News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:App Review process updates by bambax on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:04PM (#24332760)
> guideline violations

What a language! How could "guidelines" ever be "violated"? Rules? Injunctions? Yes. Guidelines? No.

Rules is too harsh certainly, so let's use guidelines instead. But since the underlying meaning does not change, words lose connection to reality.

We think we are creating a softer and kinder world, but the opposite is true. If a guideline is actually an order, what's an order?

Re:App Review process updates by andruc on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:09PM (#24332822)
Par for the course with Apple. Apps in macOS never crash, they merely exhibit unexpected behaviours.
Re:App Review process updates by breakingcups on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:47PM (#24333256)
Was literally told this by an Apple "Genius" when I took my dad's MacBook in for what was obviously (and did indeed turn out to be) faulty ram.
Re:App Review process updates by leeoniya on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:15PM (#24332883)
> unexpected

"off-nominal"

Re:App Review process updates by ehsankia on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:16PM (#24332903)
I don't care if it's not correct, I just like how "non-nominal" sounds.
Re:App Review process updates by TeMPOraL on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:45PM (#24333225)
It eventually leads to "rapid unscheduled termination".
Re:App Review process updates by munificent on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:14PM (#24333582)
Automatically engaged energy saver mode.
Re:App Review process updates by boogies on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:50PM (#24333293)
Eww, not “termination”, that sounds harsh … maybe “exit” or “closure”?
Re:App Review process updates by leeoniya on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:59PM (#24333414)
the term is "rapid unplanned disassembly"

also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain

Re:App Review process updates by marcosdumay on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:05PM (#24334178)
Oh, wait... That linked name is completely reasonable and descriptive. It's not like the others.
Re:App Review process updates by leeoniya on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:10PM (#24334230)
has a better ring to it than "crashing into the side of a mountain"
Re:App Review process updates by marcosdumay on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:53PM (#24334726)
It doesn't mean "crashing into the side of a mountain".

It means "flying normally, into a path that ends on the side of a mountain". That "flying normally" part is really relevant.

Re:App Review process updates by leeoniya on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:59PM (#24334786)
well, yes, it also means that.

nothing in that statement implies that crashing was not preceded by normal, controlled flight. the term "crash" has no innate implication besides violent impact. though, yes, in actual use it often implies "accidental" and/or "uncontrolled".

Re:App Review process updates by marcosdumay on Monday August 31, 2020 @03:51PM (#24335281)
It is a specific term that means the aircraft was flying normally all the way until it reached the ground.

Yes, "crashing on the side of a mountain" is also a correct description of the same event. But those two phrases do not have the same meaning.

Re:App Review process updates by TeMPOraL on Monday August 31, 2020 @04:36PM (#24335660)
Specifically, CFIT is a subset of "crashing into a mountain" where the aircraft was under control all the way until terminal lithobraking. It's implied the last part is usually unexpected, otherwise it would be avoided.
Re:App Review process updates by TeMPOraL on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:28PM (#24334437)
See also: lithobraking.
Re:App Review process updates by marcosdumay on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:05PM (#24334181)
unrequested state erasure
Re:App Review process updates by tomovo on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:17PM (#24333621)
Apps never crash. They just go on vacations. Then they return with their default screens, rested and ready to work again.
Re:App Review process updates by rvz on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:04PM (#24333478)
That's the reality distortion spells kicking in right there by Apple's marketing wizards.
Re:App Review process updates by mmastrac on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:10PM (#24332836)
eg: unexpectedly closing with no message.
Re:App Review process updates by throWaythxMod on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:45PM (#24333237)
And "privacy"- meanwhile their App store is full of spyware.

Not that Android is better, but at least they aren't marketing it.

Re:App Review process updates by adventured on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:06PM (#24333504)
> And "privacy"- meanwhile their App store is full of spyware.

If Apple tightly controls their store, Apple bad.

If Apple doesn't tightly control their store, Apple bad.

