Tap to flap.
We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it
191–200 of 319 posts
Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it
#192At least they could plot their feelings of rejection on the app Apple rejected.
Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the good illustrations how app stores (itunes, play) limits us: try to find any usable porno app. In contrast with Web where you can find anything you want and nobody cares what are you doing here, in stores we are hardly limitated to "morally acceptable" apps. It looks like digital Pakistan.
Does your local grocery store sell porn? Just saying, it's a company's store, if they want to have some sense of morale (and tbf, quality), it's their right to deny porn apps.
> Does your local grocery store sell porn?
Yes? Pornographic magazines are very common in magazine racks...
Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it
#194It's a common enough rejection; I've gotten it before and know other people who have too. You can respond to them and clarify why this set of functionality is right, that it's a new app and will have features added in the future, etc. Worked for me, anyway.
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 went through the appeals process. It was very unhelpful. I got the impression that until we responded "we have updated the application", any objections were routed to the same unreasonable person that rejected us originally who didn't care to look at the same application twice.
We ended up adding a "feature" in a completely superficial way. We took an existing feature of the application and we exposed it as a top-level menu item instead of making it appear in the context where it makes sense.
As soon as we told Apple that we'd added a feature and they could verify that there was a new top-level menu item on the first screen of the application, they approved it. It was essentially the same application that they thought didn't have enough functionality, except rearranged slightly to make the functionality obvious to a reviewer that doesn't look past the first screen.
As far as I can tell, there's a lot of pressure inside Apple to churn through reviews as quickly as possible, and the review process is getting sloppier. Things get approved when they have glaring faults, and things get rejected because they didn't make a good impression in the first few seconds a reviewer looked at it.
Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it
#195When my son was 2, I found a free iPad app called "My Colours". It was a grid of 12 colors. When a color block was touched, a synthesized female voice read out the name of the color. For my son, at least, it worked very well, much better than fancier (and often garish) apps, and he was even able to identify "turquoise" because of the app. When I had to reinstall my iPad, I found it was missing from the App Store. For…
I haven't heard of a case where it was removed later by apple for an issue like that. Perhaps the author pulled it down. If you aren't doing much in the app store, and just make a simple app for fun one year then it is easy to just let your $100/yr membership lapse.
Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it
#196"we consider simplicity to be uncomplicated - not limited in features and functionality"
I cannot believe this is an official position for a company like Apple (or any company for that matter).
My advice would be to move away from native and towards the web, as opposed to baking in useless features or planning new features that rely on native capabilities.
Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to counter this advice by saying that I don't think acquiescing to the whims of walled garden rulers is the best solution. If your vision was to create what you have already created, how could you modify it to a product that you think is worse for your users because its what Apple wants? It pains me just reading suggestions about implementing these tacked on functions.
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.
Apple? Fuck them.
Fully agree. The Apple app store 'universum' became too large in order to allow Apple to continue censoring it. Government need to (somehow) enforce alternative app stores.
Until this happens, boycott Apple (or bear the consequence of your conduct which only supports Apple).
On the other hand, it's not bad that Apple cares deeply about the apps they carry. If there was an alternative store, I'd buy an iPhone at once. (Well, would have, not sure if I'd be able to part again from my Jolla now).
Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it
#198With 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.
We love what Apple did for the industry, we love using their products, we have varying levels of problems with them as a company. Some are very high, some are low, but that's unrelated to what you're perceiving, which is a love of what they did for the industry and the products that we use.
there were palms treos before
Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it
#199Earlier 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.
I presume you mean Google - were they close partners? I admit I wasn't following Apple (at all) before iPhone.
The iPhone is really where they started to work closely together. Here's Eric jokingly proposing a merger at the iphone launch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9h...
Steve comments again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnkXa3eTV88
The Mac's 30th anniversary a few weeks gave the original Mac launch videos a lot of recent play where Gates and Microsoft basically played an eerily similar role to Google with the iPhone launch. Of course MS, like Google did want to do everything.
It's clear as day why Steve felt betrayed by Google. As he said in the internal town hall:
We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake teams at Google want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them, he says. Someone else asks something on a different topic, but there’s no getting Jobs off this rant. I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing, he says. "Don't be evil is a load of crap"
{I've edited in the two updates/corrections from the bottom}
Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it
#200This seems like one of those moments when Tim Bray's 2002 sharecropper post applies:
"What it comes down to is this: if you want to develop software, you can build for the Web and/or Unix and/or OSS platforms; or alternatively, you can be a sharecropper."
https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePl...