And then "illegal file sharing". On a strange coincidence, they started enforcing that one relentlessly just as Apple Music was preparing to launch. Yes, you could upload, search, and stream mp3s on our service without any regard to this dumb thing called "copyright". No, it's none of Apple's business to be policing any of this.
IMO, at this point, the only way out of this is for Apple to be forced by law to allow sideloading apps on iOS.
edit: I now vaguely remember that at some point we created special limited accounts for iOS reviewers. This somewhat eased the pain, but they would sometimes sign up for their own accounts too and see things they weren't meant to see. I didn't participate in any of this first-hand because I was working on the Android app.
I don’t understand why you think that’s dumb. This is what people who download the app will do, so they’re trying out real scenarios that will happen. They don’t want to have there be a segment on the nightly news saying, “App Store Full of Porn!” Which is what will happen in these scenarios. That doesn’t excuse letting Twitter and Reddit get away with it, of course, but it makes perfect sense that they do that. There’s nothing dumb about it.
No, the problem is that when a reviewer finds anything “questionable” in your app, they mark it as a porno app. Pornographic apps cannot be in the App Store. That rule is designed to keep PornHub off the store (again, putting the morality of this aside…) and yet Apple equates your app with them even if 99% of your content is squeaky clean. The reviewers specifically seek out content that they want to flag, and the problem is that they then reject it by representing it as if they just stumbled upon it by accident, or that it’s so prevalent that it’s obviously the purpose of your app. So now you’re stuck arguing that your app is not a portal for porn in these absurd cases where the reviewer has, through their misunderstanding of the rule, changed the argument from “is your app primarily focused around the consumption of pornography” to “does your app make nudity available to a determined user”?
let's ban browsers then or chat apps or sharing apps
and why not apps in general that play images and videos and that enable people to send aforementioned images and videos?
you know what? now that I think about it, let's ban the smart (computing) part from iPhone.
but let's not stop there, let's ban the phone part too, because one could always call an hotline or make a booty call...
> let's ban browsers then or chat apps or sharing apps
you joke, but telegram had to implement porn-filters for group chats on ios/macos.
This would be Apple's dream.
Latest headlines? Here's Apple News.
Movie trailers? Don't have those, but here's Apple TV +
Online gaming? Apple Arcade.
The iPhone comes with a web browser that has parental controls. A parent can have some degree of control over what their kids see when they use Safari. A parent does not have that choice with typical applications.
Every single app in the App Store has an age rating. An underaged user can only download apps in the age categories that their parents have specifically authorized.
The concept of liberty is how we rein in this dark tendency.
(I use 'you' as a generality, not you the poster ;-) )
His analogy is perfectly consistent. There are laws prohibiting minors from purchasing alchoholic drinks. In the same way, porn can be restricted from minors. He is just saying that there needs to be strict enforcement of a law against porn to protect minors.
I guess your argument is that there is no need for a law against alchoholic drinks since there is common sense to not give alchohol to minors and for minors to not drink alchohol.
But the existence of laws regulating alchoholic drinks purchase suggests that common sense is not enough and laws need to be created for it.
OP didn't say ban all porn, but it should be more tightly regulated and its consumption has proven to be damaging.
Also, I believe there are a number of non-porn sexual education resources, which should stay available.
However, note that the current crackdown on porn isn't about underage consumers, it's about consumption in general. Apple isn't asking for age verification, they are banning adult content completely.
OP said Apple's stance is reasonable and Apple is pretty close to saying "ban all porn".
Lets ban web browsers.
Obviously you can still find nsfw content on reddit that isn't labeled as such, so beyond that, it's probably up to the developer's soft skills. reddit probably has some people who are good at framing the app in communication with review, escalating review decisions, and communicating content policies in a way that makes them seem consistent and trustworthy.
I don't know about tumblr, but unfortunately, I don't think many indie apps with user-generated content would have the bandwidth to develop the same relationship with app stores. So there is some de facto gatekeeping happening that benefits the largest and most well-spoken social networks.
This is an Apple rule. From the App Store Review Guidelines:
> If your app includes user-generated content from a web-based service, it may display incidental mature “NSFW” content, provided that the content is hidden by default and only displayed when the user turns it on via your website.
— https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#use...
by influence you mean "conform"?
The problem, as I said earlier, is that indies have no chance of spending enough time developing their app and also having time to do this or of hiring someone to do this. This is where the gatekeeping comes from. I think it actually keeps them from launching and growing, not just publish with neutered content (what you call conforming.)
And as a nice bonus, app store would then have to actually compete with those alternate sources. As macOS shows, when the use of the app store is not mandatory, almost none of the developers will be taking the app store seriously and will instead handle the distribution of their apps themselves just fine.
These stories are all about exerting control, and bring no value whatsoever for Apple.
For these and other reasons, I hope Apple is forced to allow side loading of apps. Apple hasn’t spent a lot of effort on the App Store (despite PR claims to the contrary). Seriously, the person at the top in charge of the App Store has been sleeping on the wheel for a long time.
What Apple really needs to do is basically tell all their reviewers to stop flagging apps on this. It just causes general discontent everywhere: it's an obvious annoyance to developers hit by it, and the ones that know how to fight it will drag it on with you and hate you the entire time, and the ones that don't will change their apps and also hate you the entire time. I think–and this is just a guess–that they don't do this because they just don't want to have this content at all, not for any sort of prudishness, but because of the exact same reason everyone else shuns it: it's frequently a source of problems, they get into trouble with it when the news covers it in a bad light, etc. They like having blanket authority in this area, and think that whatever problems they're causing (which they are absolutely aware of, by the way) are just not a big deal, just like they are holding on to their 30% or whatever.
Of course, whatever reasons they have mean very little when the net effect is that this "problematic" content gets hounded off of the platform. You can say you don't hate this all you want, but when the actions you take have an effect in a certain direction and you don't do anything about it even when presented evidence about it, you're basically just accepting that you don't value it very much. And, frankly, that's just total garbage, because Apple wants to control all distribution on iOS, which means they have a moral obligation to deal with all of these issues. You don't get to wipe your hands clean of things you don't like and also say you want to be the sole arbiter for everything. But that's just a familiar big tech thing ;)
I recently had an interaction with a food delivery customer care executive (many like this; of other businesses as well) and the kind of conversation I had with them it seemed to me that someone must have flattened the brain matter with a rock before stuffing it back inside their skulls.
Then it dawned upon me. Nope. They just are as much a victim of these huge corps and their lawyers and their policies that any slip could mean losing their jobs if it turned out that they didn't toe the written line by the letter.
Having dealt with companies that decided to automate their phone support entirely, this is not something to look forward to at all.
When you are big enough: apple occasionally send an engineer to share upcoming features, or nudge you in a direction they are keen to promote (2018 it was all AR) and at this point someone in C-Suite has a human contact to smooth out App Store BS.
So OP is correct in that it’s about size/apple seeing you as an asset and not a problem - they want those shiny family friendly releases for advertising material.
I used to think the App Store governance was a good idea. I no longer do.
Also, if everyone uses your app, when it breaks then people will not necessarily complain to you, but to Apple instead since people can't tell the difference between the phone and the app, so to avoid the idea that your phone breaks, Apple will let you update your app instantly.
> If your app includes user-generated content from a web-based service, it may display incidental mature “NSFW” content, provided that the content is hidden by default and only displayed when the user turns it on via your website.
— https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#use...
quick test logged out:
search "butts" -> no nsfw results on first page search "tits" -> a couple unlabeled nsfw posts (against reddit rules.)
By the way, when I typed the actress' first name, I was already being suggested a subreddit dedicated to sharing nude pictures of another woman with the same name. Again, I used the app as it comes straight out of the App Store without logging in or changing anything.
PWAs would free them from having to put up with Apple’s restrictions crap.
Apple knows this, hence why they've not implemented the features needed by PWAs, and why they ban all browser rendering and JavaScript engines besides iOS Safari's.
