
Stupid Apple Rejection of the Day - coneybeare
http://matt.coneybeare.me/stupid-apple-rejection-of-the-day/
======
ceejayoz
Christ, dude, they're asking for a disclaimer in the description. There are
true problems with the App Store review process, but this doesn't strike me as
one. Add the line and get your app in the store.

~~~
w0utert
Or just re-submit it another time and see what happens, try to negotiate, try
to get an explanation why this requirement is not in the submission
guidelines, whatever.

The people reviewing submitted apps are just that: people. They sometimes make
mistakes just like you and me. If you're unlucky an overzealous reviewer
looked at your app, or someone misinterpreted the guidelines. Could be
anything. Or maybe Apple simply changed their guidelines and you have to
comply, as an end-user I can see why Apple would want to include a warning
about battery life for apps that do continuous GPS tracking. Big deal...

------
jcampbell1
I hope this app is rejected.

> To fall in line with Apple’s expectations that iOS 7 apps always stay up to
> date in the multitasker, background GPS is necessary here so that I can keep
> the multitasker preview up to date with current information on the closest
> station.

This guy thinks it is a good idea to trash the user's battery so the app
switcher screenshot is up to date. Is this guy serious?

~~~
joeblau
Apple does encourage you to update your switcher screenshot especially in
gaming. This could be a valid use, but it could kill the battery and the dev
should warn users of that.

------
ctdonath
Apple has realized that by publishing strict rules, many developers will fight
the explicit letter of the law while ignoring the spirit thereof. Ergo,
general rules have been published but the reviewers have great leeway to
determine that a submission has missed the obvious point (ex.: a battery-
sucking background app _should_ at least inform a user that it will do so).

They're not going to explicitly declare exactly what is/isn't allowed to
perfect clarity precisely because written language isn't perfectly clear when
readers don't want it to be (ex.: USA's Bill Of Rights). Rather than get into
ongoing fights over what exact wording should be, Apple understandably opts
for a verbose but imperfect description of the point of their limitations, and
hires gatekeepers to make sensible per-case decisions on whether an app
adheres to the point of the rules. Wording of a rule may sensibly apply in one
case but not another, based on culture & context. User experience does not
decompose well into precise requirements.

If all it takes is a brief disclaimer in a description, and that disclaimer is
a fair notification to the user of some behavior that reasonably isn't
expected, then put it in and resubmit.

------
joeblau
I would rather see that disclaimer then download your app, install it, and
wonder why my battery is dying so fast. That is a problem that I had on the
Windows Phone. I downloaded a few apps and one of them was killing my battery
so I had to go one by one disabling each app every day to figure out that the
culprit was a GroupMe.

I'm surprised they also aren't rejecting you for the .99 cent In-App Purchase
just to remove ads. They discouraged that practice at the last Tech Talk that
I went to.

------
cageface
If you choose to be a sharecropper you must accept the landlord's rules. As
for myself I'm through with it and my future apps will be Mac/Windows/Linux
desktop apps. Mobile has a lot of potential but I won't bow down to the
gatekeepers any more.

------
iamkoby
Sometimes legal litigation forces companies to take extra measures and
describing the obvious is something that already was tested in court. You feel
that's obvious because you understand the tech behind it but some users (maybe
the less educated ones) don't understand this, and then they sue apple for
shorter than published battery life. By forcing you to include this label in
your terms it releases legal responsibility.

For absurdity in warning labels follow one of the most famous cases:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants)

~~~
ceejayoz
That case wasn't as absurd as people think. From the article:

> Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the
> company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's
> coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from
> scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

She got third-degree burns from coffee stored at an unsafe temperature.
McDonalds had ample evidence that this was a problem.

~~~
ctdonath
Coffee snob here. Optimal brewing occurs at 195-205 degrees F, and is consumed
soon after. Good coffee is served HOT, and people in general know this - yet
continue to demand it at the drive-thru, and continue to do stupid things with
it. Heck, the very existence of the drive-thru is a much bigger problem:
dwarfing the 700 complaints of coffee burns, eating while driving reportedly
contributes to some 80% of all automotive accidents, more dangerous than the
much-maligned texting while driving - yet there is no call to eliminate drive-
thrus for obvious on-the-run consumption.

Yes, people get severe burns by placing properly brewed coffee between their
legs while driving. This is well-known, and there is little to stop it short
of people _not doing stupid things_.

~~~
projct
"eating while driving reportedly contributes to some 80% of all automotive
accidents, more dangerous than the much-maligned texting while driving"

Source?

~~~
ctdonath
Google is your friend. (I looked for the authoritative documentation you'd
demand, but came a point I've got other things to do than preemptively do
research for the skeptical. Suffice to say it's widely referenced, if a bit
hard to pin down.)

ETA: I'd prefer research to snide retorts. I researched it to my satisfaction,
you research it to yours; comparing the results would be much more
enlightening than a put-down.

~~~
projct
Lots of things that are widely referenced aren't actually backed by truth.

------
wrongc0ntinent
My battery is not your playground :)

------
nathas
You're publishing to a closed system. Apple isn't exactly a paragon of
openness and acceptance. What did you expect?

------
cgtyoder
Don't you know Apple doesn't allow complaining about their decisions? They are
listening! IT KNOWS.

------
russelluresti
Reasonable request is reasonable.

------
hmottestad
It's like the Mafia, lot's of unwritten rules.

~~~
joeblau
All of the rules are written down. It's just that developers don't read them.

~~~
hmottestad
The whole article is about how there was no rule written down. Otherwise there
wouldn't have been a problem. He was following the rules to the point already.

