For some perspective on apple "killing" developers.
Apple is FLOODED with copycat crap apps - 10 different names etc etc. Seriously, the play store used to have lots more of these - maybe now cleaned up. But saying that apple needs to encourage this crap is silly. This is what was killing the play store.
When someone who doesn't know git or github tries to read his privacy policy they have no chance.
Why it this all apple's fault? I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for a privacy policy.
One fix, developers should be able to pay $500 to have someone give them some training on what sections of app review guidelines they are breaking. Do 30 minutes to prep, spend an hour talking with them, then 30 minutes to wrap up.
Someone has this service - seriously - consider paying for some guidance if you don't want to read through the lengthy Apple stuff yourself.
Compare selling on the App Store to selling physical goods in a real store. Can anyone just make a thing at home and take it to their local Walmart and demand they sell it? Of course not. There are quality controls. There are things you have to learn first — that your packaging needs to be in a suitable box, that you need to get a barcode, that it needs legal notices, etc.
If Walmart offered a “seller’s course” where you could go and learn how to do these things nobody would bat an eyelid. They’d probably be praised for it.
Here’s where my analogy falls apart, of course. Walmart still won’t list for sale the crappy useless thing that you made at home. Apple will.
It also falls apart in that Walmart allows you to sell your useless thing at other retailers or even flea markets and garage sales. Apple only allows you to sell your useless iOS apps on their App Store.
Of course, once you start selling the item and build a business around it, retailers are less likely to randomly yank you with no recourse or real feedback.
It’s almost like physical retail and software are different. Crazy!
It's kind of disappointing to see you and others in this thread being so hostile towards the developer of FSNotes and assuming the worst.
I guess I'm a bit biased since I use it regularly, and I really like the business model of an open-source application that is available for free, and is purchasable if you wish to support the creator.
It seems like you're ignoring the fact that an actual person (and presumably, fellow developer, I am assuming you are also a dev) who provides a useful tool for free and spends a considerable amount of time and energy on it is going to read your posts that just shit on him and his work with no sympathy.
Also, please keep in mind that $500 is a LOT of money for many developers, both inside and outside of the United States.
It's disappointing seeing a developer claim apple is out to "kill" indie developers.
It follows a pattern of absolutely over the top language around companies like apple.
Apple's approach has resulted in 2 million apps+ in the app store. I'm not sure given their crappy interface I could find or use even a fraction of them.
> Why it this all apple's fault? I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for a privacy policy.
Apple didn't say this was a privacy policy issue, why do you think it is?
> One fix, developers should be able to pay $500 to [...]
So by default if Apple rejects you and refuses to give a reason, you should have the "opportunity" of paying them $500 so Apple tells you what Apple already knows? What a deal!
I mean, the other way to look at this is the baseline cost for a supported enterprise developer account is $500 (or $5000, or whatever), and it's a discount to $99 if you happen not to need the extra hand-holding.
If you go through the trouble of applying for a job, submitting a resume, doing a phone interview and are rejected - they may kick you to the curb and NEVER tell you why. This is not bizarre world, this is this world.
If you apply to college and they turn you down, even though you have paid fees and spent time on your application, they almost certainly WILL NOT tell you why as they kick you to the curb.
If you are sending spam and the mailer rejects you, it almost certainly will not tell you exactly why - just give a link to general guidance.
Most if not all large / high volume application systems have evolved in this direction.
I'm not saying it's acceptable, I'm just saying— the alternative is probably something more like the five-figure game console SDK license fees of the PS2 era. That kind of money pays for you to have a phone number to someone who is accountable for your success deploying product on the platform and helps you work through any issues you come up against. But obviously, it also locks out most smaller devs from participating. So it's arguable whether the current state of affairs is sustainable or a net improvement.
> the alternative is probably something more like [...]
No it's not. If they can send you an email saying your account is suspended they could simply include the reason in there. There is no justification whatsoever for making that information cost further money.
