
App Review process updates - BigBalli
https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=84w3e5bm
======
lapcatsoftware
My update, which has a new feature but no bug fixes, is currently in limbo
because the reviewer is getting mysterious proxy connection errors that no
customer of mine has ever reported.

I saw another developer today say their app was "rejected" because the
reviewer asked "How does the app utilize Touch Bar and where can we locate
these features?"

This kind of crap happens all the time, and I don't see anything in this
announcement that will help. App review is just plain incompetent and
terrible.

~~~
drampelt
I've been having similar issues with one of our apps, the reviewer can't seem
to log in and keeps getting network error messages. No customers have had any
issues, I've tried logging in to multiple accounts including the apple
reviewer account on multiple networks and I have no issues whatsoever. It's
really frustrating.

~~~
scblzn
If it can help you, you should know that they test everything over a VPN that
doesn’t support UDP. So if your app makes use of UDP you’ll need a fallback
method.

~~~
packetlost
What kind VPN doesn't support UDP!?

~~~
causality0
For example, I've never managed to establish any sort of UDP connection over
an AT&T line, neither home nor cellular.

~~~
jchb
UDP on AT&T and other carriers is just fine, but you need to do NAT hole
punching or proxy the UDP packets. See my comment to the grandparent.

------
trainerfu
We’ve been making white-label apps for fitness businesses for a few years now.
Our white label app allows fitness businesses to deliver better personal
training experience to their clients. Personal trainers and their clients can
use the app to plan and track workouts, track progress, chat with each other
etc.

Recently, Apple started rejecting our white-label app because allegedly we are
breaking their "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline. As per the
guideline, if a business is selling digital content on other platforms that’s
accessible inside the iOS app then those items should also be available as an
in-app purchase on the iOS app too.

This was very surprising because we always thought personal training services
to fall under the category of "goods and services" and not digital content.
And as per guideline “3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App” we
aren’t even allowed to use in-app purchase selling services.

But Apple reviewers disagree that our app falls under the “services” category.
According to reviewers, since clients are getting "digital value" from the app
we therefore must add an in-app purchase to the app.

We are ready to add a free tier to the app. But that is a no-go solution. We
must add in-app purchases of some kind to get the apps approved.

The "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline does not make sense. You can
use the same guideline to force any for-profit business that offers anything
useful inside an iOS app to add an in-app purchase. How is this even allowed?

By the same reasoning apps built for physical therapists, doctors should add
in-app purchases too?

And why is Uber not giving a 30% cut? Their customers do get digital-value
inside the app.

Not sure if this new change can actually help us.

~~~
heavyset_go
This is a blatant attempt by Apple to extra their 30% rent on business that
happens outside of their App Store. It's shocking that one of the wealthiest
companies in the world acts this way towards small developers and companies.

~~~
Spivak
I think you're misunderstanding this rule. If I made a phone game where there
was a "store" where I could buy physical stickers but each sticker pack came
with a code for 10,000 in-game coins Apple would see that as just a way to get
around paying 30% for something digital.

And if the _only_ way to get in-game coins was by buying stickers off-app
Apple would say you have to offer buying them in-app too as an IAP.

~~~
sixo
Yeah, when a rule has all these bizarre apparent loopholes and where the rule-
setter needs to examine the implied intent of the action... it might be a bad
rule.

~~~
Spivak
I think any system of rules is going to look weird and organic when they have
millions of people trying to rule lawyer the system.

Like the basic tenant of “we take a 30% cut of the sale of all digital goods
on our platform” is pretty straightforward, you only run into weird rules when
you try find ways around it.

~~~
trainerfu
How are we trying to find way around it? We don't want to sell anything via
IAP because it does not make sense in our app. But somehow we are forced to do
it.

~~~
Spivak
Look, I don't at all think you're trying to get away with something -- I think
you're caught up in weird rule that was intended to plug the loophole of
"selling a stick of gum that comes with a free bottle of water." From the
reviewer's perspective they see that when personal trainers sell their
services to clients they're also selling your/their white-label app. To Apple
that's a sale of digital goods and they want their pound of flesh. The fact
that it's bundled with an IRL service doesn't seem to matter to them.

You might be able to get away with skirting this rule if your white-label app
is just a client to a fitness tracking service. Then it should fall under the
same rules as Netflix and other "reader" apps.

------
makecheck
I was once rejected because my one-window app didn’t have a Minimize
button...for a game...that primarily runs in Full Screen. Other rejections
were at least as pointless, every time leaving a bad taste in my mouth and
making me wonder why they wasted as much time as they did.

The breaking point for me was when the reviewer _refused_ to allow my minor
update in because it “crashed” in _an unreleased minor OS update_ that I
literally _could not acquire at the time_. I removed my app from the Mac App
Store the same day and haven’t been back.

It is a petty, pointless, and infuriating experience, which wouldn’t bother me
so much if it wasn’t abundantly clear how much trash still makes it into the
store and how inconsistent they are. I recommend that everyone use the
“suggestion” box to suggest removing App Review entirely.

~~~
Reason077
I think the first reason is a legitimate criteria. Any app that has a window
is definitely expected to have a minimise button - it's very strange behaviour
if it doesn't, and even games that normally run full screen should have this
button when placed in windowed mode.

The second reason certainly sounds infuriating, but it's odd that the reviewer
had access to an OS update that you didn't. In general, a crash on the latest
OS update is a good reason for rejection because you're going to have to fix
it sooner or later anyway. Better to fix it now rather than have to come back
to it later.

~~~
CodeWriter23
Well they should dogfood their own rules and add such a button to Safari.
Every time I end up mistakenly tapping Open in New Window (which I NEVER want)
instead of New Tab, I have a very frustrating time figuring out how to gesture
that new window TF off my screen.

~~~
wlesieutre
Safari does have a minimize button. It's the yellow one that sends it down to
the dock, and is present on every single window on macOS that I can find. Even
the mini-UI palette windows like "Safari User Guide" have a mini version of
the same three window controls.

But if you're trying to _close_ a window that you didn't want to open, you
probably want the red button not the yellow one.

If what you're trying to do is move a page from its own window to another
window, you can drag its tab. But that's not possible if you have "Show tab
bar" disabled in the view menu, the tab bar will be hidden for windows with a
single tab.

Alternate workaround if you find yourself accidentally opening things in a new
window by accident frequently: instead of right clicking and picking from the
menu, command-click on the link to open it in a new tab. If you have a
3-button mouse, middle click will do this as well.

~~~
chrisweekly
How do you reverse the effects of "Cmd+H" without resorting to the mouse or
trackpad?

~~~
chrisweekly
Thabks for the suggestion, but IME cmd+tabbing till the hidden app is
selected, then releasing (ie, standard cmd+tab ux) does precisely nothing.
Hence the question.

~~~
wlesieutre
Another thought - if you meant to ask how to restore a window after minimizing
it to the dock with cmd-M (rather than hiding the app with cmd-H), there's an
even less well known shortcut: Open the command-tab switcher, select the app
you want, then hold down option and release command.

Doesn't handle multiple windows gracefully (if the app has another window not
minimized it won't do anything, just switch to that window as normal). But if
you have an app with a single window and you've minimized it, this will pop it
back up.

Alternatively, you can access the whole dock directly with a keyboard shortcut
using ctrl-F3 (add Fn if needed depending on your keyboard setup).

~~~
chrisweekly
"command-tab switcher, select the app you want, then hold down option and
release command"

bingo! thanks! :)

------
bww
The fact that Apple seems to think it is effectively responding to the
mounting discontent with their stewardship of the App Store by offering
developers a form to complain into demonstrates how far out of touch they’ve
become.

We know from court documents that exactly these sorts of developer concerns
have been discussed at the highest levels of Apple's leadership and they have
consistently failed to make any meaningful policy changes. What Apple is
offering now is merely an official process for disregarding this sort of
criticism.

I’m sure anyone who is considering investing significant effort or resources
into products built on Apple platforms will be completely reassured by this
gesture – especially knowing how receptive Apple has been to criticism of its
policies in the past.

This press release reads to me like “Here’s Your Complaint Form, Jerk”[1].

[1] [https://slate.com/technology/2010/07/apple-s-
condescending-i...](https://slate.com/technology/2010/07/apple-s-
condescending-iphone-4-press-conference.html)

------
root_axis
I work on an e-commerce app, we were rejected because one of our screeenshots
depicts a Microsoft surface. Only Apple products are allowed to be shown...

~~~
benrbray
If this isn't an abusive monopoly position, I don't know what is.

~~~
mytherin
It isn't an abusive monopoly position basically by definition: Apple is not a
monopoly in any market that they participate in. There is tons of competition
in smartphones, laptops, etc.

The problem is not one of monopolies - the problem is that a set of private
companies - including Apple - control _critical digital infrastructure_. This
digital infrastructure is required by almost all other companies and people to
function, yet it is in private hands, and they can do with it as they please.

Imagine if all roads were owned by a small number of private companies, and
you would need their permission to use the roads. That is what is happening in
the digital world right now.

~~~
kbenson
We need to stop looking at whether they are a monopoly and start looking at
what their anti-competitive behavior means and how it affects the market and
consumers.

Anti-competitive behavior is to assault as a monopoly is to murder. One often
leads to the other, but they are both harmful. We don't generally let people
run around assaulting people and say "well they aren't murdering people, so
let's leave them alone".

Apple is clearly exhibiting Anti-competitive behavior, and in a way that
distorts the market. The whole reason we have laws about monopolies is because
we identified the Anti-competitive behavior and labeled that specific type as
a monopoly. A monopoly is only a problem in that it can easily affect the
market as a whole through Anti-competitive actions. Apple can do so even
though they aren't a monopoly as we've defined it. Why shouldn't we legislate
to reduce the harms they are committing as well?

