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

181–190 of 319 posts

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

#181

Post by Joeri »

ekianjo wrote: post #93
Steko wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably they went nuclear on Android because they felt betrayed when a close partner of their came out with a clone of their product, something Apple had a history with that nearly killed it.

What do you mean a "clone of their product" ? Desktop PCs had big icons on screen for years, there was nothing new or even remotely original in having big icons on a screen for an mobile OS. That should be declared an obvious invention and not worth of protection at all. The main new thing that they did was to use a touch screen that can be operated with fingers and gestures, but hey, even that idea was not new eithe…

Palm had the grid icon layout for years before apple did it, but nobody would confuse an old palm device with an iphone when actually using it, and palm in fact had to throw it out and start all over with the pre to deliver an iphone competitor.

There's a big difference between a good concept and a good execution of a concept. Apple have always been brilliant at execution, even if they don't have many original concepts (they don't do basic research). Is it not innovative to take a good idea and execute it better than anyone before? I find that a hard thing to dismiss. However, now that they are on top of the world, it would be nice to see them invest in open basic research to give back to the community where they got all their ideas and technologies from, like microsoft does with microsoft research.

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

#182

Post by doodyhead »

The times when I'm unhappy, I often have no idea of the cause.

Why not add some optional questions that would drive more useful reporting if answered:

# Are you in a relationship? For how long?

# Do you have a job? Rate your performance 1-10

# Are you exercising? How often?

# Are you happy with your weight? What is your weight?

# Rate the healthiness of your diet.

# How well are you sleeping? How many hours?

There are so many more useful data points you could collect. If they're optional, and maybe hidden unless you enable them, it won't do much to over-complicate the app.

It would then be super useful for those who suffer from depression or other psychiatric illnesses, and problem solved re app store.

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

#183

Post by matt_heimer »

I'm going to go in the opposite direction of everybody here and tell you your app sucks (based on what you say about it) and Apple was right. Look at it this way - A developer creates an app that ask a daily question (maybe with a reminder) and then plots the answers on a graph. That developer then release 1,000 versions of that app to the app store by simply changing the question. That app should have been a general purpose app that lets you define your own questions/frequency/etc. All you've got right now is a question, that when asked daily creates some interesting data. You need to built an app around that. You have some actual features outlined in your roadmap, why not implement at least some of those and resubmit? Oh, and I went looking for feature listings, videos, philosophy, etc, or anything about your app on your website and I got nothing. The entire website about your app is a landing page and one page that is complaining about your rejection. If your app is currently so simple that it didn't even need a single webpage maybe Apple was right....

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

#184

Post by coldtea »

lucian1900 wrote: post #165
coldtea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no idea why so many tech-saavy people still love Apple. Good hardware offerings (beyond the "my custom built hot-rod has a faster CPU"), and a full blown UNIX desktop OS with a nice interface and access to all kinds of proprietary software and consumer/professional peripherals. Plus "absurd tyrannical control over the app store"? Apple made the whole platform, API and market out of thin air, it's not like pe…

As long as users are not allowed to install their own apps, Apple have "absurd tyrannical control" over iOS apps.

Well, as long as users could not care less, it doesn't count as "absurd tyrannical control" in my books.

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

#185

Post by oneofthose »

This seems to be a great idea. I really like everything about it, I would love to use it (even though I don't own smartphone). Too bad Apple did reject it. One sentence that made me quite happy in this article is:

"Hueman is free and anonymous, and to create that seamless experience, it needs to store data on your phone. If it was a web page on mobile safari, that data is more ephemeral."

If the Hueman developers read this: have you considered something like unhosted [0] for your application? It should be easy enough to implement.

[0] https://unhosted.org/

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

#186

Post by Jare »

Joeri wrote: post #179
iSnow wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Legally so, but not rightly so. Apple has arbitrary and unreasonable rules. They are not in a morally justified position when they exert those rules, even though they are legally able to. Now, in this case, it is obvious what the right move is for the developer. They have to ship their app on android or windows phone instead of iphone. If apple refuses entry into their walled garden, the developers should take their…

I think the jump from unreasonable to immoral is rather larger than you seem to imply.

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

#187

Post by girvo »

eknkc wrote: post #140
ekianjo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean a "clone of their product" ? Desktop PCs had big icons on screen for years, there was nothing new or even remotely original in having big icons on a screen for an mobile OS. That should be declared an obvious invention and not worth of protection at all. The main new thing that they did was to use a touch screen that can be operated with fingers and gestures, but hey, even that idea was not new eithe…

Once you see / use them, they become obvious inventions. You know, lightbulbs are so boring right now. Nothing original about them. Before Apple came up with iPhone, I had a freaking Ericsson brick thingy. None of Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung were innovating. None of those old, non original ideas were in any of those devices. Nokia had a webkit browser with a ridiculous cursor that you operated with that joysti…

Bollocks, Sony Ericsson was innovating, and I still feel that the M600i that I owned was one of the most innovative phones ive ever used. Still to this day no phone comes close in keyboard ability (seriously, go google the M600 or P1i), and UIQ3 was this wicked blend of smartphone power with a dumbphone-esque interface: something the iPhone did but improved on massively.

I use Apple everything. I love Apple products. But to say there wasn't any innovation happening before it in the phone sector misses some really cool things.

PS. I would pay all the money in the world for an updated P1i, same qwerty rocker keyboard, capacitive 3" touchscreen @ 720p running Android. One can dream, right?

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

#189

Post by SyneRyder »

Joeri wrote: post #179
iSnow wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Legally so, but not rightly so. Apple has arbitrary and unreasonable rules. They are not in a morally justified position when they exert those rules, even though they are legally able to. Now, in this case, it is obvious what the right move is for the developer. They have to ship their app on android or windows phone instead of iphone. If apple refuses entry into their walled garden, the developers should take their…

I think it's still rightly so on Apple's part: Apple can set the rules however they like because the App Store is their playground. If you want to play there you have to abide by their rules - even if those rules are contradictory or arbitrary.

I do agree that developers should take their apps to other platforms (most notably Android). I don't expect Apple will change their rules, but customers may switch to other devices. I've personally switched from iPhone to Nexus 5 because some of the apps & features I wanted were blocked by Apple.

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

#190

Post by cabalamat »

rplnt wrote: post #99
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.

I think you can make moderately safe choice if you have the usage data. I.e. if you see 0.5% of active users use some functionality, you can remove it. It can help rest of the users (make the app more simple) and you as well (smaller code base). Also adds possibility to add another feature without cluttering the app.

> I.e. if you see 0.5% of active users use some functionality, you can remove it.

Grrr.

The implication behind this statement is that if most users don't use something, the one's that do don't find it useful.

I regard this implication to be false, and damaging.

> It can help rest of the users (make the app more simple)

If a user interface is well designed, then features that someone doesn't use won't get in their way.

Post reply on HN