
Apple takes down another indie dev - epaga
http://blog.rollins.io/2014/09/30/the-king-makers-apple-takes-down-an-indie-dev/
======
millerm
It's plainly stated in the terms ([https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/))

Section 10:

10\. User interface

10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate
multi-App widget experiences will be rejected

So, like it or not, it's what we agree to if we develop apps for iOS.

~~~
karl_gluck
It's what we "agree" to.

As in, we have no other choice. They could write a clause that said your third
child must be named Macintosh and everyone would "agree" to it because there
is no other option.

That does not mean it's right.

Consider this: It's the late 1990's and the Terms of Service for Microsoft
Windows contains "10.4 Apps that create alternate web browser environments are
not allowed".

Microsoft has its pants sued off in court and is almost forced to break up as
a company.

I'd argue that Apple has far, far more control that Microsoft ever did, but
face no similar consequences for any of their anticompetitive behavior.

That's what upsets me about this.

~~~
kijeda
The article essentially chronicles surprise that this app would be rejected.
What you describe is you believe the terms are unjust. These are two different
things.

I may not agree with the speed limit on the freeway, but I am not surprised if
I am ticketed for going over it.

~~~
pgodzin
A big issue is that the app was approved in the first place. If I'm having an
emergency and a cop stops me and says it's fine to speed, then tickets me a
mile later, I would be surprised.

~~~
pflats
What happened here, though, is that the cop said it's fine to speed, and then
his boss saw you speeding a mile later.

I agree that Apple should have never approved the app in the first place. Once
they let it through, there was no good solution.

1\. Allow all widget launchers, which they don't want and are explicitly
against the TOS.

2\. Allow only this widget app to stay, giving it an unfair monopoly. Cue
kingmaker article.

3\. Allow this version of the widget app to stay, reject all updates. Like #2,
but worse in every way.

4\. Pull the app off the store; allow it to continue to function for people to
have it.

5\. Push the big red button to pull the app off the store and every phone.

Any time a flagrant TOS violation sneaks through, whether by App Review
oversight or by subterfuge, this happens. Apple always chooses #4.

------
bradleyland
It's as if history is repeating itself:

Apple rolls out new features/platform.

Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that
launch other apps).

Apple "clarifies" their stance by rejecting said developer's app. (In Apple
parlance, clarifying means issuing a firm opinion on their openly stated
policy of "we'll know it when we see it".)

Development community cries out.

Apple remains singularly focused; stringently enforcing their policies (even
if they are often unclear or inconsistent).

I don't mean to lay the blame entirely at the feet of the developer in this
case, but it's hard to argue that there isn't history here. Remember when iOS
apps first hit and there were a whole slew of "home screen" apps that
displayed things like the weather, calendars, etc? Apple banned all those apps
too. The reason given was that Apple doesn't want apps to usurp the home
screen. Apple wants to control that part of the user experience, because Apple
knows best.

> Instead, Apple is being Apple and aggressively protecting things that do not
> need to be protected. They do so with inscrutable and nebulous reasons that
> leave all involved feeling dismayed.

This is purely a matter of opinion. Apple feels that they need to control the
user experience. Just read the introduction to the App Store Review Guidelines
[1]. Apple's stance is really clear: they control what happens on their
platform. They've made some efforts to make the process a bit less lopsided
(the appeal board), but it's still crystal clear that Apple holds the reigns.

If, as a developer, you disagree with that philosophy, you have to decide how
to best effect change. I would argue that continuing to develop for the Apple
platform is about the _worst_ way one can affect change. Proselytizing the
developer community is a fool's errand. Look at the case of the larger iPhone.
What drove that? Apple looked at the market landscape and decided that they
could no longer ignore the trend.

IMO, your best choice as a developer is cast your lot with the platform that
best reflects your philosophy.

[https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/)

~~~
danra
> It's as if history is repeating itself:

> Apple rolls out new features/platform.

> Developer forges ahead in gray area (there's history here with apps that
> launch other apps).

> Apple "clarifies" their stance by rejecting said developer's app. (In Apple
> parlance, clarifying means issuing a firm opinion on their openly stated
> policy of "we'll know it when we see it".)

> Development community cries out.

> Apple remains singularly focused; stringently enforcing their policies (even
> if they are often unclear or inconsistent).

You missed the last step - one iOS version later, Apple copies the killer
feature it originally rejected as a misuse of the platform, and makes it its
own.

~~~
Zikes
Another missed step - Apple approved the "gray area" app in the first place.

~~~
cageface
That's the thing I don't like about this. If they approve an app in the first
place they should only then remove it under extreme circumstances. This kind
of nervous uncertainty among devs is bad for the platform.

