
I fear App Review is getting too powerful (2015) [pdf] - atarian
https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/015127.pdf
======
mhafez17
Wow. I am the author of this email. I have no idea how it resurfaced after 5
years, I was only made aware of this when a friend emailed me the HN link.

The sad thing is it was not just my company which was targeted, but Apple
removed this entire product category. We never knew the real reason why, or if
it was bigger than just a random app reviewer trying to apply Apple policy,
until May 2019.

That's when Bloomberg interviewed Phillip Shoemaker, who ran app reviews from
2009 to 2016 - regarding how Apple systemically removes whole categories of
apps. I subsequently spoke to Phillip Shoemaker, who confirmed that Apple
executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App
Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside
sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps."
He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do,
and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App
Review), he could not stop it.

The other thing that was hard to understand, is we used to have a great
relationship with Apple. We were not flying under the radar. Since the App
Store first launched in 2008, we used to be invited to all Apple events to see
the new product launches, we met with the iTunes team to discuss upcoming
initiates for the App Store, our apps were featured on the devices inside of
many demo units into Apple Stores. It felt like a complete 180, and until this
day I never got a formal conversation on what they actually objected to,
beyond being pointed to a vague rule which was applied arbitrarily. They
became a brick wall in terms of communication, and this is why I resorted to
emailing Tim Cook. I assumed nothing would come of it, but it was the last
thing I could think of.I never received a response, and never knew if he even
got it, so I was shocked to see it again today from his inbox.

~~~
ransom1538
1) I worked at a game company 2011: kicked out of facebook (quizzes
restrictions were added to the toss)

2) I worked at a mobile ads company 2013: kicked out of apple store

3) I worked at a mobile hosting company for small shops 2015: salons,
restaurants, etc: kicked out of apple store

4) I worked at a mobile social network company (2017): kicked out of apple
store.

5) I built an app where people can promote their github projects (2017):
account suspended by github

6) Built another app to help locate doctors: blacklisted by google

~~~
sillysaurusx
Dude, you win today's unluckiest developer award. Most of those were good
ideas to work on, right up until they were banned.

The flip side is, you've been involved with a _lot_ of projects. And that's
often a big advantage. Some devs stay with the same company for 5 to 10 years.

~~~
steelframe
> Some devs stay with the same company for 5 to 10 years.

Depending on how you play it, that doesn't have to be the worst thing in the
world. The megacorps have an incredible diversity of roles you can try out.

~~~
sillysaurusx
Absolutely! I only meant to encourage them / focus on the silver lining. It's
true that there are some wonderful megacorps to work for.

------
headmelted
I mean, there’s a point to be made about how much monopoly power Apple holds,
and it’s now clear these questions weren’t asked until now because lawmakers
were really sweet on the maker of their shiny iPhone - but this letter ain’t
it.

The author is grovelling to the point of it being honestly pitiful. The amount
of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for
me not to question the motivation behind this letter.

It’s transparently from an author who built their entire business on the
shoulders of a single third party and is now horrified in realising it’s been
taken away.

If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends
exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not _your_ business.

To the authors point - yes, Apple can change it’s policies whenever it likes,
and can use those policies to kill other companies it views as competing with
it’s own interests.

This in itself isn’t news. Dropbox got flat out told by Steve Jobs to sell
immediately for whatever he felt generous enough to give them or he’d crush
them with a competitor. There was a podcast recently wherein someone who sold
to Apple (I’m sorry I can’t remember who it was, will try to dig it out and
update) got his deal reduced by 25% or so by Steve Jobs in person - after
accepting it and flying out to Cupertino just because Jobs could and he wanted
to make a point.

