
App update rejected for mentioning iPhone XR in release notes - spatten
http://www.eod.com/blog/2018/09/rejected/
======
eganist
It's considerably rare for me to do this, but I'll advocate for the devil in
the white suit.

Imagine you added support for a device that's not out yet, that you probably
don't even physically possess (unless you're a heavy developer, and even
that's probably a pre-release model), but that you're assuming will readily
accept your updated app. Except when finally the device is released, it turns
out the support you added for the new device was imperfectly applied,
frustrating the experience of users everywhere who are used to this app
working just fine on other devices but not this one.

Now imagine this happening with multiple apps, perhaps because the developer
documentation for the device was an inferior match for reality, perhaps
because the documentation was consistently mis-interpreted, perhaps because
the emulation in development was slightly inaccurate. Whatever the cause, a
vast lot of supposedly compatible apps are very much _not._

Which product's image is harmed most by this outcome?

~~~
bfred_it
That’d make sense if it was what Apple says.

They allow anyone to say that their app is XS-compatible even if they never
owned an iPhone.

Their worry is _not_ actual compatibility.

~~~
masklinn
True, Apple's stated reasons are even simpler and more sensible: you can't
advertise compatibility to a pre-GM application or device. That's part of the
rules, and explicitly stated in the original rejection message.

~~~
ender89
GM stands for Gold Master I believe. Apple's concern therefore isn't that the
device isn't out yet, it's that it's not finalized, and they don't want an app
update to say that it supports something which isn't finalized yet because it
could change tomorrow (even if that's unlikely).

------
jarvuschris
This entire thing is based on the author missing and still never noticing
after writing this entire rant up the key term in the initial rejection:

    
    
      > Apps with compatibility references to a pre-GM version
    

Apple didn't say you can't mention the iPhone XR, they said you can't claim
compatibility with it yet... the author went through some great lengths to
play up the absurdity of Apple wanting to keep the model under wraps and it's
pretty clear that was never what they were asking

~~~
tinus_hn
Combined with childish behavior and trying to follow the letter but not the
spirit of the rules. A great idea if you’re being judged by a computer, a bad
idea if you’re requesting a person to re-review your app.

Why not just state ‘compatibility updates’ and nothing else?

~~~
jsjohnst
Because had OP done that, then wouldn’t have been able to write up this
childish screed I just wasted time reading as well as everyone else and thus
make a total arse of themself, and waste app reviewers time because OP can’t
be an adult.

------
frio
A fun read and on the face of it, Apple's stance does seem
obstinate/bizarre... but on the other hand, with my testing hat on: how can
you claim to support an unreleased phone? There's not even a cloud testing
service yet...

~~~
saagarjha
Xcode ships with a simulator for these phones.

~~~
threeseed
Simulator being the key point here. It is not emulating the actual phone
itself.

It merely translates the iOS calls into OSX ones. It is not accurate in all
cases and can be wildly off when it comes to performance.

~~~
pentae
In a perfect world all app devs would have 10 iPhones To be able to test
across all different hardware. Of course, that would be ridiculous.

~~~
tspike
It's even worse: one of each device for every OS version supported, which
Apple themselves make exceptionally difficult as it's nearly impossible to
downgrade to older OS versions.

------
SyneRyder
The same has happened to a few other developers. Luc Vandal tweeted that his
Mac app was rejected for mentioning compatibility with macOS Mojave:

[https://twitter.com/lucvandal/status/1042023268352512001/pho...](https://twitter.com/lucvandal/status/1042023268352512001/photo/1)

And Hendrik Holtmann said his app was rejected for mentioning iOS 12 in the
release notes - after iOS 12 had been publicly released:

[https://twitter.com/holtmann/status/1042062878965153792](https://twitter.com/holtmann/status/1042062878965153792)

~~~
lloeki
Hmm I've received a couple MAS updates already claiming Mojave compatibility
in their release notes. In fact I just updated Magnet, which does so.

~~~
SyneRyder
Yep, Luc's own app was previously approved with Mojave mentioned in the
release notes, then rejected later by Apple for mentioning it. It seems to be
the luck of the draw, depending on which reviewer you get and how strictly
they want to apply the rules that day:

[https://twitter.com/lucvandal/status/1042030087267409925](https://twitter.com/lucvandal/status/1042030087267409925)

~~~
lathiat
You can also probably assume that they sometimes miss things. Unfortunately.
Rather than just strict application of the rules.

------
kensai
"Fly the pirate flag, toss a hammer at Big Brother, think different — just
don’t violate Section 3.2 of the Program License Agreement, and communicate to
your users words that are on a billboard you drove past on your way to work.
Be a rebel, but somewhere else."