~~~
tinus_hn
We need to stop looking at what the courts decide and start listening to the
anti Apple crowd on HackerNews!

~~~
kbenson
>> Why shouldn't we legislate to reduce the harms they are committing as well?

What do you think a call to write legislation is for?

> We need to stop looking at what the courts decide

The purpose of courts is to interpret the legislation passed by our
representatives. The purpose of legislation is to enact the will of the people
as interpreted by their representatives and the existing constitution.

If we didn't didn't follow this path, there would be no such thing as anti-
trust law - it didn't come from the founders, the harm of anti-competitive
behavior was identified and legislated against in the late 1800's - so why
shouldn't we identify new forms of anti-competitive behavior that causes harm
and do the same?

~~~
scarface74
_The purpose of legislation is to enact the will of the people_

The purpose of the legislation is to enact the will of the states. The Senate
doesn’t represent the “people”. It represents the states. Each state
regardless of population has 2 senators. Meaning that 46% of the Senators
represent less than 25% of the population.

A powerful government can do much more harm than a corporation. There isn’t a
single corporation in America that has the coercive power if the government.

~~~
kbenson
> The Senate doesn’t represent the “people”. It represents the states.

Senators are elected by the people of those states.

> Each state regardless of population has 2 senators. Meaning that 46% of the
> Senators represent less than 25% of the population.

It's not a direct proportional representation. That's what congress is.

> The purpose of the legislation is to enact the will of the states.

Congress also makes legislation.

> A powerful government can do much more harm than a corporation. There isn’t
> a single corporation in America that has the coercive power if the
> government.

Thankfully.

~~~
scarface74
The Senate is far more powerful than the House. They also approve judges with
lifetime appointments, Cabinet members, and committee chairs - where
regulations are actually chosen.

~~~
kbenson
And they are still elected by the people. Just because senators are not
proportional to the number of constituents and instead proportional to the
number of states does not mean they doesn't represent the people - they
represents the people of a state but in a non-proportional manner. You haven't
made any points against that since I pointed it out, and it completely negates
your original point, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by
noting the Senate is more powerful. They are, in _some_ respects, but that's
irrelevant as to whether they represent the people. Also, Congress has quite a
few unique capabilities as well, such as oversight, impeachment, the ability
to declare war. Powers are split between the two parts of the legislative
branch.

~~~
scarface74
If I lived in California, why would I want the states in the Bible Belt to
have a disproportionate amount of power?

How did that whole impeachment thing work earlier this year? Wasn’t it stopped
because a disproportionate number of Senators to the population stopped it?

How often have Presidents used military force when the majority of the people
weren’t in favor of it?

Judicial, Cabinet, and Committee are all decided by the Senate.

------
ehvatum
It’s all become too much. I’m deprecating Apple support at my company. Current
company-owned Apple devices may continue to be used, and any BYOD is fine if
it doesn’t run an Oracle DB instance, but we will no longer pay for repairs to
Apple devices and we will not pay to replace them with Apple devices. We have
about $45k original MSRP of Apple equipment, so it’s not a big deal, except to
us. The trend of Apple hardware and software problems soaking up an increasing
amount of time would reach the ultimate limit of complete 24/7 time
consumption by the year 2031, if the current trend were allowed to continue.

We are in the robotic manufacturing sector, and also we have a lumber mill for
some reason.

~~~
heavyset_go
As a developer of a couple of open source macOS apps, I couldn't have said it
better myself.

~~~
grishka
I don't quite understand people complaining about macOS apps. You aren't
forced to publish in the app store. You can still disable Gatekeeper. You can
disable code signature and entitlement enforcement altogether, although the
process is messy. There's still nothing technically stopping you from avoiding
Apple policies.

~~~
heavyset_go
You can try to understand why macOS developers are frustrated with Apple by
reading some of these[1] comments on HN.

> _You aren 't forced to publish in the app store._

If you don't pay $100 each year to Apple, macOS will treat your app as if it
is radioactive. If your users don't know the magic security ritual to run un-
notarized apps is, the app will just appear to be broken.

> _You can still disable Gatekeeper._

Yes, if you're a power user. Apple is removing the ability to easily run un-
notarized software in future macOS releases.

> _There 's still nothing technically stopping you from avoiding Apple
> policies._

Apple's literal technical limitations for distribution and execution of
applications for apps that can't make it through Apple's approval process for
notarization prevents users from using the applications they downloaded but
Apple doesn't approve of.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24276406](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24276406)

~~~
grishka
It does say right there that Big Sur will be requiring signatures on all
binaries, but it does actually specifically say that a self-signed certificate
would be enough.

If someone wants to distribute apps without notarizing them, it's just a
matter of adding instructions on how to bypass the notarization check.

And again — there's shouldn't be a party more trusted than the device owner.
Otherwise I'd characterize such an OS as malware.

~~~
heavyset_go
> _If someone wants to distribute apps without notarizing them, it 's just a
> matter of adding instructions on how to bypass the notarization check._

In the future, that will require disabling SIP. Good luck explaining to a non-
power users how to do that.

Your analysis ignores the anticompetitive behavior Apple is engaging in. By
making unapproved software second-class citizens on macOS, only apps that get
Apple's approval through the Notarization or App Store process can be run
easily by users.

~~~
grishka
> In the future, that will require disabling SIP.

Are you sure about that? Catalina has this "developer tools" permission that
allows running unsigned/non-notarized binaries. Xcode grants that to itself,
but you could as well grant it to things like Terminal and run your app from
there. Bonus points for including a shell script with your app so the user
doesn't have to run "scary" commands manually.

Yes, there are going to be (one-time) UX compromises, but I think it's
possible to make it feel more or less okay for the average user.

~~~
clusterfish
Jeez, have some empathy for regular people. The whole damn point of those
measures on Apple's side is to introduce friction and make it excessively hard
to install non-notarized apps. It's already bad and unusable by most average
people, and that's exactly the goal.

~~~
grishka
> The whole damn point of those measures on Apple's side is to introduce
> friction and make it excessively hard to install non-notarized apps.

I understand that. And that's why I'm trying to come up with a good enough,
UX-wise, way to bypass this malicious, hostile behavior.

------
wlesieutre
Original announcement for reference:
[https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-
dev...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-developer-
technologies-to-foster-the-next-generation-of-apps/)

 _> Additionally, two changes are coming to the app review process and will be
implemented this summer. First, developers will not only be able to appeal
decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store
Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline
itself. Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no
longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal
issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next
submission._

~~~
croes
>First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an
app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will
also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself.

Sounds good, but Apple still can just simply say no.

~~~
wlesieutre
That's true but there is already at least one case of Apple saying yes, so
this doesn't seem to be a fake initiative to deflect criticism while not
changing anything:
[https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1299777657744142336](https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1299777657744142336)

~~~
dathinab
I believe there are two ways of friction/problem:

\- such created by accident weather it's because of suboptimal rules, vague
formulation or reviewers give mad with power

\- such created intentionally to control the platform in all reasonable and
unreasonable ways

I believe Apple does try to fix or lesson the burden of the first for the
benefit of everyone including them.

But they won't do so for the second reason where you most likely still get a
no even if they are acting unreasonable.

At the same time they now can point to this and say "see we are all fair" even
if they are not.

~~~
wlesieutre
Agreed, Apple isn't going to say "Well since you asked nicely, I guess you can
implement your own in-app purchase processing." But having an official
recourse on their arbitrary app store bans from minor rule interpretations is
still a great improvement. Probably driven by the antitrust attention they're
getting, since otherwise they've been able to get away with whatever they want
and small developers can't do anything about it.

The remaining big question is whether Apple will rule in someone's favor on
their own, or if in practice the result is still "Things will get fixed if and
only if they get enough attention on twitter."

------
andrewmunsell
A while ago, I developed an Apple Watch app that detected when you raised your
hand and touched your face and notified you so that you could build a habit
avoiding doing so ([https://www.facealert.app](https://www.facealert.app)).

Apple stretched out the review process before rejecting the app, and after I
escalated to tcook's email address, I received a call from their team telling
me my app took "measurements the Apple Watch was not designed to support".

This, of course, is complete BS since the _whole_ point of generalizable
sensors and Apple's ML tools is to build apps to add new capabilities to the
device, otherwise all we'd have are map and messaging apps. And it's slightly
comical that they added the feature to detect hand washing in the newest
WatchOS, something the Apple Watch "was not originally designed to support".
I'm fairly certain they didn't want to have any part or apparent liability for
the app if it "didn't work correctly", nevermind the app did not mention
COVID, disease, or anything else controversial.

There was always a way to "escalate" or "appeal" a review, so any new
processes are smoke and mirrors. Apple will always reject whatever they want
to reject until they're forced otherwise by a regulatory body.

~~~
Spivak
I mean is it really that weird that after Apple reviewed the app they came to
the conclusion that "while neat we don't think the sensors handle this use-
case well enough and we don't want to support/guarantee that all/future models
will even be able to take measurements like this."

I'm really not surprised that Apple is wary of an app that with the current
sensors can at absolute best guess when you're touching your face. Because
if/when it doesn't really work it just makes the watch look bad.

~~~
jonny_eh
> "while neat we don't think the sensors handle this use-case well enough and
> we don't want to support/guarantee that all/future models will even be able
> to take measurements like this."

Is that what they said?

~~~
Spivak
I don’t really know how else to read “measurements the watch wasn’t designed
to support” as “we can’t guarantee the measurements you’re taking are or will
be accurate enough for what you’re trying to do.”

I mean this whole story is heresay. How do you know that the OPs interaction
even happened?

------
pier25
An update to a Mac app I was working on was rejected because it used some
permissions. The reviewer claimed those were not needed but, not only those
permissions were needed, previous versions of the app had those same
permissions.

We sent our comments to the reviewer and never got an answer back. A couple of
days later we appealed to the review board and the update was accepted in a
matter of hours. Not sure what happened there. Our guess was that maybe Apple
was testing some kind of automated process that failed.

I don't remember the details, but we were using UDP features in the app and
the permissions were related to being able to receive and send UDP packets.

~~~
xxpor
I'm shocked they have permissions that are that granular. I can understand
"network access" in general, but having to ask specifically for UDP?

~~~
pier25
Not so much required for UDP specifically, but for being able to open a socket
and receive packets.

------
alex_c
>Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer
be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues.
Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission.

This is good news. We've had instances in the past where a critical bug fix
was delayed because of a completely unrelated and minor issue with the update
(for example: issues with the store listing content that was approved in
previous updates but now rejected).

This was a bad experience for everyone involved. Obviously for developers, but
I'm still not sure how much Apple cares about that. But more importantly for
users, who may be stuck with a broken or unsafe app for another day or more
for relatively trivial reasons.

I think this change is made in good faith by Apple. Of course there are always
bad actors who may try to game it, but overall it should improve the process
for developers and users.

------
MBCook
For those thinking ‘they already announced this’, you’re right.

The change, as I understand it, is that today the policy goes into effect.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I wonder how intentional it is that Apple chose to terminate Epic Games'
developer account one business day prior to this going into effect. Epic Games
presumably can't access the form since it can't log in. (And obviously they
don't want to screw with the Unreal Engine's Apple account on this fight.)

~~~
mythz
This was announced before Epic violated the ToS whose account was terminated
after the 14 days to comply with the App Store rules had elapsed.

This has an exception that still wouldn't allow Epic's games to remain in
store:

> bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for
> those related to legal issues

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I agree this was indeed announced prior to the Epic Games event, but Apple
chose when to remove their developer account. Apple absolutely had the leeway
to remove an app violating their terms (which at that point, the account is no
longer violating the policy), but not close out the entire account. The choice
to do that was punitive, because they really want Epic to roll back the change
for revenue reasons.

I am not sure "they sued Apple" counts as a "legal reason" for blocking the
app. Not giving Apple a cut of sales isn't illegal.

(Note the judge during the TRO hearing felt both companies were being stubborn
here, as whether Epic removed the payment method or Apple allowed the app, the
winning company to get back their monetary impact upon the conclusion of the
case. Keeping the app off the store is "making a point" more than actually
protecting any revenue on either side.)

~~~
valuearb
It’s simple contract violation, Epic violated terms and conditions they agreed
to in exchange for being on the Store.

Leaving the app up allows Epic to continue to break rules and Apple has
consistently said if Epic submitted a version of Fortnite without the
alternate purchase options and the dynamic updating that allowed Epic to
modify it without App Review they’d put it back up. Instead Epic submitted
three versions with those same features.

------
dathinab
Sounds good, but we will see if it fully honest.

My guess is it still work well for all accidental friction but won't help at
all with friction Apple put in place intentionally.

Through if the appeal goes through a different person then the reviewer it
might help with unreasonable reviewers (which Apple isn't probably to happy
with either as they are prone to create bad PR)

~~~
ehsankia
I'm curious to see too, because my instinct is that accidental frictions are
actually a very large chunk of the problems people have. At the scale that
Apple works, even a 0.1% of updates being wrongly flagged probably meant
dozens per day, and it's really annoying for a dev to have to deal with the
inconsistency of randomly getting flagged for something that was fine a week
ago.

------
GhostVII
Apple should make a two tiered app review process - one which checks if the
app meets their guidelines around UI/advertising/etc and one which just checks
if it is malware or not. Then in the app store they can downrank anything that
doesn't meet their guidelines, keeping the quality apps more visible, without
entirely removing apps for dumb things like not having a minimize button.

------
anfilt
Till they allow users to side load any changes are just platitudes.

~~~
valuearb
If iOS is ever forced to allow side-loading, it becomes far less attractive to
its core market.

~~~
jjcon
You can already sideload on iOS (with no jailbreak) - it is admittedly janky
though.

I sideload a YouTube Vanced - like app on all my devices

~~~
judge2020
To clarify, side-loaded apps are only signed with a certificate valid for 7
days if you're on a regular, non-developer Apple account. If you pay $99/yr
for the developer account, that is increased to 1 year.

There are workarounds being worked on for this - one being AltStore [1] (does
not allow arbitrary IPAs yet).

You can also sideload on Windows/Linux with Cydia Impactor[0] - on Mac you can
use either impactor or xcode/CLI tools to sign IPAs.

0: [http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/](http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/)

1: [https://altstore.io/](https://altstore.io/)

~~~
tech234a
A few minor corrections: AltStore does allow sideloading arbitrary IPAs, even
on the non-Patreon version, and IIRC Cydia Impactor is currently broken for
free accounts.

