If the developer explain it nicely will probably get the app approved as it is a “reader” app, therefore exempt from some restrictions.

The nice thing about human powered review process is that you can actually reason with them even if they make mistakes. I am huge believer in the benefits of having humans instead of algos to deal with. People on Youtube have their videos removed or demonetized left and right by algorithms that you can’t really do anything about.

> Octal is a modern, full-featured Hacker News (news.ycombinator.com) client ...

> • Read and share Hacker News stories ... > • Upvote stories and comments you like ... > • Submit new posts to Hacker News ... > • Log in to Hacker News ... etc.

> About Hacker News: > Hacker News is a social news website focusing on computer science and entrepreneurship. It is run by Paul Graham's investment fund and startup incubator, Y Combinator. In general, its content can be submitted is defined as "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".

On the one hand Apple is selling the dream of a privacy and security focused utopia, where all apps are well-curated and malware does not exist. And demanding a 30% cut of revenue from many apps in the process.

Then on the other hand presumably two of their reviewers could not be bothered to read the app description or do a few minutes of independent research to figure out what Octal and Hacker News really is.

It's hard to see what value Apple is providing in this case.

[1] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/octal-hacker-news/id1308885491

So the corporate policy is that they'll reject, with a low level of comprehension, and if the developers don't bother to explain, too bad.

From the POV of the reviewer, they benefit from greater throughput, so just low-comprehension reject, and deal with the clarification.

Apple thinks of itself as some kind of advanced, disruptive, with-it company. The way it acts, is sometimes more like an atherosclerotic bureaucracy.

Let’s not pretend that explaining what your app does is a huge burden that only few can overcome.

You sign a business deal with Apple to distribute your app, you are expected to do your part. If you think that this is something you rather don’t do, then don’t work with Apple.

I don’t think that having to explain how your app works is a unfair burden in the business.

Let's not pretend that convenient nonsensical seeming rejections, which contradict common sense, and seem to imply a hostile demand of censorship are really an acceptable way of communicating in business.

It’s unreasonable to expect that the reviewers be all knowing geniuses that make no mistakes. Simply work with them, it’s how business work. Publishing apps is not simply about writing code.

You can write a code, share the code but you are not entitled to have other people distribute your code. What you can have is a business deal with others, in this case Apple, to distribute your code and you will have to work with them to make it happen.

You don’t need to know anything about hacker news but the octal description clearly describes the functionality, and any App Store reviewer should definitely understand the concept of reader style apps as they are quite numerous. That’s a pretty low bar.

It makes sense that media in its aggregation will probably have a better view of a what a walled garden should provide. But if I were the gardener I would not bend my operations to any third party that happen to have a loud voice when I have a business to run and some private reasons to do it my way.