
My App Is Dead in the Water - stan503
https://medium.com/@mds6058/my-app-is-dead-in-the-water-93a97a137eff
======
rumori
I've checked couple of popular apps on the App Store and here are my findings:

\- Twitter: uses SFSafariViewController

\- Reddit: uses custom in-app web view, shows page title and url on top,
provides "open in Safari" option through share button

\- Instagram: uses custom in-app web view, shows page title and url on top,
provides the built in share-sheet, interestingly disabling open in Safari, but
enabling "Add to Reading list"

Your current app on the App Store embeds third party content in an in-app web
view, without showing the title or original URL on top and without being able
to open the link in Safari.

I suggest you to either use SFSafariViewController for the third party content
or mimic something similar with a proper title bar and and share button with
Open in Safari option.

~~~
elliekelly
One key difference (from a legal perspective, rather than a developer
perspective) is that all of the above apps _first_ display user commentary and
the user is then given the option to open the link to read the entire article.
This is an important distinction under the fair use doctrine:
[https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-
fa...](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html)

~~~
gnicholas
How does it make a difference from a legal perspective? I am a former lawyer
and can't see how any of this matters. I have thought about this deeply in the
past (dealing with the same issue for another app), and talked with IP lawyer
friends, and we cannot determine what basis Apple has for singling out apps
that are essentially specialized web browsers.

I'm happy to be enlightened on why this practice makes sense, but so far I've
come up with nothing.

~~~
elliekelly
The Fair Use Doctrine allows someone to share copyrighted material for a
limited and "transformative" purpose. Typically "transformative" falls into
one of two buckets: parody or commentary/criticism. Reddit, Twitter, Facebook
and Instagram all display the entire news article within their app _only
after_ it has been presented alongside the poster's commentary. OP's Hacker
News Zero app does it the other way around. Click on the link and you're taken
directly to the news article and, if you then choose, you can select the
"comments" to view commentary/criticism. The initial viewing of the article
doesn't fall within Fair Use because it's not transformative in any way.

I suspect if the app is changed to operate more like Reddit (view the article
title/source and view comments, if any, prior to opening the article) it would
be approved by Apple. Alternatively, as suggested by Apple, the app could
initially present only an excerpt of the article and fall within the exception
but, as pointed out in the medium post, that probably isn't particularly
valuable to HN users.

You also could have tried reading the link I included with my original
comment.

~~~
gnicholas
This begs the question of why the fair use doctrine is required at all. It
isn't needed for a web browser; why would it be needed for a pared-down web
browser? Is it needed for a text-only web browser?

None of these is addressed by your original comment or the link, which all
presuppose that the fair use doctrine is the only way to escape copyright
problems associated with loading a webview with someone else's content.

~~~
elliekelly
Web browsers have an "implied license":
[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc).
and (I believe, but don't quote me on this) the law was amended shortly after
this case to clarify the permissions/limit liability of web browsers & ISPs.

A third-party application doesn't have the same permissions/protections.
Copyright law doesn't always require the author's permission though. If you
don't have permission you can still display the content if you have a legal
justification. The Fair Use Doctrine is the set of factors to determine
whether or not publication without permission is justified.

The transformative nature of the publication is only one factor, although it's
the most important. Another factor working in OP's favor is that the use is
non-commercial. He says in his blog post that he maintains the site on his own
in his spare time, doesn't charge users to download the app, and from what I
can tell, doesn't have any ads.

I really think OP could make some small changes and get it approved by the app
store.

~~~
mapgrep
Really unclear to me what you man by "third-party application" here. How is
Google Chrome not third party, but this app is?

Typically in this nomenclature the first and second parties are the user and
OS (or computer) vendor. The third party is an application developer. So
typically Google and Mozilla would be third parties the same as maker of the
HN browser.

Aside from that, I see no real distinction here. When I launch Firefox, it
shows me on my "blank" home page (provided by the browser, not a web page) a
list of popular articles curated by its Pocket division. This is essentially
identical to what OP's app does. One is a browser that proffers links, the
other is a browser that proffers links.

~~~
awaywopassd
In Google Chrome, you have to type in the address of website you are visiting.
It is a lot of different if Chrome showed content from other sites without you
specifically requesting it and without showing URL of those articles.

I have seen of lot of funny or meme apps which rip content off same popular
websites. I think it unfair to operator of such sites. A lot of these app will
show their ads, but won't pull in ads of publisher.

~~~
apple4ever
But they are specifically requesting it.

I think this is a bad argument. Showing web content is how the web works.

------
pashabitz
I think it's important to look at the broader issue: "App stores" are walled
gardens, policed by corporations and are the opposite of freedom. The web is
open and free. We made a deal with the devil when we collectively decided to
write and use apps and not the web. This is just one symptom.

~~~
avip
Alas, a walled garden is not the opposite of freedom. Indeed, in many places,
living in a walled garden will make you factually freeer than your fellows
outside.

~~~
Dotnaught
Your argument misrepresents the metaphor. It's the wall that's the barrier to
freedom, not what goes on within.

~~~
mattkevan
Freedom without boundaries and trust isn’t freedom but anarchy.

A game is only a game if all the players have a shared set of rules and can
trust each other to stay within them. As soon as someone breaks the rules the
game is over, and the freedom provided is lost.

~~~
ilikehurdles
Both of these points are wrong.

~~~
mattkevan
Thanks for the constructive criticism.

------
vikasnair
I had a very similar problem with an iOS app [1] I published which aggregated
3rd-party news content via RSS.

It took 3 months of back-and-forth with Apple Review to bypass those legality
and content clauses in addition to a “limited functionality” clause. The key
features introduced that finally put me past the review board were:

* Embedding a link to Safari on each news article cell

* Only allow content to display in SFSafariViewController (this was desired anyways)

* Allowing user to pick and choose categories of news to be shown

* A progress tracking feature which very simply measures and displays users’ time spent reading

The former two got me past the clauses identified in this article, re: 3rd
party content. The latter two helped me to prove my app did something other
than display 3rd party content (the limited functionality clause).

Was frustrating to find these workarounds, especially when the App Review
board is not very responsive. Thankfully, some kind soul at Apple called me
and helped me resolve everything within a day after my 5th consecutive reject.

[1]
[http://appstore.com/dossierallyouneedtoknow](http://appstore.com/dossierallyouneedtoknow)

------
pmilla1606
This is a shame, I'm sorry to hear.

I loved this app for a long time because it was the only one (that I found)
that would cache comment threads on the device - this meant I could read
comments on the subway and/or without access to the internet.

A few months ago the app was rewritten in Swift and lost my most treasured
feature, not that it matters anymore.

Thanks for the years of connectivity-anxiety free comment reading!

Edit: If you do get passed this (I really hope you do) please consider adding
an option that would fetch and save comments on the device. I'll pay for it.

~~~
gnulinux
I think Materialistic (a popular HN app for Android) does this. I can't
remember getting "you need to be online" error ever, it just uses whatever
comments cached last time I updated. I don't know if it has an iOS version.

------
ryanwaggoner
I see the comments are already filling up with the usual cries of how this is
what you get when you play in a curated market, but something about this
doesn't make sense.

Apple provides several views specifically designed to show web content:
UIWebView, WKWebView, and SFSafariViewController. This ruling of theirs would
apply to all uses of these views that aren't for specific domains and URLs
known in advance, which makes no sense.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of apps across all kinds of
categories that display websites within the app. I've personally launched
dozens of apps that have this functionality and never received a rejection for
it, or heard of anyone who has.

Moreover, there are no mechanisms that I'm even aware of to provide Apple with
proof of "permission" to display a URL. So the path you're supposed to take is
to wait for a rejection and then submit that proof to the reviewer in your
resubmission? Or is this supposed to go in the review notes? Presumably you
saying you have permission isn't enough, so what do they want, a link to a PDF
of a signed contract that their legal team can review? Really doubt it.

None of this is meant to be defensive of Apple or an attack on the author of
this article. It just sounds like there was a mistake or error in
communication somewhere. I don't think Apple's intent here is to disallow any
app that opens a URL, but I guess we'll see.

~~~
VikingCoder
Thank you, this is the best comment so far.

------
dsjoerg
Why not launch Safari when the user clicks on an article? And make it clear
that you have permission from HN to use their API?

Having used your app for exactly one minute, that seems like it would address
their concerns and preserve usability.

~~~
elboru
Yes, I don't know about others but I actually prefer this, I would see it as
an improvement, URLs should be opened in a browser not the app, that way you
have the full functionality enabled, but then again that's just my personal
taste.

~~~
saagarjha
On iOS, SFSafariViewController gets you the best of both worlds. The browser
is in-app, but you essentially get a full Safari experience.

------
bluetwo
It seems to me by saying "Attach documentary evidence in the App Review
Information section in App Store Connect granting you permission to use these
sources" they are just asking for a paper trail of your rights to use that
information.

Why can't you include the agreement for the API as documentation of this?
Seems really straight forward. They are trying to protect themselves, not get
into a philosophical battle over software and media copyrights.

~~~
stan503
I have pointed them to the API documentation that I use, however they were
uninterested in that. I also tried contacting the maintainers of the API, they
didn't have anything for me.

~~~
vorpalhex
I would obtain a full copy of the copyright laws, ask your lawyer to put them
on legal paperhead in a PDF, then attach them in full to your email.

~~~
7Z7
I'd be interested to know if a "full copy of the copyright laws" would fit in
a standard email payload

------
salvar
This seems weird enough to be an error of some kind. Not that Apple is likely
to fix it, but enforcing this rule would exclude:

\- All Reddit apps

\- All HN apps

\- Twitter

\- Facebook

\- Google News

\- Any link or news aggregator

I guess even a browser wouldn't fly, since it "displays full articles from
multiple news sources."

~~~
toyg
Unless they are cracking down on apps that do _nothing_ but republish links
and feeds. Most Reddit apps will let you post and engage; some HN apps will do
that too (shout out to my beloved Minihack). This particular app didn't, so
it's difficult to argue that it provided anything more than republishing
links... something that _surely_ should be done only by their News app now /s

~~~
salvar
I guess... but that still leaves pretty much all news aggregators. Google News
doesn't let you do much other than read news from all over the internet. It's
functionally exactly the same, only with a different aggregating algorithm.

------
makecheck
I think what bugs me most about app review is that these things _never_ come
up for 1.0 or even 1.15. It’s some minor update where _THEN_ Apple complains
about minutiae that have existed since 1.0. Heck, they once complained about
not having a Minimize button in a window (literally all previous versions
lacked it).

------
option_greek
It's sad that most of the comments seem to suggest that while it is not ideal,
this is indeed the rule and either the links should be opened in safari or
this is nothing new. That such a common functionality isn't allowed on ios
while showing arbitrary enforcement is a real travesty. I'm surprised how
tepid most of the comments are.

------
jgh
Looks like Apple has a history of removing third party reader apps. See a
discussion from a couple years ago on Reddit apps getting nuked:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/4edaee/looks_like_t...](https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/4edaee/looks_like_the_app_store_is_pulling_all_third/)

edit: looks like that time it was for NSFW content....

~~~
sushibowl
It should be well known by now that Apple developers serve at the pleasure of
the king ([https://blog.codinghorror.com/serving-at-the-pleasure-of-
the...](https://blog.codinghorror.com/serving-at-the-pleasure-of-the-king/)).

------
sokoloff
Apple told you what to do:

> Require users to customize their news sources upon launching your app

Make it a setting. Anyone who is going to use your app is qualified to paste a
URL into a text field (or click a radio button indicating they want to use
news.yc vs old.xy)

~~~
stevewodil
News Sources:

Hacker News (On/Off)

Imagine they accept it like that haha

------
chipgap98
There must be thousands and thousands of apps that function similar to HN
clients. Providing a wrapper of an existing site and some additionally
functionality seems pretty standard.

This is another sad example of the power the internet giants have over
developers when we're forced to build for their platforms in order to get
users.

~~~
kara-1234
Completely agreed here, we gave these companies all the power to keep us safe,
integrate into our lives, and at the drop of a hat now they can take it away
from you with no real way to fight back.

------
mosselman
What nonsense. The links that HN has are all to publicly available websites,
isn't the whole reason for their existence to be visited? How is this
different from a web browser?

~~~
cronix
> How is this different from a web browser?

or a search engine

------
jey
> \- Only show a portion of the article within your app and link out to Safari
> for the rest

Reading between the lines here, is the problem that ad tracking works less in
these apps due to having separate cookies, so publishers are pressuring Apple
to remove these apps?

~~~
toyg
More likely that is about Apple pushing its News app.

~~~
wild_preference
Aside: Is there a reasonable way to get any non-American/non-English news in
the news app?

I find it a bit mindblowing that "Discover Channels" and the topics list are
all in English and for a country I don't live in. For example, there's an
option to add every BBC subcategory except BBC Mundo (i.e. Latin America).

------
adrianN
The hardships of developing for closed platforms. At least your livelihood
didn't depend on that App.

------
wsc981
Painful, but I guess it's up to the individual AppStore reviewer to figure out
what is ok or not. I actually created a few years ago a HackerNews client as
well for iOS, but it never got through the review process, not even version
1.0. I was surprised, since many other HackerNews apps with similar features
were allowed. At that point I just gave up and put the source code on Github,
for whole the world to see.

I believe this way it might still have helped me find new job opportunities,
since companies could see a bit of my coding style. So I believe in the end
not all work was for nothing.

~~~
gurpreet-
Yes, it would help to know why that condition is there in the first place and
also why Apple exercise it for some apps and not others.

There's little app developers can do about it for iOS. On Android you can
install new app stores, but with Apple you're forced to use theirs. This can
be both a blessing and a curse.

In this case, it's just unfortunate luck.

------
abalone
I’m confused. What’s the violation here? Apps are supposed to open links in
Safari “outside of the app” unless they have permission?

What about in-app browsers???? Twitter, Facebook, Instagram... they all open
links inside their app, in an in-app browser.

Can somebody please clarify Apple’s rules here? (No snark please.)

------
apo
This might be a good time to reconsider what made iOS the best platform for
this application in the first place.

For example, can the app be re-packaged as an HTML5 app instead? What's the
compelling advantage for building on iOS for this application?

~~~
jurip
I'd imagine the compelling advantage is being a native iOS application: "I
wasn’t satisfied with the features of the Hacker News clients I had downloaded
from the app store".

~~~
apo
It looks like I wasn't clear - I'm suggesting an in-browser app independent of
iOS and the app store.

------
alan_wade
Can't wait for PWAs to truly take off, so we can all build for an open
platform again, without having to deal withh this nonsense.

~~~
cronix
Isn't Apple the main holdup for this though? They only recently allowed _some_
things, but look at the list of things you can do on android vs ios when it
comes to PWA's [1]. Things like not even notifying the user that they can
install it as a PWA, and no push notification functionality are 2 pretty big
barriers to having it actually work well. From what I've read, v12 didn't add
any new capabilities over 11.3, which only fairly recently introduced very
limited PWA functionality.

I don't really see Apple doing much more on this front than they have. It
makes no financial sense for them as _some_ smallish percentage of appstore
apps _could_ be replaced with PWA's. What's their incentive? They will lose
some revenue.

[1] [https://medium.com/@firt/progressive-web-apps-on-ios-are-
her...](https://medium.com/@firt/progressive-web-apps-on-ios-are-
here-d00430dee3a7)

------
Tomte
> Questions like, “How is my app different than all the other Hacker News apps
> out there?” were ignored.

I understand the frustration that leads to this question, but it is wholly
irrelevant and only loses you a bit of the reviewer's attention span.

~~~
everyone
"it is wholly irrelevant"

Nonsense. It seems like the developer was willing to make any changes Apple
wished in order to conform to their policies. His impediment was that _he
could not figure out what those changes were_.

If very similar app X is ok, and my app is not, then asking what the crucial
difference is, is a very apt question which may lead directly to the specific
issue.

If we cant be sensible, ask sensible questions and have a sensible
conversation about an issue with another human, in order to try and resolve a
problem in good faith, then I guess we should all just go stick our heads in
buckets of water.

~~~
Tomte
They told him whoch changes they want him to make. He dances around it a lot
with "surely I can't get consent from the whole Internet", but he did
understand that they want him to use Safari.

I don't agree with Apple here, I think his app should be fine.

But that's what they said, and just because they did not pull the other apps
_yet_ (for all we know), doesn't mean he has a point asking about those.

~~~
option_greek
And why not ? How else will we question arbitrary enforcement without pointing
out to the instances of arbitrary enforcement ? Surely, he is not asking that
they take down those other apps. He just wants to be in the same bucket as the
others.

~~~
Tomte
You don't discuss arbitrary enforcement with Apple's reviewer.