The unavoidable consequence of being really big - a large number of people will be unhappy with your decisions no matter what you do.

Re:App Review process updates by dkersten on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:21PM (#24333665)
If Apple claim to tightly control their store because of privacy and security, but then don't deliver, then yes, Apple bad.

If apple doesn't tightly control their store and doesn't claim to protect your privacy or security through their store, then no, they're not bad.

Its about not meeting the expectations they, themselves, set based on their claims.

Re:App Review process updates by 1f60c on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:51PM (#24334703)
You can’t claim that, and not provide any evidence at all.
Re:App Review process updates by dathinab on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:08PM (#24332808)
It would be fun to try to sue Apple for misleading their customers (devs are customers, they pay yearly) and try to force them (and Google) to change the wording to correctly use rules.

That's if you have a lot of throwaway money and you don't like charity.

Re:App Review process updates by baddox on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:32PM (#24333068)
Which customers do you think Apple cares more about, app developers or their actual iPhone customers?
Re:App Review process updates by alasdair_ on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:40PM (#24333166)
Apple needs to hire Steve Ballmer.

https://youtu.be/KMU0tzLwhbE

Re:App Review process updates by boogies on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:05PM (#24333498)
The lowest quality of comments and the highest quality comment. Take my upvote now and I might come back when I earn downvote.
Re:App Review process updates by hellisothers on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:52PM (#24333327)
Good call out, and something I’m not seeing a lot of discussion on here. I am an iOS developer but I want Apple to care about me as an iOS user first and foremost.

A lot of the discussion around this sounds almost exactly like “we need pro-business anti-regulation, it’ll trickle down!”, ie “high taxes on business hurts consumers”. Just like in real life, these arguments would be easier to swallow if they weren’t coming from the businesses themselves who just want a larger slice of the pie.

Re:App Review process updates by baddox on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:58PM (#24333401)
That's where I am too. I actually mostly agree (at least in principle) with a lot of the arguments about Apple's anticompetitive behavior and hostility towards their app developers, but I can't help but think that if app developers had their way, iPhones would be much worse products for the average iPhone customer and iPhone would have essentially no product differentiation from Android.

Too often these discussions on HN center on the power dynamics between Apple and app developers, and occasionally mention in passing something like ("choice is good for the iPhone owner too; if they don't want X then they can just choose to not install X"), but the discussion rarely tackles the nuance of the power dynamics between app developers and smartphone owners.

Re:App Review process updates by valuearb on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:06PM (#24333500)
App Review is both a burden and a hugely valuable service for App developers.
Re:App Review process updates by harry8 on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:51PM (#24333307)
The correct question is "which do you think Apple cares about least?"

They care about market power very deeply so they don't have to care. Where are you going to go? Google? Doing the exact same thing. Neither? Cabin in the woods territory. Oh for the Nokia N900, right?

Re:App Review process updates by boogies on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:55PM (#24333365)
> Where are you going to go? Google? Doing the exact same thing. Neither? Cabin in the woods territory. Oh for the Nokia N900, right?

The Pinephone is on the frontpage at the moment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24329900, and the Librem 5 has been several times recently. Maybe not grandma friendly ATM but I wouldn’t call it “cabin in the woods territory.”

Re:App Review process updates by harry8 on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:17PM (#24333618)
I look forward to the day I agree with you and hope it comes soon.

The point is we had it. The N900 was it. 10+ years ago. Maybe pine or librem or open moko or whatever will get us back to where we were more than a decade ago. I really hope so.

