Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

huemanapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 319 posts

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#151

Post by WickyNilliams »

I like the idea of this. Not only is the historic data interesting, I suspect just taking time to reflect on your days would likely improve happiness in an of itself (e.g. if you know anyone who is doing one of those 100 happy days challenge).

However, the arguments against the web are a bit flimsy IMO. Data on the web is ephemeral only if you put it in an ephemeral store. Put it in localStorage! It's highly unlikely you'd exceed some quota (usually 10mb) with the kind of data you're storing, plus user's are offered chance to expand quota usually.

Or if you want something that goes above and beyond that (or what you have with a "native app") you could integrate with Dropbox's datastore API [0] and have data available on any machines I choose to use.

[0] https://www.dropbox.com/developers/datastore/docs/js

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#152

Post by rimantas »

trekky1700 wrote: post #47

That's odd, I reject Apple for the same reason. I joke of course, but Apple builds monopolies they have tight control over, sue for anything and basically tell everyone who doesn't like it to screw off (and they can because they have the monopoly). As much as I like their design and hardware, as far as corporate entities go, they're kind of a jerk.

Monopolies? Like there are no Google Play store and Windows Phone store (whatever it is called), nobody else makes smartphones, nobody else sells books and music online?

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#153

Post by _pmf_ »

> We encourage you to review your app concept and evaluate whether you can incorporate additional content and features to provide a more robust user experience.

Easy - just add the ability to issue fart sounds, which has always been enough quality for Apple users.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#154

Post by rimantas »

durbin wrote: post #60
archagon wrote: post #50

"Apple sucks" and "use Android" aren't really productive responses to an article like this. Consider taking your quips to a site like Reddit.

I disagree, you don't need to say anything derogatory about Apple but saying that it is a blessing in disguise that Apple didn't let you into their walled garden when you have a much larger and open playground in Android is a very productive response.

If you want to sell your apps that large Android playground suddenly shrinks. A lot.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#155

Post by Grue3 »

The whole concept needs work. You compare each day to the previous one, but the app doesn't know by how much. Which leads to ludicrous results when applied to real life situations. For example you got fired, or your girlfriend left you, or your friend/relative died. What a terrible day! But then over the course of several days you slowly get over it, so your mood rises up until you reach the original level. But what does the graph show? That you're feeling much better after the traumatic event! What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, eh? The model is just plain wrong.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#156

Post by stigi »

xur17 wrote: post #4

I wonder if it was partially rejected due to the use of 'webviews'.

I haven't tested the app (I'd actually like to), so I don't know how far they went with the web view approach. I could imagine that the graph feels pretty static, and taking a native approach and spent some more effort on a playful experience could already solve the rejection. No need for made up features.

Keep it simple! That seems the magic of the app.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#157

Post by mattmanser »

ekianjo wrote: post #51
GhotiFish wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Popularizing walled gardens? Yah I'm never going to forget that. ever.

And going "nuclear" on Android because they felt that their iOS was soooo original it should be protected by all patents, trademarks and laws in place. Apple is the Disney of IT, seriously.

It was so original.

I can't believe anyone contests this.

I remember seeing an iPhone for the first time. Compared to all other phones it was 10 years ahead in vision. All other phones were suddenly ludicrously laid out, with stupid designs. Even the settings section for the iPhone blew every single other phone in existence out of the water. Something that simple, that essential, had been revolutionised by this thoughtful new way at looking at phone interfaces.

Android, on that very day, looked like every other phone. 10 years behind, old, tired, pathetic, no vision what so ever.

In less than 6 months the android team lifted every single iPhone design element, added very little of their own and unveiled what is possibly one of the biggest design rip-offs in tech history.

I can understand why Jobs was pissed.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#159

Post by iSnow »

wsc981 wrote: post #102
phaus wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I anticipate that I will be able to remove the features which I didn't think were needed. This is a really bad idea. While you might think that its impossible, some of your users are going to absolutely love the useless functionality that you added to appease Apple. When you remove it, you are going to receive an influx of 1-star reviews.

You could set the release data of the app like 2 weeks in the future and have some sort of webservice that you use to enable or disable app features. You could disable the bogus features after the app has passed Apple's review, but before the app is visible to end-users.

I think deceiving Apple is the very worst idea ever. If they catch you cheating, your app will be booted from the app store - and rightly so.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#160

Post by leviathan »

durbin wrote: post #65
crazygringo wrote: post #48

First of all, that sounds like a really cool idea for an app. I want it. But secondly, of all the app rejection stories I've ever heard... this one is the easiest to fix. Just add some more features, who cares, and resubmit it. Ideas: annotate/categorize the things that are making you happy/unhappy. Maybe have categories/icons for them. (Friends, party, loneliness, exercise, ate well, ate bad, had sex, no sex, fought…

I would like to counter this advice by saying that I don't think acquiescing to the whims of walled garden rulers is the best solution. If your vision was to create what you have already created, how could you modify it to a product that you think is worse for your users because its what Apple wants? It pains me just reading suggestions about implementing these tacked on functions.

You don't necessarily need to cater to their whims. I know it's just one example but I had a long back and forth with them over the course of 2 months, over an app that they claimed offered not enough features. Many emails, phone calls, and replies later, I still wasn't gonna bloat the app just to get it through. I appealed to the review board as a last step. It took them 2 weeks to review my appeal and they finally let the app in as is.

My point is that the reviewers are human and don't necessarily have the best judgement. If you think you have a strong case, you should appeal to the board. They do give it a fair trial.

Post reply on HN