This isn’t new information or a new policy, although maybe it’ll be a fairer
playing field now that the hornet’s nest has received a good kicking.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
Your point, that nobody should make iOS apps as a business because that puts
them in a lousy situation, is fair but not actionable. Sure, it's a risky
proposition, but there are something like 20 million registered iOS app
developers out there, and so we've moved well beyond whether this was a good
decision on their part. Now we have to figure out how to make society work
well for these 20 million people.

~~~
headmelted
To clarify what I meant, I think devs should absolutely build for iOS. I just
think they should consider the future very carefully before building
_exclusively_ for iOS.

------
egocentric
I fully agree with the author, and "App Review is getting too powerful" was an
extremely prescient thing to say back then - let alone today.

I've had my own share of similar experiences with Apple in the past, one of
which was here on HN recently:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585682](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585682)

Apple currently has an unreasonable amount of control not only on _what_ apps
can be available on their devices, but also on _how_ they look, work, and
generate revenue. They allow 3rd-party innovation to occur only down specific
paths that they deem beneficial.

On top of everything, Apple is also _systematically erasing all App Review
rejection communications_ [1] and keeping most of this abuse in the dark, thus
buying themselves more time to stay in this dominant position.

Something definitely needs to change here, hopefully sooner than later.

[1] [https://www.change.org/p/apple-let-us-browse-all-our-past-
re...](https://www.change.org/p/apple-let-us-browse-all-our-past-resolution-
center-communications)

~~~
scarface74
I’ll just repost what the top comment said. But I see it as really
disingenuous to try to put what you are trying to do, in the same category as
Basecamp/Hey, whose side I completely support.

 _Here 's the thing: why should anyone trust that you will actually honor this
3-day money back guarantee, or that even if you honor it now that you will
continue to honor it in the future? Part of the benefit of the App Store
payment system is that it puts the user in control of their trials and
subscriptions and lets them easily manage, cancel, and request refunds in a
way that is guaranteed. But if your refund form magically disappeared one day,
no one would have any recourse against that._

~~~
detaro
What does the parent comment have to do with payments? What are they "trying
to do" that's relevant to that quote?

~~~
scarface74
He linked to his initial complaint about why Apple rejected his app.

 _My app has been repeatedly rejected because I do not offer free in-app
trials (but offer money-back guarantee on my website) and also do not offer
in-apps purchases. I asked if I offered in-app purchases, would the app be
approved? No, since I offer 3-day money-back guarantee on website-based
purchses, I must ALSO offer a free trial in the app. But I don’t want to offer
free trials. I’m ok offering a 3-day money-back guarantee, but Apple says
that’s not an option for apps. They insist that I (1) change my business model
from 3-day money back guarantee to free trial and (2) purchase a shit ton more
infrastructure to handle the audience that free trials attract (I’ve tried
free trial business model and it created a lot of use but no more revenue than
3-day money back guarantee). The money-back guarantee seems to weed out a lot
of free loaders, at least in this domain — not necessarily others._

~~~
detaro
Now I get what happened...

Look again: He (/u/egocentric) linked to his HN submission of his twitter
thread about his experience. What you are referencing is the _top comment_ in
the that discussion, by someone else (/u/TedDoesntTalk) talking about _their_
app. So your (understandable) ire is directed at the wrong person here.

~~~
scarface74
You are correct. Handlers were always a little bit more confusing than
pointers....

------
domador
> It's very weird to be in love with and scared of the same thing: Apple.

Sound like an abusive relationship, and like what an abused partner would say
to try to rationalize the fact that they're economically dependent on the
abuser.

~~~
SyneRyder
While I try not to use that phrase publicly (because I know it will offend
some people who see it as exaggeration), thinking of an Apple
developer/customer as being in an abusive relationship is exactly what
convinced me to get out & stop using/developing for Apple platforms. It took
me a few years to see it, and nudges from friends ("Why do you put up with
them treating you like that?") but it was a very useful perspective on Apple
for me.

------
makecheck
I think the worst part of this letter is the date; over 5 years ago and
nothing is really different in any of the areas raised.

Yet the same execs that were CC’d are in charge. I’m glad they had some great
“thoughts” on the matter.

------
oltremarino
I don't really understand why Apple is allowed to have the amount of power it
has today: it provides the hardware, the operating system, the software store
(which they make sure is the only way to get software for most users), _and_
gets to decide whether any particular piece of software is allowed on the
store? Surely there needs to be some separation of powers? e.g. a third party
(could be set up by the government or in some other ways) will review the apps
and Apple only maintains the software store without having much power over the
contents in the store.

It was understandable at the time when everything was uncharted territory so
Apple got to do whatever it wanted, but now that smart phones are so tightly
integrated into the lives of many people, it seems Apple shouldn't be allowed
to hold on to all those power. Is anything being done in that direction that
might become effective?

~~~
xuki
Because the gov should not control what a private business could do unless
it's against the laws? The debate is whether Apple is a monopoly, until we
conclude that Apple should be able to run their store as they see fit.
Personally I would say Apple is not a monopoly, but Apple + Google is a
duopoly and maybe gov should do something about BOTH of them.

~~~
true_religion
People are saying that what Apple is doing should be against the law.

When talking about ethics and regulation, it’s not enough to simply say the
status quo should be preserved.

~~~
xuki
I'm simply replying to GP's point about the legality of Apple's action. Until
a court found Apple's action is against the laws, or new laws are written to
make it so, Apple is free to operate the store as is. Tim Cook talks a lot
about ethics and whatnot but Apple's profit (and share price) always come
first.

~~~
DanBC
> Until a court found Apple's action is against the laws, or new laws are
> written to make it so, Apple is free to operate the store as is.

"How far can we go before we get fined?" is ethically dubious and isn't
behaviour that should be rewarded.

~~~
xuki
I do agree and I want the App Store to change, I personally have been rejected
many times for random reasons by Apple. But we must be pragmatic and realize
users don't care, and as long as Apple can sell iPhone and services to users,
they won't change.

------
booleandilemma
It has a real “serf begging his lord” feel to it.

------
uxp100
What is the context for this being hosted at house.gov? I didn't follow the
hearings THAT closely. Was this particular letter discussed?

~~~
madeofpalk
The hearings the other day were just one part of the subcommittees anti-trust
investigation.

This constitutes the evidence gathering/discovery part of the investigation.

~~~
mFixman
How did the House find this email? Did one of the recipients leak if to the
committee, or did Apple have to deliver all emails of this type?

------
disillusioned
Man, from the title I was really hoping this was an internal Apple doc written
to Tim Cook by an Apple higher-up, or that it would maybe include a response
from Tim Cook but, nope, it's just a well-written complaint expouding on the
chokehold Apple has on their walled garden ecosystem.

~~~
jamestimmins
Saying that would be tantamount to openly admitting they have a monopoly,
which, morals aside, any CEO at that level would never even hint at. At most
they would change the rules and say something like "we can serve our users
better by increasing the openness of our ecosystem".

------
cdata
The App Store was always a walled garden with notably tall walls. The power
Apple has over who gets into the App Store has been described as the primary
virtue and attraction of iOS devices for years. Users love that it is a
curated collection with a very high bar for quality, and many are willing to
accept the trade-off that not all apps (even technically legitimate ones) will
be published there.

This is why the web is so important. More to the topic at hand: this is why
Apple purposely, broadly second-classing the web on iOS is so important, and
needs to stop.

On Android, a directory-style app would be trivial to distribute on the web as
an installable PWA that eventually becomes indistinguishable from a native app
from the user's perspective. It's 2020; this is a sub-basement level of
capability that all platforms should include by now. Let's stop pretending
that ceding all the publishing power to one company is a trade-off that makes
sense in the long-run (this goes for Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and all
the rest).

~~~
rimliu
Have you seen the web lately?

~~~
cdata
If you don't like the web, nobody is forcing you to use it.

But, your decision not to use it shouldn't come at the cost of someone else's
freedom to distribute legitimate software or creative works to those users who
seek it out.

Speaking for myself, most of the "apps" I use on my phone and desktop on a
daily basis are PWAs, and they are generally indistinguishable from the native
apps I use in terms of quality.

~~~
mytherin
I don't think the above poster was critiquing the quality of the web, but
rather stating that the web has the same problem of generally being
consolidated into the hands of a few big players (Google/Facebook).

If you make a website and Google decides to remove you from their search index
for whatever reason, the financial effects on most companies would also be
disastrous. Perhaps even comparable to being removed from the App Store.

~~~
true_religion
Google is basically providing free advertising. If they remove you, then you
can just use paid advertising.

There are many verticals in which Google cannot drive traffic to anyone except
the top players, so everyone not in the top 10 uses other means. Being in the
top index, is a perk of being already being famous and successful.

------
vmception
> I fear App Review is getting too powerful. It's no longer about keeping
> iDevices safe or protecting the user's best

Its amazing that people right here on hackernews, 5 years later, actually
think it is about keeping iDevices safe when they see these legislature and
regulatory movements against Apple

I’m glad to see your email now

~~~
zepto
I actually think it’s about keeping iDevices safe.

However I’m also someone who thinks app recommendation apps are a good thing
and should be allowed on the store.

I think the author of the PDF is not only trying to provide a valuable
service, but is also right in pointing out that there are problems.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

~~~
Hamuko
> _I actually think it’s about keeping iDevices safe._

How are Hey or xCloud about keeping iDevices safe?

~~~
richardwhiuk
xCloud deliberately avoids the app review process AIUI by allowing it to be an
umbrella for any game.

~~~
Hamuko
Yeah, but the technology used for all of the games is the same isn't it? It's
just streaming.

And if it's about content, I doube Apple is pre-approving every Netflix show.
I bet some of the offerings on Netflix even show female nipples.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-
freetheni...](https://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-
freethenipple-2015-9)

~~~
viro
are you really comparing video to executable code?

~~~
Hamuko
Am I comparing streaming video to streaming video? Why yes, I am.

~~~
zepto
You keep repeating this, but at this point it’s hard to imagine that you
really see no difference in either the technology or the experience between
what Netflix does and what xCloud does.

Do you really not see that there is a difference between watching a movie, and
controlling a remote video console which is playing a fully interactive video
game?

~~~
jolux
There’s a difference but it’s relatively pedantic. Netflix has interactive
shows and the play/pause is necessarily controlling a remote server as well.

~~~
zepto
It’s not pedantic to say that movies and videogames are different.

Most people in the world would think you insane if you said you perceived them
to be the same thing.

~~~
jolux
You’re misreading me. I’m saying that the technological distinction does not
justify the policy distinction. I don’t at all believe they’re the same thing.

The comments you’re replying to suggest that executables are being streamed or
something, and they’re not.

------
billjings
Can we correct the title? 2015 is not the correct date of public publication;
this document was published as part of House antitrust discovery, I believe
this year, and was private communication before that. Finding the precise date
is beyond my brief Googling efforts, though.

------
hellofunk
This is an impressive letter. It makes solid points, and it walks the fine
line between emotional and reasonable.

------
cblconfederate
One thing missing from this discussion is: where is academia? The WWW was
created inside academia, and it's because of that that it's still open and
competitive. The internet itself was created in the military. Where is the
equivalent for mobile apps? It's a problematic category that is wholly
dominated by 2 actors, one of which isn't even interested in phones. We need a
common set of standards for mobile development in order to open up the
competition

~~~
alerighi
Why not use the web as the standard? I mean progressive web apps can do nearly
everything that 95% of the apps do, they can present notifications, have a
local persistent storage, there are even proposal to let them access
bluetooth, USB and other hardware.

But of course now Apple is trying to oppose PWA by imposing stupid
limitations.

~~~
madeofpalk
they just aren't good enough. even on android, with google supposedly being
the patron saint of PWA, native apps just offer a better experience.

~~~
pier25
OTOH more effort hasn't been put into PWAs (by developers and Google)
precisely because these won't work properly in iOS.

~~~
madeofpalk
What doesn't actually work properly on iOS? Like what are the specific APIs
that are missing (because PWA isn't actually a real thing, it's just a
collection of APIs), or are buggy? IIRC you can't prompt for "app" "install",
and service worker support for background activity is limited (as it should be
IMHO).

It's funny Apple gets this bad rep, when on the UI front they've actually had
some really good APIs much earlier than Chrome. CSS Snap Points, backdrop-
filter, and position: sticky on iOS all have been really great at creating
more native-like experiences on web.

But really, despite being a web developer, I just have very little experience
in trying to compete with actual native apps which will always inherently be
more capable and performant. This isn't really due to the platform being
supposedly hindered by a particular company, but more down to the inherent
free for all nature of the web where there's very little _authorised intent_
you can express.