Re:App Review process updates by boogies on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:54PM (#24334732)
I think there’s good reason to hope, there’s a variety of implementations:

+ 2 companies, Pine64 and Purism, making 2 lines of phones

    - Pinephones in various community editions, $150 and $200 with and without the convergence package

    - Librem 5s for $750 now that the crowdfunding campaign’s over, and a $2000 Made in the US version
+ Several GUI environments:

    - Phosh, based on GNOME and GTK+, developed by Purism as the default shell for the Librem 5

    - The KDE equivalent of that, that Purism has wanted as an option for the Librem 5 from early on

    - Ubiports’ community maintained Ubuntu Touch

    - Sxmo, a bundle of mobile adaptations of dwm, dmenu, etc. with a nice modular (Unixy/KISS/suckless) design eg. a gesture daemon made by the same developer with it but not exclusively for it
This seems significantly better than the N900’s single (though great sounding) thing that couldn’t thrive independently after Microsoft bought Nokia out.
Re:App Review process updates by boogies on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:40PM (#24334601)
I think there’s good reason to hope, there’s a variety of implementation:

+ 2 companies, Pine64 and Purism, making 2 lines of phones

    - Pinephones in various community editions, $150 and $200 with and without the convergence package

    - Librem 5s for $750 now that the crowdfunding campaign’s over, and a $2000 Made in the US version
+ Several GUI environments:
Re:App Review process updates by PakG1 on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:02PM (#24333449)
Well, I suppose I'd have to see the growth rate of how much that 30% cut adds to their bottom line to decide that. But even if it were huge, probably the actual iPhones still make way more money.
Re:App Review process updates by emteycz on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:12PM (#24332851)
Customer protections in most countries do not apply to business deals.
Re:App Review process updates by bcrosby95 on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:25PM (#24332998)
I develop on iOS as a hobby not for business. But I don't know how common that is.
Re:App Review process updates by judge2020 on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:32PM (#24333074)
Even as an individual, the agreements you sign would be considered business deals since both you and Apple have the potential to profit from the agreement.
Re:App Review process updates by damnyou on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:41PM (#24333173)
If I am an individual developer and only intend to release free apps, I should be entitled to full customer protections, period. Apple has no excuse here.
Re:App Review process updates by mrkstu on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:53PM (#24333338)
But your 'harm' in that scenario is limited to your developer fees and likely the venue limited to small claims court or local equivalent.
Re:App Review process updates by damnyou on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:23PM (#24332978)
Would that also be true if you are an independent developer? Why should individual developers releasing apps not get full customer protections?

Treating all developers as businesses is part of the problem here I think. There should be more bespoke apps by individuals for small audiences — more of a community feel to things.

Re:App Review process updates by emteycz on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:42PM (#24333193)
Apple does not have to cater to independent developers - and it doesn't, per the Developer Agreement contract. Initially you weren't able to develop apps for the iPhone at all - that is okay too.

You are not entitled to get a open computing platform if the thing resembles an... Actually, they defined this form factor!

Re:App Review process updates by damnyou on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:14PM (#24333586)
Right, I understand that's Apple's point of view. I just believe all of this nonsense should be totally illegal.
Re:App Review process updates by pier25 on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:11PM (#24332840)
Apple is an expert in doublespeak.
Re:App Review process updates by TeMPOraL on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:47PM (#24333255)
Apple may have broken the telescreen (as per the famous ad), but they didn't break the wall behind it.
Re:App Review process updates by thecureforzits on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:20PM (#24332941)
Apple has created for the first time in all history a walled garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.
Re:App Review process updates by adrianmonk on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:08PM (#24333520)
It could be a euphemism, but a more charitable explanation is that they are trying to acknowledge that their rules have a lot of gray area. "Guidelines" could be interpreted as a rule, but a specific type of rule, one that requires more of a judgment call to determine whether it was violated.

Ideally rules would be clear and objective. Maybe there are cases where Apple could be better about that, but it's not always possible. For example, one of the rules is to select the appropriate category. I can't imagine how you'd write a rule that perfectly defines proper categorization. Another example is that apps must "use power efficiently", but good luck completely defining what is too wasteful or what is/isn't a worthwhile use of battery power.

Re:App Review process updates by EGreg on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:17PM (#24333628)
I think the strangest thing of this sort was when Apple rejects your app and the reviewer replies:

"It would be appropriate to {{insert fix here}}" which they think will solve the issue for approval.

