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

201–210 of 319 posts

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

#201

Post by 6cxs2hd6 »

JimDabell wrote: post #194
ctdonath wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. There is a rejection appeal process. Use it. Of all big companies, Apple should be amenable to a straightforward explanation that sometimes simplicity is the right design, and that "adding features for the sake of adding features" is wrong.

We've had an application rejected for this reason as well. In our case, they didn't even describe what they didn't like besides "not enough functionality". Our application was quite a bit more complex, and we could prove there was demand for such an application. I get the feeling they guessed at the application's functionality based on the name and didn't really check it out (it wasn't a particularly great name). We…

It sounds like a Soviet-era bureau of censorship struggling to review 100,000 apps, instead of 100 TV shows and newspapers.

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

#202

Post by chrisBob »

You even state that

> The next couple planned releases on our roadmap will heavily rely on native iOS functions and code to include things like tagging, additional graph views and scrubbing, ability to add media. etc... And by eventually letting people combine their data, you will be able to see how their relative happiness aligns to other users, a neighborhood and even the world.

It sounds like you think it needs more features too. I understand wanting to release as soon as possible but this might be a good chance to add the other features YOU want.

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

#203

Post by orbitur »

lucian1900 wrote: post #164
xentronium wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about LLVM and Webkit?

Neither was started by Apple and arguably in the case of WebKit they only contributed because it was hard not to.

Apple didn't create walled gardens either.

Who created LLVM and WebKit is irrelevant. Those projects wouldn't be as awesome as they are now without Apple's efforts and money.

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

#204

Post by Amygaz »

I honestly don't what is the big deal. It sounds like this is not a full blown rejection, it is more like a "Oh, nice idea! We could use that. Why don't you revise it a bit and resubmit": > 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.

And it also sounds like you were already aware of what is missing: > The next couple planned releases on our roadmap will heavily rely on native iOS functions and code to include things like tagging, additional graph views and scrubbing, ability to add media.

It think it will be a great app. I hope you get over the "rejection" notice and keep working on it. All the best for your resubmission.

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

#205

Post by cwp »

cabalamat wrote: post #190
rplnt wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Not at all. The implication is that if few people use a feature, few people will be affected if you remove it. They may be really, really upset, but there won't be many of them.

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

#207

Post by fschwehn »

sspiff wrote: post #110
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…

Rating your happiness from 1 to 10 would make it easy for the scale to drift. How do you compare how you felt today to how you felt 8 months back, the last time you issued a 10? I think comparing with yesterday is a great way to do this: I still know exactly how I felt yesterday, and I know how I feel today.

Agree - partially. I often made the experience in my life, that if I undergo a period of bad mood (especially depression) that lasts for weeks or months, I don't realize how down I am. But when that period is finally over, I suddenly become aware of how deep down I actually was. The comparison to yesterday might be a clever trick to deal with that inability of perception. The pitfall that might araise from that rating system now is that you might tend to rate positive changes higher than negative changes or vice versa. If that is the case, it would introduce a drift again.

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

#208

Post by Gracana »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #103
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…

So the answer is feature bloat. Here's another idea: Let's build a compiler that automatically adds features to apps that appear too simple. The compiler should be able to learn from descriptions of existing apps what kinds of things are currently fashionable and find an unobtrusive way to integrate them into your app.

No need for a special "compiler," the team already has a plan to add features: "The next couple planned releases on our roadmap will heavily rely on native iOS functions and code to include things like tagging, additional graph views and scrubbing, ability to add media. etc... And by eventually letting people combine their data, you will be able to see how their relative happiness aligns to other users, a neighborhood and even the world."

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

#209

Post by sferoze »

Jare wrote: post #186
Joeri wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Shouldn't we think of the App Store in the same way that people and companies cannot force a retailer to stock their own product.

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

#210

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

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…

Apple's rules aren't arbitrary, they are built around a fairly clear set of aims about which Apple have been fairly public. You may disagree with those aims but that doesn't mean the rules are unreasonable or arbitrary.

I'd also say that as an iOS user and an Apple customer, one of the things I like about the AppStore is that there is a degree of curation, that they do have rules. I don't agree with all of those rules but over time the rules have improved and, on balance, I personally like the end result more than the alternative.

What is more arguable as unreasonable is that the AppStore is the only means of loading Apps to your phone without a developer license but I don't think changing the AppStore is the right solution.

Personally I'd argue that sideloading should be possible (though would need to be enabled somewhere down in the guts of the settings with warnings and all), but I wouldn't change the AppStore which is a service with a specific aim which it meets pretty well.

Post reply on HN