~~~
pier25
> _Like what are the specific APIs that are missing_

Push notifications and background sync for instance.

------
gerash
The legislation I'd get behind is to enforce _import_ / _export_ of data
across platforms a la. Google takeout but better where you can both _export_
and _import_ with a single click.

That is, rather than getting into some abstract arguments on what an App store
should or shouldn't do the focus should be on lowering the cost of switching
mobile / wearable computing platforms down to a _single click_ of a button.

There is no issue with making an ecosystem more appealing by making them well
integrated but there has to be an out of some kind for the consumer.

All those "Their app store, their rule" arguments don't hold water if you
compare it to, say, AT&T holding your phone number hostage and claiming that
they're not a monopoly and you can switch to another carrier but need to use a
new phone number if you do.

~~~
singron
Isn't that issue orthogonal? I don't think the iPhone has the userbase it does
because it takes more than 1 click to switch to android. Many people have
expensive devices that they like along with the software they prefer.

The fact that android and iOS compete for users is irrelevant to the fact that
Apple has a monopoly over access to iOS users and Google has a monopoly over
access to Android users. If you want to access people on mobile, you must
interact with one or both largely disjoint monopolies.

~~~
gerash
Monopoly over iOS or Android is a bit murky definition IMO. They are both
creations of those companies and it seems fine for them to have a monopoly
over them.

Ring devices by Amazon or Nest devices by Google can have a monopoly over the
devices in their ecosystem but no one cares [yet].

Mobile computing is what Apple and Google have created and of course you need
to go through them to access the users there. You have to go through MS and
Sony for example to access game console users, duh!

The issue is if for example tomorrow a new company builds a nicer hardware and
software package there's no easy way for users to migrate. The migration cost
is super high. That company can't emulate iOS or Windows to be compatible with
the existing apps. I don't think they can do a clean room reimplementation of
the OS calls either. The users would need to repurchase all the apps, music,
games, movies and other media they've already paid for even though none of
those content were created by the platform owners.

Imagine running a web server on Azure VMs and try to migrate to AWS to GCP but
then realize you need to repurchase all the stock images you used in your
website and any other software you run on your servers.

I think for popular enough platforms like iOS, Android, Windows, etc. the cost
of switching should be regulated. That way the quick feedback loop from
consumers will ensure the platforms owners are always kept on their toes to
keep all the consumers happy without relying on the moat they've built.

------
thoughtsimple
Since this is a recent release from the house investigation, I'm not sure if
it should be marked 2015 or not. But it was sent in 2015. I also wonder if it
had any affect. If anyone knows more details, that would be great to hear.

------
FpUser
I feel happy that aside of doing couple of small contract things I've never
had to deal with App stores and their respective owners. I just can't tolerate
that kind of control over my products hence refuse to participate.

------
rafaelturk
We're in the process to leave the App store ecosystem ourselves by migrating
our Apps to a WebApp, responsive, PWA, HTML5.

Surprisingly, somehow, it is actually based on Steve's amazing Thoughts on
flash Open Letter, that emphasizes HTML5

------
greatjack613
I honestly feel the best option would be for spotify, netflix, microsoft,
facebook, epic, and all other companies who have been burned by apple to pull
their apps indefinitely.

Sort of like a hunger strike. I am confident apple will cave first.

~~~
perryizgr8
I actually don't think it will make a difference. Apple users are used to
accepting weird compromises. Iphone 4 was notorious for bad reception during
calls. Apple's solution: hold it correctly. People buy apple h/w for the
shine, not any specific use, whose absence would make them buy something else.
So they will just endure without Fortnite, MS Word, Google Maps, Youtube etc.

In fact I'm sure many people will blame Microsoft/Google/Epic and say that
Apple is in the clear, just look at this thread.

------
salawat
The first time I read the guidance documents for branding and submission of
apps to the Apple and Google App stores, I had to look around and ask myself
why no one else was calling it out as anti-competitive. I know what a free
market looks like, I also know when onerous requirements are being place on
something just to get in. Both companies have done the same things. When you
see as many companies acquired and killed as has gone on in the last 20 years
or so it becomes pretty damn obvious what is going on. It's just amazing it
has taken this long for traction to develop in that regard.

------
halfFact
Don't all users understand this before giving Apple money?

No sympathy here. Make people use web apps instead of feeding the beast.

