My story with App Review

https://twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1274356729224892416

by egocentric • 6 years ago

175 118 6 years ago

greatgib• 6 years ago

It's a very nice example of Stockholm syndrome: "They are the nice big brother inflicting pain to devs and users and restricting their rights, and it's probably my fault if they are not nice with me"

smnrchrds• 6 years ago

I think despite gathering his courage to speak out, he is still afraid of Apple's reprisal, so he doesn't want to speak too harshly of Apple, lest Apple decides his apps are in violation and his account must be banned.

clort• 6 years ago

I am not sure that this app is for blind and visually impaired users, or for everybody but also useful enough that blind and visually impaired can use it (which would be pretty darned useful, for a keyboard)

If it were explicitly an assistance app, would Apple be in violation of any discrimination laws by refusing to have it in the app store in that way?

rbecker2• 6 years ago

Pushing for an answer on how one of my apps can have a watch keyboard, but the other cannot, they could only "discuss via phone".

What would Apple's response be if you started with "This call may be recorded"? Is recording without notice legal in any state?

ravenstine• 6 years ago

In California, it is.

333c2• 6 years ago

California is a two-party consent state[0], which means everyone on a phone call must agree to it being recorded before it can be recorded.

In general, many more US states are one-party consent[1], which means that only one member of the conversation has to agree to the recording.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...

pavel_lishin2• 6 years ago

I believe they're legal in any single-party-consent state, but I honestly don't know how that plays when the other person is in an all-party-consent state.

bryanrasmussen• 6 years ago

but if they say this call may be recorded aren't you consenting by continuing the call?

jeroenhd• 6 years ago

From what I know, the legality if this differs between state. In some you need consent from both parties, in others only your own.

Given their hesitance to official statements, I'd guess the call would be terminated immediately.

nanch• 6 years ago

I made https://callrec.app just for that. It records calls for you and emails you the recording.

I made it just for me, but it works well enough for recording outbound calls.

kmeisthax• 6 years ago

Limiting the question specifically to "can you record your own phone calls for your own use", and ignoring questions about what you can do with the recordings (which is where things like CCPA or GDPR would apply), there are two regimes which cover the vast majority of telecommunications law: one-party consent and two-party consent. (India doesn't allow recording at all, but that's because they're stuck in the Ma Bell era of telecom law.) One-party consent means one party - i.e., yourself - needs to consent to recording for the recording to be legal. The latter means all parties need to consent to recording. (Evidently "two-party consent" was coined before conference calls were a thing.)

About three quarters of the US is one-party consent but a quarter are two-party consent. California is part of the latter group and if any party to the call has California residence, then you need consent from all parties to the call before you can record. Yes, this has gone up to California supreme court. Yes, this includes all of the FAANG companies. So you would need some kind of notification that you were recording and for the person on the other line to consent to the recording, regardless of where you live, simply because Apple employees live in California.

(Depending on jurisdiction, there are exceptions for a party to a call to record the call if it has something to do with specific crimes, but "violating antitrust law" isn't one of them.)

ineedasername3• 6 years ago

I don't see the Federal Supreme Court weigh in on this, and without that I don't see how California can impose it's laws on people out of state. It's no different from any other law-- take open carry gun laws as an example. A state that prohibited open carry would not be able to assign liability to someone that open carried in a state where it was legal. It really doesn't matter what the California Supreme court says, they don't have authority outside of California. I suppose they could make laws about how such recording could be used if they entered in California, but not much else.

scrollaway• 6 years ago

Let's say you're calling Apple support and your call is routed to India (which seems to be under one-party consent), do CA laws still apply?

If the answer is "you're talking to an Apple representative, a company under californian jurisdiction", then consider the following thought experiment: If I'm on the border of two countries, and say something illegal in one, legal in the other; then I cross the border without hanging up and repeat the same thing, what jurisdiction(s) does this fall under?

cgriswald2• 6 years ago

I have heard that in a two-party state if one party says they are going to record the call the other party may record the call as well. I’ve also heard “This call may be recorded” interpreted as permission since it says “may” and not “might.” I’m not a lawyer and don’t know if any of this would fly, but it was interesting to me.

ineedasername3• 6 years ago

Depends on the state. But that opens up room for some jurisdictional arbitrage: an app that routed the audio of your call to servers in a state that allowed single-party permission, and record the audio there.

AbraKdabra• 6 years ago

These kind of tweets kinda defeats the true purpose of Twitter, why don't the people write a blog instead of making dozens of tweets? I mean, you can write a blog with exact o more words, you can express yourself more and make the article much richer, and then you can link it to your twitter account, it makes absolutely no sense to do what he did.

satvikpendem3• 6 years ago

Engagement. The majority of the people that such a blog would be shared with won't read it because it requires clicking an extra link. Tweets can be read in-line. Also, tweets in a tweet thread can be commented on specifically rather than on the blog post entirely.

reaperducer3• 6 years ago

Also, tweets in a tweet thread can be commented on specifically rather than on the blog post entirely

So it's like a college lecture where the professor stops after each sentence and has to answer questions from the audience. Pretty much the opposite of communication.

reaperducer3• 6 years ago

why don't the people write a blog instead of making dozens of tweets

I agree. And it's why I didn't read his screed once I saw that it was a whole series of tweets.

In the spirit of tl;dr, I propose "tr;dr" - Tweet rant; didn't read.

aspenmayer• 6 years ago

I wish these kinds of complaints were considered off-topic on HN, for the same reason paywall complaints are, because they are detracting from the content in an entirely obvious, predicable, uninteresting way. There are apps to summarize tweets to help them to be more legible for those who prefer that.

It makes sense to use Twitter to reach his Twitter followers. That’s reason enough to use Twitter.

satvikpendem3• 6 years ago

I do want to see less pedantry about the medium and more discussion (and if that includes pedantry, so be it) about the message itself.

ezoe• 6 years ago

The moral is, don't relies on Platform vendor's official distribution system as a sole way to distribute your software. If that platform doesn't allow you to distribute the software outside of it, don't bother to support such a platform. You have been lost already. Don't waste your time on dealing with such hideous non-free platform.

close042• 6 years ago

I understand the sentiment but there's a reason developers still flock o develop for Apple and Google even under these conditions. Despite the restrictive nature of the app stores they're the only chance most small developers have of ever reaching a wide enough paying audience.

Many apps are pretty much just a feature bolted onto the OS and could easily be shipped by Apple or Google as an integral part of the OS thus taking the whole reason foe that app's existence. So for many devs the whole income stream depends on Apple or Google far more than just by using their app store.

AndrewDucker• 6 years ago

I'm not sure why you included Google there, as you can install on Android without going through their store. You just have to confirm that you're really sure you want to.

saagarjha• 6 years ago

I live in a country that has been know to conduct extrajudicial assassinations. Should I simply renounce my citizenship and go live on an offshore platform or work towards getting them to stop doing that?

buboard• 6 years ago

It's the Voice v Exit dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty

SV_BubbleTime• 6 years ago

But getting it on the store has been one of the most difficult, non-technical obstacles I've had to overcome, and this was only one of many other hoops I've had to go through.

We were very careful in our app to not push the boundaries at all. Nothing even remotely outside the norm for this very reason.

Now... contrast this “code chilling effect” with how great innovations have happened. Apple is clearly preventing any App company from ever having the same opportunity that Apple themselves had.

Bad moves I think.

jedberg14• 6 years ago

It seems like a simple law could fix this:

Phone device makers that provide an application store must also allow the user to load non-approved applications with equivalent API access to approved applications, and must make it possible for the user to load a third-party application store with equivalent access to the first-party application store.

anchpop• 6 years ago

I would like this to be extended to game consoles and any other kind of personal computing device, too! Although phones are clearly the most egregious example, game console manufacturers create a weird two-party market where they subsidize the purchase of the console so they can rent-seek off the larger playerbase by taking a cut of game sales.

jedberg14• 6 years ago

Excellent point. It should probably apply to any hardware where you can load applications. There should always be a way for a user to load their own applications.

threeseed8• 6 years ago

That would completely destroy the gaming console market.