Apple is dealing with 2 million+ apps. Some of the developers are not reading the guidelines or actively subverting or trying to subvert apples customers.
If you work in this type of space, your time becomes precious and there can be extreme mismatches between what a developer etc thinks is owed to them and what they have paid for.
I'm pointing out that the developer is not following even basic guidelines. It seems possible that either this or another guideline is not being followed?
The problem it lookes like is that apple locked the account because they were reviewing something, but didn't say what, and didn't say why, and didn't provide any more information other than "just sit tight, we'll eventually tell you why your account is locked, and maybe unlock it." They even acknowledge this screws over the end users, but that's life and quit complaining.
More to the point, part of publishing on the App Store is fulfilling the requirements. If the requirements include you must send a video to them of you standing on your head and blowing a party whistle, that's what you have to do. If you don't want to, you're free to not develop for Apple devices.
That you get away with not doing it for any amount of time is not an excuse. It's Apple's sandbox; play by their rules, or play elsewhere.
Glancing at the app store review guidelines[1], I will note that this app's listing[2] is low-key violating the privacy policy requirement by just linking to the github repo for the app, which has no actual privacy policy listed. I have no idea if that's enough for Apple to do a suspension-and-review process like this, but it's definitely a violation.
That said, I think they should include at least some hint in their communications about why they're reviewing you, particularly if it's going to take as long as it looks like this one has.
When someone doesn't have proper privacy policy links, Apple points this out very specifically and quickly accepts the app after it's fixed. I've seen them accept policies as simple as a plaintext link containing "We don't store any of your data".
The AppStore experience is miserable. It sucks the life out of you as an independent developer when they reject your app for vague reasons and you know the turn around to get your app reviewed again is going to be another 1-3 days. The quality control is highly variant, sometimes my application goes through intense scrutiny, sometimes it gets rejected purely for user error on their reviewing end and other times it gets accepted without a peep. When they do have complaints and reject your app, you can submit comments or an appeal but they are never responded to or acknowledged. The whole process doesn't make me excited to create another app. I've made two different apps, avaialable on both platforms and the Google Play experience is way overall way easier to deal with, probably because there's less human review & scrutiny involved.
As a developer, I am sympathetic, but as a user of both app stores, I very much like that many of the apps Google Play accepts are weeded out by Apple’s review process, and I accept that false positive rejections are going to be a cost of scrutiny.
I advise adjusting your expectations to the worst case scenario. When we deploy to the App Store, we budget a significant lead time so we are able to resubmit without blowing our deadline. And we are prepared to fix things we didn’t expect to, or think we have to. In exchange, users are more willing to trust an app we deploy and download it.
I don't use any Apple products for partially this reason. I really wonder why there hasn't yet been a class action lawsuit about this. Considering the market share of devices they control, they should not be giving an edge to the likes of Tencent and Facebook to do whatever they want while indie developers get screwed over.
Google Play is arguably as bad - just in different ways. At least an actual human reviews your apps at Apple, and they do sometimes point out specific-ish information.
At Google, since it's all bots, a random algorithm change can remove your app from the store overnight. With Apple, if you get through the review process you're usually safe. Not to mention random bans by association (e.g. if a developer at your company has previously had a banned account, then the company account could be banned due to association with this developer - there are a few horror stories out there about this).
You just need to learn how to play the game. Expect you’ll be rejected and politely let the reviewers know that you’ll fix it immediately. It’s just the steps you need to take to become a professional app developer.
Feels like there are some pieces missing from the story.
This isn't a "we won't approve your app because it's not following the app guidelines" rejection or an app stuck in review purgatory. (I once had an Apple TV app stuck in review for 10 weeks before it magically was approved with no changes from me.) This is a "your account did something it shouldn't have done" flag. The whole account is suspended for an alleged infraction of "App Store Review Guidelines’ Developer Code of Conduct". Did your account do contract work on other "spammy" apps or similar? Even if you worked on completely different apps, it's not unprecedented for Apple to just blow the whole account up if it's in any way tied.