~~~
NorwegianDude
Good luck with web apps on iOS. Safari is a shitshow with more serious bugs
than anything else I know of. You can report bugs, and maybe someone working
on WebKit will look at it in 5 years, and maybe it will be fixed in 10 years.
And then probably appear again in the next iOS version.

Either Apple is incompetent, or they're making/keeping it bad on purpose.

~~~
halfFact
Can't you install chrome?

~~~
RonanTheGrey
All browsers on iOS use a Safari webview. iOS does not allow the installation
of competing browser engines. So, no. It may be called chrome, it may look
like chrome, but it is Safari, with all the limitations that implies (and a
few extra limitations as a webview, just for good measure).

Apple does this on purpose to push people to use native apps, and then they
lock down access to a market of 1 billion people to their whim of the day.

Edit: another poster pulled the trigger at the same time as me, will leave my
comment for good measure.

~~~
hnick
And even Microsoft let people install browsers that didn't use IE as a base.

------
MattGaiser
How did we get from the attitude that web apps will be everything and native
is backward to spending a lot of time concerned with App/Play Store
monopolies?

I guess my question is, why do native apps suddenly matter so much?

~~~
Miraste
At least on iOS, native apps matter because Apple suffocated web apps by
blocking a lot of functionality (APIs, PWA support).

~~~
inetknght
> _Apple suffocated web apps by blocking a lot of functionality (APIs, PWA
> support)_

Rightfully so: I, as a user, do not want the web to have anywhere near the
functionality that Google grants it; and absolutely not without clear and
explicit permission.

The unfortunate flip side is that native apps sidestep that whole paradigm
anyway.

~~~
foxrider
So just add a manifest to a web app, like in KaiOS, the third largest phone
OS? A permission model isn't hard to implement

------
caro_douglos
I'd be curious to see the letters written directly to jeff@amazon by small
businesses (3rd party merchants) which were suspended. Would be interesting to
see if they:

* went out of business * took predatory loans * were given loans directly by Amazon [1].

[1]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200416132704/https://sell.amaz...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200416132704/https://sell.amazon.com/programs/amazon-
lending.html)

------
hughw
"We believed the web was dead"... well there's your problem.

------
superdeeda
Here is the list of more such documents from the hearing:
[https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-
powe...](https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-power/)

------
gajeam
Coincidentally, iOS 13 updated iBeacon in a way that also made it a lot less
useful to developers (although there was a clear privacy benefit for users.)

------
surround
Can we get a (2015) tag on the title?

~~~
gpm
The letter is from 2015, the fact that the US house of representatives is
looking at the letter appears to be current and the main point of the
submission.

------
themihai
>> We didn't even have a web version of the product because we believed the
web was dead

Well he deserved what he's got...like all the people pumping up dictators
because they are "good" for a short period of time just to find out later they
are not so good anymore and they have no way to change that.

------
kelnos
I wonder which of Cue, Schiller, or Federighi replied, and what their thoughts
were.

------
awinter-py
oh man dissing hololens on the last page! AR has come a long way in 5 years

------
kanox
Am I the only one that is creeped out that this email is public?

~~~
mhafez17
As the author I was shocked to see it out there, and seeing my emotions out
there like that made me feel something, I'm not sure what. But ultimately I am
happy that this conversation is finally happening. I have a good feeling
things are going to change for the better soon.

~~~
pier25
> _I have a good feeling things are going to change for the better soon._

I hope you're right.

What do you think will happen? Apple will be forced to allow other app stores
on iOS?

------
1f60c
Who redacted this email? Apple, or the House?

------
paulcole
> When I was really upset I picked up an Android phone and after 5 mins I
> couldn't handle how they completely missed delighting the user over and over
> again

How many times does this guy expect to be delighted in 5 minutes?