Nintendo would largely be fine. Sony and Microsoft however would be forced into anti-consumer practices like putting advertising everywhere and selling your data. Not to mention a complete consolidation of the studios where most games would be made by Sony Studios and only sold on the Sony app store.

013a• 6 years ago

Game consoles don't have the kind of monopoly market that smartphone makers have. Firstly, because smartphones have evolved to become a generally indispensable item for most people, whereas game consoles don't have the same broad appeal and necessity. But also, secondly, game developers don't feel the same impetus to release on any individual platform, including the most popular closed-down platform, PS4. On the contrary, most games are released as exclusives, or otherwise intentionally limit their release platforms to ease engineering burden (example: Hollow Knight Silksong, an upcoming indie game from the very small Team Cherry (3 people last I checked), is intentionally only releasing on Steam and Switch at launch because supporting PS and Xbox is too difficult).

Valorant will do fine despite not being on PS4 or Xbox. Halo Infinite will do fine despite not being on PS4. The Last of Us II will do fine despite not being on Xbox or PC. This is the story for practically every game; net revenue from a specific title rarely increases enough to compensate for the additional effort of supporting a new platform, especially when platform exclusivity checks come in to play.

Speaking on platform exclusivity checks: They're an indispensable part of the industry and the production process for new games. Naughty Dog starts working on TLOU2 six years ago; they don't start seeing revenue from it until yesterday, after multiple delays and setbacks. Where does the money come from to pay developers until then? The publisher, which most commonly nowadays, is also a platform holder. Where does their money come from? The most sustainable, long-term revenue source is a storefront cut for already released games; Sony's 30% on every game funds Naughty Dog's development team.

What about the 70% from, say, the first Last of Us? Sure, that forms a critical component, but unless you're a studio that can consistently release mega-hit after mega-hit, that money will dry up. There are maybe 10 studios out there who can do this (Naughty Dog is one of them, so imagine we're instead talking about, lets say, Remedy with their recent game Control). In other words, this is investing in individual stocks versus market indices; the 30% cut from every game is more sustainable than the 70% cut from individual games, because not every game releases to massive success. Think Mass Effect Andromeda, No Mans Sky, Fallout 76, etc.

Take Fortnite; it funded Epic's ability to launch the Epic Games Store, and write exclusivity checks to companies like Remedy to secure Control. While I do believe Epic is being honest when they push their 12/88% revenue split and shit on Steam for their 30/70, lets be realistic: Fortnite enables them to do it, not morality. Epic paid $10M for Control [1]. Sony also paid some undisclosed amount for PS4-exclusive content, though the game also released on Xbox. Would Control exist, at least in its current awesome form, without those massive checks? Absolutely not. At best, development would have had to been rushed, or specific nice-to-haves would have been cut. At worst, who knows. But Remedy's previous release, Quantum Break (2016), was a keystone exclusive release for Xbox One, for which they likely also paid millions upfront, and it did not perform well.

Now, what you may be thinking is, what about companies like EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, the "AAA third party studios". Yet, even these companies get huge checks from Sony and Microsoft. Sony paid Activision what was likely several million dollars for 1 year PS4 exclusivity on a multiplayer mode for Modern Warfare. Red Dead 2 had exclusive PS4 content at launch. When Destiny 2 releases a new map, it at least used to come to PS4 before anyone else. Xbox likely cut a special deal with EA for Access exclusivity on Xbox for years. Every company out there gets checks from these platforms at some point.

When Apple takes its 30%, app developers see none of it. But, with game consoles, to some significant degree that 30% is paying into a a bank account that you may, at some point in the future, be able to withdraw from if you promise a platform holder a bit (or a lot) of exclusive content. The hardware is a loss-leader. The subscription services (XBLG, PSN+, Game Pass) contribute some, but a lot of that money is already earmarked. That 30% cut is critical. The games industry is far more of a cycle than the App Store, and hurting the platform holders' ability to push this cycle along would have huge, unpredictable ramifications for the industry. Its not all good, but its far more necessary than Apple's 30% cut.

[1] https://www.pcgamer.com/epic-paid-dollar1045-million-for-con...

Sargos• 6 years ago

It seems very common sense. I don't even know what the argument would be against this measure as it's completely optional for users and neutralizes censorship and anti-trust concerns. Seems like a win-win for both consumers and the platforms.

JoshTriplett• 6 years ago

I don't even know what the argument would be against this measure

While I do absolutely agree that sideloading should be possible, I do know that many phishing/security scams involve (or used to involve) installing a sideloaded application. It should be easy to install a sideloaded application if you understand the implications (and maintain the same protection that ensures you know what permissions you're granting the application), but it should not be easy to accidentally or unknowingly install a sideloaded application. Maintaining that distinction is a challenge; it's important enough to be worth doing, though.

jedberg14• 6 years ago

I don't even know what the argument would be against this measure

The standard argument is that non-approved applications could damage the device, which the device maker would then be on the hook for fixing. This feels like a weak argument to me, given that PC makers have been dealing with this for 30+ years.

alexashka• 6 years ago

Apple and Google accountants would like to have a word with you in regards to this win-win you're imagining.

If you think these mega-corps haven't done the math and decided it's more profitable to lobby and skim 30% off everyone vs not skim and avoid having to pay lobbyists and lawyers, you are being naive.

graeme• 6 years ago

Wouldn’t this lead to intense efforts to install malware and scams?

jedberg14• 6 years ago

Probably. Just like on your PC. But I'm not sure that is a good reason not to have it. We've put mitigations in place on the PC.

439202• 6 years ago

The fact that most mobile platforms are sandboxed would help a lot to mitigate this - even if you do install a malicious app, the damage it can do is going to be fairly limited in most cases.

(And the platforms that don't have effective sandboxing need to implement it, regardless of whether they allow outside apps or not).

rajlego• 6 years ago

I thought you could already do this on iOS? I can’t remember where I saw it but I could’ve sworn you can without jailbreak

jedberg14• 6 years ago

You cannot. You can kind of do it if you pay for a developer account and can get the source code and compile it yourself and sign it yourself. You can also install Testflight which allows someone (with a developer account) to distribute a limited number of copies.

But you can't just go online and download an app.

eqtn• 6 years ago

You can kinda do it using altstore.

jsjohnst2• 6 years ago

Despite sibling comment implying otherwise incorrectly, there are multiple ways to install non-app store approved apps.

1) you can sign an app for your device and run it without paying Apple anything for 7 days. After 7 days you have to do it again. Not convenient in the slightest, but still possible for free.

2) you can pay Apple $99/year for a paid dev account and the 7 day window extends to 365 days.

Neither of those above options require source code, somebody else could’ve compiled the app, you just need to sign it.

3) TestFlight allows installation without full App Store review and builds expire after 60 days (or is it 90, I forget?). I believe the cap of “limited people” sibling referred to is 10,000 these days, but I could be wrong. iSH is an example of a popular app using this route.

4) Corporations can sign up for an enterprise account for $299/year. This allows signing apps similarish to option 2 above, but for a virtually unlimited number of devices. The apps are required by policy to not be distributed to the general public though.

michaelt2• 6 years ago

That would be better than nothing, but wouldn't the alternative app stores end up being vimeo to Apple's youtube? With every developer needing to obey Apple's policies and get into their store if they want to make a living from their work?

jedberg14• 6 years ago

My assumption is that it would force apple to have better and more transparent policies.

For example, if every app that didn't like the 30% cut rule went to another app store that didn't have that rule, that other app store would either get really popular or Apple would be forced to change their fee structure.

glogla• 6 years ago

Might be, but it might be Epic and Humble Stores to Apple's Steam.

ntsplnkv23• 6 years ago

In general I am against legislation like this. There are plenty of areas for remediation for a rejected app. You can offer on competing platforms (Android), or offer a web-app which is usable on an iPhone. Or you can follow the rules of the app store. Those are 3 perfectly viable options.

We have a tendency to view anything that goes against "us" as unfair. I don't see anything that Apple is doing that is anti-competitive, and don't see why legislation is necessary.

jedberg14• 6 years ago

A standard legal test is: "are the alternatives equivalent". The three options you provide are not at all equivalent. That makes it anti-competitive.

Android isn't the same as Apple. They also have their own rules.

A web app doesn't have the same level of access as a native app.