Savage!! :D

~~~
thirdsun
I just read some of his other posts - entertaining writing style.

------
yifanlu
Apple seemed to be very reasonable here—they reached out to the developer
sensing their frustration with advice on getting their app approved. Seems to
me that apple wants to help this to get approved by investing the effort of
calling the developer. Remember all the complaints about how apple doesn’t
communicate with developers? Seems like they’re trying to do better and I
never saw any angry app updates. I mean maybe the policy is silly but there’s
better ways to protest than passive aggressive release notes that would
confuse the users. I mean there’s a lot of disagreeable things Apple does but
is this really the hill you chose to die on?

------
Shank
Part of it could be legal. I don’t want to say this is likely in any way, but
the bottom of every XR page says this:

> iPhone XR has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal
> Communications Commission. iPhone XR is not, and may not be, offered for
> sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.

It could be that they aren’t wanting to imply that they’ve given out review
units or other demo units in violation of not having approval.

I’m not saying it’s super likely, but it’s also not impossible.

~~~
bfred_it
This is the only reasonable explanation. If they fail to release it for any
reason, they don’t want apps to mention a phone that never existed (especially
if, say, they don’t have the rights to the name)

~~~
village-idiot
This is far from the only reasonable explanation. The reasonable explanation
is that Apple doesn’t want devs claiming compatibility with a device that they
can’t have possibly tested on yet.

------
epaga
An extremely fun read, but the obvious "solution" to this silliness is to
simply write "added support for new display sizes such as the iPhone XS." and
call it a day.

But I appreciated a look into what happens when you start pushing back...

------
threeseed
> Clearly, I’m being an obstinate jerk

Yes. That is basically the gist of it.

Messing with low level, customer care team who are just trying to enforce the
policies really is pretty childish.

~~~
pentae
I'd suggest that the policies are pretty childish, and anyone who has worked
with the App Store before knows full well how completely arbitrary and insane
it is--this should come as no surprise.

The Author of the article said it beautifully - _I know that millions of
people are battling every day for their dignity and their families and their
lives. But, goddammit, this is a bridge too stupid, and I can’t cross it._

~~~
threeseed
> But, goddammit, this is a bridge too stupid, and I can’t cross it.

And I am sure the customer care person at Apple found this so hilarious.

This is nothing more than a refined version of the idiots on YouTube squirting
water guns at McDonalds cashiers. Because you know they deserve it for daring
to work at McDonalds at the first place.

~~~
pentae
Except McDonalds cashiers don't get six figure salaries to decide the entire
fate of your livelihood every time you order a burger.

~~~
threeseed
App reviewers don't earn six figure salaries.

From accounts it is a low-level, call centre type role. Actually not far off a
McDonalds cashier.

------
justinsaccount
And people wonder why many changelogs are just "Bug fixes and other
improvements".

------
megablast
I have noticed Apple has gotten meaner in the last 2 months in particular, and
this is from someone there since the beginning.

------
SuperNinKenDo
The author tried real hard to paint this as some weird Kafkaesque attempt to
keep the phone under-wraps, when really all it is is not being able to say
your software is compatible with a device that isn't even out yet, and which
you've done no testing on. The author comes out of this seeming slightly
deranged.

~~~
brod
I saw the humour in not being able to mention a publicly advertised and
software compatible device. I'm honestly not sure how you think app
development for new devices on _an existing platform_ works.

------
saagarjha
This is standard. For example, you cannot mention support for macOS Mojave, or
until last week, iOS 12.

~~~
p1necone
So what is expected then? Update your app to support it but not mention the
change in the patch notes?

~~~
saagarjha
I'm not sure, since I have no idea of the rationale behind the rule. Might be
because Apple wants apps to seem like they just "always work", rather than
requiring them to be fixed for each release? In any case, I've heard people
get around this rule with clever wording, as long as they don't explicitly
mention the new hardware/software. For example, "dark mode support", "full
screen display", etc.

------
disposablename
ITT: Apple apologists

~~~
megablast
Eh, it is just the way Apple does things, and people are explaining. You can
say they are wrong if you want to.

------
keyle
I love a good story where the little guy stick it to the big guy. The double
irony of this is of course that Apple used to be that little guy. In an
alternate reality, Steve would have gotten wind of this and done something
about it.

~~~
acct1771
Which Steve?

~~~
cuboidGoat
My theory is that Jobs' main task at Apple was to create theater to distract
the press and business folk, so that Woz and the rest of Apple's technical
staff could get some decent work done while nobody was looking.

------
mankash666
The only technicality protecting Apple from massive anti trust regulations
with regards to the store is that the iPhone actually isn't a monopoly in cell
phone unit shipments.

However, many economists have noted that app revenues (not advertising) is
highly skewed towards Apple's platform. When will a $100B app market stop
being treated as a feature of physical phone unit shipments, worthy of its own
independent regulation?

------
curiousgal
The thing that annoys the most about this is that he seems to hate Apple _SO
MUCH_ and yet he continues to be an Apple developer

~~~
p1necone
You're allowed to criticize things and continue to use them (in fact, I would
argue that you very much _should_ criticize things when they could be
improved, regardless of whether you use them or not).

Especially in this case as I imagine a large part of his income is tied to
releasing apps for ios devices, so he doesn't _really_ have an option to just
stop developing for apple.

~~~
curiousgal
My point is that the writing style made it seem as if he hates them _SO MUCH_.