~~~
saagarjha
At least a few, presumably?

------
alirsgp
Am I the only one that supports Apple here? As a smaller indie dev they have
been great to me. The best developer support I've experienced from a company
and I don't mind the 30% cut.

~~~
smaddock
The email wasn't complaining about Apple's cut of profits, but rather having
their app being killed seemingly arbitrarily when Apple decided to kill a
category of apps from the store.

Folks can have a good experience with the app store, until they don't. There's
survivorship bias in creating an app unaffected by the ever changing app
review policies.

This isn't exclusive to Apple's walled garden either.

------
Ansil849
> In November last year the App Review team made it clear that our apps were
> not welcome in the Store anymore as they actively removed our main app from
> the Store. They pointed to the rule (2.26) created just a couple of years
> ago about what kind of apps can recommend apps other than its own (by the
> way I still believe my apps fit the description). We of course have been
> aware of this rule since it came out, as we already had a healthy business
> and significant payroll doing app journalism. When we saw some apps get
> removed, it made us more steadfast in our mission. Because we believed the
> fact that we were not bothered is because we were doing it the "right 11
> way. We were really serving the user and the App Store. Not selling fake
> "recommendations" as deceptive ads. We literally turned down millions of
> dollars in revenues, as developers repeatedly asked to pay per install to be
> featured in our app (outside of tradition advertising). It was hard to turn
> down the money even though we knew it was not right to users. One thing that
> made it easier is our belief that playing it straight would keep us in the
> App Store and in Apple's good graces.

The rule exists for precisely the reason this email notes: to prevent the
selling of deceptive in-app ads. How are App Review personnel supposed to know
if the in-app links to other apps are there to really "serve the user" or as
paid advertising? They can't, hence the rule. I don't see this is a problem, I
see this as a good thing - I don't want to be exposed to deceptive
advertising.

~~~
dessant
You seem to not be interested in living with your right to install any app you
want on your device, which is fine. But do you also believe that other people
should not have the right to install software that has not been blessed by an
authority on their devices?

Do you think that general purpose computing devices, which an iPhone is,
should no longer have the capability to run software without third-party
auditing and approval?

You are free to stay in the walled garden if you wish, but I think there is
something disturbing about rallying for others to also lose the rights that
are not important to you.

~~~
phone8675309
> But do you also believe that other people should not have the right to
> install software that has not been blessed by an authority on their devices?

If they did thirty seconds of research in the market they would see that there
is a large ecosystem of devices that allow unsigned apps to be installed by
the owner that they could have chosen.

~~~
dessant
This argument keeps being repeated, and it's basically just "if you don't like
it, find a different platform". Do you think that's how our rights should be
preserved, by hopping to places and platforms that respect our rights?

Where do we leave those who have to live with their devices, or simply lacked
the knowledge to make that important distinction at the time, or things have
changed and now they need to install apps that have not been approved by
Apple. Wouldn't the solution be to offer people that need to live with their
right to sideload apps on their devices an escape hatch, instead of telling
them to change platforms?

~~~
valuearb
Why would you buy a device where much of the value it provides is derived from
its walled garden, then complain about the walls around the garden?

~~~
dessant
People can have devices without explicitly choosing them, or understanding the
consequences if they get to have a choice, and the rights of those people are
needlessly restricted.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
> are needlessly restricted.

Its equally correct to say, "the rights of those people are needfully
restricted."

If people cannot choose their devices, or are miss-informed that is a big
issue and should not be tolerated. Meanwhile, allowing Apple to build an
amazing, curated customer experience for me is why I choose Apple's ecosystem
for me and my family. I don't want my parents or future children getting
misled into downloading malware, or berated by ads, or giving out their credit
cards to an un-trusted application disguised as "verified by Apple".

The walled garden is a feature, with tradeoffs. Not different from my shower
head or fridge making feature based tradeoffs. If you don't like the energy
bills for your washing machine, suing or regulating the company to improve it
isn't the right strategy. Just buy a different brand that matches your needs.

If you want sideloading on iOS (beyond what the web offers), buy an Android.

