Apple rejects developer's horoscope app, says App Store has enough(imore.com)
imore.com
Apple rejects developer's horoscope app, says App Store has enough
https://www.imore.com/apple-rejects-developers-horoscope-app-says-app-store-has-enough
130 comments
>Apple should focus on getting rid of scam apps and blatant rip-offs.
Since they have a walled garden, they have a clear responsibility. A system of empowered consumer advocates should have the power to force them to live up to this responsibility.
>It's not like shelf space is limited. Hard disagree. If you add infinite shelves, you make it too hard to find valuable apps.
I am all for the walled garden, but Apple is instead making a walled crapstore.
Since they have a walled garden, they have a clear responsibility. A system of empowered consumer advocates should have the power to force them to live up to this responsibility.
>It's not like shelf space is limited. Hard disagree. If you add infinite shelves, you make it too hard to find valuable apps.
I am all for the walled garden, but Apple is instead making a walled crapstore.
Not to undermine your effort, but isn't this the same outside of Apple? Kickstarter projects get cloned and ask a legitimate Amazon seller how their products got overrun by Chinese clones. That said, I would expect Apple to be a little better for 30% cut.
That's true, on the other hand the fact that copyapps even copy icons and have very close sounding names in the same space would be a trivial thing to guard against.
Machine learning like its 2010! Agree, it would be not too difficult.
You can file a DMCA on the icon and you may get a quicker response. I used a DMCA to take down a fraudulent listing of one of my rental properties after all other contact channels were tried.
> Also avoid piling on to a category that is already saturated; the App Store has enough fart, burp, flashlight, fortune telling, dating, drinking games, and Kama Sutra apps, etc. already.
I had to double-take to see if this was really a statement from Apple... It was.
I had to double-take to see if this was really a statement from Apple... It was.
And apple calls itself an innovative company. They say no more lightbulb apps forgetting it took Edison 5000 filaments to find the best one.
Naturally if you trust one dev for one job, and not to ruin the app, you will likely trust them for another, category saturation be damned. I don't see much benefit for users when the manufacturer dictates what developers are not to build for users based on some archaic first in best dressed system from 2008.
Naturally if you trust one dev for one job, and not to ruin the app, you will likely trust them for another, category saturation be damned. I don't see much benefit for users when the manufacturer dictates what developers are not to build for users based on some archaic first in best dressed system from 2008.
In many cases it would make sense, but flashlight apps? They're literally an on-off switch for a single system resource. There's nothing that you can add to them to improve the experience.
It took quite some time to find one that wasn’t an enormous bloated mess filled with ads.
These days they’re not necessary anymore but this one was a great one:
https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/flashlight-by-rik/id384021568?...
These days they’re not necessary anymore but this one was a great one:
https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/flashlight-by-rik/id384021568?...
Exactly. This is my problem with most apps. They are ad-ridden craps. It took me some time to find a music player that looks the way I want it to, support what I want it to, and not display ads or pause music to play ads.
I had to install my flashlight app outside of the playstore walled garden as it wasn't approved yet. It was a shakelight that used heavy background processing and went against google's background task shakedown. The app gave those of us without it the Motorollo detection chip functionality at the expense of battery. And there is still room to improve. It needs sunset+X hours and off-if-left-on-for-too-long feature to save even more background battery life. The ways innovation happens is not predictable or else it wouldn't be innovation.
How about a timer that switches the "flashlight" off after a configurable period of time? :-)
Or an app that switches on flashlight based on ambient light sensor or phone movement gestures using gyroscope
Using the screen as a light
Dimming the screen
Different colors on the screen
Calculation of how long light will last
SOS signaling
Strobe setting
Light in response to some kind of input, like audio or camera
Blinking light with adjustable frequency
Yeah, there's probably more features that could be put into a flashlight app.
Dimming the screen
Different colors on the screen
Calculation of how long light will last
SOS signaling
Strobe setting
Light in response to some kind of input, like audio or camera
Blinking light with adjustable frequency
Yeah, there's probably more features that could be put into a flashlight app.
Yes, those are features you could add to a flashlight app, and you'd likely concentrate on those features instead. I would argue that each of those is very different than a flashlight app which turns the camera light on/off and would be unlikely to be even called a "flashlight app".
There's tons of flashlight apps which only do the on/off switch and the only differentiation is how they try to get money off of you or what data they want to steal.
There's tons of flashlight apps which only do the on/off switch and the only differentiation is how they try to get money off of you or what data they want to steal.
Edison did not test 5,000 filaments himself, and a team of his size would always get their app through review.
You're not helping
Before Apple added the flashlight feature into their OS, flashlight apps were flooding the store. IIRC, this is the exact text they added at that time
My MIL still uses a flashlight app on her iPhone, because she doesn’t know the difference between a feature and an app, and because each time she gets a new phone all her apps are ported over. Whenever she turns on her flashlight a huge ad blazes across the screen (and the screen doesn’t seem to turn off), and I keep meaning to tell her she doesn’t need that app.
Introduce her to the built-in flashlight (“It’s right on your lock screen and a long press on the symbol turns on the flashlight”) and remove the third-party app.
Maybe you can introduce it to her for me.
On Android, it's guitar tuners.
Apple hired/acquired the developer of one of the top flashlight apps in in the app store.
Proposal: When a new app is submitted in a saturated category, poll the oldest N apps for usage and developer activity. If one of them is below a threshold of relevance then mark it for removal and allow the new app to replace it.
App Store development has me sort of offended. If I build it I’m not certain users can even try it unless apple (gatekeeper) decides their user base should. It’s certainly a walled garden and perhaps a reason I’ve steered my career away from mobile development.
So sad your horoscope app will never see the light of day.
We need to be able to use non-Apple app stores for iPhone.
I was really hoping this would be the outcome of Epic v. Apple, but alas it was not.
I honestly don't know if I understand any reasoning behind it. I would buy an iPhone tomorrow if I could get a web browser or keyboard that weren't effectively skins of the default/included one.
I honestly don't know if I understand any reasoning behind it. I would buy an iPhone tomorrow if I could get a web browser or keyboard that weren't effectively skins of the default/included one.
You aren’t the market. Apple has curated a user base that prefers the exact opposite; I land among them. If it isn’t for you, then avoid it.
That it is a more lucrative market than what Android had built with their more open ended approach is an interesting look at what the general public prefers from their mobile devices.
Personally, I’m not looking for my phone to be a side project, I want it to work without putting in any effort.
That it is a more lucrative market than what Android had built with their more open ended approach is an interesting look at what the general public prefers from their mobile devices.
Personally, I’m not looking for my phone to be a side project, I want it to work without putting in any effort.
>Personally, I’m not looking for my phone to be a side project,
Nobody would force you to use non Apple shit, when an alternative sore would exist you can ignore it, when a better browser will exist you can ignore it, when alternative better chargers exists you can still buy the Premium Apple charger.
Apple fans should kiss Google ass because they can use the lazy excuse when Apple uses censorship "use an Android and side load apps if you don't like it".
Nobody would force you to use non Apple shit, when an alternative sore would exist you can ignore it, when a better browser will exist you can ignore it, when alternative better chargers exists you can still buy the Premium Apple charger.
Apple fans should kiss Google ass because they can use the lazy excuse when Apple uses censorship "use an Android and side load apps if you don't like it".
I don't think most people buy iPhones because of Apple's draconian control of software distribution, I think they buy them despite of it.
If Apple sold two iPhones, one that allowed only apps from the App Store, and one that allowed apps from anywhere, I'm pretty sure most people would buy an iPhone that allowed 3rd party apps.
The current state makes me a bit sad. I've been a long term Apple user, and I'm pretty sure my next phone is going to be some Android, because as much as I like the quality of Apple's products, I just no longer want to accept Apple's restrictions.
If Apple sold two iPhones, one that allowed only apps from the App Store, and one that allowed apps from anywhere, I'm pretty sure most people would buy an iPhone that allowed 3rd party apps.
The current state makes me a bit sad. I've been a long term Apple user, and I'm pretty sure my next phone is going to be some Android, because as much as I like the quality of Apple's products, I just no longer want to accept Apple's restrictions.
> I don't think most people buy iPhones because of Apple's draconian control of software distribution, I think they buy them despite of it.
I don’t think it’s even that. Like the GP I just don’t care as long as what I need is available (and it is).
As a developer it’s a different matter, despite liking the platform I won’t be putting any apps in the store.
I don’t think it’s even that. Like the GP I just don’t care as long as what I need is available (and it is).
As a developer it’s a different matter, despite liking the platform I won’t be putting any apps in the store.
I wonder what is the overlap between people who want non-Apple stores in iOS and complain about Epic Store and Origins Store because Steam already exists :)
While web browsers on iOS are unfortunately just re-skinned Safari, you actually are able to create/download totally custom keyboards. A while back I created a custom keyboard to translate what you type and help you learn a new language.
> While web browsers on iOS are unfortunately just re-skinned Safari,
Is that also true for Firefox, Chrome on iOS?
Is that also true for Firefox, Chrome on iOS?
"Re-skinned Safari" is incorrect, but third party browsers must use the version of WebKit that ships with iOS. Third parties are not allowed to use their own rendering or JavaScript engines.
This is a very unpopular opinion but I think anyone who has already bought an iPhone has waived their right to complain about Apple. As long as they've got your money I don't see why they should care, and they obviously don't. Alternatives exist so people should vote with their wallet.
I'd rather have a single App Store which have a very limited selection of apps. On the other hand, make the browser powerful enough and you can then install any app you want.
At this point, I really think Apple is sabotaging Safari on iOS. Here is a comparison with Chrome on Android: https://caniuse.com/?compare=ios_saf+15,and_chr+94&compareCa...
At this point, I really think Apple is sabotaging Safari on iOS. Here is a comparison with Chrome on Android: https://caniuse.com/?compare=ios_saf+15,and_chr+94&compareCa...
Exactly.
For any single app store — no matter who is running it or how — there has to be a line drawn somewhere about what should or shouldn’t be in it.
(At the least you’re probably going to want to filter out illegal apps… but the line between legal and illegal is complex, uncertain, changes over time, and is different in different jurisdictions.)
It’s fine — desirable even — for Apple to have wide leeway to decide what they want to have in their store.
They just shouldn’t be able to stop people from shopping at other stores.
For any single app store — no matter who is running it or how — there has to be a line drawn somewhere about what should or shouldn’t be in it.
(At the least you’re probably going to want to filter out illegal apps… but the line between legal and illegal is complex, uncertain, changes over time, and is different in different jurisdictions.)
It’s fine — desirable even — for Apple to have wide leeway to decide what they want to have in their store.
They just shouldn’t be able to stop people from shopping at other stores.
The odds of rejection should be just another factor in your expected value calculation though.
Google app store has (had?) the category "new apps" so people can find and try out fresh developments. It brought me 400 download the first day (which lead to many more). Sorely miss this kind of discoverability on the app store. Also Apples search sucks.
I have been using the Samsung store for a little while and am shocked by the overwhelming number of low quality apps that are stuffed in there.
Long live the walled garden for Apple.
Long live the walled garden for Apple.
Unfortunately, the app store is already full of duplicate, horrible apps. Blocking one more or less is not going to make a difference.
It's true that in practice 1000 horoscope apps or 10000 horoscope apps is not going to make a difference for the user. Maybe apple is afraid it can saturate their review process.
A 2 trillion dollar company that is flushed with cash should not have any process bottleneck.
Hey now. They don’t have that much cash. They have spent nearly $350B cash on stock buybacks in the past five years!
Not one based on manpower anyway
Pardon me, but why were you using Samsung's garbage app store and not the Google Play store?
More like long live F-droid as there's no way in hell I'm voluntarily locking myself into Apple's high-quality, nice and shiny walled garden where basically they fully control the device and what I'm allowed to install on it, while renting it out to me for a fee and can scan it for whenever content they want (CP pics today, Tank Man pics tomorrow).
The level of quality apps on F-Droid is ironically much higher than anywhere else, and they're all ad-free, privacy focused and most of the time open source as well.
More like long live F-droid as there's no way in hell I'm voluntarily locking myself into Apple's high-quality, nice and shiny walled garden where basically they fully control the device and what I'm allowed to install on it, while renting it out to me for a fee and can scan it for whenever content they want (CP pics today, Tank Man pics tomorrow).
The level of quality apps on F-Droid is ironically much higher than anywhere else, and they're all ad-free, privacy focused and most of the time open source as well.
Not op but guessing because Play Store has some restrictive preconditions for use (eg linking a Google account).
How is that different than every other app store apart from F-Droid? Apple, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Xiaomi and Huawei all need you to sign up for an account on their walled garden before letting you download apps.
Ah, didn't know Samsung requires that too, too bad. I'm with you on F-Droid.
It is not that it is a walled garden that is a problem. It is that it is the only garden.
Then why are you not using Apple?
Heow do the walls help Apple's store serve users, would it be worse if they allowed other app stores?
I think we can be sure that any uncurated app stores would quickly become a cesspit.
Once you acknowledge this you have to accept that original complainant would have the same problem everywhere.
Nobody will want his trash in their store.
Once you acknowledge this you have to accept that original complainant would have the same problem everywhere.
Nobody will want his trash in their store.
Allowing other app stores doesn't imply that they are uncurated.
And the threat of alternative app store competition would of course also limit the censorship and abuse of power Apple/Google can pull in their app store practices.
And the threat of alternative app store competition would of course also limit the censorship and abuse of power Apple/Google can pull in their app store practices.
>Allowing other app stores doesn't imply that they are uncurated.
The point is once they are curated then the people writing yet another garbage horoscope app are still going to be out of luck.
>And the threat of alternative app store competition would of course also limit the censorship and abuse of power Apple/Google can pull in their app store practices.
Choosing what is in your store isn't an abuse of power.
The point is once they are curated then the people writing yet another garbage horoscope app are still going to be out of luck.
>And the threat of alternative app store competition would of course also limit the censorship and abuse of power Apple/Google can pull in their app store practices.
Choosing what is in your store isn't an abuse of power.
For an existence proof - an app store without garbage horoscope app problem - see F-Droid.
The developer has some screenshots on Twitter https://twitter.com/nightcatprod/status/1439773812753637378
Seems like it's got humorous horoscopes.
Given that the screenshots are all of just text on a screen, and the development took about a year, I wonder if the rejection is more about the app being 'low quality' rather than about it being just another horoscope app.
Regardless, it seems weird to reject an app because there are already apps in the store which are similar.
Seems like it's got humorous horoscopes.
Given that the screenshots are all of just text on a screen, and the development took about a year, I wonder if the rejection is more about the app being 'low quality' rather than about it being just another horoscope app.
Regardless, it seems weird to reject an app because there are already apps in the store which are similar.
Getting into the App Store requires a bit of politics and negotiation.
Nearly everybody I know gets rejected the first time, unless you have a clearly high quality app.
I got mine accepted by submitting screenshots of people saying they were excited about it.
Nearly everybody I know gets rejected the first time, unless you have a clearly high quality app.
I got mine accepted by submitting screenshots of people saying they were excited about it.
8+ years ago, I made an etch-a-sketch clone and had no problem getting it approved. Not sure if things were easier back then or the app was reasonable enough to approve.
https://vimeo.com/81687638
https://vimeo.com/81687638
I imagine over time the rules and regulations have become more strict.
Pretty cool app by the way.
Pretty cool app by the way.
Thanks! Maybe someday I'll try to republish it.
Years ago I made a similar app for that’s what she said jokes and was rejected due to minimal functionality. This was the same time they were allowing those scam 1000 apps that just showed a diamond. Apple makes no sense.
That's because reviews are done by a single person from a large group of possible reviewers who each have differing perspectives.
Do you see a way that Apple could be consistent besides letting every app in?
Do you see a way that Apple could be consistent besides letting every app in?
Well yeah you make the rules in a way that there’s little room for personal opinion on behalf of the reviewer.
As it is now their rules are pretty vague.
As it is now their rules are pretty vague.
Maybe have a part of the store dedicated to pre-release/experimental versions and have interested users beta test and review these. Then based on early feedback the app graduates or not to the general public.
[deleted]
I guess the free market has spoken and what is wants is no more free markets. Apple is shooting itself in the foot with this. More choice in products is always better than less.
> More choice in products is always better than less.
Have you tried to buy any electronics from Amazon/Ebay recently? Same products listed tens of times from likely same distributors (or maybe actually many distributors fighting for scraps?). Tiny differences in naming for SEO purposes flood the first few pages of results.
3 listings are better than 1 (for competition / keeping price reasonable). 100 listings are not better than 3.
Similar thing happens on appstore, just slightly different methods. You can't even search for the exact name anymore, because the ad and the first result will be something completely different.
Have you tried to buy any electronics from Amazon/Ebay recently? Same products listed tens of times from likely same distributors (or maybe actually many distributors fighting for scraps?). Tiny differences in naming for SEO purposes flood the first few pages of results.
3 listings are better than 1 (for competition / keeping price reasonable). 100 listings are not better than 3.
Similar thing happens on appstore, just slightly different methods. You can't even search for the exact name anymore, because the ad and the first result will be something completely different.
I disagree. What's worse than trying to pick between 10 different apps that do the exact same thing? Trying to pick between 11 different apps.
The fun begins when 9 of these apps are left to rot and the remaining one moves to a subscription model.
There’s a ton of single use, very simple apps that only have super crappy alternatives left because Apple didn’t want to bother improving the Store app ratings and search functionalities. All the more after Apple in its infinite wisdom started banning apps that were “too simple” (like one single screen).
There’s a few of these apps that kept working through a few OS version updates but finally couldn’t run anymore, and it looks like my only choice is to remake them myself.
If instead of 10 we had 90 of these, there would be a fighting chance that more were still maintained or got open sourced.
There’s a ton of single use, very simple apps that only have super crappy alternatives left because Apple didn’t want to bother improving the Store app ratings and search functionalities. All the more after Apple in its infinite wisdom started banning apps that were “too simple” (like one single screen).
There’s a few of these apps that kept working through a few OS version updates but finally couldn’t run anymore, and it looks like my only choice is to remake them myself.
If instead of 10 we had 90 of these, there would be a fighting chance that more were still maintained or got open sourced.
> The fun begins when 9 of these apps are left to rot and the remaining one moves to a subscription model.
Sounds like a solid business model if you control all 10 apps.
Sounds like a solid business model if you control all 10 apps.
I have to assume you just haven't thought very hard about this problem yet, as that is a very trivial reason to give up on a free market. I would also like to point out that the ecosystem that gets you ten apps doing the same thing is the reason you get any apps at all. If people thought they were competing for one or two slots in a rigged marketplace then the incentives to participate go way down, they would take their skills elsewhere.
The music industry might be a good parallel. The record labels thought they were the gatekeepers, but the majority of the music industry is happening outside big record labels now. If you want the big corporate to choose what you listen to, you get boring manufactured trite. If you want innovation, competence and craftsmanship, look anywhere else.
The music industry might be a good parallel. The record labels thought they were the gatekeepers, but the majority of the music industry is happening outside big record labels now. If you want the big corporate to choose what you listen to, you get boring manufactured trite. If you want innovation, competence and craftsmanship, look anywhere else.
> I have to assume you just haven't thought very hard about this problem yet
Your argument is the number one reason HN sucks lately. If you don't agree, the other party must be stupid.
If you want complete free choice about which flowers you should choose for a bouquet, then go to the wilderness. It will take you a while to find what you're looking for and you'll likely come across a lot of crappy looking flowers, but it's a completely free choice.
If you want quality choices in a quick amount of time, then go to the florist.
Apple's app store is a walled garden. So, make that garden as good as possible. They hire "gardeners" for that reason.
In fairness I have an android, and it's worse there. Reviews are faked, and critical bugs or bad ui prevent usefulness. This is with both the free apps and paid apps.
Your argument is the number one reason HN sucks lately. If you don't agree, the other party must be stupid.
If you want complete free choice about which flowers you should choose for a bouquet, then go to the wilderness. It will take you a while to find what you're looking for and you'll likely come across a lot of crappy looking flowers, but it's a completely free choice.
If you want quality choices in a quick amount of time, then go to the florist.
Apple's app store is a walled garden. So, make that garden as good as possible. They hire "gardeners" for that reason.
In fairness I have an android, and it's worse there. Reviews are faked, and critical bugs or bad ui prevent usefulness. This is with both the free apps and paid apps.
I wasn't implying you were stupid, it just came across as a very shallow opinion based only on your personal desires rather than having considered the effects on the developer ecosystem. Granted I don't exactly know you or your background, so it was an unfair judgement. I could make my point without that line.
I don't disagree with you either, I know exactly what the app store is, perhaps where we differ in opinion is how harmful such a ecosystem will be.
I don't disagree with you either, I know exactly what the app store is, perhaps where we differ in opinion is how harmful such a ecosystem will be.
> I could make my point without that line.
Please do so in the future.
> it just came across as a very shallow opinion
I aim for succinctness where I can.
Please do so in the future.
> it just came across as a very shallow opinion
I aim for succinctness where I can.
> look anywhere else.
But on iPhones, you can’t. There’s only one App Store , and that’s the problem.
But on iPhones, you can’t. There’s only one App Store , and that’s the problem.
I totally agree, that's why they can push back developers and still have some supply. But there would be a point of diminishing returns I think, where you would see app submissions decline enough to be troublesome.
I face the same problem every time I buy mustard at the supermarket. Dozens of flavors to choose from and only so much money. The tyranny of choice is a small price to pay.
But the supermarket is a walled garden too. They choose what to put on the shelf based on quality and shelf space.
Buying mustard on Amazon is closer to the issue, or products where many imitators compete like meal prep Tupperware or water bottles.
Buying mustard on Amazon is closer to the issue, or products where many imitators compete like meal prep Tupperware or water bottles.
>But the supermarket is a walled garden too. They choose what to put on the shelf based on quality and shelf space.
Big supermarket chains are the ultimate walled gardens our modern society and it's crazy they've been allowed to go through with their practices for so long.
Unless you're some 400 pound gorilla like Unilever or Nestle, trying to get your product on a supermarket's shelves resembles a mob shakedown. The margins they'll try to squeeze out of you are insane.
Big supermarket chains are the ultimate walled gardens our modern society and it's crazy they've been allowed to go through with their practices for so long.
Unless you're some 400 pound gorilla like Unilever or Nestle, trying to get your product on a supermarket's shelves resembles a mob shakedown. The margins they'll try to squeeze out of you are insane.
>> But the supermarket is a walled garden too.
From my perspective as a customer there is no wall. I am free to go to any other market and pick from their mustard selection. Or I can grow and mill my own mustard at home. That would be like Apple allowing me to use competitor app stores and even install my own open source software.
From my perspective as a customer there is no wall. I am free to go to any other market and pick from their mustard selection. Or I can grow and mill my own mustard at home. That would be like Apple allowing me to use competitor app stores and even install my own open source software.
Or choosing a different phone, just like going to a different market.
How would you know the 10 apps are really the best options?
If you don't like too many choices then just stop looking. Why does everyone else on the platform have to suffer for you?
Even worse, searching for a certain high quality app and not being able to find it among a heap of low quality imitators.
> More choice in products is always better than less.
Not if your market gets flooded with low quality products resulting in the loss of consumer confidence in your market.
The 80s video game crash was partly caused by that.
But I suppose the effects vary. I’m afraid to buy from Amazon due to reading about the amount of counterfeit products in their store but it hasn’t dampen Amazon’s sales.
P.S. In certain markets like games, clone games can be a problem. It disincentivize innovation. Why work so hard tuning and balancing a game with unique mechanics when a clone with the exact same gameplay will just come in and take your sales by undercutting you - since they don’t have the level of expense you do. A walled garden can protect games from cheap knockoff clones.
Not if your market gets flooded with low quality products resulting in the loss of consumer confidence in your market.
The 80s video game crash was partly caused by that.
But I suppose the effects vary. I’m afraid to buy from Amazon due to reading about the amount of counterfeit products in their store but it hasn’t dampen Amazon’s sales.
P.S. In certain markets like games, clone games can be a problem. It disincentivize innovation. Why work so hard tuning and balancing a game with unique mechanics when a clone with the exact same gameplay will just come in and take your sales by undercutting you - since they don’t have the level of expense you do. A walled garden can protect games from cheap knockoff clones.
Apple's entire offering is that more choice is not better.`
> We will reject these apps unless they provide a unique, high-quality experience.
I looked around for the site thinking there might a web version. Can’t find anything. All the top hits just return articles about the App Store rejection. I feel Apple made the right choice.
Creates a race to get in first, even if a mediocre effort. Unless one can get in solely by being somehow higher quality than the other offerings.
Unless I'm missing something it feels heavy handed and less likely to produce a competitive market.
Unless I'm missing something it feels heavy handed and less likely to produce a competitive market.
There’s an old fable that the abstract painter Jackson Pollock would sit in art museums and watch people view his art. One day a man sat staring for a long time. After a while Jackson was curious what the man was thinking so he got up and approached the man and asked his thoughts. The man replied, “I don’t know why this is hanging in a museum, I could have made that.” Jackson replied, “yes, your right, you could have done that, but I did it first. “
Or maybe Pollock wasn't first at all at painting drips, but was first to realize people would pay money for it if he marketed it right.
What’s the point in adding more products if they are neither unique nor higher quality?
Is this an example of an app that isn't unique or high quality?
He should do webapp to penetrate market on all fronts, for fart-humour horoscope the sky is the limit.
apple should embrace the progressive fart app future already.
[deleted]
Yes, according to apple.
Who decides if you are unique enough? Some random, overworked, App Store reviewer who is just following a checklist.
Remember when Steve Jobs said the way to build apps for the iphone would be mobile web apps and we hated that idea? good times.
Shame that the astrologer could not predict this (tongue in cheek)
FireFox has "recommended" extensions that meet their "standards for security and performance." Looking through the current "crapstore" for quality is a huge PITA. Apple could easily make their walled garden actually good by grading the apps in their store.
(and yeah yeah - I should be able to sideload whatever I want, but this is a slightly different topic here)
(and yeah yeah - I should be able to sideload whatever I want, but this is a slightly different topic here)
Imagine putting on an effort for months and not even be able to put it online, literally throwing it all away. Developers are like oranges: when in excess, they are just dumped in a landfill.
How/why would a horoscope app take months to make? It sounds like a weekend project - especially if it was rejected for having nothing original or interesting to differentiate it.
I would think it would take a lot more than a week end to develop the necessary machine learning models capable of accurately predicting future events based on the user's birth day.
does this account for the time / cost / effort to join and learn apple's platforms?
It's not a garden unless you pull some weeds.
Ah yes, encoutered that one before, for my "Guesstimate" app. Shake phone to estimate development time. They didn't seem to like the idea.
This is troubling because the future economy will be segregated to corporate walled gardens with each of them standing as gatekeepers to a falsely free economy, under the guise that it’s a private network.
Couple that with a % of every economic transaction that occurs within these walled gardens, these companies are amazing capital and gaining political influence at a faster rate.
Couple that with a % of every economic transaction that occurs within these walled gardens, these companies are amazing capital and gaining political influence at a faster rate.
Poor apple is running out of disk space. Simply can't host another app.
On Apple's side on this.
The issue is the developer cannot put his app on another App Store for iPhone users. He should still be able to offer this app to iPhone users, but not on apple’s App Store if they so choose.
Sorry Firefox we already have a browser app
Sorry bank we already have a banking app
Sorry Democrats the Republicans have already done a politics app
Sorry bank we already have a banking app
Sorry Democrats the Republicans have already done a politics app
Why? Do you feel likely to be tricked into downloading this app if it were distributed on the App Store?
Nothing new, in Google Play it's not possible to publish another _____craft game or meme app. There are probably a long list of app categories that are banned or very controlled.
> We will reject these apps unless they provide a unique, high-quality experience.
Apple has a point. Otherwise I would not be seeing tons of Calendar apps on the App Store.
This looks like typical quality over quantity control here. Nothing to see here.
Apple has a point. Otherwise I would not be seeing tons of Calendar apps on the App Store.
This looks like typical quality over quantity control here. Nothing to see here.
> Nothing to see here.
Except there are no other marketplaces on which this developer can sell his app to iPhone users. That’s the issue. Apple has a stranglehold because they do not allow other app stores.
Except there are no other marketplaces on which this developer can sell his app to iPhone users. That’s the issue. Apple has a stranglehold because they do not allow other app stores.
[deleted]
We should also tell Google to limit the search results to just 5. That would prevent you from having to see tons of search results on google.
> We should also tell Google to limit the search results to just 5
Generic we shouldn't. But if Google decided to do that, I can't see how one could object.
Generic we shouldn't. But if Google decided to do that, I can't see how one could object.
Two sponsored ads, one link to a content farm, and two links to Pinterest. Probably not a lot different from what we see already.
Consistency is a major problem with enforcement of this. Let user metrics pick winners in the search.
But Apple didn't care. They don't give a shit when people clone apps and try to mislead customers by making apps that have almost the same name as another app.
Apple should focus on getting rid of scam apps and blatant rip-offs.
Who cares if there are 100s of horoscope apps on the store? It's not like shelf space is limited. As long as an app doesn't harm or mislead customers, I don't see why Apple should reject it.