Apple Reveals the Most Common Reasons That It Rejects Apps

Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random by Galaga88 · 2014-09-02 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's not enough fingers in the world to count all the awful apps that violate most of Apple's so-called "standards."

My favorite are the apps that have a string of words from other popular apps' names in them, just to muck up the search results. And they make sure to periodically change the icon to look like another app as well.

Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 01:41 · Score: 0, Troll

Yes, but the interface looks FAAAABULOUS, which is, as any homosexual can tell you, the most important thing.
Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random by stealth_finger · 2014-09-02 01:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

We don't iCare what it iDoes we just iCare what it iLooks like.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random by gl4ss · 2014-09-02 01:59 · Score: 2

yeah it's bullshit.
anyone in the business knows that they hardly test that it starts up without crashing and that's about it.
logging in etc - too much trouble.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random by rasmusbr · 2014-09-02 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

yeah it's bullshit.
anyone in the business knows that they hardly test that it starts up without crashing and that's about it.
logging in etc - too much trouble.
What they probably do, and I'm guessing here, is fire up an automatic UI testing tool that navigates through the app and clicks at stuff in order to provoke crashes and other bugs. In addition to that I would imagine they run the app description and the app icon through some sort machine learning system that tries to identify blatant ripoffs, re-submissions of apps that have been banned in the past, etc. Apps that don't pass these tests are looked at manually.
Again, these are my guesses.
They also do background checks on new App store accounts to try to tie them to people who have been banned for breaking their TOS.
The bad app makers are of course one step ahead of this at any given point in time. It's not hard to think of ways of probing the system by using fake accounts.
Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random by edxwelch · 2014-09-02 05:25 · Score: 1

Yeah, there's a lot of garbage apps, for instance apps that just display a single jpeg and game engine demos that have been repackaged. These never get rejected. It's pretty obvious that Apple is using an automated app approval system
Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random by BasilBrush · 2014-09-02 08:59 · Score: 2

Nonsense. The existence of apps that you wouldn't have approved doesn't indicate that there weren't plenty more that were rejected.
It's a fact that Apple has humans aided by scripts doing the reviewing. For example the reviewers sometimes catch bugs that developers never found.
In fact this new page on Apple's Website indicates that amounts to 8% of rejections.
Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 09:59 · Score: 1

They actually do nothing, really.
Especially when releasing updates, they usually approve it in 5 minutes or less.

When I was upgrading one of my projects to the latest XCode, it didnt actually work and I had to manually edit the project root file.
Due to this the upgrade was messed up and I compiled the final binary with the wrong flags.
Note that the binary submitted to the store and the one you run in your test devices different, so I had no clue.
The result was that it crashed instantly in any device, if downloaded from the App Store (but not locally in my 4 test devices or the simulator).

Apple had me wait seven days for a review and approved it instantly, it went live, then I instantly got hit with hundreds of angry emails from users (this is a quite popular app). I asked Apple to roll back to the previous version, they said they can't (really?) and asked me to submit an expedited review.
I tried, added some extra checks and debugged it a bit, even disabled optimizations, then I submitted the app again, with the same problem (I was clueless, it ran fine on all devices that I had!).

Again another week of waiting, and imediate approval. This time they refused the expedited review, because I did one just last week even though it was their fault they didnt even test if the app update worked (they only have acess to the store submitted binaries of course, so it would crash if they tested).
And since their system does not let developers roll back, I was stuck with an angry mob of users, plus lots of new guys who just downloaded an app that would crash at startup.
I literally lost thousands of users (and dollars) because of this, and was forced to remove the app from the store until I finally found out the problem two weeks later.

I would guess they actually cannot cope with the massive numbers of submitted apps and updates, and as such the review system is mostly automatic and/or actually only some apps are flagged for review.

Note that they are notorious for letting a fake Pokemon Yellow app reach the App Store top, while not even working (it crashed after the main menu or something).

When I tried to write an email to Apple about this, they said they would transfer my message to another section. Months passed and I got no answer. This was not the first time I met blatantly stupid decisions by them, if half of my revenue did not come from iOS, I would happily stop developing products for their devices.
Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random by rasmusbr · 2014-09-02 10:27 · Score: 2

Hmm.
Google play is down to about 30 minutes now between submitting the binary and updates beginning to roll out to users. You can do staged rollouts with stages of 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50% and full rollout in order to detect major f-ups on your own part before they reach most users.

License by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 01:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Also if they're free as in freedom.

Manipulated by apple by tuppe666 · 2014-09-02 01:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apple PR again. In light of good press from Microsoft and android simply having more apps. IOS is falling behind in both quality and quantity. Posted from a 5.5" phone

Re:Manipulated by apple by Rosyna · 2014-09-02 01:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yup, good news from Microsoft about Quality App Stores that never reject clearly bogus apps.
Re: Manipulated by apple by Jerslan · 2014-09-02 02:59 · Score: 1

And when Android copies some new feature the Android fanatics will conveniently start to claim that Apple copied them...

It's software, mores specifically OS software... Everyone copies everyone from now until forever...
Re: Manipulated by apple by UnknownSoldier · 2014-09-02 04:00 · Score: 1

> It's software, mores specifically OS software...
That's not the entire picture:
* Hardware
* Software
* User Experience
These days these 3 things are indeed similar.
> Everyone copies everyone from now until forever...
As Steve Jobs used to say paraphrasing Pablo Picasso:

Good artists copy; great artists steal.
Re:Manipulated by apple by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 04:52 · Score: 0

Be a damn shame if one day they actually rejected most of their own apps.
"usability" They are no one to judge.
Someday they will find out exactly how much politics and payola
are involved in this 'process'
Some soft fat fruit basket named 'apple-the-hut' is in charge,
and when he dies chocking on a banana, he will be sorely missed,
and the world will rejoice.
Re:Manipulated by apple by UnknowingFool · 2014-09-02 06:02 · Score: 1

Ah, it's tupe666 again with his nonsensical Apple bashing. You might have had more of a reasonable argument if you hadn't brought up the Android and Microsoft stores in terms of quality.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Manipulated by apple by Zynder · 2014-09-02 10:24 · Score: 1

Well that sounds truthy, but I don't buy it especially since you're obviously a Mac nut (your email is mac.com). I'm hitting 40 and my big fingers and crappy eyes have a tough time navigating my 4.3" screen so the almost 6" my Note 3 has, is an outstanding upgrade. Could the possibility be that people want more phone choices than one? Nah, must be because droids are that shitty.
Re:Manipulated by apple by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-03 13:19 · Score: 0

Gone now!

Uncool by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 01:42 · Score: 0

In other words, if your not uncool like all the other uncool kids you cant stay in the uncool crowd...

Eh, not quite by hsmith · 2014-09-02 01:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've had an app in the store for years now that requires a login. We provide two to apple to test (one success one fail). I don't recall the last time the accounts logged in (perhaps version 1.0.0.0), their last login date has sat the same for years. So, not hard if you get in and sit there to slowly change to something malicious.

Re:Eh, not quite by Wootery · 2014-09-02 02:14 · Score: 1

not hard if you get in and sit there to slowly change to something malicious.
Compelling point; I've not seen this mentioned before.
Re:Eh, not quite by Assmasher · 2014-09-02 02:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Dooood, don't make them angry. I had a hard enough time getting the damn reviewer to actually use the login (Apple/Apple.)
It was rejected TWICE in a row after 3 weeks of waiting because "it appears to require login account information" - despite a VERY clear explanation of how the app works and why you need to login and properly filling out the testing account entries in iTunesConnect, et cetera.
I started to think they were employing monkeys over there.
Just like you, every submission after the first acceptance - ZERO account activity on the apple demo account ;).

--
Loading...
Re:Eh, not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 03:29 · Score: 2, Informative

I have had the same experience. I have ALWAYS included login/demo account information and - no exaggeration - they have never successfully read the information that tells them how to log in. Always ends up something that I need to send them in a follow up.
Once they used credentials from the review notes that I included in a completely different product!! It was like they tried to avoid the information that I provided for the app that was being reviewed.
Re:Eh, not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 04:03 · Score: 0

I started to think they were employing monkeys over there.
Just like you, every submission after the first acceptance - ZERO account activity on the apple demo account ;).
How in the world did you ever stop thinking that they were employing monkeys over there. I'd say they've been infected with them for most of the last decade, like most other big companies.
Re:Eh, not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 04:56 · Score: 0

Well if it had nudes of Jennifer,
then it would not need approval,
it would be leaked anyway...
Re:Eh, not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 05:45 · Score: 1

We had two different versions of our apps rejected for exactly that. iTunesConnect has boxes for username and password, but some of the reviewers just do whatever the hell they like then reject it. The first app rejected because we told them to use demouser@example.com as the username. Our mail app automatically fills in the @example.com on the screen as you type, so naturally after they failed it we looked in our logs and sure enough they had entered demouser@example.com@example.com.
Later we submitted an updated version (we added support for other domains) and having learned our lesson, gave them just the username and asked them to select @example.com from the dropdown in the "additional instructions" section. Sure enough, demouser@example.com@example.com.
Re:Eh, not quite by TomGreenhaw · 2014-09-02 06:33 · Score: 1

That's interesting. They always log on to ours.

--
Greed is the root of all evil.
Re:Eh, not quite by BasilBrush · 2014-09-02 09:15 · Score: 1

If a reviewer had difficulty getting the correct username in, then a typical user would too. It's an indication there was something wrong with your UI.
Re:Eh, not quite by Tablizer · 2014-09-02 09:20 · Score: 1

To be frank, I think I would fail that auto-type feature also. Shortcuts shouldn't interfere with long-cuts. People do things out of habit and you shouldn't add shortcuts to disrupt those habits. If they enter the full email URL, then the auto-appended part should be parsed off internally, or better yet: automatically disappear once "@" is keyed.
K.I.S.S. often overrides saving keystrokes when dealing with wide or unknown audience.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Eh, not quite by Zynder · 2014-09-02 10:26 · Score: 1

Do I want to know exactly what kind of app the user "Assmasher" is uploading to iTunes?

Yeah, of course I do!
Re:Eh, not quite by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 10:57 · Score: 0

I'm very, very, VERY arms-length from this issue. However one gets the impression that the app vetting at Apple is like the customs & immigration people.
They look for signs of trouble or "difference". Anything that doesn't look right or sound right. If you or your app sound plausible and respectable, maybe you get waved on through. If you trigger one of their red flags, expect to get invited into the private room for some "special attention". Maybe you'll never be invited to enter the store, and you may never completely understand why or agree with the refusal.
This would at least explain the wildly different reported experiences from devs.

All about the brand by sideslash · 2014-09-02 01:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

I have dealt with App Store rejections on various projects, and it was quite a culture shock coming from the desktop development world. In many ways it reminded me of college. Giving the right answer is not important per se, but rather just providing the answer you know the professor/grader wants to hear. As a programmer, it rankles me for someone else to dictate major issues of app architecture that touch on quality in a debatable way.

But it's their way or the highway if you want to sell to iOS users. And yes, you do want to sell to iOS users. Android users never spend any money. /slight-exaggeration

Re:All about the brand by tepples · 2014-09-02 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

But it's their way or the highway if you want to sell to iOS users. And yes, you do want to sell to iOS users. Android users never spend any money. /slight-exaggeration
So to whom should one sell, say, an app for monitoring a wireless network or a video game in a historical fiction setting? Apple provides no public API for enumerating nearby SSIDs, and under Guidelines 15.3, Apple would reject games whose "enemies" are a particular organization (such as soldiers in a particular country's army).
Re:All about the brand by Theovon · 2014-09-02 02:21 · Score: 1

I don't know what your professors were like, but I instruct my graders to (a) do the assignment themselves for an objective set of answers (to later compare to mine) and (b) look for common "wrong" anwers and evaluate them carefully. For (b) there are three reasons why we might mark correct a "wrong" answer. One is that I just screwed up my work. Another is that I screwed up the question. And another is that I may have given a misleading explanation that lead students commonly produce a wrong answer. We also consider carefully how many people got it "right." A few times I have just dropped a question out of the grading and given extra credit to those few who got a good answer.
I suspect I put more time into grading than I "should" given tenure requirements, but I can't bring myself to do a shit job at teaching.
At least not intentionally. :)
Re:All about the brand by sideslash · 2014-09-02 02:31 · Score: 1

Certainly it would be unfair of me to say that all of my professors had a stilted and artificially narrow grading process. Some of them were very much as you describe and no doubt put a lot of effort into doing it right. Cheers!
Re:All about the brand by quietwalker · 2014-09-02 03:40 · Score: 2

I had the same experience.
I get the feeling that they're inundated with apps, and they have a minimum-wage staff that's probably working in some outsourced Pune office, and they just follow the guidelines, literally. They go down a check list - and the guidelines are more specific than what they're posting here - if it passes, it passes. If it's not on the checklist, they don't care.
So it's not about 'good design' - since that's subjective, and that's hard to write a spec to - or to outsource. Instead, it probably has rules like "Capitalization is allowed for the first letter of the title of the app only: Extreme Snowboarding is fine, eXtreme Snowboarding is not.". They just go down this list of rules, and as long as you don't break them, you're fine. Some minor subjective decision making must be involved, since an app can be rejected, immediately resubmitted, and then accepted with no changes, but for the most part it's just rote.
My guess is that, like everything else Apple, they feel that if they publish the actual criteria, they'll lose control of some of their intellectual property, or people will be able to game the system or something. They have a real problem with control after all.
Re: All about the brand by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 10:49 · Score: 0

You went to a shitty college. Every professor I had listened to the defense of an answer. Assuming the answer was defendable. I even received bonus points often. Only once did a professor not accept my defense and he told me it was because that was the only point that gave anyone a curve.
Re:All about the brand by Noah+Haders · 2014-09-02 17:30 · Score: 1

you're totally right about the ban on historical video games! Oh yeah, except for Valiant Hearts, about WW1. Coming out this thurs for iphone/ipad, made by ubisoft. http://www.joystiq.com/2014/08....

so I guess you're not right?
Re:All about the brand by tepples · 2014-09-02 22:14 · Score: 1

What steps Ubisoft take to avoid Guideline 15.3 in this case?
Re:All about the brand by Noah+Haders · 2014-09-03 01:27 · Score: 1

Idk. All I know is I played the game on ps4.

High bar? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 01:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Such a subjective phrase. Looking at the App Store I doubt they even begin to comprehend its meaning. For every semi decent app there are a few thousand absolute shites copying the function. For every blockbuster app there's a few million trying to be it.

Absolute rubbish.

"Apple sets a high bar." by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 01:45 · Score: 0

All the better to limbo under...

Bypassing the paywall by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 01:47 · Score: 0

I though the most common reason was bypassing the iTunes pay wall by using their own mechanism for in-app purchases.

Amateur hour by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 01:51 · Score: 1

What is this, amateur hour? Why does Slashdot constantly rehash the "reasons Apple rejects apps" topic? They've published detailed guidelines on this for years. If you're developing for iOS, read them.

Re:Amateur hour by Wootery · 2014-09-02 02:16 · Score: 1

They've published detailed guidelines on this for years
Yes. What's new is the Most Common part.
Re:Amateur hour by master_kaos · 2014-09-02 05:12 · Score: 1

If you actually HAD to follow every single guidelines, the app store would have almost nothing on it.
I recently submitted a book to the iBook store, and we were worried because it blatantly broke a few of the rules. We were going to correct them but thought, eh let's just submit it and will fix it if it gets rejected. Well it got rejected, but for an entirely different reason (some broken links that we didn't even know existed). Fixed those, resubmitted, and was approved.

None of Their Busness by wisnoskij · 2014-09-02 01:53 · Score: 1

Apple obviously does not deeply review each and every entry. Many of the apps would hardly even stand up to a glance. So how can they arbitrarily say that an interface is too complex if they do not even spend the time to learn anything about the app.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Re:None of Their Busness by angel'o'sphere · 2014-09-02 02:29 · Score: 1

If you have to learn anything about the app, the interface is to complex.
I on my part just delete those apps, I don't care how they came into the app store.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:None of Their Busness by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 02:38 · Score: 0

Yup. If you make an Apple user think, you have unforgivably pissed off both him and Apple.
Re:None of Their Busness by tepples · 2014-09-02 03:20 · Score: 1

If you have to learn anything about the app, the interface is to complex.
So in a Chess app, how would you expect the user learn what each piece can do?
Re:None of Their Busness by perryizgr8 · 2014-09-02 04:08 · Score: 1

Chess is not compliant with the Apple User Policy 4.3.6:

Thou shalt assume that the user is a dumb fuck.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Re:None of Their Busness by angel'o'sphere · 2014-09-02 04:16 · Score: 1

Why would someone who can not play chess download a chess app?
And: for that you have the help section. Or you simply try it, as a decent chess app only allows valid moves :)
Point is: a chess app that needs a menu or buttons or input fields to move the pieces is a fail.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:None of Their Busness by Pino+Grigio · 2014-09-02 04:40 · Score: 1

You aren't aware of the term "cognitive burden", with respect to user interfaces?

The basic idea is this: You want people to use your software, not throw their phone at the wall.
Re:None of Their Busness by meerling · 2014-09-02 05:40 · Score: 1

Some people "throw their phone at the wall" if they have to choose between two buttons.
Apparently some of them work at apple.
Re:None of Their Busness by tepples · 2014-09-02 05:46 · Score: 1

Why would someone who can not play chess download a chess app?
Why would anyone try a game for the first time?

If you have to learn anything about the app, the interface is to complex.
for that you have the help section.
The help activity is still "learn[ing] anything about the app".

Apple sets a high bar by NotDrWho · 2014-09-02 01:53 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Does that include protecting your cloud apps with basic security so that pics of Jennifer Lawrence's pussy don't get leaked?

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.

Re:Apple sets a high bar by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 01:57 · Score: 0

Does that include protecting your cloud apps with basic security so that pics of Jennifer Lawrence's pussy don't get leaked?
Most of the photos came from dropbox google drive and one drive.
Re:Apple sets a high bar by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 02:04 · Score: 0

Not according to Jennifer Lawrence.
Re:Apple sets a high bar by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 02:08 · Score: 0

most
Definition
1. superlative of many, much
2. greatest in amount or degree
Re:Apple sets a high bar by clifyt · 2014-09-02 02:14 · Score: 1

If you set your luggage combination to 1234, the same as your bank pin, don't be angry when someone figures it out.
That said, I have shitty passwords for a lot of services I don't care about. My flikr account was like a 5 letter password that I shared with friends. I, however, didn't care if someone saw my peen because after my yearly camping trip with my friends, it is usually the most reported item on our facebooks (only embarrassing when the head of your department comments on it).
Re:Apple sets a high bar by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 02:31 · Score: 0

Does that include protecting your cloud apps with basic security so that pics of Jennifer Lawrence's pussy don't get leaked?
Frankly, if you're stupid enough to put sensitive personal data in the Cloud, you deserve what happens to you. Lesson learned!
LMAO..CAPTCHA was "starlet"
Re:Apple sets a high bar by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 02:44 · Score: 0

While Jennifer Lawrence can't be considered to be many she certainly fits the second point in her being the greatest amount of herself one can possibly find.
Re:Apple sets a high bar by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 04:05 · Score: 0

Deserve it? No, I don't agree with that. The people involved in the hacking are clearly in the wrong, and nobody deserves it. Now, were the celebs foolish? Most certainly. You can say it was expected eventually that these cloud storage services would be hacked, and as such foolish to place highly desirable data on those "private" servers, but that doesn't mean the celebs deserved it. They were just foolish.

Apple sets a high bar by kick6 · 2014-09-02 01:56 · Score: 1

thankfully, no.

Happy that i did not buy an iphone by drolli · 2014-09-02 02:07 · Score: 1

Sometimes it's ok for me it the UI of an app it's not so great as long as it does the job which i need to be done right now. (e.g. importing/converting files formats, unusual calculations etc....)

No right answer by blueshift_1 · 2014-09-02 02:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I feel like this is basically the same issue as the "Displaying Top Apps" discussion from a while back. There's no great way or perfect rule to solve the issue. You somehow need to make it flexible enough to be able to work for every possible kind of app, but also strict enough to keep out the riff raff. You have to make some kind of judgement to help the user and the developer both... which at some point will annoy both parties. In my experience, it works well enough. Sure it could be better (and also worse), but it seems to do the job well enough.I just feel like by making them stricter it'd have plenty of seen and unforseen consequences.

Re:No right answer by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 02:56 · Score: 0

More importantly. If you decide to write a rule down and make it public. Enforce it as it is written, not when and as you see fit.
If you intention was to remove undesired elements at will you should write "We reserve the right to remove applications for any reason" and leave it at that.
There is no point in giving other guidelines if you aren't going to follow them in every case.
The best option is of course to write rules that you can enforce. That way you avoid a lot of drama and confusion.

The guidelines used to be paywalled by tepples · 2014-09-02 02:13 · Score: 4, Informative

Why does Slashdot constantly rehash the "reasons Apple rejects apps" topic?

To help certain iOS fans who frequent Slashdot (BB, SK, etc.) understand why not all apps are ported to iOS and why some people choose devices that run something other than iOS. The featured article states that most applications that Apple rejects are broken in some important way. But conspicuous by omission are apps that aren't broken but which Apple rejects for other reasons.

They've published detailed guidelines on this for years.

Only very recently (a few months ago) has Apple made the guidelines available to the public. Previously you had to sign up for the paid iOS Developer Program just to see them. That hurt people who bought a Mac and an iOS device to start developing, only to learn that the application's concept was in a category of applications that Apple completely rejects. That's entire sections of the market that Apple has made a business decision to decline to serve.

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 02:26 · Score: 0

Curious, one of the items in the pineight link is that you can't ask for email address as a customer identifier. So if you can't id a user by any characteristics of the phone either (like device id or phone#), how can you create an external unique key to id the user in case he reinstalls? i.e. you effectively can't build an app that references your external server to provide data to that app?
(obviously not an Apple dev here...)
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 02:30 · Score: 0

Curious, one of the items in the pineight link is that you can't ask for email address as a customer identifier. So if you can't id a user by any characteristics of the phone either (like device id or phone#), how can you create an external unique key to id the user in case he reinstalls?
Have the user create a Username.
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by Rosyna · 2014-09-02 03:01 · Score: 2

So if you can't id a user by any characteristics of the phone either (like device id or phone#), how can you create an external unique key to id the user in case he reinstalls? i.e. you effectively can't build an app that references your external server to provide data to that app?
(obviously not an Apple dev here...)
Correct. You're not supposed to. If a user uninstalls an app, ALL data relevant to the app must be deleted, including any UUID. UUIDs are keyed to a specific app install. There should be no way to uniquely identify a user across installs.
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by tepples · 2014-09-02 03:17 · Score: 2

Amazon, Dropbox, and several other web sites use an e-mail address as the primary key. What does the flow in the Amazon, Kindle reader, and Dropbox apps for iOS look like to create a username and associate it with the user's account?
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by Ronin+Developer · 2014-09-02 03:19 · Score: 1

If the reason you purchased an iDevice and subsequent developer account is to develop apps that subsequently end up violating the developer guidelines, then one is either misguided or overly wealthy (or both). There is nothing preventing a developer from creating an OSX or iOS application that goes outside the guidelines provided they don't with to sell within the walled garden. But, if you want to sell to users using the app store, you are subject to their requirements.
OSX and iOS devices are intended to be consumer ..umm...appliances. This is a different philosophy over Android or Linux-based devices which tend to have a more technical audience and customer base. More technically savvy apps are distributed via other channels to jailbroken phones or by installing from a 3rd party site (for OSX apps, mainly). You are free to sell those apps. You just don't get the floor or shelf space that an "approved" app gets or access to that distribution channel.
A complaint, however, frequently raised here on /. is how APP X is rejected but similar APP Y is not or why APP Z is simply rejected. There didn't appear to be rhyme or reason and the answers out of Apple left much to be desired. Now, we have a little more understanding of what it is they are looking for during the approval process. I, for one, would prefer a written report returned to developers explaining the reason for rejection.
People are still making apps for iOS and Mac with many being free or enterprise apps for a variety of reason. And, the target for those developers is the user who wants an appliance that gets the job done. iOS devices still appear to be the preferred devices by industries such as health and big pharma. Sadly, the fact that the days of the little guy striking it rich with a killer app (unlike something stupid like 'Yo!') are pretty much over. However, developers still are seeking iOS development jobs and they HAVE to have a portfolio to even get noticed. Consequently, the store ends up being filled with dollar store type junk as a result of this portfolio creation process or a result of somebody's CS class homework assignment.
What would be nice is if Apple provided a separate area for this types of apps (classwork and developer portfolio apps) and leave real, useful and commercial quality apps, on the store.
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by perryizgr8 · 2014-09-02 04:05 · Score: 2

So how would Dropbox work? New account every time you install? Kind of useless as a cloud storage app, though.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by perpenso · 2014-09-02 04:38 · Score: 1

Curious, one of the items in the pineight link is that you can't ask for email address as a customer identifier. So if you can't id a user by any characteristics of the phone either (like device id or phone#), how can you create an external unique key to id the user in case he reinstalls? i.e. you effectively can't build an app that references your external server to provide data to that app?
(obviously not an Apple dev here...)
When the app runs you can "receipts" for the app purchase and any in-app purchases. This allows you to configure the app as it was before the re-install. Basically the purchases, storage used on iCloud, etc is all tied to the Apple App Store account.

As for your server, I believe Apple lets users create accounts on your server. Don't recall the details
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 04:49 · Score: 0

I think the question is interesting, so wasted a point on an AC post. Someone below received a point for a good answer also, so it's fair. Remember that email addresses are dangerous things to use for numerous reasons. Having a unique User Name/ID fixes those issues without that much extra work, and removes the security issue of having a single account name for everything a user needs.
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by meerling · 2014-09-02 05:37 · Score: 1

Don't forget there have been devs totally freaked out for having followed all the "guidelines" that apple would tell them about, then still be refused multiple times because it "violated their guidelines", and apple refusing to even tell them what guideline was even violated.

Me personally, I suspect that they have a listmonkey do the preliminary check, then another monkey throws a dart.
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by vux984 · 2014-09-02 08:37 · Score: 1

Completely tangential...
The link you gave, to your site, contains "Disproof of Turing completeness"

However, the process of Pick-a-Winner is equivalent to Russian roulette. As stated above, Apple Inc. refuses to digitally sign a program implementing the rules of Russian roulette. But any universal Turing machine can run Pick-a-Winner. Therefore, a machine that refuses to execute a program that Apple has not signed cannot be Turing complete because Pick-a-Winner is excluded from programs that it can run. This makes an iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad without a developer license or jailbreak not a general-purpose computer, QED.
That's a joke right?
I mean first up, you don't have any actual evidence that "pick-a-winner" would even be rejected. The prohibition on Russian Roulette is clearly a prohibition on the "suicide game".
For example, there are plenty of minigames on the Wii that are mechanically equivalent to Russian roulette. Where players take turns, doing something (cutting a rope in a tangled knot for example) which is essentially random, until one of them is eliminated. I would be very surprised to see them rejected from the apple app store due to being "russian roulette"... I'd be very surprised if they weren't ALREADY on the ios app store.
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 10:11 · Score: 0

Easy. The person logs on. You know, with a username and password.
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by Zynder · 2014-09-02 10:39 · Score: 1

I read your pineight link. Curiously, what is the point of the bottom section discussing whether ithingys are Turing complete or not? It seems like that page is part of an argument from some other subject on a page that we did not get to read.
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by tepples · 2014-09-02 10:49 · Score: 1

It seems like that page is part of an argument from some other subject on a page that we did not get to read.
The Turing completeness disproof is actually related to recurring debates on Slashdot over the definition of phrases like "personal computer" and "general-purpose computer". I say something is a "personal computer" when the person who owns it determines what computing is done on it, and it's not "general-purpose" if specific identifiable purposes are forbidden. This includes a device running Android because of "Unknown sources" and adb install, but not a device running iOS without paying the recurring fee for the developer program. It includes a PC running Windows, OS X, or common GNU/Linux distributions, but not a major video game console.
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by tepples · 2014-09-02 13:17 · Score: 1

A Dropbox user using a Dropbox-capable iOS app for the first time has no Dropbox username, only an e-mail address. What would the user put into the username field?
Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-03 00:50 · Score: 0

To help certain iOS fans who frequent Slashdot (BB, SK, etc.) understand why not all apps are ported to iOS and why some people choose devices that run something other than iOS
I'm sure the former is fairly well covered in bitchy blog posts by developers of not-ported apps, many of whom (I notice) aren't really trying hard to work around the restrictions, and prefer to just whine. The latter is well covered by every non-iOS user here whenever an iOS story comes up.
Previously you had to sign up for the paid iOS Developer Program just to see them.
It's $99! See, this is why I entitled the post "amateur hour". $99 is not an unreasonable spend to evaluate a business idea; you don't need to buy a Mac or an iPhone first, and it's only wasted if you have like one idea total. The device has power constraints, resolution constraints, memory constraints, storage constraints, but somehow business constraints are unmanageable?
That's entire sections of the market that Apple has made a business decision to decline to serve.
That's another topic, but you must realize that they have fairly good reasons to forbid porn, excessive violence (which *allows* games like GTA), and WiFi hacking tools. Nothing that's banned is arbitrary. You may not agree with their reasoning but it's naive to pretend it's as simple as "failing to serve a market = bad", although of course it's the kind of black-and-white reasoning that Slashdot, and programmers in general, are famous for.

WHAT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 02:19 · Score: 0

Not enough lasting value

If your app doesn’t offer much functionality or content, or only applies to a "small niche market", it may not be approved. Before creating your app, take a look at the apps in your category on the App Store and consider how you can provide an even better user experience.

You mean Like Apple? i know troll hahahaha

And the reason I'll never go with an i* device by afidel · 2014-09-02 02:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

or only applies to a small niche market, it may not be approved

I've got android apps with only 5-10k downloads, but they fit my needs. One is Fulio Pro, a nice little application for tracking fuel usage and car expenses, the developer has been very open to enhancement requests and quick to respond on bug tickets. The guy certainly hasn't gotten rich at $10-20k in earnings from the paid app, but he's got some income and I have a useful application.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Re:And the reason I'll never go with an i* device by LordLimecat · 2014-09-02 05:01 · Score: 1

Well, he could always use a third-party app-sto......oh wait.
Re:And the reason I'll never go with an i* device by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 10:13 · Score: 0

So the reason you would never use an I device is because you have no idea what you're talking about? Sounds about right

Web apps instead by tepples · 2014-09-02 02:25 · Score: 1

Instead of putting an application in the App Store, a developer could usually create the application as a web application using Safari JavaScript. Web apps can even run offline now if needed.

Reading Comprehension Problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 02:28 · Score: 1

Most of the apps I have seen get rejected are due to the developers not reading the agreement they clicked through on their way to paying the $99 to publish their app. They develop something before they find out what is verboten and then get upset when the app gets rejected. I have been developing apps for the App Store since 2009 and have yet to get one rejected, for any reason. All the stories I hear are from devs that thought they could do whatever they wanted, use any API and get their app through. That's just not how it works.

How did iOS 7 get through then? by Assmasher · 2014-09-02 02:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

Talk about ugly as f***...

--
Loading...

Niche market by kthreadd · 2014-09-02 02:40 · Score: 1

If your app doesn’t offer much functionality or content, or only applies to a small niche market, it may not be approved.

Not long ago Apple used to be niche market.

Itunes itself violates good design principles by Fly+Ricky+-+The+Wine · 2014-09-02 02:47 · Score: 1

So that sort of undermines their credibility in judging other people's work on the basis of usability, doesn't it? Also, the App store search is essentially broken. They should get their own house in order.

Re:Itunes itself violates good design principles by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 03:06 · Score: 0

iTunes is not an iOS app and is not distributed through the App Store. Your comment has no bearing.

Truly Tasteless Jokes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 03:03 · Score: 0

Still don't know why the truly tasteless jokes app was rejected.

http://www.trulytastelessjokes.com/protest/

And the reason I'll never go with an i* device by nine-times · 2014-09-02 03:19 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that 5,000 downloads for an application that tracks fuel usage would be a "niche app" that Apple would reject. I think it's more like, if you released an app that was dedicated to the purpose of surveying Siberian tiger-moles for the purposes of determining fur growth and moulting during the leap-years, specifically in attempting to correlate growth to the frequency of solar flares, Apple might go, "Yeah, that could be a great app, but we don't see the point of putting it up in our store."

I think that it should be recognized that for all of these reasons that Apple might reject an app, they're probably looking for fairly extreme cases. Like they're saying that they can reject an application for being poorly designed, but I've seen plenty of ugly and cheap-looking applications in the iTunes store. They're probably just rejecting applications that are completely awful.

OS X has sideloading, unlike iOS by tepples · 2014-09-02 03:34 · Score: 1

There is nothing preventing a developer from creating an OSX or iOS application that goes outside the guidelines provided they don't with to sell within the walled garden. But, if you want to sell to users using the app store, you are subject to their requirements.

This is true of OS X but not of iOS, because OS X has sideloading and iOS does not. There are exactly three ways to get an app installed on an iOS device. The first and most common is Apple's App Store. The second is being an employee of an established company that is a paying member of the iOS Developer Enterprise Program or a student of an accredited university that is a member of the iOS Developer University Program; such organizations are allowed to run their own App Stores. The third is to be a paying member of the iOS Developer Program yourself.

What would be nice is if Apple provided a separate area for this types of apps (classwork and developer portfolio apps) and leave real, useful and commercial quality apps, on the store.

In high school, classwork is done on OS X, which allows sideloading. In college, classwork is done through the iOS Developer University Program. A developer portfolio should use a combination of three methods: A. having one or more of your applications on the App Store to demonstrate that you are familiar with the skill of negotiating with Apple, B. videos, and C. demonstration on a device connected to a paid-up iOS Developer Program membership during an in-person interview.

Re:OS X has sideloading, unlike iOS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 20:33 · Score: 0

You forgot about testflight, which is a very nice way to get emulators onto an iPhone.
From source on github et.c.
No jailbreaks, no dev license.
Re:OS X has sideloading, unlike iOS by tepples · 2014-09-02 22:24 · Score: 1

Until Apple revokes the iOS Developer Program membership of the developer who is abusing TestFlight.

another major decision criteria by guygo · 2014-09-02 03:40 · Score: 1

They forgot to mention the rejections due to the App Store reviewer having had an argument with his SO that morning, or had a lousy breakfast, or sat in a traffic jam, or ...

Fart App by PPH · 2014-09-02 03:48 · Score: 1

I figured once this made it in, it was pretty much 'anything goes'.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

ui consistency is very important. by resfilter · 2014-09-02 03:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

i have to hand apple one thing, about their walled garden. although i have some cool android apps on my phone, my wife's iphone is much more of a pleasure to use.

why? because, for example, there are ten thousand friggn' notepad apps for android, and i'm too lazy to find one that look like the rest of the android interface, so after browsing through a dozen, i just picked one...

click her notepad app, and it looks like im just smoothly entering another part of the iphone experience... ... click mine, and i'm launched into an ugly frenzy of badly placed wrongly colored controls etc with entry fields that behave strangely, and buttons with icons that i don't recognize.

when you have 1000 developers making 1000 apps that do the same thing, the only difference being how the ui looks, and none of them even match the rest of the operating system, you fucked up your operating system. that's android for you. nobody even knows what an android app is really supposed to look like anymore, and developers don't care, they're just off in their own little world with no taste in design.

graphical operating systems need fairly strict ui design conventions. period. they need to be breakable, but encouraged very strongly to the point of where breaking them for no reason makes your app seen as a peice of junk. this is apple's only real advantage in locking out outside apps, being able to blacklist ugly things.

i appluade them for attempting to force that kind of consistency on their device, not that it always works... no solution is 100%.

not that i'd buy an iphone myself, and you don't have to either. just sayin'.

