It were if there wasn't any context.

But as you just downloaded a camera app that you want to use to take pictures, that description is actually already beyond what could reasonably be expected.

It is trivial to come up with plausible justifications the user might reject if the reason were made explicit.

E.g “The camera will be used to continuously take photographs and upload them to our AI platform for training, analysis, and aesthetic optimization.”

Yes, how would I know how else it might use the camera?

Does the reviewer have that context?

In my job capacity, I give status updates about many unrelated projects.

If I am not explaining full context in a seemingly simple update or question, I will get my hand slapped. And if I tell my boss to “read” it’s going to go worse.

I would have removed the risk of removal by simply prefacing the app is a professional camera app and taking photos is the primary user function.

And not just a lesson for here but also in life: One-liners are fun to say, but people generally don’t like being on the receiving end of them.

If the reviewer simply looked at the app description or opened the app they would have that context. Not hard. Just laziness.

How much time do you think the lowly non-Apple employee contractors get for reviewing each app?

That would be a valid reason to criticize Apple.

Doesn't Apple try to justify their 30% revenue cut by saying they offer unparalleled curation services in their app store?

This is an example of such an unparalleled curation service. The app makers are just lucky enough to be popular (and even promoted by another arm of Apple) or they'd still be out of the app store.

The text is not for the reviewer, it's for the user of the app.

Imagine the ridiculous level of explanatory humdrum apps would need to conjure if they were to explain themselves to uninterested people pressed for time like that reviewer you described?

It shouldn't be the developer's burden to ensure that the reviewer is operating above the reading level of a toddler. I am sorry that your boss apparently cannot, but that's not justification for all industries to operate that way. The purpose of a camera app is to take photographs. A user who downloads a camera app probably wants to use it to take photographs. This is something a child can understand. If I have to hold the reviewer's hand and explain what a camera is, I severely question whether that reviewer is qualified to be doing that job.

In my painful and long experience, that mindset just doesn't work if you're trying to become a more effective communicator and save yourself time in the long run.

Agreed - there are better ways to word the reason to more clearly communicate to all parties involved.

"This is an alternate camera app. To take photographs, it needs access to the camera hardware."

Don’t take the bait this guys clearly trolling

> That is a terrible reason to request camera access.

Oh come off it. It's used to take photographs because it's a photography application. How much handholding do we need?

Welcome to Halide. This is Halide. Halide needs camera access to take photographs. You can take photos of anything. Anything at all. The only limit is yourself. Anything is possible in Halide. You can do anything with Halide. The infinite is possible in Halide. The unattainable is unknown in Halide. Welcome.

The internet was a simpler time back then, I bet very few younger devs even know zombo.com

Zombo.com?

> Why will photographs be taken?

Isn’t that a philosophical question? Do we now need to get philosophical to go through App Store reviews?

It's as good as saying "contacts access will be used to get information about your contacts".

Photography is literally the only thing camera is good for and it's used for that purpose 100% of the time.

They can just write that the reason is that Halide is a photo app and be back on the store with no need for hand wringing.

I just wish Apple was as good as this at vetting all apps. There is always some junk on the store.

I use it for lots of things that aren’t photography, scanning QR codes, AR uses like seeing how a piece of furniture will look in my house, identifying stars.

in every one of those the camera is used for photography though

How is scanning a QR code photography? Photography is "writing with light"; the key property is that of making a lasting record of a transient handful of photons. When scanning a QR code, the imaging is incidental, but more importantly no record of the "light" is made. If scanning a QR code is photography, so is sitting on the porch reading a book...

You can't scan a QR code without photography. But the QR code app won't just write "oh we need the camera to capture some photons".

By what definition of photography is this true?

Is photometry photography now? Is the barcode reader at my supermarket performing photography? The encoder on my scroll wheel? My solar roof?

Cameras can be used for many things other than photography. Many other things than cameras can be used for photography. The two are not synonymous.

If it is a camera then all it does is photography. If you call it a camera in your encoder and solar roof then yes sure.

You are trying to bend definitions

> Cameras can be used for many things other than photography

Like plug a hole with it or hammer a nail?

Like photometry, and spectroscopy, and videography, and camera obscura, and a hundred other things. A camera is a tool for redirecting photons to create an image of a scene on a 2D plane. So many more things than just creating durable images by recording the spatial distribution of light on a plane (photography) are possible with such a tool.

> A camera is a tool for redirecting photons to create an image of a scene on a 2D plane.

This is photography. You are thinking about art but photography also means technical process.