Sometimes the thing seems totally inappropriate to do in any other context. But even if it was appropriate, that is still disconnected from the actual reality that it's required in order to be accepted.

Re:App Review process updates by usefulcat on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:45PM (#24333232)
"Rules" would tend to imply consistent enforcement; "guidelines", not so much.
Re:App Review process updates by xyclos on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:37PM (#24333122)
"policy violation" would probably be better language.

but since one of the definitions (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guideline) of "guideline" is:

> an indication or outline of policy or conduct

imo "guideline violation" isn't too far of a stretch even if it is technically a "policy violation".

Re:App Review process updates by lallysingh on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:53PM (#24333328)
Indication or outline isn't a definition of policy.
Re:App Review process updates by pvg on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:05PM (#24333488)
What a language! How could "guidelines" ever be "violated"? Rules? Injunctions? Yes. Guidelines? No

It's a commonly used expression, there's nothing wrong or strange about it. An example:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24175233

Re:App Review process updates by dang on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:42PM (#24333939)
Re:App Review process updates by pvg on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:09PM (#24334224)
You are far fonder of the stout, woody, Anglo-Saxon 'break':

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re:App Review process updates by bluntfang on Monday August 31, 2020 @01:13PM (#24333578)
>We think we are creating a softer and kinder world

This seems like a non sequitur...is Apple claiming this why their use of the word "guideline"? If so, can you show that?

Re:App Review process updates by bredren on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:40PM (#24333168)
I think an order would be “it is forbidden.” Which carries a mystic weight and dire consequences.
Re:App Review process updates by brosinante on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:12PM (#24332856)
This website you’re reading now has “guidelines”, yet no-one is accusing hn of creating a harsher world (at least not in the word they use instead of rules).
Re:App Review process updates by bhupy on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:30PM (#24333047)
I’m not sure why you’re getting downvoted. This isn’t a misdirection, it’s a euphemism. We use them a lot in the English language, especially in marketing.

Whether that’s a good or bad thing is a separate question. IMO policing tone is a mostly uninteresting exercise.

Re:App Review process updates by LudwigNagasena on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:37PM (#24333124)
It is not even an euphemism. It is just a way to enforce rules selectively.
Re:App Review process updates by newyorker2 on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:30PM (#24333046)
1. I don't remember paying $99 to have my comments published on HN.

2. A take down of "guideline" breaking comments doesn't impact my income as an app developer.

Re:App Review process updates by coldtea on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:50PM (#24333302)
>1. I don't remember paying $99 to have my comments published on HN.

That's because you pay with your eyeballs (for premium dev/business/startup traffic to YC's posts).

Re:App Review process updates by moogly on Monday August 31, 2020 @02:15PM (#24334295)
That quote is rich coming from one of the most cutthroat companies out there.
Re:App Review process updates by robomartin on Monday August 31, 2020 @12:38PM (#24333130)

    Booster?
        Go flight!
    Retro?
        Go flight!
    FIDO?
        Go flight!
    Guidance?
        Go flight!
    Surgeon?
        Go flight!
    EECOM?
        Go!
    GNC?
        Go!
    TELMU?
        Go flight!
    Control?
        Go flight!
    Procedures?
        Go!
    INCO?
        Go flight!
    FAO?
        Go flight!
    Network?
        Go flight!
    Recovery?
        Go flight!
    CAPCOM?
        Go flight!
    Apple App Review Process?
        <crickets>
    ...
    ...
    Launch Control this is Houston...
    We are f&#*d...

Note: Judging from the response sor far (-4) there seems to be a lack of a sense of humor on this fine Monday morning. Anyone who has locked horns with Apple's app review process knows exactly just how frustrating and sometimes irrational things can get. You can be ready for launch only to end-up in limbo. I have experienced this personally. I think humor is appropriate, even therapeutic at times.

If you need to be grumpy, well, be grumpy. I've had enough challenges in life to learn that you have to take things seriously but, at the same time, not miss the opportunity to laugh about it a bit when appropriate.