281–290 of 319 posts
Add a flashlight or fart button to it. "Needs more flashlight" should be the "needs more cowbell" of our age.
Ironic: to satisfy Apple, the mecca for good design, you have to crap up your application.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironic: to satisfy Apple, the mecca for good design, you have to crap up your application.
Simple has two meanings. You are addressing one of them. I'd argue that the fact the app consist essentially 2 web views, the simple means 'WTF is this even an app?'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever seen a good movie? Think for a second about that movie. What made it good? Now imagine if you could make that movie even better for yourself. Imagine this movie was distributed along with a plastic box with a few knobs and dials on it. Wouldn't it be a better movie if you could turn the knobs to adjust the parameters of the movie -- there really aren't that many fundamental parameters to movies. You cou…
That would be legitimately great. See, for example, The Phantom Edit, or Brokeback to the Future, or Girl Talk's All Day. Could you rephrase your comment without the sarcasm so I can see what point you're actually trying to make?
Why appeal to us? Appeal to Apple, through this channel: https://developer.apple.com/appstore/contact/?topic=appeal
The Apple Peal process.
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…
I agree Matt. Apple has every right to reject apps that don't add any value to their ecosystem. There are probably many apps that do what this app does. The ego of the people making this is incredible, why don't you just use the existing apps if you aren't going to add value?
With all their patent trolling and absurd tyrannical control over the app store, I have no idea why so many tech-saavy people still love Apple.
Virtually every web programmer I know uses a MacBook Pro with OS X, but I only know a total of maybe 2 or 3 non-web programmers that do (not counting the 2 or 3 that shoved a Free/OSS unix onto one.) None of them have an OS X MBP as their sole laptop.
As a flexible computer-user, I'm frequently called upon to figure out what's wrong with coworkers' Macs. I've never owned a Mac, yet I'm their best hope. That says it all, I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple has two meanings. You are addressing one of them. I'd argue that the fact the app consist essentially 2 web views, the simple means 'WTF is this even an app?'.
And that is improved by adding unrelated dingles to the app?
The simplicity is the function on the, rather the app itself. To be clear, its not what it does (or doesn't) do, it's how it does it.
"If it's just using webviews, why does this need to be an app?" exactly... there is no actual reason this couldn't be a cross platform 'web app'. it would be better that way. why do you want the app on the appstore exactly? the list of reasons given are of debateable merit the last one is probably the best, and suggests a fix. develop the app a bit further so you can justify it not being a web page... also, why are y…