Apple is slowly beginning to rot.
Apple takes down another indie dev
41–50 of 84 posts
Re: Apple takes down another indie dev
#42It's plainly stated in the terms ( https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ ) Section 10: 10. User interface 10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate multi-App widget experiences will be rejected So, like it or not, it's what we agree to if we develop apps for iOS.
It's what we "agree" to. As in, we have no other choice. They could write a clause that said your third child must be named Macintosh and everyone would "agree" to it because there is no other option. That does not mean it's right. Consider this: It's the late 1990's and the Terms of Service for Microsoft Windows contains "10.4 Apps that create alternate web browser environments are not allowed". Microsoft has its pa…
Are you being forced to develop on iOS?
Re: Apple takes down another indie dev
#43It's right in the app store guidelines, you can't make an app launcher thing. The guideline describes exactly this. 10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate multi-App widget experiences will be rejected
Which part of that is describing this exactly? Is this extension really a home screen alternative? Is this extension showing widgets that simulate multiple apps?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Is the purpose of the home screen not launching applications? Is there not significant overlap between this function and that of Launcher? Shall we have a conversation composed entirely of rhetorical questions?
Re: Apple takes down another indie dev
#44It's plainly stated in the terms ( https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ ) Section 10: 10. User interface 10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate multi-App widget experiences will be rejected So, like it or not, it's what we agree to if we develop apps for iOS.
Except it wasn't rejected. It was accepted, sold, and then Apple changed their mind. Did we agree to that fickleness?
That's the price you pay for an ecosystem of users and a base platform with minimum fragmentation. It's just the risk of doing business when the base platform isn't yours. It's not like there wasn't any historical precedent for this... and history tends to repeat itself.
Re: Apple takes down another indie dev
#45It's plainly stated in the terms ( https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ ) Section 10: 10. User interface 10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate multi-App widget experiences will be rejected So, like it or not, it's what we agree to if we develop apps for iOS.
It's what we "agree" to. As in, we have no other choice. They could write a clause that said your third child must be named Macintosh and everyone would "agree" to it because there is no other option. That does not mean it's right. Consider this: It's the late 1990's and the Terms of Service for Microsoft Windows contains "10.4 Apps that create alternate web browser environments are not allowed". Microsoft has its pa…
As far as I know Windows never contained such terms. You should likely make it clear that that is a hypothetical.
In answer to your point, the likely reason Apple can do it but Microsoft could not is two things:
- Microsoft was a monopoly, iOS is not.
- At the time Microsoft was competing against browser vendors who licensed their software for a fee (e.g. Netscape cost between $30-69) and not only utilised their monopoly to squish that entire industry ($0 browser) but also created an uncompetitive market in another field (leveraged their OS monopoly to squish the browser market). That isn't similar to the 2014 browser market.
Re: Apple takes down another indie dev
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's as if history is repeating itself: > Apple rolls out new features/platform. > Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that launch other apps). > Apple "clarifies" their stance by rejecting said developer's app. (In Apple parlance, clarifying means issuing a firm opinion on their openly stated policy of "we'll know it when we see it".) > Development community cries out. > Apple remai…
Another missed step - Apple approved the "gray area" app in the first place.
That's the thing I don't like about this. If they approve an app in the first place they should only then remove it under extreme circumstances. This kind of nervous uncertainty among devs is bad for the platform.
Re: Apple takes down another indie dev
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ehh I'm not sure I'd consider this either an "alternate desktop/home screen environment" or something that "simulate(s) multi-App experiences". It's a collection of action shortcuts. iOS 8 does something similar when you double tap the home button. It shows recent contacts at the top and tapping one expands into actions such as call or text. I mean I get it. Apple is King and if you stand too close to the line they p…
As a developer, you've got to be able to assess risk in a more nuanced way than this is/isn't violating the guidelines. It is startlingly obvious that Apple's Guidelines are full of gray areas. Just read the introductory bullet points: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ "We'll know it when we see it." If that isn't a clear indication that Apple takes broad latitude in the judgement of what is ac…
I agree. Like I said Apple plays it safe and if you are near the line you might as well be over. There have been countless stories of this happening.
There are also countless stories of Apple changing their mind when there is enough public outcry. So it's a calculated risk and blog posts like this are part of the plan if things don't initially go your way.
Re: Apple takes down another indie dev
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of other choices, though.
Launcher apps have been available on Android since the beginning. I doubt the developer would have seen such a massive initial success on Android unless their app was particularly impressive.
He sounds like an effective developer with good creativity. I'm willing to bet he'll find something new in the future.
Re: Apple takes down another indie dev
#49This seems like a pretty clear case of "not obeying the spirit of the rule": "On September 26, Greg submitted what he believed was a valid compromise: The click would take the user to the main Launcher app, and from there the app would call the appropriate action." It's quite clear that while the code would no longer be launching another app from the widget, the user would experience essentially the same action. That…
Does it really matter what his compromise is? His app is a Today widget app launcher. Apple decided after initially approving it that you can't make Today widget app launchers. The end. I agree that the dev thinking it is a "valid compromise" is iffy, but I don't think there was any compromise that would allow his app to stay on the store.
Yes, and the iron grip Apple has on their own platform's application market is not a secret, nor have they been secretive about having an iron grip.
I am totally on board with the mindset that Apple needs to loosen their grip: I think it's long-term-detrimental to their platform and it keeps a lot of really innovative ideas out. And if this blog post had said "I wanted to do something really innovative, but I can't because Apple holds an iron grip", I'd be 100% behind the author. But Apple has the right to run their marketplace as they see fit, and developers who sign on and expect that Apple will not act as they always have, and as their ToS says they will, are deluding themselves.
Re: Apple takes down another indie dev
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which part of that is describing this exactly? Is this extension really a home screen alternative? Is this extension showing widgets that simulate multiple apps?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Is the purpose of the home screen not launching applications? Is there not significant overlap between this function and that of Launcher? Shall we have a conversation composed entirely of rhetorical questions?
Is Apple being intentionally obtuse? If they want to ban app launchers, ban app launchers, not "home screen replacements."
I mean, how is Launch Center Pro allowed (for years now) if app launchers are so clearly banned? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/launch-center-pro/id53201636...