~~~
sosborn
>This kind of nervous uncertainty among devs is bad for the platform.

Is that really true? This has been going on since day one and yet the platform
is thriving.

~~~
cageface
I wouldn't say the app market is thriving. It's been dominated by the same
gimmicky IAP games for a long time, is full of hacky junk apps, and noticeably
devoid of serious productivity apps. More and more prominent indies are
throwing in the towel and taking jobs, which probably means less innovation.

And usage stats show user engagement for new apps at half of what it was a
year ago.

Even a cheerleader like Marco Arment has expressed serious doubts about the
health of the iOS app ecosystem lately.

~~~
bradleyland
These two things can be true at the same time:

> This kind of nervous uncertainty among devs is bad for the platform.

> The platform is thriving.

It is difficult to argue that this kind of activity on Apple's part creates
uncertainty. Apple weighs this as a trade-off. What is consistent about Apple
is that they err on the side of the user; or at least what they _perceive_ to
be of benefit to the user.

That is what many of these disagreements come down to.

------
Someone1234
While I disprove strongly with Apple's policies, that article is hugely
apologist. They act like it is a peppy lone developer underdog stepped on for
no reason and it is an utter surprise!

Sorry but Apple's app store policies are pretty clear in this area. They have
also squished tons of similar apps previously (which was well publicized).

Plus according to the article Apple contacted the developer essentially saying
"Do X and Y or we'll pull you!" and the developer didn't do X and Y so
consequently got pulled. They say the developer "compromised" but the way it
is worded I have to assume it was a one-sided "compromise" (as in, he never
got Apple's approval before submitting an update that clearly didn't fix the
issues raised).

I honestly would have had more sympathy if the article wasn't so manipulative.
Now it has just got my back up and I'm more on Apple's side than the
developers.

PS - Apple's policies are dumb. I dislike them. I'm all for protecting user
privacy and security, but many Apple policies are essentially "don't compete
with us!" which is dumb when app installation is entirely voluntary.

------
illumen
It's right in the app store guidelines, you can't make an app launcher thing.
The guideline describes exactly this.

10.4 Apps that create alternate desktop/home screen environments or simulate
multi-App widget experiences will be rejected

~~~
smackfu
Which part of that is describing this exactly? Is this extension really a home
screen alternative? Is this extension showing widgets that simulate multiple
apps?

~~~
bradleyland
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Is the purpose of the home screen not
launching applications? Is there not significant overlap between this function
and that of Launcher? Shall we have a conversation composed entirely of
rhetorical questions?

~~~
squeaky-clean
The purpose of the home screen is to have a screen to constantly return to, as
a home for the device. This is a pull-down app launcher. You have to swipe
down to access it, and it's accessible from any view/page, not just a single
screen that you return to when exiting applications.

So no, it's not related to being a home screen at all. The fact that a home
screen also launches apps does not make it a home screen.

------
jebus989
> Apple takes down _another_ indie dev

More factual title: "Launcher removed from App Store".

------
garwahl
This is the world Richard Stallman predicted, and "we" [1] - developers with
the most power and the most to lose - are leading the charge head-first. I am
just old enough to remember the Bad Old Apple of the mid-90s, and this
nonsense does not surprise at all. Apple has had a good run playing the Unix
card; developers buy Macbooks in droves because "it's like a Linux that just
works". But just wait a few more years until the Terminal is apptimized away.
The waffling non-open-sourcing of Swift should have been the final clue.

[1] the only apple product _I_ own is a 2nd generation iPod in a drawer
somewhere. I still hold myself responsible.

------
cordite
As much as how cool the app may be, it does violate what apple's terms are,
which include making effective replacements of their components.

This is why "browsers" like Chrome on the iPad still use the webkit components
and it just adds password-management and bookmark syncing on top.

~~~
smackfu
Well, that's a different rule.

2.17 Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit
Javascript

------
jokoon
I think one day will come, OS manufacturers will be the only one actually
releasing applications for their systems.

Computers will just turn into consoles.

To be honest, apple just makes computers that work like consoles.

~~~
joelrunyon
Russell Kirsch (inventor of the 1st programmable computer) agrees with you -
[http://impossiblehq.com/an-unexpected-ass-
kicking](http://impossiblehq.com/an-unexpected-ass-kicking)

------
neilunadkat12
If it was against the policy then how was it approved in the start??

------
post_break
Remember when Camera+ used the volume button as a shutter and Apple struck it
down like they were literally hitler? And then Apple later incorporated it
into their own camera app?