People usually don’t like governments picking winners and losers, and so they shouldn’t like companies doing so.
This is all just fictional garbage, which you totally made-up.
I’ve been through hundreds of app reviews, and if a problem is ever found (rarely) the reviews are always polite, and carefully worded, erring on the cautious, and with absolutely zero chance that anyone from Apple is ever “yelling”.
Incredibly sad indictment of HN that these glaring untruths are given any credence at all.
If your point happens to be correct, this is particularly important, because by posting like this you end up discrediting it. Your comment would be just fine without the first and third paragraphs.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: you've unfortunately been doing this repeatedly (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29549948) and we've had to warn you about it at least once before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29109123). Would you please stop posting like this? We ban accounts that keep breaking the site guidelines and ignore our requests to stop, and I don't want to ban you.
(I should clarify that, like GP, I am referring to the substance of the review, not the tone.)
This has fallen off the front page, so I’m asking out of real curiosity:
1. Have you genuinely had an app rejection that states that the reviewer typed “milf” (or something equivalently unlikely) into a search bar - and that is given as the reason for the rejection? ie: how else does the OP know this is the actual reason?
2. Do you genuinely believe Apple employees have yelled at the OP during an app dispute?
I absolutely think it’s just made-up lying fantasies. But I’m willing to reverse that if anyone supplies some contrary proof.
Now, to answer the other part: yes, as stupid as it sounds, they do exactly this. I work on iSH and they flagged a build of our app for package management functionality. Ok, we said, that’s not the main purpose of the app, and we don’t want to fight you about it, so we’ll remove it. And they approved it…for a bit, until they rejected it again. Why? “During review, your app downloaded code”. Our app doesn’t download code. What actually happened was that we ship a wget, and the reviewer used this to go to a website and re-download a package manager, and then used that to download code. I mean, what are we supposed to do in response to that? We removed what you wanted us to remove (even if we didn’t have to, based on a close reading of the rules) and if you are going to go and download it again, what are we supposed to do?
I’m not really in a position to speak for my employer and their review experience, but the UGC content/porn example is one every social media app knows about. You’ll get a rejection in App Store Connect with the “problematic content” and you’ll go check up on the demo account you gave them and it’ll have these terms in the search history. Blonde, boobs, sexy: it’s the stupidest search queries, but they will absolutely go and type those words into the search field and flag you for it, and your analytics will confirm it.
so no surprise you haven't found any such reviews if you're doing completely different apps
Just want to emphasize this part. App Store Reviewers are completely asinine. Like, dumb as a rock. It’d almost be funny if their stupidity didn’t block your app approval.
To be explicitly clear: if your app contains UGC, they will explicitly go and search for things to ding you on, and then fault you when you find it. They will go to the search bar and type in “milf” or “butts” (I wish I were joking). They’ll try to search for drugs on your marketplace. If your app runs scripts, they’ll try downloading something and then yell at you for letting them do it. The review messages they leave you bend over backwards to try to fault you for what they do in the app…things like “during review, your app downloaded code” (the reviewer went out of their way to find a way to load a script from the internet) or “your app presents adult content” (the reviewer created an account and immediately searched for “sex”). These are the people who misspell their demo account passwords and will claim the app is broken, so these idiots are almost proud when they find these, almost like they’re finding a gotcha.
Of course, these rejections are all bogus. In a good system they wouldn’t happen, or if they did you’d dismiss them summarily. Instead, you need to plead and escalate until you find a person who’s not a complete bozo. Sometimes, in desperation, you come up with random filters in the hopes that they’ll just leave you alone this time. Careful, though: if you give up too much ground you won’t have any to give next time.
The entire process is just designed to wear you down, to create apps that conform to a pretty image where people post about their dogs and food rather than anything that could possibly be objectionable. Platforms rightfully try to keep their own standards on their content, but many slowly give up and slide into what’s easy to defend. Apple is only behind payment processors and advertisers in forcing platforms to prude up :(