is a fair question, and not downvotable imo, especially considering that john/megablast's profile is out of date. 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.
> More and more developers will start (slowly, but surely) to neglect Apple's Appstore by default due to the fear of the ridiculous approval process and the uncertainty that their development efforts for the iOS platform may go a waste, because they have seen the history of popular apps like 500px and others. I really hope this happens, but it seems so far that people are more than happy to put up with Apple's dracon…
Like I said, I predict it will be a very slow change. You know how MySpace was once THE Social Network to be on, and when you weren't there, you would be looked down upon? Now, despite an epic re-design, nobody even talks about it, except for examples like these, perhaps. It could be the same case for Apple's Appstore, assuming they continue this painful trend of pissing off developers.
There are plenty of examples of market leading companies that have remained on top despite additional competition e.g. Windows, Office, Google Search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+ 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…
Although I notice that several web browsers in iTunes have 17+ ratings too, so at least they're consistent, maybe. According to https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mercury-browser-fast-web-bro...
You must be at least 17 years old to download this app.
Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity
Frequent/Intense Profanity or Crude Humor
Frequent/Intense Mature/Suggestive Themes
Frequent/Intense Cartoon or Fantasy Violence
Frequent/Intense Horror/Fear Themes
Frequent/Intense Realistic Violence
Frequent/Intense Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+ 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…
Sure, they might make the process a bit annoying, but in the end it's always possible to simply jailbreak the device. (not to mention that most 14 year olds know more about technology than their parents)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>Instead, the rationale from Apple and defended by you and others is that it is better to make the entire app 17+ 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…
Please enlighten me as to how to restrict apps other than Safari, Camera, FaceTime, and iTunes, because that's all there is in that menu.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was 12+, because default experience is always 'SAFE ON'.
Can someone upload a nude photo and not flag it as a nude? Do you guys check this before it gets published? If not, Apple might not care that the default is "Safe On" when someone can either disable it easily (outside of iOS's parental controls), or the tagging is inconsistent.
We don't check, but our community self-monitors and reacts very quickly (few minutes at most).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fair question, and not downvotable imo, especially considering that john/megablast's profile is out of date. 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.
As you've framed it, it's a loaded question that assumes the author is a moron who somehow expects a half-assed port to produce equal returns. Reasonable people can presume he has an idea of the quality of his own Android app and managed his expectations accordingly and yet he was disappointed. This is not a new story nor does is contradict the vast majority of data points we have.
I'm curious if there's a high order pattern for apps that make more on ios than android and vice versa.
I'm curious if as much promotion went into the android app as the ios app.
I'm always interested in finding new quality android apps, and I enjoy promoting ones that I'm particularly happy with.