------
fuu_dev
I am not very knowledgeable of the US law but a law websiste² does point out
that anti competitive behavior is punishable, a monopoly position is not. I
personally would label a lot of things apple does (like e.g. not allowing game
streaming from 3rd parties, not allowing the use of other browsers, not allow
people to use existing payment infrastructure, ...) as anti competitive.

A layer on youtube³ however says throughout multiple videos that epic has a
(if even)very weak case and apple is in the right.

I would be interested to have someone break it down to understand the case.

[2][https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/](https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/)

[3][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5RTzzeCFurWTPLm8usDkQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5RTzzeCFurWTPLm8usDkQ)

------
9wzYQbTYsAIc
> And now, in addition to appealing decisions about whether an app violates
> guidelines, you can suggest changes to the guidelines.

~~~
wlesieutre
And this has already been used successfully by GuardianVPN

[https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1299777657744142336](https://twitter.com/chronic/status/1299777657744142336)

~~~
benologist
This story keeps floating around but the reality is Apple saw a $0.99 in-app
purchase for a one-day pass, interpreted that as a one-day non-recurring
subscription, which they don't support, but they demanded subscription billing
be used instead of in app purchases.

They conceded this utterly pointless problem they invented for the developer.
Developers have been arguing against these for years, stupid rejections were
once so common that Apple threatened against revealing them to the press in
the official guidelines [1].

It's yet to be seen if they will cave on any issues like emulators, or apps
mocking President Xi, or Xbox streaming, or external billing, full web
browsers, transparency about their transaction fees, porn etc.

[1]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...](https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/)

------
pier25
I have a feeling these suggestions will basically be a black hole, much like
all feedback mechanisms Apple provides.

I would like to be proved wrong though.

------
nixpulvis
So we just slip in our third party app stores in "bug fixes" now?

Or what exactly _is_ a legal issue?

~~~
Gaelan
What used to happen is this:

You release version v1.0, with something that's borderline under Apple's
policies. Apple approves it.

You release version v1.1, with just bug fixes. Apple decides what you did in
1.0 wasn't OK after all, so you can't release your bug fix until you're
removed whatever apple thinks is noncompliant.

This happened with Hey, for example.

~~~
fooey
This happens to us _constantly_

We sell a business tool, once the business account is upgraded, the rest of it
just pay per seat linked to that org. All our sales are done over the phone,
so we don't need to accept payments in app. We never ever tell you in the app
how you can upgrade to the premium version. We never even link to our own damn
website out of fear of Apple's wrath.

About 1/4 of the times we submit big fixes or feature updates we lose the game
of Apple Review Roulette, and get denied. So we have to do an appeal and
explain it all, again, and so far at least, the 2nd tier always approves it.

Practically, it just means that everything we do with Apple, you have to plan
for it to take 2 weeks

~~~
valuearb
You kids have it easy. My first App was held up for 6 weeks due to its name!
Back then even standard App Review with no problems took a week minimum.

It is so much faster now.

------
Yetanfou
Stop releasing software for Apple products. Release for Windows, release for
Android, release for Linux where applicable but ignore Apple. If enough people
do this Apple will either give in and loosen their stranglehold or they'll see
their platforms loose shine. I predict they'll loosen their stranglehold to
keep up sales and their stock price. This will be a good thing for both users
and - in the end - the company.

------
slg
How does Apple determine if an update is a bug fix or a new submission?

~~~
jmull
I’m guessing the way this is going to work in practice is an update would be
allowed if it contains a violation but the violating behavior is substantially
the same as the existing version but had not previously been flagged.

New violating behaviors and existing violations behaviors that had previously
been flagged would prevent the update from being approved.

------
MobileVet
Our latest update was failed because the first screen didn’t respond to touch
on iPad. We pulled our hair out trying to replicate it.

I asked what model iPad and they just replied with ‘13.6.1 on an iPad.’ We
started digging further.

We ran it on Xcode 12 (beta) and reproduced the problem.

I asked if they were testing on a physical device or the simulator. They
directly denied that... but said the issue had cleared up and we were passed.

No code change of course... so tell me how this magically ‘cleared up’?
Frustrating

------
herf
App Review should be more transparent and more public. For instance, even
without naming an app, the reasons for rejection by category could be public.

In the bigger discussion, we don't know if "difficult" cases like the ones in
this thread are common, if the approval process is used against whole
categories of apps, if competitors are being harmed, or perhaps if it's more
about fine-tuning user experience, and bad developer experiences are rare.

Right now, there are many awful stories (and many successful apps), and we
don't know how long companies and developers spend trying to resolve problems
like these. If the App Store is the modern market for software, the lack of
transparency is a big issue, and developers would feel more comfortable making
a multiple-year investment to bring a product to iOS if they could see what's
likely to happen in advance.

