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

Anywhere there are humans involved, there are bound to be multiple interpretations of the same words. This becomes a problem when you put humans in positions where if they do their job well, there is no upside, but screwing up has a large downside. Most Apple Reviewers work keeping that in mind. Some are strict, others are not, and the chances are when you are matched with a random reviewer, your app would always be reviewed differently. This has downsides, but this reduces bias and malice (and keeps just incompetency in the process) and this is a better system than one where you are stuck with one reviewer throughout. (imagine being assigned the most anal reviewer possible)

Regarding the 30% cut and the review process, of course it does not make me happy as a developer. As a user though, I can give an iphone to my parents knowing full well that they would not be scammed or be enticed into downloading really shady apps. This has happened on android where they would just give away every permission, and had lock screen controlled by a totally useless app. I would not risk giving them free access to android again, no matter how much time it takes for them to get used to iPhone.

Review process is important in that regard, and if a bunch of devs like me need to pay to fund that, I am happy with that given what it results in on the consumer side. The 30% tax needs to be for infinitely reproducible digital goods - like items in fortnite where a new purchase in db entry - vs scare digital goods like an one time only online session by someone. The other alternative means it's contingent on me as a dev to build trust to get payments and this is where I would always lose out to big brands anyway. Wish there was a better way, but have no suggestions as to how.




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

Search: