Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

litchie.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 116 posts

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#41

Post by INGSOCIALITE »

infotainment wrote: post #17
LeoPanthera wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMA stifles innovation and would make many recent iOS features illegal. Apple Intelligence - points you to Apple Music or Apple Maps as a response to your query? Illegal. iPhone Mirroring - doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal. Shareplay screen sharing - doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal. There's a reason those features are not getting an EU release.

Honestly, good . If Apple can't make those features interoperable, then they shouldn't exist at all. With Apple's size and access to development resources, there is absolutely no excuse for them other than greed.

[flagged]

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#42

Post by HumblyTossed »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #10
mortenjorck wrote: post #7

Original post is from April, but there is an update at the bottom from June: > Got a call from Apple after 2 months. They have decided that iDOS is not a retro game console, so the new rule is not applicable. They suggested I make changes and resubmit for review, but when I asked what changes I should make to be compliant, they had no idea, nor when I asked what a retro game console is. We need a DMA over here yester…

The DMA stifles innovation and would make many recent iOS features illegal. Apple Intelligence - points you to Apple Music or Apple Maps as a response to your query? Illegal. iPhone Mirroring - doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal. Shareplay screen sharing - doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal. There's a reason those features are not getting an EU release.

> The DMA stifles innovation

Real innovation would be for iOS devices to be interoperable with non-Apple technology.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#43

Post by HumblyTossed »

INGSOCIALITE wrote: post #41
infotainment wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, good . If Apple can't make those features interoperable, then they shouldn't exist at all. With Apple's size and access to development resources, there is absolutely no excuse for them other than greed.

[flagged]

> why the fuck should a government have the right to tell a company what they can and can't do with their product?!

I mean, do we really need to enumerate the reasons for you? Next you will think it's okay for someone to manufacture a car that can't be opened when the 12V battery dies.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#44

Post by idle_zealot »

cageface wrote: post #31
Shank wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need a DMA over here yesterday. I understand why you would believe this, but Apple currently refuses to notarize UTM for distribution outside of the App Store via Notarization under rule 2.5.2: > UTM also noted that Apple is barring UTM SE from being notarized for third-party app stores because the app apparently violated guideline 2.5.2. That rule states that apps have to be self-contained and can’t execute cod…

I could sort of see the justification for requiring notarization giving Apple a kill switch to shutdown malware. But if it's just turning into another kind of app review then we can't really say the Mac is still an open platform.

Notarization is not a reasonable implemetation of a malware kill switch. All you'd need for that is an Apple-published list of known-bad app ids that the OS could check itself against periodically. No, notarization is a control mechanism to impede the creation and distribution of any non-Apple-approved apps.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#45

Post by skissane »

pjlegato wrote: post #36
skissane wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s needed is for regulators to step in. Create an independent government-run tribunal to which app store review decisions can be appealed by the developers, and legally mandate Apple/Google/etc to obey its rulings. Maybe the EU will do it. If the EU mandated it other jurisdictions would likely follow. Even if they didn’t, you’d likely just be able to incorporate an EU subsidiary, then resubmit the app in the subs…

Allowing government bureaucrats to oversee the app store review process seems like quite possibly the only single thing that could make it even slower, more frustrating, and more arbitrary than it is now.

> Allowing government bureaucrats to oversee the app store review process seems like quite possibly the only single thing that could make it even slower,

How could it possibly make the review process slower? Such a tribunal would have zero role to play in reviewing the app. It only steps in if the developer wishes to appeal a review rejection. At which point it is reviewing, not the app itself, but rather the reasonableness of the review process which lead to the rejection of that particular app.

Also, I wouldn’t suggest government bureaucrats as appointees. My uncle, who is a lawyer, used to sit on one of these government tribunals in Australia (not reviewing app store rejections, reviewing rejections of applications for refugee status). He was not a bureaucrat and nor were any of the other appointees. The government advertised for lawyers in private practice to apply for appointment to the tribunal, and he applied, and he was appointed. His background was in criminal defence not government bureaucracy. And it was a part-time role, so he was still carrying on his private criminal defence practice while he sat on it. It is considered a quasi-judicial role (not technically a judge and not having the same prestige or qualifications or privileges as a judge, but performing some of the same functions)

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#46

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

INGSOCIALITE wrote: post #41
infotainment wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, good . If Apple can't make those features interoperable, then they shouldn't exist at all. With Apple's size and access to development resources, there is absolutely no excuse for them other than greed.

[flagged]

I think the issue is that of scope. Apple is not a mom and pop store, where you can just take your business elsewhere if you are unhappy. It is a global entity with means just to capture the market, but to dictate terms to it ( and by extension to its other participants ). We are now in a position where we effectively have two options ( Apple and Android ) and they both suck in their own special ways ( yes, we also have Purism and wossname, but last time I checked, neither is a decent daily driver ).

To address your main point, in theory at least, as a society, we should be able to tell government that something is not cool and address it as needed. The good news for Apple and most oligopolies now is that neither society or government can agree on.. anything really.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#48

Post by jncfhnb »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

Apple seriously needs to make all internal coms about rejecting apps public to the person being rejected. I do mean all this way, when people blog about it, there's no more ambiguity and it can be assessed. Also, you can see if they're rejecting it for something they already approved of prior. It feels like some people doing the reviews dont look at prior history at all. Maybe they dont even get access to it, or mayb…

It should be illegal for them to prohibit an app on their store and alternative distribution. Triply so if it at all competes with them.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#49

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

jncfhnb wrote: post #48
giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

Apple seriously needs to make all internal coms about rejecting apps public to the person being rejected. I do mean all this way, when people blog about it, there's no more ambiguity and it can be assessed. Also, you can see if they're rejecting it for something they already approved of prior. It feels like some people doing the reviews dont look at prior history at all. Maybe they dont even get access to it, or mayb…

It should be illegal for them to prohibit an app on their store and alternative distribution. Triply so if it at all competes with them.

> It should be illegal for them to prohibit an app on their store and alternative distribution. Triply so if it at all competes with them.

My very amateur reading of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773883 is that it probably literally is (edit: in the EU, to be clear). It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#50

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #10
mortenjorck wrote: post #7

Original post is from April, but there is an update at the bottom from June: > Got a call from Apple after 2 months. They have decided that iDOS is not a retro game console, so the new rule is not applicable. They suggested I make changes and resubmit for review, but when I asked what changes I should make to be compliant, they had no idea, nor when I asked what a retro game console is. We need a DMA over here yester…

The DMA stifles innovation and would make many recent iOS features illegal. Apple Intelligence - points you to Apple Music or Apple Maps as a response to your query? Illegal. iPhone Mirroring - doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal. Shareplay screen sharing - doesn't work with Windows or Android. Illegal. There's a reason those features are not getting an EU release.

Does the DMA mandate that they actually implement extra apps/features, or just provide the API surface for others to do so? Like, just to pick the first one on your list - any reason they can't just let it point at an arbitrary app that's tagged as providing music (and, I presume, that implements some standard API to query songs or w/e). Does the law really want Apple to integrate with ex. Spotify, or just make it possible for Spotify to integrate the same way as Apple's own music app?
Post reply on HN