I looked up a few alternatives and your website and marketing tell a very different story.

"Online filth" is in your website header, so your kinda focusing on them. I looked at the reviews and your most recent one continues to reinforce something about "filth" https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.camhart.ne...

As far as not being used "on" someone. Again you have reviews from Spouses and Parents which would imply they are being used "on" someone. Something I noticed the other apps focus on is individual accountability. I see almost no reference to spouses or parents there. Just having some you trust to be accountable too.

Your first line on google play says "Truple protects your loved ones against porn & other online filth. It holds your loved ones accountable in a way that's near impossible to bypass by capturing and sharing screenshots." How exactly is that not it being "used on anyone"?

Your marketing around this tells a story of surveillance trying to pass it off as some "good" where accountability is a secondary issue. While here you are focused on accountability.

And personally I have to wonder if Apple takes this into account when approving apps (which I assume they do)

Suppose I'm addicted to porn and that it's damaging my marriage. I want to be free of it. But when I pick my phone up, I'm tempted to view it. I know I want to be free of it. I don't want my life to suffer any more as a result of it. But I need help, because in those weaker moments my will power isn't sufficient. This is where making it difficult to bypass comes in. Keep in mind difficult do bypass doesn't equal "can't be removed", it means it can be removed but an alert is sent if it is removed. They can't bypass it without triggering an alert, therefore it's not been bypassed (at least by my definition/use of the word bypass).

Again you are saying something very different here than any of your marketing.

If you want to make the choice to stop watching porn, that is fine. If you want to use software like this and you want to ask your spouse to help, that is fine.

But your marketing, your google play listing that I quoted it is not you making the choice. It is someone else "protecting" you and making the choice.

Quoting an exact quote from your google play listing. The very first sentence:

"Truple protects your loved ones against porn & other online filth. It holds your loved ones accountable in a way that's near impossible to bypass by capturing and sharing screenshots."

What if it said:

"Truple holds YOU accountable in a way that's near impossible to bypass by capturing and sharing screenshots."

Then at least what the OP is saying here and what the marketing said would align.

But at this time, there is one story of what this app does here (hacker news) and a completely different story from what is being told on the website and marketing.

The other apps that they are saying had no issues with approval, follow the story that is being told here.

I don't think it changes the problematic nature of the app. But they are claiming to be the same as the other app but there is a dramatic difference in how the capabilities of the app is communicated to Apple and users.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190424203239/https://truple.io... is the landing page when the original version of the app was submitted for notarization. Since you're digging into the ad copy, we might as well be looking at the appropriate website.

It's not two stories... I include customer reviews on my landing page that show spouses, individuals, and parents feedback because all benefit from it.

The Google Play app description is adjusted to be more in alignment with Google Play Developer Agreement policies.

To clarify, keeping Google, Apple, and everyone else happy with the wording in the marketing seems to demand walking a razers edge. I've done my best to comply appropriately for each platform. It's a disservice to the conversation for you to pull in the Google Play listing, make accusations about me/Truple as a result, and not have the full picture. I've shared more in this post than I originally cared to in order to provide the bigger picture. I'm not trying to hide anything here, but there are reasons other than malicious intent for why things are worded the way they are and instead of leaping to those conclusions you could instead ask why.

I am deeply concerned by the mind games you are playing here.

It is 100% 2 stories. Over and over again here you are saying "personal accountability" or similar. Which on paper is fine. If you really truly voluntarily want to do this... great!

But do you not understand while personal accountability fine... your marketing is calling out spouses and parents reviews! Nothing about either of those being there says personal accountability. if you truly actually believed in personal accountability you could only show reviews from them, not from others!

To clarify. If my spouse is the one that thinks that this app "saved my marriage" as your reviews really like to say. There is something... very very wrong. If I feel the need to review it because I felt like I needed help. That is fine! Do you see the difference?!?

There is no razors edge here, your app violates nearly every standard Apple uses to distinguish itself from its competitors... privacy, security, safety. Why are you playing victim and getting offended when people point out the obvious? Were you just hoping for answers that blamed Apple?

I'm in the minority but I'd rather apple not censor my apps (unless they are malware).

It not being censored. Simply creating an app doesn't afford you the privilege of hosting on the app store.

Without any other way to load the app on the device, it is de facto censorship.

A device must have an option for its security to be exploited by allowing the installation of a tracking app that violates every aspect of users privacy, intended to be used by minors, with the express purpose of transferring explicit material to a third party?

If a device does not provide this option for compromised security, it is by default censorship.

It used to say you. I adjusted the Google Play description due to changes in Google Plays Developer Agreement.

See https://web.archive.org/web/20200216145020/https://play.goog...