Edit to add Code of Conduct:
5.6 Developer Code of Conduct
Please treat everyone with respect, whether in your responses to App Store reviews, customer support requests, or when communicating with Apple, including your responses in Resolution Center. Do not engage in harassment of any kind, discriminatory practices, intimidation, bullying, and don’t encourage others to engage in any of the above.
Customer trust is the cornerstone of the App Store’s success. Apps should never prey on users or attempt to rip-off customers, trick them into making unwanted purchases, force them to share unnecessary data, raise prices in a tricky manner, charge for features or content that are not delivered, or engage in any other manipulative practices within or outside of the app.
> Did your account do contract work on other "spammy" apps or similar?
This is a good question. I've seen the stories before where a person who had normal apps did contract work on scam apps in the same account, and then wonder why their account ends up in review.
I'm not aware of the details. but from my (admittedly non-empirical data) that this experience is not uncommon. When Apple thinks there's a problem, big applications are more likely to get quick communication from Apple and small ones get tend to get drawn-out silence.I hear about it from friends, coworkers and my own experience.
This makes sense in a realpolitik way - Apple has a monopoly on mobile app profits. Where else can you go? Apple is not trying to smash small devs, but they also know they have very little pressure to provide great service to small devs.
The google store operates in the same way. Application developers need to band together and quit accepting these locked down store monopolies. They aren't good for consumers either. The usual justification is that these stores reduce fruad and malware, but I have found the opposite to be true. Having a single store leads to an aggressive race to the bottom, where gaming the store ranking is priority one. Last two times I tried to find a rather obvious piece of software on apple store (a chess program, and a stopwatch program) I couldn't even find stuff that wasn't misleading adware ridden crap.
Can't speak for the Google store, but as a consumer, I definitely trust Apple's apps more than random developers' apps. So in Apple's case, I always appreciate when they provide another service/app that I can use, because their values on privacy aligns with mine and they have built up a trust relationship with me.
But that’s completely different than the question of what the App Store accomplishes. Apple didn’t need or develop an App Store to distribute their own apps, but third party ones.
By default, you can't side-load applications on any android phone I've used in the last 5 years. It's not hard to turn it off, but it's also not obvious how and a consumer would have to be taken step-by-step on how to do it, and so the default Google experience is the same as Apple, sans the critical difference of much much more stringent app review on iOS.
Not sure when it was last updated, but for at least the past few years, any time I tap to install an application I got from a dev's site or whatever, it basically says "hey, you haven't given permission to install apps from this source. doing so might not be safe, etc." with a link/button to take you to the menu with the relevant toggle.
As an end user, it's akin to typing my root password to clicking "accept" on Windows UAC. I can still install it just fine, but I need to give permission and check the box accepting responsibility.
Whether that's enough to protect someone from doing something unwise can be debated, but it's not something you'd really need instructions for.
Epic was able to get over 15 million Fortnite installs as of around this time last year and may be bringing their store to Android as well (12% cut instead of 30%):
They're at least a little good for consumers. Look at the Windows software world of the early internet era for what can happen with a completely unrestricted software installation paradigm. As annoying as it is to be an app developer with a good app banned for silly reasons, remember the developers used to be pushing straight up malware along with their apps.
At least now you know that your music purchase isn't installing a rootkit.
Could it be better? Yeah. But it could also be a lot worse.
I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. Crapware/Malware exists even in locked down store monopolies, therefore we need to open up the platform even more? What do you want, alternative app stores? The ability to sideload apps? Android has all that, it's still an awful platform to develop for.
Let's say this guy could go the alternative route and publish elsewhere. He'd still have a problem because most of the traffic goes through the Appstore, not some other venue.
The idea is that you give the store operator a monopoly, with the downsides this implies(1), in exchange for security. If security is absent, there's no justification for accepting a monopoly.
(1) For example, the store keeping an absurd share of app revenues. About 30%, isn't it?
