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

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#81

Post by troupo »

threeseed wrote: post #12
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.

The problem isn't that it's illegal it's that it's unknown. DMA enforcement is about the spirit of the law rather than the clear meaning and so everything is vague and subjective. And with the fines being so ridiculously large it's not worth the risk.

1. Every law has the spirit of the law. Otherwise you wouldn't need courts to interpret laws, and no law would ever be made because it would have to describe every single permutation of every single possible human endeavour

2. Fines are capped at high numbers. It doesn't mean you will be immediately slapped with one. Stop perpetuating this bullshit. The law says up to, not just this fine and that's it.

EU especially doesn't like fining companies. The usual process in the EU is "please fix this -> please fix that -> minor fine -> greater fine if persisting in breaking the law -> even greater fine -> ..."

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#82

Post by troupo »

saagarjha wrote: post #68
realusername wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't provide any rationale the same way a justice court in a dictatorship doesn't need to refer to actual laws to justify their decision. The appstore process is arbitrary by design, to keep power inside the company.

I mean, even a court doesn't publish all the deliberation that goes into arriving at a decision. They prepare a final verdict and deliver it–while it would be interesting to see, we have reasons we don't post things like "juror 2 thinks what you did was barely legal".

Courts at least try to justify these decisions with supporting documents, evidence, and links to precedent. Apple just rejects, or approves, or approves and rejects and often cannot say why.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#83

Post by SSLy »

cageface wrote: post #39
II2II wrote: post #33

Earlier 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?

of course you can. you just need logged off google play services and services framework middleware

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#84

Post by lynx23 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #46
INGSOCIALITE wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 h…

> neither society or government can agree on.. anything really.

I believe what you describe is called democracy. The counterpart of which, where everyone "agreees" is totalitarian.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#85

Post by bsaul »

muro wrote: post #79
akmarinov wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, every RN app uses CodePush to dynamically update its code

What is a RN app?

React native. the code of the app is in javascript, and so updates can be downloaded dynamically by the app itself, without the need to submit another version to the app store

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#88

Post by InvOfSmallC »

Kwpolska wrote: post #62
ggm wrote: post #61

Being excluded from the store doesn't mean your code cannot run. It just means people have to want to jump over more hoops to run it. Ultimately, it might mean $99 for a developer account, Xcode, and signing your own binary. Contract law covers how you get the code to compile. I only say this because there is no sense in pretending this is an absolutist position, that Apple has forbade their CPUs from executing instr…

This app was also rejected from EU alternative app stores (which is illegal BTW), so the only way to get it would be something like the classic AltStore, which requires a real computer, and allows only three apps to be installed, and the apps expire every 7 days. https://faq.altstore.io/how-to-use-altstore/your-altstore

You can use sideloadly my friend. No need of a computer after first installation of sideloadly itself.

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#89

Post by paulryanrogers »

InvOfSmallC wrote: post #88
Kwpolska wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This app was also rejected from EU alternative app stores (which is illegal BTW), so the only way to get it would be something like the classic AltStore, which requires a real computer, and allows only three apps to be installed, and the apps expire every 7 days. https://faq.altstore.io/how-to-use-altstore/your-altstore

You can use sideloadly my friend. No need of a computer after first installation of sideloadly itself.

Doesn't that require root/jail break?

Re: iDOS 3 Rejected by Apple

#90

Post by saagarjha »

troupo wrote: post #82
saagarjha wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, even a court doesn't publish all the deliberation that goes into arriving at a decision. They prepare a final verdict and deliver it–while it would be interesting to see, we have reasons we don't post things like "juror 2 thinks what you did was barely legal".

Courts at least try to justify these decisions with supporting documents, evidence, and links to precedent. Apple just rejects, or approves, or approves and rejects and often cannot say why.

Sure. But I don't think them showing their internal discussions would help solve the problem here, because their internal discussion is likely to be inconsistent and poorly documented.
Post reply on HN