You don't seem to be engaging with the parents point about your messaging at all with this comment. FWIW, this all reads like an excellent demonstration why this category of app isn't trusted.

I'm explaining how the app can be both difficult to bypass and voluntarily used.

To be honest, I don’t believe you. “Our app will only be used by people on themselves in order to change their own behavior” is a wildly implausible use case to focus on for what is effectively spyware.

My takeaway is that I’m beginning to think that Apple was correct in blocking your app.

And in particular, there's a whole section that reads "With Truple, you can virtually "peek" over your child's shoulder & course-correct as needed."

So right there it's admitting that the intended use is to spy on someone else (in this case, "your kids"). I'm with you here. I just don't believe OP on this one.

Apple thinks this is a spying app, and they don't want it on their platform.

You need to tell us what gym you go to because your mental gymnastics are on another level.

> Search for "accountability software", and you'll find apps advertised in a very similar manner

I googled a bit and found [1] and [2]. Their marketing is very very different from yours [3].

[1] looks very tasteful, considering they are basically spyware. It's a very positive spin with great copywriting.

[2] gives me some Christian vibes, it's not for me, but it still looks decent.

[3] on the other hand just looks really creepy. The copy is awkward and the hectic GIF with the screenshots and the bikini picture just gives me stalker vibes.

It's a question of taste. Great Mac and iPhone are done very tastefully. Truple is missing that.

(That doesn't mean that Apple only approves tasteful apps. There are a lot of poorly designed apps on the app store. But if you are doing something even slightly questionable, and your app looks a bit creepy, then Apple is not going to go out of their way to help you get it out there, even if you aren't breaking any explicit rules.)

[1]: https://accountable2you.com [2]: https://everaccountable.com/ref/61/ [3]: https://truple.io

> It's a question of taste. Great Mac and iPhone are done very tastefully. Truple is missing that.

It is wild to me that there is a megacorporation whose subjective opinion of "tastefulness" (based on their own North American cultural norms) is a gate to software delivery and that there is an entire category of users who actually think this is a good thing.

The issue in this case is the 'spyware' nature of the app, rather than any matter of taste.

What are some of the comparable applications you're thinking about? Can you link to them? You know more about the space than most of us, so help us out a bit.

I've been hesitant to do so. Look at the top several results from https://www.google.com/search?q=porn+accountability+app for apps that don't even try to advertise as parental focused apps.

If you want direct links, send me an email (you can find it in my profile).

For instance, "Covenant Eye" (which: holy shit, how creepy is this!) always blurs screenshots. Yours apparently does opt-in blurring.

I'm interested in the detective project of figuring out what red lines your app may have crossed, just because it's interesting. But cards on the table: none of these apps should be allowed on the app store. Maybe Apple just hasn't gotten around to shutting down "Covenant Eye" yet.

"Ever Accountable", another example, only works for a small list of applications --- if you're not on their VPN, you even have to use their browser. Your application takes random screenshots and advertises that it's hard to bypass, which is kind of the opposite of what "Ever Accountable" claims.

For "OurPact", the third comparable app, there's this fun review:

For the “premium” level with all the controls (which frankly is the service level any responsible parent will want), you have to back each kid’s phone up to iTunes on your (parent) laptop, then erase and reinstall each one with a new OurPact-controlled OS.

I'm starting to see a pattern here.

I don't have any familiarity with the other apps in this space, but I am a heavy (and happy) user of OurPact. OurPact adds a lot of parental management features (including a remote kill) which the Apple controls are desperately missing.

The backup is taken at install time and it's perfectly reasonable to do so. The backup is stored local on your computer using the standard backup mechanisms, it's not uploaded to the cloud.

The installation process is actually opting the device into an enterprise management profile, not a custom OS. That custom OS blurb sounds like some goofy marketing speak or misunderstanding how this process works. The management profile allows OurPact to manage the device on your behalf using the same APIs any enterprise device management vendor would use.

Once the device is opted into the management profile, it's quite obvious it's under control and you have a lot of options including setting time limits on app, enabling various child protection features, preventing apps from being deleted, and most importantly choosing what apps are available and creating schedules for the device (i.e. disabling games during school hours/night).

Nothing about this process hides the fact that the device is managed. There is an OurPact Jr app that can be installed which gives the owner visibility into the schedule. I highly recommend reading the reviews by upset children for the OurPact Jr app on the app store. They are hilarious.

Anyway, my point is as a parent with a tech background and 3 children, OurPact has been a very useful and positive addition to our home life. They've been a good steward. They are limited in what they can do by Apple, but what they have done they have been very transparent and communicative.

You're just teaching your kids that they can't trust you with anything. They'll probably borrow old devices from friends and keep them hidden anyway. And don't be surprised when they hide parties, alcohol etc from you, even when they might need your help.

