[deleted]
iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
51–60 of 116 posts
Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The requirement for a hardened runtime certainly supports this point of view.
Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
#53Apple gets a lot of flack for making iOS a closed system and I genuinely believe that the decisions they make are what they believe are in the public good. ...except for App Store reviews, which are frequently irrational, contradictory, and kafkaesque. (Automatically denied because the app shared the name with a version disallowed under the previous policy? Then denied because they had tried too many times? This is a…
Nit: flak
Flack is a common alternative spelling.
Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
#54Apple 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…
This type of chest beating principal lacks nuance, there are certainly reasons why a reasonable person would agree it is in Apple (or any marketplace operator) not to share rationale directly with the creator. The easiest example would be comms indicating that Apple is detecting malicious behaviors (spam, fraud, abuse, etc) in the app. Disclosing information what can (and implicitly what cannot be detected) is self defeating. There are literally hundreds of reasonable variations in these situations.
I think what is effective is that all violations where the creator is working in good faith to abide by guidelines should be treated with reasonable transparency about how the conclusion Apple came to was reached. What fraction of Apple devs are working in good faith? Obviously the vast majority. So therefore most rejections should have clear rationale.
Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
#55Original 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.
That's fine. If they can't implement features in a way that doesn't stifle competition or create vendor lock-in, then they don't get to implement those features. I think that's a totally reasonable consequence of the DMA, if true.
Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
#56Earlier 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]
Companies exist at the pleasure of societies (aka governments), so those societies have literally every right to tell those companies what they can and cannot do.
I guess you also think it's bonkers that car makers are required to put seatbelts in their cars.
Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Challenging is better than impossible. That said, I am left wondering why more major software publishers don't have the option to sideload Android apps. (It was a while since I looked into it, since I mostly use open source apps these days, but it seemed as though most companies were switching to a Google Play Store only route a few years back even though they had the brand recognition to bypass Google's store altoge…
You can't get push notifications in a sideloaded app right?
Is that really the case? Why wouldn't you be able to? The FCM APIs aren't gated by install method; I've successfully used them while sideloading my own self-written, unpublished apps.
Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
#58Apple gets a lot of flack for making iOS a closed system and I genuinely believe that the decisions they make are what they believe are in the public good. ...except for App Store reviews, which are frequently irrational, contradictory, and kafkaesque. (Automatically denied because the app shared the name with a version disallowed under the previous policy? Then denied because they had tried too many times? This is a…
> I genuinely believe that the decisions they make are what they believe are in the public good.
The decisions they make are in service to their revenue and market share numbers. If marketing their decisions as "for the public good" helps those, then that's what they do.
That's not always a bad thing! Sometimes the interests of a capitalist corporation actually aligns with the interests of its customers. The problem is that the link isn't always there, and things can change for the worse for arbitrary reasons.
Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the creator of an app have to link to a Verge story?
when the verge story details your app, why your so was denies from the app store, why future apps from the same developer might be blocked from the app store, I'd consider it relevant
Maybe they disagree with the conclusions in the Verge article and don't think it deserves further publicity. Even if they're wrong, they're not obligated to argue against themselves.
Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple
#60Original 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.
[flagged]