Absurd compared to retail stores of old that kept 50-60%? Absurd compared to carriers who kept 70% in the pre smart phone area when distributing J2ME apps?
Do you think that it costs nothing for app review, hosting servers, legal, accounting (sending it out 1099s), refund handling, etc? Can you name one retailer that pays only 2% between retail and wholesale?
Compared to Macs and Windows, it’s a lot better for almost all consumers. I can install things willy nilly on iOS devices with some type of assurance that there are some things that an app can’t do and some things it can’t do without my explicit permission.
Any program that you install on your computer has the same permissions that you have. Time and time again it’s been proving that even so called reputable companies like Facebook, Google, and more recently Zoom (popular video conferencing software that installed a web server on your computer that would automatically reinstall the app after you installed it) can’t be trusted.
And let’s be honest, most of the money on mobile is being made by free to play games where the whales buy loot boxes and gems, or subscription services where you can buy subscriptions outside of the App Store or more recently you must buy subscriptions outside of the App Store or services
I’m not going to go on some strange website and enter my card to download every piece of software and neither are most people. The App Store brings you customers that you would never have.
You're mixing the permissions system of the OS with the app store. They are independent from one another.
> I’m not going to go on some strange website and enter my card to download every piece of software and neither are most people. The App Store brings you customers that you would never have.
The fact that open application ecosystems exist and thrive proves your assertion wrong.
If "open ecosystems" thrive, where are all of the products making money directly from selling products on their websites?
Is 2019 the "year of the Linux desktop"? Where are all of the apps on Android that does allow alternative app stores that are making any significant amount of money without being in the Play store?
I don't know if opening the platform more or having alternative app stores is the answer, but Apple should have some responsibility to give the developer a clear indication of what triggered the investigation, what they believe the issue to be is and a reasonable expectation of how long the investigation will take with a human that is responsible that you can communicate with directly. I'm not usually in favor of more regulation but I think Apple, Google, etc. have been getting away with this behavior to the detriment of the developers and their customers for far too long.
I agree with all the things you say about trying to get more freedom on mobile platforms, but let's not be disingenuous. Allowing more freedom on app stores absolutely increases viruses and malware that can get onto phones. If we aren't honest about that then we won't be out brainstorming methods of avoiding that kind of cesspool.
Is that brainstorming a prerequisite to letting people be adult humans with free will who can, after a few warnings, be allowed to make their own choices?
We allow people to drink, gamble, join ponzi schemes or self-harm. The non-negotiable nannying around app stores seems infantilizing in comparison.
To answer your question, yes the risks are real. But so is life.
How has that worked out in the PC era? You’ve never had to remove random crapware from your parents computer?
Even now, it’s a lot easier to convince me to install random crap on my iOS device than computers knowing that the app can’t do any damage and the permissions are clear.
I know exactly what those other things you list can do. I have no idea what a random app will do on my computer.
> How has that worked out in the PC era? You’ve never had to remove random crapware from your parents computer?
No. Once or twice from the computers of classmates. Malware was a far smaller problem than gfx drivers, printers, network issues, failing software installs etc.
Of course there were some IE bars and nagware that had to be removed but in a way that has been normalized today with "free" ad-infested, data-gobbling apps.
No, I don’t think sewing opportunity for scammers to take advantage of others is better. I used to agree with you in my libertarian utopia stage as a uni freshman but
looked at things differently when I watched my tech unsavvy parents lose money to scams like subscription antivirus software that just played the same bullshit scanning
animation every time. “Personal choice” is probably the same justification the scammers have. To me it’s just naive. Power users can already use Android and bypass such constraints. Win/win.
Again, I don't see how antivirus scammers are any different than other IRL scams such as lotteries (state-sanctioned!), ponzi schemes etc.
Cash transactions are no different from sideloading (on desktops we call this "installing") applications. They are between only you and the vendor, no 3rd party involved.
Sure, your parents are affected. But other people's parents are smokers, having their QALYs stolen by the tobacco industry. And yet all we do is add some nudges and hope they'll stop, nothing more.
