Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> You're not a victim here

If the app was just rejected I'd agree. Freezing the account, and then _years_ later suggesting the user create a new account makes no sense.




I think it makes sense if the goal is to never approve such an app. A rejection and subsequent tinkering might allow a derivative to make it through. Perhaps they believe in leaving such projects in purgatory and the developer unable to troubleshoot.


Except that other apps with very similar functionality / level of obviousness while in use are still available. Without Apple providing information on what this app does that violates their rules which the other apps do not violate, there’s no way to know that equal enforcement is being applied. I don’t think the author would have posted if all such apps were removed.


This is a bit like arguing that one shouldn't be punished for a traffic violation because not every other potential offender got caught.


Sure, if you limit “traffic violations” to “driving without a license,” and every car made you present a valid license before it would start.

EDIT: The difference being, Apple says YES / NO to every app, and every app always goes through the process, unlike policing traffic violations. If Apple is not being inconsistent, they need to say why.


So don't buy macs.

Either way, in this case they blocked a developer that was making what sure as hell looks like spyware to me, I'm not convinced this is a bad thing.

Also, you absolutely do need a license to operate a car. Probably not a good metaphor for your case.


Not sure if you replied before or after my edit to clarify. Apple has the capability to consistently enforce its rules here, unlike law enforcement, and does not appear to be doing so.

I personally think all such apps should be blocked. What bothers me is the inconsistency, or the opaqueness that means we cannot determine whether or not there is an inconsistency.


That's not a fair strategy. Say if this developer has published several reasonable apps before this, that strategy would forever cut them off from updating those as well.


I’m not trying to be abrasive here but I do believe it’s fair collateral damage if your hypothetical scenario is true. If he lost update access to his other assets by trying to push this risk onto the app store, I’m ok with it.

The app he made in our example is privacy degrading with control and abuse likely being its best feature. He took his shot.


I disagree, quite strongly.

Let's leave behind this app for a second, and speak in generalities. What should Apple do if it believes that an account is making and distributing spyware or malware? Should they not ban the account altogether? In fact, wouldn't you be mad if you found out that there were playing whack-a-mole with individual submissions from a developer that they'd already decided was harming end users? I personally would be pretty annoyed if it turns out that they let a malicious developer produce spyware and continually tweak and re-submit their apps it until the approvers let it through, and would absolutely support a policy of banning whole developer accounts for certain infractions. I doubt I am in the minority here, even if there are disagreements about what those ban-worthy infractions should be.

So, the question here is whether or not this app is spyware or not. I personally am beginning to suspect yes, both because parental software always toes that line, and based the apps marketing and the developer's comments in this forum. Others might disagree. But while it's reasonable to disagree about whether this is spyware, given the above logic I think we can agree that it's perfectly reasonable for Apple to ban an account that it has determined is making spyware. You should disagree with the determination, and understand that the ban follows that determination directly.

Personally I think the weirdest thing here is the recommendation to make a new account. Generally most companies hate it when you try and recreate an account after a prior ban, and an official recommendation here seems quite odd.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: