
JWZ ported XScreenSaver to iOS - keeps getting rejected by Apple - rwos
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/07/apple-dicks/
======
cmadan
Does it even matter whether Apple is wrong, unreasonable or irrational? Just
like I reserve the rights of admission to my house, Apple reserves the right
to accept or reject applications from the app store.

If you really want Apple to change, how about NOT developing for iOS? Articles
like this aren't really going to make them change their policies.

~~~
repsilat
_If you really want Apple to change, how about NOT developing for iOS?
Articles like this aren't really going to make them change their policies._

Certainly convincing other people not to develop for iOS would have more of an
impact than just swearing off it personally. More generally, I dislike the
idea that we shouldn't write this sort of thing because "the market will sort
it out anyway". This sort of post _is_ the market sorting it out.

 _Apple reserves the right to accept or reject applications from the app
store._

Sure, they're probably legally entitled to do almost anything. That doesn't
mean they can't (or shouldn't) be criticised for it, though, and it doesn't
mean that criticism of them can't have any impact on anyone's behaviour.

~~~
cmadan
I agree wholeheartedly with you. However, there is no shortage of articles
detailing Apple's arbitrary App store approval process. Yet, the number of
applications on the App store keeps on increasing and increasing.

What is striking is none (or I haven't come across one) of these articles end
with the developer washing their hands off the App store and vowing never to
develop another iOS app. Instead, most of them seem to be aiming to generate
publicity so that Apple takes notice and hopefully approves the app.

~~~
jasonlotito
> What is striking is none (or I haven't come across one) of these articles
> end with the developer washing their hands off the App store and vowing
> never to develop another iOS app.

Probably because that's a foolish approach as a developer. If your app is
worth a damn, then preventing it's use by potential customers simply because
of your personal opinion is fairly inconsiderate. Should someone be deprived
the use of an app simply because they bought a different phone then the one I
approve of?

That's a hard line to take, I understand, and realize not everyone will agree
with that. =) I just feel that from the customer perspective, the only thing
that matters is the developer. And if the developer choose not to release on
the platform I am using, then the developer is essentially telling me I do not
matter.

~~~
philh
If someone doesn't release on Android because the money they get from sales
isn't worth the time it takes to port, that seems a perfectly reasonable
approach to take.

If someone doesn't release on iOS because the money they get from sales isn't
worth the various negative aspects (e.g. frustration of dealing with
reviewers, giving support to a business model they disapprove of), that also
seems a perfectly reasonable approach to take.

I don't own a Windows box, or an Xbox or PS3. If I said I was being deprived
of video games because Call of Duty doesn't run on "linux on a netbook from
2008", I don't imagine I would get much sympathy.

~~~
jasonlotito
I was careful to specify: "simply [a] personal opinion". A business decision
not to support a platform is not that.

I was also careful to specify: "If your app is worth a damn". Call of Duty is
not worth a damn. I'm talking about meaningful apps that actually making a
difference.

I was specific, because the opinion is specific. If your app isn't worth a
damn, then it doesn't really matter, does it? It's a toy, nothing more.

------
larsberg
Speaking from personal experience, once it becomes clear you and the reviewers
are at an impasse but you are still submitting, somebody higher up the app
store review chain will give a call to the phone number listed on your
developer account and you can have a more reasonable, human conversation.

Otherwise, he should just put up a sign in his club about no cover / free
pizza for a member of the iOS team who's willing to put in a good word for
xscreensaver. I mean, he _is_ in SF. Even I know several people on the iOS
team, at least one of whom has gone there, and I don't even live/work in that
area.

------
retrogradeorbit
"I don't own and don't plan to own any Android devices, because frankly I
think it sucks." --jwz

Oh, the deep irony.

~~~
statictype
Where's the irony?

~~~
gcp
When he said Android sucks he presumably evaluated a number of attributes of
both iOS and Android and concluded that iOS outperforms Android in those he
cares about.

He's now finding out the hard way that "openness" may have been an attribute
the importance of which he underestimated.

And just like the tens of other iOS developers that came to whine here when
the same happened to them: you knew what you were getting into and chose to
ignore it at your own peril.

~~~
sturadnidge
That's all well and good, but there's no irony there. As statictype I believe
was suggesting.

It only would have been ironic had jwz elected to develop for iOS because he
thought the Android app store policy sucked, to find that the Apple app store
policy sucked more. Which is not the case here.

[Edited to include clarification]

~~~
gcp
There's some level of irony in 2 areas:

1) He disses Android harshly, yet ends up complaining about Apple not that
much later. 2) He disses Android for "sucking", yet the area he complains
about is one where iOS sucks compared to Android.

I think this qualifies as irony: incongruity between the actual result of a
sequence of events and the normal or expected result.

~~~
sturadnidge
Nope - as batista points out, it only would have been ironic had jwz elected
to develop for iOS because he thought the Android app store policy sucked, to
find that the Apple app store policy sucked more. Which is not the case here.

------
dude_anon123
Apple might be wrong, but jwz is a dick. Just read the comments on that link
and see how abusive he is to the other commenters.

~~~
pmarca
Jamie lives a hard life.

~~~
undantag
I tend to think of him as Zed Shaw's grandfather.

------
zapu
It is named ScreenSaver, when it clearly does not function as "screen saver"
on iOS device. Apple is right.

~~~
brudgers
_The Fart App_ doesn't fart. It is not possible to make an iOS device produce
flatulence. Therefore, it is misnamed and the name is confusing to users.

<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-fart-app/id370742001?mt=8>

~~~
pooriaazimi
Other computing devices have screen savers, so it's why many would be
"mislead" to think it's an actual screen saver app that magically enables
their iDevice to show screen savers.

~~~
brudgers
The subset of iOS users who would consider an instance of iOS hardware to be
"a computing device" is quite small, particularly given the app store policies
which discourage apps which allow iOS devices to be used for general purpose
computing.

And in any event, the App Store contains products of similar functionality,
e.g. live wallpaper.

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/live-wallpapers-
pro/id4994091...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/live-wallpapers-
pro/id499409159?mt=8)

~~~
pooriaazimi
Yes, and look at the reviews. All of them were deceived, they think it's a
scam, they demand a refund, they probably feel less safe about buying anything
from App Store again, and other iOS developers pay (only slightly) the price
of this "scammy" app. Apple should get rid of all such apps – it's better for
the business (of Apple themselves and other iOS developers).

Why they approved "live wallpapers", but not "xScreenSaver"? I don't know. It
sucks, it seems that their reviews are not consistent.

But just because they made a mistake _(like approving "live wallpapers", which
IMO is a misleading app created solely for the purpose of milking a few
hundred dollars from naïve App Store customers)_ does not mean that it's okay
to do it again.

Edit: look at the other apps created by the same developer:
[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/color-texting-for-
message/id4...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/color-texting-for-
message/id490447135?mt=8) and [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/color-keyboard-
pro-pimp-color...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/color-keyboard-pro-pimp-
color/id545915155?mt=8) and [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/icon-skins-with-
builder/id429...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/icon-skins-with-
builder/id429275281?mt=8) \- all of them are misleading, making you believe
you can do things on the iOS that you actually can't.

~~~
brudgers
If Apple was seriously concerned about the quality of apps, there would not be
650,000 of them. Incidentally, your post supports that thesis.

------
leviathan
Their approval process has been so random and stubborn lately. I've been
struggling with a submission for 2 months now where they keep rejecting the
app cause they want me to change the text on a button.

~~~
greenranger
That's pretty bizarre. Care to elaborate on that?

~~~
leviathan
I've already mentioned it here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4300688>

~~~
pooriaazimi
> _They rejected the app repeatedly for the following reasons:_

> _\- in-app purchase does not provide a restore button (which I've never seen
> in any other app btw)_

Really?! Every app I use has a restore button. As a user, I'm happy they
reject your app. Otherwise, if I buy that "thing" from you (via IAP) on my
iPhone, it's not available on my iPad, iPod touch, or even iPhone if I restore
it to factory settings. The point of IAP is: you purchase it once, it's
available on all your personal devices. But your method is: every new device
must purchase it again and again and again. I'm not saying you're scamming,
but you're not playing by the rules customers have come to expect.

So, I'm with Apple in this specific case. In my view, your app "deserved" to
be rejected. But, a 2 week interval between review results? That really sucks.
Shame on them.

~~~
leviathan
Even if the inapp purchase is to remove ads from the free version?

I couldn't find an appropriate reference for that specific case, and besides,
I changed the purchase button to check for a restore first, an failing to find
that, ask the user to pay. But that still didn't cut it with the reviewers,
they wanted an explicit button named restore.

~~~
pooriaazimi
> _Even if the inapp purchase is to remove ads from the free version?_

I think even in this case, yes, it should be there.

But if you've changed it (to something even more elegant) and they still
rejected it, shame on them!

------
acqq
"The application which just shows pretty pictures, formerly known as
XScreenSaver"

The goal to avoid user confusion and scams is a good goal. Even if there are a
few millions XScreenSaver users (wow) on another platforms, there are orders
of magnitude more potential new users who should not be mislead. How to avoid
confusion is a good question, but accepting the old name doesn't appear to be
a provably best solution.

Can't the name be different but the application appear in searches based on
the reference to the name of XScreenSaver somewhere in the description?

------
randomdata
_> changing the name does not solve the problem that people searching for
"xscreensaver" in the app store will not find it if it is released under
something-that-is-not-its-name._

With the recent App Store search result changes, this may be of little help
anyway. If you search for the name of my app, for instance, it comes up near
the bottom of the results where nobody looks. I went from averaging multiple
downloads per day to just two sales since the changes were put into effect.

------
sanxiyn
This sounds like an argument that using the name Apple will confuse people
because it is a famous fruit. What a stupid reason.

------
davidcollantes
The way I see it: one less junk app off the App Store. Thumbs up, Apple!

------
peterwwillis
Is it possible for jwz to be a bigger asshole? We should have a poll. Who's a
bigger asshole?

    
    
      * Linus Torvalds
      * Daniel J. Bernstein
      * Theo de Raadt
      * Jamie Zawinski

------
xutopia
Why would I need a screensaver for an iOS device?

~~~
nmcfarl
It's not a screensaver it just looks like one :)

Screensavers aren't saving any screens these days - their function is merely
to provide pretty pictures. And xscreensaver provides LOTS of pretty, if
retro, pictures.

------
neya
I love the URL slug =)