Outside of the stores you are relying on search engines. Now tell me how SEO is not "an aggressive race to the bottom, where gaming the store ranking is priority one".
Google ranks things better, at least compared to the play store. Ads and its side effects make apps and the stores total freakshow. You can't install any app for kids by using simple search without dark patterned ads flying at you and your kid by accident opening them. Some poor soul is paying for this so called engagement too.
Kind of one sided. The developer who posted this didn't include his emails to Apple. With that being said, it's hard to determine what was said to support.
Did said developer ask why his account is currently under investigation? Hard to determine since he only posted what Apple sent back.
Personally I have 5 Apps on the AppStore, have for many years, they are small bs apps that don't have much to them (stuff like a Migraine Tracker, before HealthKit was a thing, etc..). I've never ran into an issue with my apps being reviewed. Yes, some have taken awhile, Apple is flooded with requests and they've increased requirements (etc) which only makes things take longer.
But since this really isn't about the Application being submitted, more so about the user's account under investigation. I would venture to say, there's something else going on that said Developer isn't posting.
Your $99 developer subscription means nothing if you violate their terms. All that $99 does is weed out even more potential malicious developers (as most won't bother with paying $99 and will just go to Android).
With that being said, the amount of developers submitting apps for review, Apple should find some way to review apps faster, especially since it is something we pay for. But there are a lot of developers trying to be sneaky and make simple applications for more complicated than they should be to sneak in code to either collect or steal data they have no business with. The more developers that do this, the more extensive review process Apple will have, the longer the wait times will be.
We have suspended your AdSense account due to our ML system flagging you for fraud (yes, we trust it) and we can't tell you why (no, we really can't tell you even if we wanted to).
UNTIL customer goes away or the case gets enough upvotes on HN to be a PR problem
Amazon:
REPEAT
We have removed your seller privileges due to a change in our policies we didn't communicate to anyone and you likely selling a brand that was recently put on a gated list or our ML system is thinking you are a fraud because you logged in in private mode.
UNTIL customer goes away or hires a consulting company with ties to Amazon managers
Apple:
REPEAT
We have placed your account under review with opaque "policy violation" but we won't tell you why (like Google we can't tell as some of our ML models have good day flagging you for reasons known only to them). Or you might have tweeted something 5 years ago against a company we just acquired. Well, bad luck.
They don't know and can't really tell. ML fraud/flagging systems are opaque and non-interpretable. They can also change with each re-training that might happen daily.
Frankly, I don't have a solution outside an unrealistic one hiring external experts reviewing each submission which would probably deplete the pool of developers all around the world.
I really feel for those who fall victim of this huge companies that under various disguises trying to get full control of people's lives and business.
I am lucky that so far I have managed to avoid all this walled garden madness. All of my products so far are either desktop based or browser based and servers are hosted on my own/rented hardware, no cloudy stuff. Other than paying for security certificates every now and then I have no interaction with the "authorities of the Internet"
Frankly I do not understand why do people submit to this kind of stewardship
"Frankly I do not understand why do people submit to this kind of stewardship"
Uhhh:
"I am lucky that so far I have managed to avoid all this walled garden madness"
"All of my products..."
"...desktop based or browser based and servers are hosted on my own/rented hardware"
This is like a professional chef saying they don't understand why everyone does not make their own souffles. People want the same services you want, but are not software developers. I have to assume you're being very facetious?
"why everyone does not make their own souffles" - I am not only developer. I am also a customer. And I avoid those McDonalds of the Internet like a plague. Not always successful but mostly.
I think you are underselling yourself. Your knowledge in this area exceeds well over 90% of the market. For most people, effectively (as in, in practice) you have two choices - use FAANG services or don't use the internet.
Also, and I don't know this, but if I were to look at your service stack, are you telling me I could not find ANY google/amazon/cloudflare service or something that significantly relied on on them? I would be shocked to find out that's true (i've literally never seen it before) and in that case. the difference between you and a consumer is one of degrees.
Sorry, not trying to attack you but on HN i see a widespread "I can't believe how dumb people are selling out to google for nothing" mentality that makes no sense to me. If you use the internet at all, you use big tech services. Period. Some people don't like saying that, but it's still true.
I sure use FAANG where it is irreplaceable. As developer I use Azure, Github, etc for example for my consulting gigs where clients demand it. Also guilty using Amazon, Netflix personally. Network card that I buy from Amazon is not any different from the one I get in my local computer store.
But I also have my own products. And for those you will not find any trace of FAANG in there. I just do not need their "added value" and them squeezing my you know what.
Just to give you an idea: my so called smartphone has offline GPS program, cycling computer and obviously voice calls and camera. Texting is disabled and no data plan.
Yes I do understand that I have more knowledge than many people (former scientist), still that ready submission to anything attitude that I see more and more is definitely different from something that I saw for example 20 years ago
Yeah, I don't get it. Why hand years of your life over to a bunch of greasy shysters?
I'm looking forward to the day these oversized bully companies become irrelevant. That day will come. The amount of innovation and progress they're holding back from humanity is criminal. Can't last.
To be fair they bring a boatloads of innovation. It is how said innovations are being used. As for "their day will come": so far I only see the opposite. That "your life as a service" pattern spreads like a cancer. Not sure why people are buying into it.
Each time I've seen this type of article make the news cycle it's as follows:
- Apple does X against small / indie developer! I know it makes for a great headline.
- Indie developer did no harm, rights a heart tugger of a blog post.
- Post reaches front of HN, reddit, etc ...
- Further digging shows not only did the indie developer not follow guidelines, they blatantly ignored them.
- Indie dev is exposed for not following Apple guidelines.
The way the issue is written makes it seem a considerable amount of information is being hidden. I'm going to wait until the dust settles before I take any sides.
Each time Apple does some mistake the fanboys defend Apple and accuse the legitimate customer, then when Apple is forced to admit the mistake same fanboys praise Apple.
Some recent examples:
- the keyboard issues, when first reports appeared people were accused they were using them wrong, eating and drinking while typing
- the videos with the Macbook catching fire, people were accusing that person that it was fake or he used it wrong
I would conclude that Apple can make mistakes and I would stop accusing people of using things wrong.
Back in 2013/14 I got into it with the approval team [0] but I was at least able to get responses and feedback. I am really surprised they outright ignore devs now, especially since they have significantly scaled up review team sizes [1].
I also don't see how this is related to apple "killing" indie devs; there are tons of notes apps in the store, this one is probably just breaking some guideline.
If Apple put the care and attention into app store reviews that they put into their iPhone/iPad hardware and iOS, they would have actual humans review everything. But the "race to the bottom" mentality has taken root, and if left unchecked will spread to the rest of the company IMO.
Developers pay money to access. In the ticket, the developer mentions paying the $99 a year. That's not trivial.
Apple is literally in the top 10 largest companies in the world for several different measures. If they're achieving those numbers by giving the ole F'you to developers, that is a problem. Getting locked out of a distribution platform for 1~3 months, in today's world can cost thousands or even tens of thousands in sales even for small developers.
There are no other options for Apple. You can't install untrusted apps like you can on Android (which is still a huge pain and which no one does).
I almost feel like someone like the EU or California needs to mandate that both Apple and Google allow individual users to add 3rd party repositories in the same way you can on most Linux package managers. They can throw up a big warning about device security if they want, but unless there's regulations around it, there's no way for the average use to actually have control over his or her device.
> there's no way for the average use to actually have control over his or her device
I feel like comments like this always assume that it's a given that the average user having full control over their devices is a goal that the majority of people agree with and are interested in pursuing.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the lack of control over their smartphones is seriously, tangibly affecting their lives in ways that aren't just ideological, the public at large (and lawmakers by extension) are going to keep right on not really giving a shit if they have Linux-like package management or not.
