241–250 of 319 posts
Maybe not related, but is it possible that Apple does not want this app to exist because parts of it could be considered prior art for it's patent application?: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/126980-apple-seeks-to-scan-y...
I've done it before when they tried to reject my company's app because we were using a webview in one section and they felt it should be native. We were doing a bunch of other stuff behind the scenes though and I told them it would be cost-prohibitive to redo that whole section right then. They let it through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 thoug…
http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Li...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want control over your own vision, you don't build for Apple iThings. You build for open platforms. Walled gardens are not for people with a vision that conflicts with the walled garden owner's. Apple? Fuck them. Their "Eden" is a place without knowledge of sex, without knowledge of freedom, etc. And if you eat the forbidden fruit (jailbreak your device), then beware the consequences.
Sometimes I wonder if future historians will think we literally believed the religious imagery we used in technological flamewars.
So how's the Android version doing? Please tell me there is one. Because complaining about the walled garden and then ignoring the larger and more open platform, that's rather silly.
... ok back to my walled garden
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…
Not everything can be as deep as Flappy Bird.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.