The rules of the app store are unfair and aren't applied equally to everyone.

scarface747• 6 years ago

Apple ‘s APIs also require access to Apple’s infrastructure - like CloudKit and notifications that go through their infrastructure.

TedDoesntTalk4• 6 years ago

My app has been repeatedly rejected because I do not offer free in-app trials (but offer money-back guarantee on my website) and also do not offer in-apps purchases.

I asked if I offered in-app purchases, would the app be approved?

No, since I offer 3-day money-back guarantee on website-based purchses, I must ALSO offer a free trial in the app.

But I don’t want to offer free trials. I’m ok offering a 3-day money-back guarantee, but Apple says that’s not an option for apps.

They insist that I (1) change my business model from 3-day money back guarantee to free trial and (2) purchase a shit ton more infrastructure to handle the audience that free trials attract (I’ve tried free trial business model and it created a lot of use but no more revenue than 3-day money back guarantee). The money-back guarantee seems to weed out a lot of free loaders, at least in this domain — not necessarily others.

drchiu• 6 years ago

Is yours a b2c or b2b app? Been following all this closely because we were thinking of developing a mobile client for our b2b SAAS.

TedDoesntTalk4• 6 years ago

It's targeted for both audiences. There is a large b2b customer base but also a large b2c customer base. Sorry I dont have a more clear answer for you. I'm not sure if apple interpreted it as b2b to b2c, or if they even care. My guess, after spending months in this review process with 2 different reviewers and multiple rejected submissions and tens of thousands of dollars invested in app development, is they don't look at such things as b2b or b2c.

threeseed8• 6 years ago

You say that Apple is demanding you change your business model but actually you're demanding that Apple accomodate yours.

If someone buys your app and doesn't like it then how do they know about the money back guarantee ? Because depending on how visibly you communicate that to the user at best you could make it hard for users to know about it and at worst you could be flat out being deceptive.

Either way Apple takes on the significant chargeback risk for your app which is far more concerning for them than whatever revenue they get.

jedberg14• 6 years ago

Either way Apple takes on the significant chargeback risk for your app which is far more concerning for them than whatever revenue they get.

Gee, if only there was a way for the person to signup directly on the app maker's site, where they would assume all the risk...

oauea3• 6 years ago

Oh sod off. Apple is the one who decided that the only way for users to install apps is through the Apple store. Once they open that up your argument might have some merit.

brailsafe• 6 years ago

This is just how buying stuff works typically. You buy it, and if you don't like it, you return it.

nodamage5• 6 years ago

Here's the thing: why should anyone trust that you will actually honor this 3-day money back guarantee, or that even if you honor it now that you will continue to honor it in the future? Part of the benefit of the App Store payment system is that it puts the user in control of their trials and subscriptions and lets them easily manage, cancel, and request refunds in a way that is guaranteed. But if your refund form magically disappeared one day, no one would have any recourse against that.

bradgessler3• 6 years ago

They would have recourse; it’s called a chargeback. If you pay with a credit card and a merchant rips you off or does something devious with your payments, you dispute the charge with your bank. It’s a huge pain for a merchant to deal with chargebacks, so this really wouldn’t be a real problem.

That overhead costs the business and the consumer about 2% in fees compared to Apple’s 30%.

I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut for all cases. Businesses will just mark up the price of their product and pass the costs on to the consumer. The only party that wins is Apple, so I guess if you own $AAPL you’d defend the cut.

scarface747• 6 years ago

And you don’t see a problem with this? The entire purpose Of the App Store is that you shouldn’t have to trust every random developer.

londons_explore• 6 years ago

I assume the policy is based on the fact someone at Apple has decided that keyboards on the Apple Watch can never be designed to have a satisfactory user experience, therefore all watch keyboards are banned.

However OP's app is grandfathered in, but when he tries to make other similar apps, they aren't allowed.

bredren• 6 years ago

Apple felt this way about web pages on Apple Watch also. But I believe they have since relented.

caiobegotti• 6 years ago

The more people speak up about these situations the faster they will be fixed permanently to avoid a neverending flow of PR nightmares.

agelefthe• 6 years ago

Well said

My story with App Review

Related Stories