> the developer mentions paying the $99 a year. That's not trivial.
If you're running a business, that is very much trivial. I just paid my bank $40 to send a wire transfer to a vendor. It costs $39.99 per month to be able to make apps for Amazon sellers. Out here in the real world stuff and services cost money.
> Out here in the real world stuff and services cost money.
... which means the amount of money spent is _not_ trivial. If you are not policing your costs, regardless of how "trivial," then how are you optimizing your profit? A "cost of doing business" is still a cost on your books. $100 is trivial for a larger business but if you're talking someone small or a side hustle, $100 is something that is not trivial.
I say this as someone who lives in a developing country: if you cannot afford $100 _a year_ in costs, then Apple and app development in general are very much the least of your worries.
In the developed world, $100 per year is just not that much money. You can earn that much from strangers by holding a sign at a freeway on-ramp for a couple of hours. It’s ten hours of work for someone working a low skilled job.
I pay more than a $100 a year to JetBrains. $100 a year is trivial for a side hustle. If you’re developing for iOS, you’re already spending money on Macs, at least one iPhone, probably an iPad and maybe a watch.
Our local village has a market, every thursday. The municipality (don't know if I say this correctly) controls who can have stalls there.
It's hard to get permits, so sellers are depending on that one permit for at least 20% of their revenue, even more if they deal with the same municipality in different villages. In theory they could go to other markets, but in practice it can take years to get a good position elsewhere. Too long to survive.
If the local municipality decided to ban a seller, for reasons unknown, the seller can get a judge involved who will quickly say if the seller was legitimately banned.
Justice prevails.
With the App store? Not so much. The arrogance of the tech giants knows no bounds, their legal budgets are endless and judges will never fully grasp the similiarities between the online and offline world.
App developers are no different from market sellers, they are just dealing with the worst marketplace model ever.
I am not even an App developer, but I really think this should change. It's just not healthy for an economy to have a gatekeeper that has the power to just bankrupt a developer, be it accidentally or on purpose.
Banning accounts without detailed reasoning while "investigating" for a long period of time should be seen as criminal behavior.
> If the local municipality decided to ban a seller, for reasons unknown, the seller can get a judge involved who will quickly say if the seller was legitimately banned.
C'mon. A local municipality is a government, which is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents. Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation.
> A local municipality is a government, which is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents
Governments are usually not legally bound to act for the betterment of their constituents, and even if they were that would usually be meaningless as they usually are the entity that interprets the collective interest of their constituents.
> Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation.
Corporations, unlike governments, are actually legally bound, to an extent, to serve the interests of their constituents (but their constituents are the stockholders, not the public.)
I guess I didn't make my point very well. Which was: of course you can take your municipal government to court over how they dole out stalls at a market they run. An important principle in most modern legal systems is that various entities are treated fairly by the government. But no such principle exists in a private marketplace, which was created by a private entity to further its own ends (with the usual caveats about protected classes and monopolies being exceptions; neither of those exceptions apply here, though).
> Which was: of course you can take your municipal government to court over how they dole out stalls at a market they run.
In the US, sure, you could sue them because the manner they did that:
(1) discriminated on a basis prohibited to government under the Constitution,
(2) violated some binding regulation of a superior level of government,
(3) violated a promise made by that government that you reasonably relied on to your disadvantage.
Similarly, for a private entity doling out market stalls, you could sue for the same reasons, except #1 becomes “...on a basis prohibited to businesses open to the public”. And with a private entity, there's no issue of whether governmental immunity applies to your suit.
I know that this is the American way, but in my view private companies should not be able to do "whatever the hell they want".
You said it yourself: "A government is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents"
So, government: Make new rules for the unicorn tech giants. Setting new rules for these behemoths helps small businesses and therefore your constituents. You make the rules. We need them.
I have a similar problem with Youtube. I created original content and they blocked, saying that is not original. No details, impossible to talk with a person.
I always end up enforcing my theory that some companies are becoming too powerful.
