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

311–319 of 319 posts

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

#311

Post by mcv »

guenard wrote: post #256
mcv wrote: post #120

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.

Larger? It's not that easy. There is more Android smartphones sold than Apple phones yep, but 1. thanks to telcos a lot of Android users don't even know what is Android/Google Play (= they'll never download apps) and 2. global app store revenues are still higher on iOS versus Google Play.

But this was a free app, wasn't it? That would make the revenue aspect fairly irrelevant.

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

#312

Post by shitlord »

GFischer wrote: post #172
shitlord wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also like to have a retina MBP. Dat screen resolution and battery... My current POS Dell XPS laptop lasts 2 hours max, has a 17 inch 1080p screen, and weights a ton. Worst of all, the Windows drivers that Dell provides don't even work properly and cause frequent BSODs, so I can't even play games. I would love to have a retina MPB, but unfortunately, I can't afford it.

That said, not all Windows laptops are that bad :) , I never had such a bad experience (not with Gateway, HP, IBM/Lenovo or Asus), but then again, I never bought a Dell either :P . I'm also willing to wager you paid nowhere near the retina MBP price for the Dell :) (though I guess you are more likely to have a bad experience with a high-priced Windows laptop than with a MBP, complaints about the 2011 batch aside)

I agree, not all Windows laptops are bad. My sister bought a cheap $700 Dell Inspiron and it's pretty nice. I actually like the Windows operating system, since I'm really productive on it. But I think the vendors need to get their shit together. There are a lot of glaring problems caused by OEM incompetence, like providing the wrong drivers and preinstalling bloatware.

For some reason, I thought it was a good idea to buy a $1300 laptop before starting college. I really regret making that decision. I probably should have spent a few hundred dollars more for a retina MBP instead.

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

#314

Post by sho_hn »

eropple wrote: post #259
sho_hn wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins

That's great, but nobody used it before Apple made it a thing.

Well, I used it every day. Apparently it was enough of a thing for Apple to notice it, too (or let's face it, the Mozilla people - like David Hyatt - they hired to gain the knowledge).

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

#315

Post by eropple »

sho_hn wrote: post #314
eropple wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great, but nobody used it before Apple made it a thing.

Well, I used it every day. Apparently it was enough of a thing for Apple to notice it, too (or let's face it, the Mozilla people - like David Hyatt - they hired to gain the knowledge).

Did they notice it because it was good or did they notice it because it wasn't GPL?

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

#316

Post by sho_hn »

eropple wrote: post #315
sho_hn wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I used it every day. Apparently it was enough of a thing for Apple to notice it, too (or let's face it, the Mozilla people - like David Hyatt - they hired to gain the knowledge).

Did they notice it because it was good or did they notice it because it wasn't GPL?

Gecko wasn't GPL either. And Gecko was actually originally meant to be embedded by others, before the community decided to productize and do Firefox (originally Phoenix).

I'd like to think they noticed it because it was good. KHTML at the time had quite strong CSS support compared to its competition (not necessarily the best, but it competed well), had done some important advances in l18n support compared to others (e.g. strong support for bidi text layout), and the design of its render tree which e.g. allowed for hardware-accelerated layer compositing was later adopted by competitors like Gecko. It was a pretty good codebase.

Sure, it's been a decade since those events, and the majority of the engineering effort by now lies chiefly on the WebKit side of things. Apple employees working on WebKit have done a ton of good work, as have other stakeholders. Apple was an important factor both in terms of workforce increase and popularity increase for the project. But I think it's very legitimate to continue to credit the KDE community with its inception.

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

#317

Post by e12e »

Greenisus wrote: post #267
rbritton wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8.3: Apps which appear confusingly similar to an existing Apple product or advertising theme will be rejected We found that your app is too similar to iOS springboard icons, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines. Specifically, the rejection relates to the use of rounded icons like Apple's iOS springboard icons.

I was rejected in a similar way for my very first iPhone app many years ago. I wrote the Slicehost app, and it had a tab for managing DNS. I had a friend draw the icons for me, and for DNS I went with a globe. The globe my friend drew looked a lot like the globe used for switching your keyboard to another language, so they rejected me for that. I changed the DNS icon to something else and resubmitted and it was accep…

Perhaps they don't actually review all parts of all apps? Would make sense to do some sort of statistical testing. Unless you told anyone (and people started submitting 10 (identical) versions of every app) -- you could probably be about as effective as if you did fully check every app...

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

#318

Post by Greenisus »

e12e wrote: post #317
Greenisus wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was rejected in a similar way for my very first iPhone app many years ago. I wrote the Slicehost app, and it had a tab for managing DNS. I had a friend draw the icons for me, and for DNS I went with a globe. The globe my friend drew looked a lot like the globe used for switching your keyboard to another language, so they rejected me for that. I changed the DNS icon to something else and resubmitted and it was accep…

Perhaps they don't actually review all parts of all apps? Would make sense to do some sort of statistical testing. Unless you told anyone (and people started submitting 10 (identical) versions of every app) -- you could probably be about as effective as if you did fully check every app...

I think the real answer is that human beings are reviewing the apps. (Machines now at least check for apps making private API calls and stuff like that, but that wasn't the case in the beginning of the App Store.) There are a lot of different reasons for rejecting apps, and there are a lot of apps being submitted every week, so it makes sense for violations to occasionally slip through the cracks.

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

#319

Post by squintychino »

thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #20
squintychino wrote: post #15

This just in - grass has rejected itself for being too green. This is the core feature of Apple products - their simplicity.

simplicity to use, not design.

If it's designed simple, it will be simple to use. So it's the same thing.
Post reply on HN