by bpg_92 on 6/18/20, 8:47 AM with 342 comments
by BiteCode_dev on 6/18/20, 10:00 AM
Google will close gmail accounts, take away adsense revenues, or remove youtube videos on a whim.
Visa blocked users from giving their money to political causes they decided didn't aligned with their view of the world.
For years Microsoft made it super hard to buy hardware without paying the Windows licence. They killed xbox remotely. They have invasive telemetry in Win 10.
Paypal may refuse to pay the money you have on their account at any moment. Your money, no appeal.
Twitter and facebook censorship rules are on a case by case basis. If your famous, you may be able to use hate speech. I you are an anonymous political activist, China may ask for your shut down.
Big companies exist to make money. If they get too much power, they will abuse it. Not because they are evil, but because it's the logical thing to do for them.
This is why I was advocating in another comment that we should not use WhatsApp new payment system:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23553455
Thinking about the power we give to big entities is a central mechanism to build the society we live on. That's why we should think about what we buy, the media we consumme, etc.
They are votes, just as much as during an election.
by bsaul on 6/18/20, 9:15 AM
It's now so bad people are refraining from trying out innovative business model or apps just because they think there could be a chance someone at apple validation wouldn't like it and kill the product at any time.
I wish the Hey story makes people realize it is not reasonable to have one actor control the only software distribution channel to hundred of millions of customers.
I'm fine with apple wanting to provide a highly curated experience to their users by having them download apps from a store they control. But this shouldn't be the only option.
by ratel on 6/18/20, 10:43 AM
The fact is that those companies are not telling people what they did wrong and even more persuasive these days not explaining why their apparent transgression is leading to a particular punishment. Or how that transgression fits the punishment. I for one will not subject myself to such a form of tyranny.
In this case even if having your app in TestFlight too long, why is now (3 years in) the time to revoke the app? Having 200 test users is too much. Why not tell people beforehand they exceeded a limit if that is your rule?
Lets say you are invited into a country as a citizen, but the conditions are: You can be punished arbitrarily, even banished, without recourse, harassed, given arbitrary commands by minions. You pay a 30% tax on all your proceeds, but your proceeds are your sole responsibility. There is no right to have your grievances addressed by the tyrant, not even by one of the lower minions. Would you go? I will not. Now say you already find yourself in such a country. I'm sorry for you. I think I would organize and try to collectively have those rights improved.
by nromiun on 6/18/20, 9:48 AM
<rant>
Seriously, just how hard is it for these companies to communicate properly? Would it kill them to send something like "We saw X on your account so we are closing your account temporarily. Contact us.". Instead it is just "We closed your account. Get screwed.".
This is why so many developers are going the web app way these days. Dealing with a closed platform who won't even talk to you is just infuriating.
Sorry for the rant.
by ChrisMarshallNY on 6/18/20, 9:36 AM
Because of the nature of a couple of my apps, I’ve had them bounced for “providing commonly available services” (i.e. competing with OS tools). In each instance, I have appealed, citing some unique features, and have prevailed.
I think that reviewers have a number of “1-button” responses, provided by some kind of dashboard, in order to ensure a narrative is maintained. This is actually common for many customer interaction scenarios. I don’t like it, but understand why it happens.
I’ll bet that the more heated an exchange gets, the more “canned” these responses become, because...lawyers. He may, in fact, be communicating with a human, who keeps hitting canned response buttons (not much different from ‘bots).
I’ve wondered whether or not folks might use TestFlight for “shadow release.” I have seen app makers use Enterprise in that fashion. I have no idea (or opinion) on whether or not that was the case, here.
I’m not sure I would want to pursue my case in the court of public opinion. It’s a risky gambit, but this chap may feel he has nothing to lose.
EDIT: One thing that I should mention, is that I never have a release in TestFlight for more than a few days. It has a "time bomb"; I think, maybe 60 or 90 days. That means, in order to maintain an app in TF for three years, he'd need to keep re-releasing every couple of months. That speaks to some kind of intent.
by mhee on 6/18/20, 10:24 AM
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bet...
I encourage you to read through the entire AppStore guidelines, there might be more sections that apply to Apple's decision to terminate the account
I didn't read through all of your privacy policy on the app's website, but definitely worthwhile to cross check it with the AppStore guidelines as well.
by goblin89 on 6/18/20, 10:26 AM
And if not, and a single Apple ID is also used for development, (1) can it remain intentionally unassociated with any payment method in any specific country, and (2) is there a threat of losing it if Developer account is terminated for some unfathomable reason?
by planb on 6/18/20, 9:23 AM
by sunaurus on 6/18/20, 9:14 AM
by tsp on 6/18/20, 10:32 AM
If Apple were not years behind PWA integration, switching to a PWA instead of native app might be an option. But this is sadly not in Apple’s interest.
I wonder how many people will choose Android over Apple in the future because of PWAs. I can imagine there will be a flood of useful PWAs, freely to use and only fully working on Android, not Apple.
by g_p on 6/18/20, 10:50 AM
In this case, it seems we've sleepwalked into a situation where there are conflicts of interest like never really seen before - companies with global scale, able to arbitrarily decide which competition they wish to allow to be present on "their" marketplace, and make them either raise their price by 30%, or be 30% less profitable.
Resolving these conflicts, and recognising these aren't simple "creation of a moat", but rather some actual, tangible, anti-competitive practices would be a good starting point. But what is the outcome? Apple's view is "we're protecting users from bad things on the internet", but perhaps this kind of arbitrary decision-making is not one to be getting made arbitrarily?
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
by mobiledev2014 on 6/18/20, 3:22 PM
Speculation but my money would be on some unethical competitor or even just a jerk who doesn't like Andy is spamming negative reviews and reported him to Apple for fraud. Since I've never heard of this happening, I don't know if Apple's fraud department takes a guilty-until-innocent approach or if they agreed fraud occurred. Either way the lack of transparency and communication is not right. I'll echo sentiments that I've spoken to humans about app issues but never about fraud.
by aasasd on 6/18/20, 9:35 AM
Well there you have it. The rest of devs will be happy they're still under Apple's wing, and nothing will change.
by traceroute66 on 6/18/20, 9:12 AM
I have not read the blog post above fully, but a speed-read suggests that the author was publicly distributing an app through TestFlight rather than App Store.
I am not accusing anyone of anything here. But if my speed-read is accurate, then its not at all surprising Apple have taken issue with him.
TestFlight is a dev tool. Its not for production deployment. Its meant for beta testing.
by monokh on 6/18/20, 9:52 AM
Is there still no way to release an iPhone app out with the iOS app store?
by fareesh on 6/18/20, 11:32 AM
To enable this countries and regions have drafted laws to govern what business and trade practices are permissible.
Some non-rhetorical questions out of curiosity because I genuinely don't know:
Is it illegal for supermarkets to only partner with certain brands and carry their products over those of their competitors? If there is only 1 Walmart within driving distance of 50,000 people, and that Wal-Mart chooses to throw out all toilet paper brands and sell their store brand, is this allowed under current law? What if they allow the brand to stay if they pay an additional whimsical commission to Wal-Mart? Is that legal?
Is there something that makes the App store different from the physical store equivalent?
Putting aside the letter of the law, does it violate the aforementioned "spirit" of the law? i.e. ought there be laws against this kind of behaviour? I am sure there are good arguments for both sides.
by RNCTX on 6/18/20, 12:12 PM
By his own description of what it does, I'd say the app is highly likely to be selling access to content that the author hasn't licensed, and is on sketchy copyright grounds.
Also, the fact that a vote manipulation app...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21122737/iowa-democractic-...