------
klambda
I would like the current state to improve so thought of submitting feedback on
Apple's program page.

Unfortunately the "Provide Feedback" ([https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/tell-us/](https://developer.apple.com/app-store/tell-us/)) page reads:

"We’ll be back soon."

No more comments...

------
jordansmithnz
Like other commenters here, I’ve also experienced app rejections that seem
arbitrary and fail to look at the bigger picture.

I don’t have any proof of this, but I have a suspicion that app reviewers may
need to meet some sort of rejection quota. It would certainly explain some of
the frivolous rejections I’ve seen. Reviewers must be evaluated and held to
account by some standards, so it doesn’t seem too far fetched to think that
some sort of rejection ratio may be applied, or at least tracked somewhere.

If this is the case, it’s not necessarily an easy problem to solve. How you
you enforce a consistent quality bar without using some reviewer KPI/metric
that’s inherently flawed? This being said: rejecting apps for menial reasons
does not seem like the right compromise to make.

------
staysaasy
It's interesting to observe the difference between Apple's great treatment of
consumers and their actions towards businesses that they interact with, as the
App Store is fundamentally a b2b experience. It really highlights the
difference between consumer and enterprise DNA.

~~~
akvadrako
Apple does not have great treatment of consumers. It’s very inconsistent, so
it sometimes feels great. But if you’ve ever had an idiot at a store totally
misdiagnose an issue with a MacBook and force you to pay for repairs to faulty
hardware that’s under warranty, you’ll realize there is actually no official
escalation process.

~~~
valuearb
Apples customer satisfaction has been the highest in the industry for decades,
and it’s never even been close.

The occasional genius mistake doesn’t the undo the many, many interactions
they get right, go the extra mile, and help customers beyond specific warranty
limitations.

------
ChrisMarshallNY
That should be interesting. Most of my bounces are guideline issues.

I just released four apps over the weekend, and one of them was like
"guideline ping-pong," until I got it right.

Usually, I am forced to agree with them, but every now and then, I get a true
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot one.

------
munawwar
I have deprecated my apps on Apple Store. I cant even put a message saying I
am going to remove my app in couple months to my current users without another
app review.

Anyway, after reading the comments here, I am glad I am not supporting this
mess.

------
9wzYQbTYsAIc
> For apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be
> delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues.
> You’ll instead be able to address guideline violations in your next
> submission.

------
jariel
Someone, including a few very big names like Netrlix, Wikipedia etc. need to
coordinate an 'app store strike' and pull their apps for a week.

Big brands won't have to worry as their downloads will pick up the week after,
though it will piss off some of their customers.

It will however create a massive, international PR storm over the issue, and
every press outlet in the world will be talking about it widely.

If the PR is well messaged and coordinated, it can be made into an anti-trust
populist issue, which will hit the vein of some Democratic lawmakers who may
in a couple of months be empowered to move on it.

------
yarsanich
Hmm...I have huge delays in reviewing my app to TestFlight from yesterday
(previously it was maximum half day). Maybe that's the reason?

------
zakki
Reading the threads, I can see that Apple AppStore is not a gate to keep their
customers safe (security, frauds, etc) anymore. It is to get more profits for
the company by forcing more rule on 30% sales on every app.

------
tyrex2017
Maybe an opportunity to change their 30% model? It could be a path towards
building a case to change their pricing. I may be be wishfulthinking, though.

------
Waterluvian
Everyone’s anecdotes make me wonder if the review drones have an implicit or
explicit rejection quota they’re pushed to meet.

------
sgc
How do you guys put up with this level of arbitrary and have your livelihood
depend on it? I am working on a new business plan and cannot work around that
we most likely absolutely must have an ios app. And if that app is rejected
our business might fold once we are on that path. It just feels like an insane
amount of risk to engage with a very money hungry company with capricious rule
enforcement.

------
rcarmo
Ah, so this is probably why I couldn’t log in to a fresh Xcode install
yesterday to get signing certs.

------
tommilukkarinen
This kind of change would be welcome to Google Play as well. I would submit
immediately.

------
craigmcnamara
Two weeks ago I had an update rejected because we decided to remove Login with
Facebook from our app. The plugin that provides that support to Cordova is a
dependency nightmare and not many people used it anyways so we removed it
during a bugfix and dependency update. We got flagged for only supporting
Google as a 3rd party login and basically forced to implement Apple ID sign in
to release our fixes. Since adding support we've been further held up from
releases because we require an existing account for Apple ID sign in to work
and they rejected us for not allowing the QA account to sign in, while
completely disregarding the use of the QA user account and password that we've
always provided for the review process.

tl;dr Because of the broken App Store review process we've just removed 3rd
party auth support from our app, which is a shame because it's a really slick
sign in experience, but we don't want to deal with bugfix releases being held
up in review.