Re:ui consistency is very important. by Daniel+Hoffmann · 2014-09-02 05:44 · Score: 1

"graphical operating systems need fairly strict ui design conventions. period. they need to be breakable, but encouraged very strongly to the point of where breaking them for no reason makes your app seen as a peice of junk."
Tell that to the oem and anti-virus MSWindows software engineers.
Re:ui consistency is very important. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 06:40 · Score: 0

Android has had a strict UI design guide since 3.0, and gets updates with every revision. The only apps I use which don't follow them are text editors, primarily because they tend to be developed by the kinds of people who don't give a rat's ass about design guides, instead just doing everything they could to shove a desktop text editing experience onto a phone.
Re:ui consistency is very important. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 07:42 · Score: 0

I've developed for Android and it's basically the same as iOS - here are some controls and here is your layout. The problem with Android is that Android has a huge variety of different screen sizes so layouts can be all over the place. iOS layouts are down to the pixel.
The second problem with Android is that they provide ways to style everything. So buttons can be green or red or bold or italics etc. Yes, you can do something similar in iOS - except developers don't. So iOS apps tend to all look the same and all the Android apps basically are all different looking.
And Android apps are more backward compatible. I can still develop Android 2.x apps and iOS everybody needs to be on iOS 6 or whatever it is now. So Android drags around a lot of legacy interfaces from apps that don't need to update.
Re:ui consistency is very important. by Fnord666 · 2014-09-02 08:07 · Score: 1

graphical operating systems need fairly strict ui design conventions. period. they need to be breakable, but encouraged very strongly to the point of where breaking them for no reason makes your app seen as a peice of junk. this is apple's only real advantage in locking out outside apps, being able to blacklist ugly things.
You mean something like this?

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Re:ui consistency is very important. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2014-09-02 08:32 · Score: 1

You mean something like this?
No, I think he means something that is actually followed... and possibly enforced.
As a rule, if you say "but there is a standard; let me link to the documentation" there isn't a standard.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:ui consistency is very important. by mamer-retrogamer · 2014-09-04 04:35 · Score: 1

Having a consistent interface is nice.
But what good is it when it doesn't do what you need it or want it to do? If you are an app developer, a software platform vendor, or hardware manufacturer, I don't care about your business model or how you plan to put me into a corner where I have to use your product -- and then use it only in ways which you prefer. In fact, the more you disable features and interoperability with other systems in the name of usability, the more I will avoid your product. I want a device to do what I tell it to -- no more, no less. If your leveraged synergies and pretty interfaces do not give me that, I will use something ugly which gets the job done.
Hence, no iPhone for me. And this is coming from a decade-long Mac user. (I fled Windows for Mac OS X when it came out as it was unixy, did more than Windows out of the box, and didn't limit what you could do in the name of product tie-ins. If and when Apple decides to apply this App Store nonsense as the only way to get Mac applications, I'm gone.)
Give me an off-contract, unlocked, rooted, Cyanogenmodded "phone" and (though not as pretty as a new iHotness) I can do more without the constant drain on my wallet. It's not that I am cheap (I'm typing this on a 17-inch MacBook Pro with a matte screen, for $DIETY's sake). It's that I refuse to pay for crippled technology.
So I have to be careful to not install a crap knock-off app with a bad interface when I am in the Play Store. Big deal. It's better than some corporation telling me that I don't own my hardware.
And I understand that most people just want a content-consumption device that does a few other things and is simple for them to use. For them, an iPhone and its mysterious App Store may be just perfect.

--
Schrödinger's cat is not amused—maybe.

Re: Posted from a 5.5" phone by DocSavage64109 · 2014-09-02 03:57 · Score: 0

Why stop at 5.5"? Wouldn't a 10, 20, or even 30" phone be more useful and impressive?

That's not a niche by SuperKendall · 2014-09-02 03:57 · Score: 1

There are probably 10-20 applications in the Apple App Store that do fuel/vehicle expense tracking.

I don't think you are understanding what a niche really means...

There are also many, many applications that have received under 100 downloads so it's not like 5-10k is anywhere near a small amount they would reject.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Sure thing, Apple. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 04:06 · Score: 0

If Apple wants to doublespeak their way to victory, then their old 1984 commercial is rather sad. Next they'll be telling us that Firefox and Chrome weren't "up to snuff" rather than them just being scared shitless of some healthy competition in their walled garden. Next they'll be telling us that the intentionally crippled version of webkit they force competitors to use "had to be that way to protect the integrity of their ecosystem".

Re:Sure thing, Apple. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 04:25 · Score: 0

Chrome works fine on my stock iPhone and iPad. Don't know what your problem is.
Re:Sure thing, Apple. by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · 2014-09-02 05:29 · Score: 1

It's not really Chrome, it's a Chrome wrapper around the Safari rendering engine. Not because iOS couldn't run the Chrome rendering engine - them's just the rules. Even as a big fan of Apple, shit like that makes me mad. Just not mad enough to put up with Android.
Re:Sure thing, Apple. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 06:47 · Score: 1

Apple's point-of-view is that app developers shouldn't be writing their own rendering engines. Coming from the western world of "Everyone just uses Chrome or Firefox" this sounds asinine, but you should see the sketchy-ass browsers popular in non-western countries that you probably have never heard of. iOS handles it's security by just sandboxing the crap out of everything, but the security of a browser is not something you can really fix with sandboxing. In fact, most Javascript engines work horribly or not at all without JIT, which is fundamentally incompatible with a no-unsigned-code security environment. This is why Safari on iOS gets special permissions to mark JIT'd code blocks as executable without a signature check, and why it's been the target of multiple jailbreaks.
(And before you act like jailbreaks are a good thing, keep in mind that jailbreak just means "we weaponized a zero-day to let you sideload apps". Every jailbreak relies upon the presence of actual security vulnerabilities which can be used to steal your nude photos just as easily as it can install Cydia.)

Blame FSF not Apple ... by perpenso · 2014-09-02 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Also if they're free as in freedom.

With respect to he VLC media player ... Apple didn't care it was GPL, the developer was OK with the App Store, but a 3rd party threatened to sue Apple so Apple pulled the app.

"The iOS VLC app was created by Applidium, a French mobile software company. In an Ars Technica interview, Applidium co-founder Romain Goyet said "The way I see it, we're not violating anyone's freedom. We worked for free, opened all our source code, and the app is available for free for anyone to download. People are enjoying a nice free and open source video player on the AppStore, and some people are trying to ruin it in the name of 'freedom.'" ... In a follow-up VideoLAN mailing list post, VideoLAN association president Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote, "With 'friends' like you, we don't need any enemies. If I understand correctly, the FSF new policy is to blow up communities?""
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open...