...was distributed via a test platform with the financial backing of former Clinton and Obama / recent Pete Buttigieg staffers...
https://apnews.com/5232ce5601996c1de440806ad30fa4fb
...has likely put Apple in the position of being compelled to more actively police what goes on in test apps. I get the knee-jerk tendency to blame corporate oppression of indie developers since that is usually what we see from the Googles and Microsofts of the world, but Apple has little monetary interest in kicking a successful app developer off of their ecosystem, unless that app developer is blatantly flaunting civil / criminal statutes or trying to scam Apple out of their cut of the profit.
If I had a to guess I'd say this guy is doing both.
by LatteLazy on 6/18/20, 10:01 AM
by odshoifsdhfs on 6/18/20, 9:44 AM
So basically he was calling something a 'beta' and distributing it through Testflight for 3 years.
Yep, no clear reason here. Big Apple bad!
Apple has a lot of problems, and I agree, but most of these 'developer stories about mean Apple' always have two sides of the story. I remember the same outrage about Kapeli's Dash situation, and then came out an account in his name was doing fraudulent activities ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680131 )
by jpalomaki on 6/18/20, 10:05 AM
Techically this is of course just like web browser, but Apple could see it differently.
[1] Objectionable Content
by read_if_gay_ on 6/18/20, 11:34 AM
by taylus on 6/18/20, 5:41 PM
The fact that a faceless entity can lock you out of developing like this is just wrong. I fear for the future of such closed off ecosystems.
by Aeolun on 6/18/20, 5:07 PM
We really shouldn’t have to do that kind of shit.
by coder1001 on 6/18/20, 9:17 AM
Paid customer service where the customer pays money (say $100-$1k depending on how serious the issue is) and each company can have a special channel to respond to these paid requests and be compensated (say 80% of the fee the customer pays). That way companies will have the will and ability to attend to serious issues and filter them out from the "useless" customer requests that flood any large size business.
by nablaone on 6/18/20, 11:00 AM
by lcnmrn on 6/18/20, 9:46 AM
by dhsysusbsjsi on 6/18/20, 12:09 PM
Apparently it looked too much like the iPad Settings app.
Insane.
by cryptica on 6/18/20, 2:35 PM
Just find an alternative business strategy that doesn't rely on Apple. You can't rely on them. They don't give a crap about developers and never have. Why do all developers keep enabling them? Seriously, just sacrifice a small % of your income by ignoring Apple and you will help make the world a better place. Developers have to stand up for themselves.
by Razengan on 6/18/20, 2:07 PM
by lawrenceong on 6/18/20, 3:11 PM
by zepto on 6/18/20, 2:26 PM
I would suggest requiring cause to be stated for account termination or threatened termination, and a formal right of appeal to request evidence.
Of course this would be onerous for the smallest businesses, so we’d need some threshold for when it kicks in. E.g. 2 years, or $1,000 of transactions.
This wouldn’t make any particular kind of termination illegal. It would simply force transparency, so that then if there really are abuses or patterns of abuse taking place, we can expose them.
It would also apply to all businesses - Google, Banks, Gyms, whatever.
by wprapido on 6/18/20, 9:48 AM
by sabujp on 6/18/20, 10:00 AM
by ta17711771 on 6/19/20, 5:43 AM
There's not much they can't do, now.
by CannisterFlux on 6/18/20, 9:45 AM
by 0-O-0 on 6/18/20, 9:25 AM
by ezoe on 6/18/20, 10:08 AM
Forget that useless malicious platform already. It's not worth it.
by buboard on 6/18/20, 2:45 PM
by seemslegit on 6/18/20, 9:49 AM
by sabujp on 6/18/20, 9:40 AM
by franze on 6/18/20, 9:58 AM
I just googled this, found some references to the anime image boards. Most were Hentai / Porn. If the main purpose of an app is viewing adult content, its main purpose is viewing adult content - even if you have to add the ressources yourself. (I might be wrong, I don't have a clue about the Boorus community).
So prop. Apples "Freedom from Porn"approach?