------
Dahoon
It is hilarious to read threads about Apple's app reviews. Every single time
there's something about Google Play lots of commenters praise Apple but in
reality it is at least just as bad.

------
no_wizard
I see a lot of comments regarding the App Review process and lack of
competition in this space as to why the App Review process is broken, in
regards to App review.

A different take:

I don't think App Review would exist on a competing 'App Store' on iOS.
Fundamentally, if any review took place at all, it's going to be automated
only. I don't see any competitor being able to withstand the cost of having
humans review Apps going into their stores, nor do I see any players who could
afford it have an incentive to do so if they can just push users to an App
Store they don't have deal with in this way.

For instance, I couldn't find any indication that the Amazon AppStore has any
human intervention for the reviewing of applications submitted [0][1], and not
without issues[2]. Notoriously, Google is automating everything they can about
the app review process, across both Google Play and The Chrome WebStore[3][4]
and its a dumpster fire[5].

Comparing this to the iOS App Store, its at least a league cut above the rest
here, and there are many justified criticisms and problems with it as well.

I think what we need is firm transparency of app store policies, and frankly I
think App Review should include more about what code is exactly the issue (or
at least, what APIs aren't being used correctly, or what have you), and give
specific, detailed examples, rather than often undetailed responses that help
nobody through the submission process. The hostility here is the problem, as
with other issues that are re-occurent recently, I think Apple wins by
providing more transparency and less opaque in the process. I don't know if
the consumer really wants an alternative app store (I know developers do, but
thats really not the question at the end of the day, if Apple suitably changes
course on managing the existing store)

I don't think its competition thats the problem, as we've seen on Android, it
doesn't show merit that this actually makes things better, or that consumers
are really interested in having this competition in the space.

[0][https://developer.amazon.com/docs/app-
submission/understandi...](https://developer.amazon.com/docs/app-
submission/understanding-submission.html#overview-of-the-app-submission-
process)

[1]Granted, I read through their docs, and I never saw any reference to a
"reviewer". Everything about this makes it sound like an automated API that
runs a bunch of tests, responds back to you with failures, rinse and repeat.
Not saying this is bad, but its worthwhile to consider, perhaps
[2][https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/07/amazon-appstore-
game...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/07/amazon-appstore-game-
developer-pulls-app-highlights-problems/)
[3][https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/faq#faq-
gen-08](https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/faq#faq-gen-08)
[4][https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/02/15/tasker-briefly-
disa...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/02/15/tasker-briefly-disappears-
from-the-play-store-due-to-automated-removal/)
[5][https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41111992/google-play-
and...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41111992/google-play-android-
review-process)

------
szundi
I submitted the same stuff with different comments 3 times. 3rd time it was
accepted. lol

------
rriepe
Consumers are the discerning ones. Developers will put up with anything.

------
tekkiweb
that's good!

------
throwaway69123
Its afraid.

------
bambax
> _guideline violations_

What a language! How could "guidelines" ever be "violated"? Rules?
Injunctions? Yes. Guidelines? No.

Rules is too harsh certainly, so let's use guidelines instead. But since the
underlying meaning does not change, words lose connection to reality.

We think we are creating a softer and kinder world, but the opposite is true.
If a guideline is actually an order, what's an order?

~~~
andruc
Par for the course with Apple. Apps in macOS never crash, they merely exhibit
unexpected behaviours.

~~~
leeoniya
> unexpected

"off-nominal"

~~~
ehsankia
I don't care if it's not correct, I just like how "non-nominal" sounds.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It eventually leads to "rapid unscheduled termination".

~~~
boogies
Eww, not “termination”, that sounds harsh … maybe “exit” or “closure”?

~~~
leeoniya
the term is "rapid unplanned disassembly"

also see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain)

~~~
marcosdumay
Oh, wait... That linked name is completely reasonable and descriptive. It's
not like the others.

~~~
leeoniya
has a better ring to it than "crashing into the side of a mountain"

~~~
marcosdumay
It doesn't mean "crashing into the side of a mountain".

It means "flying normally, into a path that ends on the side of a mountain".
That "flying normally" part is really relevant.

~~~
leeoniya
well, yes, it also means that.

nothing in that statement implies that crashing was not preceded by normal,
controlled flight. the term "crash" has no innate implication besides violent
impact. though, yes, in actual use it often implies "accidental" and/or
"uncontrolled".

~~~
marcosdumay
It is a specific term that means the aircraft was flying normally all the way
until it reached the ground.

Yes, "crashing on the side of a mountain" is also a correct description of the
same event. But those two phrases do not have the same meaning.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Specifically, CFIT is a subset of "crashing into a mountain" where the
aircraft was under control all the way until terminal lithobraking. It's
implied the last part is usually unexpected, otherwise it would be avoided.

------
arkokoley
We think we are creating a softer and kinder world, but the opposite is true.
If a guideline is actually an order, what's an order?