You might think you're doing something positive here - but all you're doing is ensuring that your kids will forever treat you as an adversary. Don't be surprised when they leave home after high school and never speak to you again.

Wow, you assume a lot yet you know absolutely squat about my family. If you want to ask questions about how it works, how we use it, and how it's benefited my family I'm more than happy to discuss it.

One would be wise to heed p1necone's comment. Based on friends and general life experience, this is 100% the case. I cannot even fathom growing up with parents having such oversight--that's basically a guaranteed recipe for stunted personal growth and/or subversion and lifelong distrust; not to mention an extreme invasion of privacy.

What happens if one's kid's are gay? Or interested in myriad other topics? Should a parent have 100% visibility and supervision over such things?

I do think there is some room for parental control apps, at least at a very young age (I see little reason someone under 13ish should be able to view porn).

But... they need to have their limits. A parent should not know every single thing going on with their child. Especially as their child is figuring out their own identity and later transitioning into adulthood.

I know there was once (yay landlines) that I caught my parents listening in on a call I was on... It broke my trust with them completely. I no longer felt safety from my own parents, to be honest it made me feel like a hostage in my young brain. From then on I did everything in my power to hide things further from them (and being very technical this was not hard).

You need your child to feel comfortable enough to come to you when they need something, not for you to come to them because you saw something that should have been private.

Basic child blocks? Thats fine up to a certain age

Time limits? Of course, that is your prerogative.

But knowing every single thing that is done on what should be a very personal device... that is problematic.

Look at the MacOS app.

Respectfully, no. The Mac App store is not interesting in this discussion; you can install any app your want on a Mac (not necessarily via the App Store, but that's fine for a number of very big businesses that ship Mac software). What we're interested in here is the iOS App Store, which is the only way to realistically install commercial software on an iPhone.

This entire discussion is about Mac apps. My account was frozen when I attempted to notarize a MacOS app. I have not (yet) tried to submit an iOS app.

Oh! That makes a lot more sense. Disregard my previous comment! ("Notarization" should have been my tip-off).

... why are you trying to sell this app via the Mac App Store in the first place?

I'm not trying to distribute through the Mac App Store. Notarization is required for MacOS apps as of several years ago, unless you bypass gatekeeper.

Should I, or should I not be allowed to run whatever applications I want on my phone?

Should I, or should I not be forbidden from filtering the internet for myself? Meanwhile, the content I see is filtered by FB, Twitter, etc. Why should their desires rule mine on my device?

Should I, or should I not be forbidden from seeking help accomplishing my own goals for online use, in particular accountability for giving up various addictions? Meanwhile, FB and Twitter are allowed to know what I view, but I'm not allowed to let anybody else know what I view. Why should they be able to hold me accountable, while I'm not allowed to seek accountability from anybody else?

You're asking me? Ok: it should not be possible for you to install surreptitious screen recording software on an iPhone. The problem isn't that this app got blocked; it's that all the other ones (except maybe that one app that only records screenshots when you use their browser) aren't banned.

But this is totally besides the point. We're not discussing what Apple's rules ought to be. We're trying to help figure out what they are. That's what the author of this app asked us to do.

This is what you wrote that I was responding to: "cards on the table: none of these apps should be allowed on the app store."

I'm hoping you've simply not really thought this through. We can't demand that parents be held accountable for what their children do while also forbidding parents from knowing what their children are reading, watching, writing, hearing, or saying.

> We can't demand that parents be held accountable for what their children do while also forbidding parents from knowing what their children are reading, watching, writing, hearing, or saying.

There's no reason that knowledge has to be garnered surreptitiously. (If your answer is "if it's not surreptitious, then kids will try to bypass it" … well, they will anyway.)

Nobody said it had to be surreptitious. And the app we are all discussing is explicitly not surreptitious. If you go back and reread the original ask HN comment, he says that it is visible.

> Nobody said it had to be surreptitious.

The comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29571643) to which you were responding (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29571750) says:

> You're asking me? Ok: it should not be possible for you to install surreptitious screen recording software on an iPhone.

> it should not be possible for you to install surreptitious screen recording software on an iPhone.

I agree with this 100%. It should not be possible on any platform. Key word there being surreptitious.

To clarify, your comments are about iOS apps. Look at their MacOS apps, and it's a different story. The capture the entire devices screen, not just the web browser. And several competitors do it.

FTA: “I've made sure since day one that a "reasonably suspicious" notification is present when the app is monitoring.”

So are you still sure I should never be allowed to run this code on my phone?

>filth

This is a sort of "smelly" word to see in an advertisement, in that referring to material as "filth" brings up memories/images of, for want of a better phrase, cultural intolerance. You may get better reception by calling such content "improper" or something less emotionally charged.