This is so disheartening! It is guilty until proven innocent.
I've had similar experiences as a seller on eBay: when a buyer reports you they react in favour of the buyer because buyers make their business model work.
I suspect it's the same here, that Apple have received some sort of complaint about the iOS app (given that the macOS app is unaffected) and the automatic "guilty until proven innocent" system has been activated. And sadly the only thing to do is wait for it to finish. It could be something like waiting 60 or 90 days without any further complaints of the same nature. You could hope for intervention by a sympathetic App Store employee or rep, but I don't know how likely that will be.
To add insult to injury there is also the fact that this is an open source app and dishonest people are cloning it and selling it, and Apple are slow to take them down if they do at all.
I don't think they have to want to do anything. This is just the reality of a faceless bureaucracy which isn't accountable to anyone or anything. To the dev, their app is their livelihood— to Apple, it's just a ticket in a queue somewhere.
There is nobody advocating for developers nor monitoring or reacting to abusive behavior except scattered competition and consumer rights bureaus struggling to impose fairness within their limited domain.
Companies exploit this for profit in many unethical ways. For instance Apple didn't voluntarily print new marketing material for the EU they advertised a one year warranty illegally instead to upsell Apple Care and went to court multiple times for it. Steam had to be sued to provide refunds. Google had to be sued to refund $75 million in funds they claimed they were returning because of fraud.
Business as usual is basically a dark pattern - do whatever they want because it will take years if ever for anyone to challenge them meanwhile there is zero oversight.
> This is just the reality of a faceless bureaucracy which isn't accountable to anyone or anything.
Please. They're accountable to their one billion plus customers who depend on them to keep as much riff raff as possible out of the app store. They're likewise accountable to the developers who created this market.
Apple's process is imperfect. They certainly raise a lot of false negatives. The requirements are sometimes onerous and nebulous. However, the alternative is knowingly peddling hot garbage and harming their customers, partners, third-party developers, and thus, their own business.
Sure, but 90% of users just want their email, Facebook, and Netflix. Apart from that, they want a search bar to find other stuff. If you're an app developer targeting that "other stuff" market, Apple has no business reason to care about the individual you or your specific app other than in aggregate.
This is very odd. I’ve always found interactions with the Apple App Store review people to be very smooth and they always tell me exactly what they’re looking for while reviewing my app. If they can’t find it, i get back to them and they finish their review in under an hour. I get the feeling someone isn’t telling the whole story here.
Maybe the right solution was to not revoke the current app and just upload the fix? If it was a security bug, that kinda sucks for security, but if the cost is being locked out of your developer account, that might be what developers need to do going forward.
Maybe, maybe not. It sounds to me like they revoked the app because they didn't want users to suffer a critical bug until they could put out a fix. I think that's a good thing and I see no reason why it should trigger an investigation, but we'll never know because of Apple's lack of transparency.
And for all intents and purposes it was a minor slap on the wrist and Microsoft to this day still is one of the rare companies whose market cap hovers around 1 trillion.
The UI in client code, especially for something like a note taking app, is often the entirety of the work such that your advice actually introduces more work like having to maintain C++ knowhow. Let me guess, you already work with C++ daily.
Apple is FLOODED with copycat crap apps - 10 different names etc etc. Seriously, the play store used to have lots more of these - maybe now cleaned up. But saying that apple needs to encourage this crap is silly. This is what was killing the play store.
The guy complaining here has his "privacy policy" as follows: https://github.com/glushchenko/fsnotes
When someone who doesn't know git or github tries to read his privacy policy they have no chance.
Why it this all apple's fault? I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for a privacy policy.
One fix, developers should be able to pay $500 to have someone give them some training on what sections of app review guidelines they are breaking. Do 30 minutes to prep, spend an hour talking with them, then 30 minutes to wrap up.
Someone has this service - seriously - consider paying for some guidance if you don't want to read through the lengthy Apple stuff yourself.
https://www.iosconsultant.com/services