Either they enforce arbitrarily, or they don't. In neither case do they care
about your opinion on it.

If you want to have that discussion, have it. On your blog. On Hacker News. On
Medium. But not in the "please reinstate my app" conversation with Apple.

------
outadoc
Are you displaying the articles in a standard Safari view like Tweetbot & co?
And are you sure the problem isn't triggered by the favicons (aka copyrighted
logos) on the main list?

------
solarkraft
Let me fix this for you: Don't invest any resources into developing for an
Apple platform. They will fuck you over whenever they feel like it.

------
lostgame
“It felt like I was arguing with a robot.”

How much of the App Store review process is automated these days, anyways?

One of my largest laments for the last 8 years or so with the App Store is the
lack of a phone number in the appeals process for applications. I feel
speaking out loud with a real person would force answers to a lot of these
questions, especially ‘why does ‘x’ get away with this and I can’t?’

~~~
reagank
> I feel speaking out loud with a real person would force answers to a lot of
> these questions

Oh, hey, we've arrived at the reason that phone number doesn't exist. The
ambiguity gives Apple flexibility, and I doubt they have any plans to remove
it in the near future (How I'd love to be wrong!)

------
hiccuphippo
I guess your app is basically a browser. And so, you are competing with their
own browser.

What else can you expect from a walled garden?

------
dewey
Is the app actually parsing the articles and displaying them the app or just
like other HN clients that just have links and you open them in Safari? If
it's the first then I guess the complaint makes sense if you are implementing
some kind of "Reader" mode in the app itself by scraping the content.

~~~
Globz
I am currently using an HN client on iOS which parses the article links for
you and renders them into a "reader" mode without leaving the app, you can
also open the link via Safari or save it to pocket.

This is exactly what his app is doing, I fail to see what are the differences
between the two?

~~~
raydev
The app you're using:

\- is older and predates this particular restriction

\- OR the reviewers overlooked it

App Store reviews are really a gamble when you start linking to websites in
your app. It's just a shitty experience for the developer in general.

------
ahmedalsudani
I'm sure this is an error, and a moronic one at that. Otherwise even safari
infringes on Apple's rules.

The real maddening thing is that there is no appeal process and no
(mainstream) way to distribute your app if Apple has a vague problem with it.

I hope for a day we will have mobile devices that are free and usable.

~~~
jmull
No, Safari doesn't have this problem. One remedy the OP was offered was to
require the _user_ to choose the third-party content to display. That's just
what Safari does.

(BTW, I don't think it's an appropriate remedy in this situation. I'm just
saying this isn't inconsistent with Safari.)

~~~
ahmedalsudani
It's not so simple. When you load HN on safari, it doesn't prompt you which
links on HN you'd like to allow visits to. A tap on the link is what signals
your intent. I fail to see how downloading an HN app is any different from
visiting HN in safari.

There are probably links to websites that link to the wider Web too on the
safari new tab page (though I haven't used a fresh safari in some time so I
might be mistaken).

------
ary
One has to wonder if what Apple actually objects to is the display of logos
(from the favicons) in the list of links. They’re an incredibly brand
conscious company and almost certain have people scouting for things that
could get them sued by the owners of other brands.

