61–70 of 71 posts
It is named ScreenSaver, when it clearly does not function as "screen saver" on iOS device. Apple is right.
The Fart App doesn't fart. It is not possible to make an iOS device produce flatulence. Therefore, it is misnamed and the name is confusing to users. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-fart-app/id370742001?mt=8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't mean the brusqueness is appropriate or called for. I don't care what jwz has accomplished, basic human decency is something we should all strive for.
These people are attacking not only the independence of our profession but their consumers' human faculty for tinkering. IMHO the gloves should come farther off than they have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Fart App doesn't fart. It is not possible to make an iOS device produce flatulence. Therefore, it is misnamed and the name is confusing to users. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-fart-app/id370742001?mt=8
Other computing devices have screen savers, so it's why many would be "mislead" to think it's an actual screen saver app that magically enables their iDevice to show screen savers.
And in any event, the App Store contains products of similar functionality, e.g. live wallpaper.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/live-wallpapers-pro/id4994091...
Apple might be wrong, but jwz is a dick. Just read the comments on that link and see how abusive he is to the other commenters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other computing devices have screen savers, so it's why many would be "mislead" to think it's an actual screen saver app that magically enables their iDevice to show screen savers.
The subset of iOS users who would consider an instance of iOS hardware to be "a computing device" is quite small, particularly given the app store policies which discourage apps which allow iOS devices to be used for general purpose computing. And in any event, the App Store contains products of similar functionality, e.g. live wallpaper. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/live-wallpapers-pro/id4994091...
Why they approved "live wallpapers", but not "xScreenSaver"? I don't know. It sucks, it seems that their reviews are not consistent.
But just because they made a mistake (like approving "live wallpapers", which IMO is a misleading app created solely for the purpose of milking a few hundred dollars from naïve App Store customers) does not mean that it's okay to do it again.
Edit: look at the other apps created by the same developer: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/color-texting-for-message/id4... and http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/color-keyboard-pro-pimp-color... and http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/icon-skins-with-builder/id429... - all of them are misleading, making you believe you can do things on the iOS that you actually can't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've already mentioned it here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4300688
> They rejected the app repeatedly for the following reasons: > - in-app purchase does not provide a restore button (which I've never seen in any other app btw) Really?! Every app I use has a restore button. As a user, I'm happy they reject your app. Otherwise, if I buy that "thing" from you (via IAP) on my iPhone, it's not available on my iPad, iPod touch, or even iPhone if I restore it to factory settings. The poin…
I couldn't find an appropriate reference for that specific case, and besides, I changed the purchase button to check for a restore first, an failing to find that, ask the user to pay. But that still didn't cut it with the reviewers, they wanted an explicit button named restore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They rejected the app repeatedly for the following reasons: > - in-app purchase does not provide a restore button (which I've never seen in any other app btw) Really?! Every app I use has a restore button. As a user, I'm happy they reject your app. Otherwise, if I buy that "thing" from you (via IAP) on my iPhone, it's not available on my iPad, iPod touch, or even iPhone if I restore it to factory settings. The poin…
Even if the inapp purchase is to remove ads from the free version? I couldn't find an appropriate reference for that specific case, and besides, I changed the purchase button to check for a restore first, an failing to find that, ask the user to pay. But that still didn't cut it with the reviewers, they wanted an explicit button named restore.
I think even in this case, yes, it should be there.
But if you've changed it (to something even more elegant) and they still rejected it, shame on them!
Apple might be wrong, but jwz is a dick. Just read the comments on that link and see how abusive he is to the other commenters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These people are attacking not only the independence of our profession but their consumers' human faculty for tinkering. IMHO the gloves should come farther off than they have.
Oh, you meant the peanut gallery on jwz's blog, not the app store asshats. Yeah, I wouldn't act like that, OTOH I don't have what it takes to write enough insightful and entertaining rants to become net.famous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The subset of iOS users who would consider an instance of iOS hardware to be "a computing device" is quite small, particularly given the app store policies which discourage apps which allow iOS devices to be used for general purpose computing. And in any event, the App Store contains products of similar functionality, e.g. live wallpaper. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/live-wallpapers-pro/id4994091...
Yes, and look at the reviews. All of them were deceived, they think it's a scam, they demand a refund, they probably feel less safe about buying anything from App Store again, and other iOS developers pay (only slightly) the price of this "scammy" app. Apple should get rid of all such apps – it's better for the business (of Apple themselves and other iOS developers). Why they approved "live wallpapers", but not "xScr…