~~~
nicholassmith
And then revised the rules to allow anyone to do it. Apple rules regarding app
design and development and what's allowed and what isn't are fluid. That was a
pretty over the top decision though.

------
akerl_
I wish the title was more accurate rather than going for Grade A Linkbait

------
kzahel
Stories like these are exactly why I won't even touch an iOS device. It's the
wrong app ecosystem for creative innovation and freedom.

~~~
qnaal
Good thing for Apple the alternatives are windowsphone and linuxjava.

------
peterkelly
If you call up developer support and ask if a particular thing you want to do
complies with their rules, they won't give you an answer.

I tried to do this when I was implementing subscription payments within my
app. There are two ways to do subscriptions on iOS, and I wanted to know which
one I was supposed to use for my app. The support rep I spoke to said I should
go ahead and implement one of them and submit it, and that was the only way to
find out.

Turns out I chose the wrong method, and had to re-do a whole bunch of work,
which could have been avoided if they'd just give me a straight answer. At
least I finally got it accepted - I feel terribly sorry for this guy.

------
dsugarman
Most of my friends making a phone choice choose the iPhone because it has the
'best' apps and apps come to the iPhone first. Most of my friends making apps
choose to develop for the iPhone because that's where the money is. I
sincerely hope that the open ecosystem wins in the phone market to allow for
truly innovative mobile experiences. I think we are well on our way to disrupt
the cycle, but only time will tell.

------
DodgyEggplant
Dave Winer (in 2007): “Sometimes developers choose a niche that’s either
directly in the path of the vendor, or even worse, on the roadmap of the
vendor. In those cases, they don’t really deserve our sympathy.”

As usual, it's all written in the bible
[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/06/10c.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/06/10c.html)

------
Simucal
I'm one of the people that bought Launcher when I first heard about it. I
often switch between one of several bluetooth devices and adding a link that
takes me straight to the bluetooth settings from the notification center was a
huge speed boost for me.

------
Fando
Eventually an alternative app market free from apple or Google oversight and
copyright infringement nonsense will come out. It's about time someone made a
significant effort to establish it. Such a market will be profitable too.

------
moeedm
"Apple enforces terms of agreement" isn't as bait-y is it?

------
Fando
Apple is slowly beginning to rot.

------
akerl_
This seems like a pretty clear case of "not obeying the spirit of the rule":

"On September 26, Greg submitted what he believed was a valid compromise: The
click would take the user to the main Launcher app, and from there the app
would call the appropriate action."

It's quite clear that while the code would no longer be launching another app
from the widget, the user would experience essentially the same action. That
he offered this as a compromise shows that he was deliberately attempting to
sidestep the rule.

~~~
smackfu
Does it really matter what his compromise is? His app is a Today widget app
launcher. Apple decided after initially approving it that you can't make Today
widget app launchers. The end.

I agree that the dev thinking it is a "valid compromise" is iffy, but I don't
think there was any compromise that would allow his app to stay on the store.

~~~
akerl_
Yes, and the iron grip Apple has on _their own_ platform's application market
is not a secret, nor have they been secretive about having an iron grip.

I am totally on board with the mindset that Apple needs to loosen their grip:
I think it's long-term-detrimental to their platform and it keeps a lot of
really innovative ideas out. And if this blog post had said "I wanted to do
something really innovative, but I can't because Apple holds an iron grip",
I'd be 100% behind the author. But Apple has the right to run their
marketplace as they see fit, and developers who sign on and expect that Apple
will not act as they always have, and as their ToS says they will, are
deluding themselves.

------
zghst
So many people here fail to recognize that this app essentially reproduced
some functionality and elements (quick launch contacts from multitasked,
springboard replicated) in the OS that could be confusing for users.

This article is another one of those sensationalized "I know best, Apple is
wrong!". I don't doubt that Apple makes mistakes, they are run by humans (for
now...), but this definitely isn't one.

------
nsxwolf
This is the first iOS 8 widget I would have been interested in using - but the
opportunity is gone.

------
Fando
What a terrible policy to have in place.

------
chrisBob
Does anyone know what happens to the money involved in an action like this?
Does he keep the sales from before the app was pulled?

------
skrowl
I know HN is full of Apple zealots, but even they can't defend this kind of
stuff.

~~~
bikamonki
One of them zealots being a downvoter, huh?

------
smrtinsert
Think Different.

~~~
peterkelly
Relevant Onion article: [http://www.theonion.com/articles/apple-employee-
fired-for-th...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/apple-employee-fired-for-
thinking-different,773/)