The FSF argues that Apple prohibits modifying and/or redistributing the app. That is a somewhat bogus argument. The binary is digitally signed, it won't run if modified or transferred to another device lacking the appropriate key. However the source code is available. A user is free to modify and distribute in terms of source code. They can submit their modified alternative binary to the app store. They can give a few friends binaries via ad hoc distribution. Yes, this costs money. The GPL doesn't prohibit things costing money, you can charge for distribution if you like and people are free to ignore your distribution and go to the source code. Nor does the GPL doesn't mandate a free developer environment.

Its seems the FSF has far more to do with GPL apps not being on iOS than Apple.

Re:Blame FSF not Apple ... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2014-09-02 10:48 · Score: 2

the developer was OK with the App Store, but a 3rd party threatened to sue Apple so Apple pulled the app.
This statement is bogus. 3rd parties cannot sue under copyright law. VLC is developed by multiple parties, some of whom wanted VLC in the app store & others who didn't.
Portraying this as Apple & VLC vs the FSF is a misrepresentation of the situation.

--
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Re:Blame FSF not Apple ... by jbolden · 2014-09-02 13:12 · Score: 1

Here is the problem
Let A by GPL app as submitted. Apple adds a provisioning file / code to it for the version that is distributed, call it A+. Since A+ is a derived work of A it must be GPLed. Since Apple is distributing it they need to GPL A+. But the source for A+ requires Apple's key. think that's where the copyright violation the key not the version of the application created by Apple.
BTW I'm a user of your app, replaced pcalc as my primary calculator. So thanks!.
Re:Blame FSF not Apple ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 14:00 · Score: 0

Then these authors should not have released their source code under the GPL if they didn't want it on the iOS App Store.
Re:Blame FSF not Apple ... by perpenso · 2014-09-02 17:20 · Score: 1

BTW I'm a user of your app, replaced pcalc as my primary calculator. So thanks!.
Thank you. Suggestions and criticisms via our support email address are always welcome. That is how products get better. Hearing what we did wrong is more useful than hearing about what we got right.
Re:Blame FSF not Apple ... by jbolden · 2014-09-02 22:45 · Score: 2

Oh OK well if you want criticisms:
Worksheets are too complex to use. The navigation isn't intuitive. First off worksheets should open in edit mode. The sample values in grey shouldn't be zeros but rather something like a valid sample calculation or the manual should have a walk through for each worksheet and when the user hits manual it goes to that page with a sample. I'm a pretty smart guy whose been using advanced calculators for a quarter century and I can't figure out how to use most of the worksheets.
Re:Blame FSF not Apple ... by perpenso · 2014-09-03 11:21 · Score: 1

Oh OK well if you want criticisms:
Worksheets are too complex to use. The navigation isn't intuitive. First off worksheets should open in edit mode.
Yeah, we've changed our minds about edit mode too.

The sample values in grey shouldn't be zeros but rather something like a valid sample calculation or the manual should have a walk through for each worksheet and when the user hits manual it goes to that page with a sample.
The built-in manual does have samples for the traditional UI, the buttons. Another set for worksheets makes sense, and an in-worksheet button that goes to the manual page is a great suggestion.

I'm a pretty smart guy whose been using advanced calculators for a quarter century and I can't figure out how to use most of the worksheets.
Thank you so much. This sort of feedback is great. Although we do apologize for our failing that made it necessary.

Bull-fucking-shit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 04:36 · Score: 0

"Apple and our customers place a high value on simple, refined, creative, well thought through interfaces."

I'm looking at you, iTunes.

impure by tverbeek · 2014-09-02 05:52 · Score: 1

Of course apps are also rejected because they don't meet the arbitrary standards of puritanism that Apple applies, or allow the user to purchase content that doesn't meet those standards. Such as digital comics containing male nudity.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/

Shit interface by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 07:08 · Score: 0

Contrary to what the UX shitbags thing.

Apple's UI design is shit and the interface is crippled because they demand that you to do things their way.

Difference between M$ and Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 08:34 · Score: 0

bigest difference between M$ and Apple?

I can actually buy software that makes Windows usable.

A-hem! Space Team is available... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 09:16 · Score: 0

Then why is Space Team in the app store?

My controls always end up with green goo, and are swinging around. Very difficult to use.

Guideline 15.5 and Turing completeness by tepples · 2014-09-02 10:24 · Score: 1

[The disproof of Turing completeness using Russian roulette is] a joke right?

Sort of. I've been trying to describe the rules of a few different games, and it turned out that Russian roulette and Hi Ho! Cherry-O are in the same family. I made a Russian roulette homebrew game for the NES as a quick-and-dirty test for reading the trigger switch on an NES Zapper. It lets the player pull the trigger to roll a virtual d6 and be eliminated on a roll of 1. The development process inspired me to make a pencil drawing of six figures gambling with a toy gun.

Someone else on the NESdev forum ported an NES emulator for Mac called "Macifom" to iOS so that the developer of an NES homebrew game can sell the game on the App Store by including it with Macifom in an app. My thought process might have been as follows: "Would Russian Roulette in Macifom be rejected? If so, why? What would need to be cut out? And what useful theorems can I prove from this in order to make points on Slashdot about iOS not being for everyone?" I guess the question becomes how much like Russian roulette a game would have to be in order to get rejected for violating Guideline 15.5.

#1 Reason by FuzzNugget · 2014-09-02 10:45 · Score: 1

Because fuck you, that's why.

The disenfranchisement of hobbyists by tepples · 2014-09-03 01:11 · Score: 1

See, this is why I entitled the post "amateur hour". $99 is not an unreasonable spend to evaluate a business idea

The disenfranchisement of hobbyists, the assumption that everything must be a "business idea", is part of the problem. Would you still be calling it cheap if it were $5000 plus a lease on a dedicated office, as it has been for several other platforms?

The device has power constraints, resolution constraints, memory constraints, storage constraints, but somehow business constraints are unmanageable?

I imagine that Slashdot users tend to be attracted to technical puzzles. Fewer of us are attracted to business puzzles, especially because of their frequent connection to the birth lottery (that is, inherited wealth) and the spoils of past anticompetitive behavior.

you must realize that they have fairly good reasons to forbid porn, excessive violence (which *allows* games like GTA), and WiFi hacking tools

The term "hacking" ascribes unwarranted malicious intent to the developers of MozStumbler. How should the developers of applications like MozStumbler "really try[] hard to work around the restrictions" in your opinion?

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Reveals the Most Common Reasons That It Rejects Apps

132 comments