~~~
sokoloff
It would seem to be odd for a mark owner to sue after specifically putting out
a favicon, which is intended to be used to visually ID that site in a sea of
tabs/links.

~~~
ary
While I wholeheartedly agree I mean to focus on the perception of a problem
and not the presence of any actual problem.

Regardless of where the logo is acquired from what is more important is _where
it is shown_ and _what it is shown next to_. This is what I mean by brand
sensitivity. The article makes it seem (to me) like the reviewer has a problem
with a specific aspect of the app but is using a somewhat broadly
interpretable part of the guidelines as the reason for rejection. This is why
I suspect that a visual change regarding the logos might help the app pass
review.

------
ypeterholmes
Seems like a lot of these issues could be resolved with better communication,
such as a call with a real person. The author mentions "It felt like I was
arguing with a robot." Too many of these large companies (Google, Facebook,
Apple) have become faceless.

------
gecko39
One option is to submit the app under a new dev account with a few tweaked
variables ( name, colors, screenshots ) I feel like some of these rejections
depend on the reviewer you get that day; and once an app is flagged, it's hard
to recover.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
This is a really bad idea. These platforms like Apple and Google control large
online ecosystems, and they're known to permaban people across the board when
they step out of line. There are dozens of stories about Google basically
terminating all relationships with someone (including their Gmail, Drive
content, etc.) over Play Store dev account hijinks.

I presume the author of the article has an iPhone. If he intends to be able to
use an iPhone, screwing around with making Apple accounts that pretend to be
different people to sneak an app past the reviews is not a good decision. The
developer could find themselves unable to use any Apple account or service.

------
ryandrake
> 5.2.2 Third Party Sites/Services: If your app uses, accesses, monetizes
> access to, or displays content from a third party service, ensure that you
> are specifically permitted to do so under the service’s terms of use.

Interesting.. I had an app in the Apple App Store for some time that
essentially scraped a service provider’s web site, allowing the user to invoke
features of that site. Essentially wrapping an ugly web site in a pretty iOS
interface. Never even considered “getting authorization” from them. It
survived in the iOS App Store for a few years until I took it down for other
reasons. Wonder how new this rule is or how evenly it’s enforced.

------
coldtea
> _Showing articles from random third party sources is pretty much THE feature
> of a Hacker News client app._

No, that should be showing the HN discussion.

For the articles itself, you could always forward an open the original page in
an embedded webkit view.

------
sparrish
A lesson learned by a lot of iOS devs. If you want to play in their game, you
have to play by their rules, even if they don't apply those rules to everyone
else.

------
coldtea
>* Questions like, “How is my app different than all the other Hacker News
apps out there?” were ignored. (...) It makes you wonder: if this rule is
supposed to be enforced by app review, how does ANY Hacker News client make it
through app review?*

That's not a very good question to argue with Apple about. It's like saying
the traffic cop "but there are all those other cares going beyond 70 mph, why
stop me?".

~~~
lostgame
Except speeding as a law makes a lot more sense, and, in the case of the cop,
you're actually able to appeal to a real person.

------
mmjaa
Surely its enough to get a Hacker News person to give you a claim waiver or
something? I mean, did you try contacting the HN folks?

~~~
stan503
Actually I did ask them, they (unsurprisingly) didn't have anything like that.

~~~
s17n
Given the huge volume of crappy apps in the store, I think the general public
is well served by this policy even if it does suck for well intentioned
developers like yourself.

------
writepub
Apple is a monopoly in the apps market, controlling 66% [1] of the $70B
annually. It's practices are now going to be litigated at the supreme court
level [2]

Apple's only defense, that it isn't a majority of the unit sales in Mobile
phones, is a convenient strawman distracting from the fact that they ARE a
majority in the app store market. Increasingly, people are finding such
excuses misleading and outdated [3]

I hope Apple losses in the supreme court, as their app store process makes a
mockery of an individual's ownership of the iPhone they paid for. Imagine if
you bought a house, and the builder got to decide what furniture could and
couldn't be put in it.

Additionally, it's time for the EU and FTC to regulate Apple and the like, on
realistic definitions of monopoly and antitrust

[1]: [https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-
revenue-n...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/apples-app-store-revenue-
nearly-double-that-of-google-play-in-first-half-of-2018/)

[2]: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-
ap...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-apple-vs-
pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer)

[3]: [https://qz.com/work/1460402/google-facebook-and-amazon-
benef...](https://qz.com/work/1460402/google-facebook-and-amazon-benefit-from-
an-outdated-definition-of-monopoly/)

------
giarc
There are a lot of complaints about "X app does this, why can't mine." The app
store isn't a democracy, they can and do make up their own rules and they can
apply them how they want.

Think of the Simpsons episode and the "No Homer's Club". They can allow one
Homer, and reject all other Homers if they want.

------
i386
Very rich of Apple to reject this app when Apple News aggregates news, doesn't
display original URLs, etc.

~~~
elliekelly
Apple News has a license to distribute that content from the content creators.
OP doesn't.

Edit: To say I don't agree with the way the law shakes out with respect to
copyright enforcement on the internet but that's the way it works right now. I
would even suggest that recent legislation in Europe will pull us in the wrong
direction. Just another example of why it's important for our legislatures
(and increasingly, judges) to have a firm understanding of how technology
works so we aren't left with these hamfisted applications of ancient
regulations to modern technology.

------
LeicaLatte
Why is this an app? seems to be a terrible candidate in the first place. Why
don't you make a website?

~~~
lawlessone
it's already a website? you're using it right now..

------
sixtypoundhound
The time has come: OEM's that lock their users into a specific app
distribution platform need to be slapped with an anti-trust lawsuit. Hard.

When you have Apple's market share... well, with great power comes great
responsibility....

------
bparsons
If displaying links to other websites violates the TOS, then iOS is completely
broken.

Whatever they are selling their customers is no longer the internet. It is a
weird, hyper-monetized digital playpen.

------
bramvandervoet
Enough HN pwa to test [https://hnpwa.com](https://hnpwa.com). Afcourse Apple
is not fully embracing Pwa like Chrome/Google

------
bertil
I am curious if that kind of arbitrary myopic judgement will hurt Apple in the
long term, as influential developers end up using Android because it supports
more options.

------
burtonator
I just wrote up a long response to this rather than in comment form:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442147](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442147)

The main issue is - don't be a sharecropper. The problem is that many people
can't avoid it and get sucked in regardless.

------
Animats
Why is there a need for a "Hacker News client"? It's a web site.

~~~
willio58
So is Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, etc.

------
dzonga
why bother making a native app ? simply, when a web app would suffice in terms
of a PWA o? Aye, fuxk the so called walled gardens.

------
yohann305
your app mechanics aren't that much different than Reddit, am i wrong? How is
Reddit doing it without being removed?

------
zvovu
The downside of curated app stores...

------
_Codemonkeyism
"But others do it too" is always a weak defence.

~~~
EpicEng
Precedent is important. So important in fact that it is a widely used
mechanism in courts of law when an issue is not cut and dry. If you lay out a
set of rules which are only randomly enforced then your 'rules' become
useless.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
I didn't know Apple now was a "courts of law" in the US, this is huge!

~~~
EpicEng
Well that's one way to interpret what I said...

------
wild_preference
> As for their alternatives, kicking the user out to Safari would
> significantly reduce the usability of the app.

Not at all.

When you open a website in Safari from an app, the user gets a first class
website-browser experience without your chrome, and a "< Back to your app"
button in the menuline.

~~~
EpicEng
It opens the page in a WebView. What's the problem?

~~~
wild_preference
They're saying it's a better experience. I'm saying I'd rather have it in the
browser that I already use. Good example being that I want to keep the article
open or accumulate them in Safari instead of have this weird modal article-
viewing system in the app.

Various Reddit apps inline articles and I think it's just a worst experience.

------
mscasts
Have you tried to be wealthy and/or an important app developer?

~~~
redial
Rules 1 and 2.

~~~
mscasts
What are you refering to? HN guidelines?

I was just trying to be funny as well as point out the obvious reason why
Apple won't care about him :)

~~~
Anechoic
I think s/he is saying - Rule 1: be wealthy, Rule 2: be an important app
developer

~~~
mscasts
Of course that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

------
tkcins
>kicking the user out to Safari would significantly reduce the usability of
the app

Am I the only one who HATES when apps open links inside a webview and you have
to tap yet another button to open the link in Safari? Most apps do that and
they annoy the hell out of me.

------
sonnyblarney
It's fine if Apple wants to control their store, but that only apps approved
by them, in their store, should be allowed ... should be illegal.

------
z3t4
I wouln't like if someone scraped my web site, and put it in a iPhone app. Why
not just open the links in a web browser !?

~~~
rpeden
...that's what the app is doing.

It was just opening the links in a webview inside the app instead of tossing
the user over into Safari every time they click a link. There was no scraping
happening.

~~~
z3t4
How much control do the app have over a web-view? Would it for example be able
to log user input (steal passwords), or insert content (ads) ? Do the web view
make it's own https request ?

~~~
epse
The app can tell the webview: open this URL. That's pretty much it. Injecting
could theoretically happen, but only by showing a page that looks like the
original but isn't.

------
s17n
Sounds like their problem is that you don't have permission from Hacker News
to launch a Hacker News app? To be honest, this is a good policy - the app
store is inundated with shitty apps that capitalize on well known properties
in this way and monetize their users with ads for even shittier apps, with
straight up scams being the plankton on which this ecosystem depends.

