I always thought the original version of that page (it looks like it hasn't changed much) sounded very Jobsian. "If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps" in particular sounds like him.
> 10.3 Apps that do not use system provided items, such as buttons and icons, correctly and as described in the Apple iOS Human Interface Guidelines may be rejected
Edit: Alright, I'm taking a slaughtering on karma. Point taken. You can implement your own widgets on iOS.
Please accept my apologies to all for my original comment that I thought Google wasn't in compliance and for my misguided interpretation.
The small studio I work at has shipped numerous apps with non-standard UI and we've had no problems. I think they reserve the option to reject something they find unusable or otherwise objectionable.
Not even that, such a use may lead to rejection, but won't necessarily do so. Most other rules state that breach will lead to rejection unconditionally. This one is conditional because it's contextual, so that developers correctly use standard controls[0] for regular applications, but can still implement their own controls in e.g. games. There's also a fair bit of leeway for developers with their own "style" e.g. I don't think tapbots uses a single system-standard widget.
[0] and their accessibility support, and "skin" changes with the system's evolution
99.9% sure your reading is not correct. I'm not sure how you read it that way actually, it seems pretty clear. If you choose to use system provided UI objects they must be used the way Apple intends them to be used. For example a user tapping a UIButton expects a certain action to take place. Using buttons to display text (not perform in actions) in place of the correct object (UILabel) would lead to rejection.
Got it. I have never tried submitting an app that implemented my own controls other than using the iOS supplied ones, so I'm not speaking from experience.
>but part of me believes that if it were any publisher other than Google or Adobe, acceptance of an app that implemented its own widgets and UI contrary to the uniform look of iOS apps would be on the whims of the reviewer.
There are like 300.000 apps on the App Store with their custom UI contrary to iOS look -- including truly hideous items.
Why? It's a clear win for everyone but Apple to mention cross-platform capabilities when you have them. The iOS store is full of apps that refuse to acknowledge the existence of any non-apple products you might use or want to sync/integrate with.
If anything, you should push back against Apple directly. Good luck....
I'm trying to understand ego. I think, as part of it, "ikawe" would not mention an app that "ikawe" wrote that uses push notifications to send advertising. Ego classifies things as "bad" or "good", and notices "bad" in others and "good" in self.
EULAs are legal documents. This inherently makes them wordy, because they have to be valid, completely unambiguous, and satisfy all sorts of legal requirements in hundreds of different jurisdictions.
The App Store submission guidelines, by contrast, aren't a legal document. They're essentially just documentation, and as such can be written however Apple sees fit.
I know that. There is the possibility though to have a human readable EULA side by side with the lawyer readable one. That would actually be fair towards the users.
> I know that. There is the possibility though to have a human readable EULA side by side with the lawyer readable one. That would actually be fair towards the users.
I'm guessing the lawyers would reject that for fear of what'd happen in case of conflicts between the "lawyer" version and reasonable interpretations of the "human-readable" version.
They use 60 unreadable pages abandoning all my rights on anything i do with the software, they can spend another line declaring that the human version is not binding.
Or even GitMongo or Downloads or iOctocat or Dropbox, albeit in uncompiled or text or binary forms ;) some of these apps even let you download HTML that run JavaScript...
This page is a "quick guidelines" version of the actual Developer Program Agreements[0].
As per the DPA's rule 3.3.2 code downloaded and executed via the built-in webview is exempt from this limitation:
> 3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple's built-in WebKit framework or JavascriptCore, provided that such scripts and code do not change the primary purpose of the Application by providing features or functionality that are inconsistent with the intended and advertised purpose of the Application as submitted to the App Store.
(emphasis mine) which is why e.g. you can build a browser around the system webview or build code-push, but you can't publish your own browser with its rendering and JS engines.
Note that this is a guidelines listing, the point is to be a curt/easy read version of the iOS Developer Program Requirements for reviewers[0] and developers (which it actually refers to in 27.1). The complete actual rules are in the DPR.
[0] IIRC it was originally an internal document, which got leaked way back
The detail semantics don't matter. When you get a rejection letter, they always explicitly mention items on that guideline. What else would you call a "rule"?
Looks like only certain parts have been updated. The Certificates/Provisioning section seems to be the same, login page remains the same, iTunes Connect remains the same (which admittedly received a facelift last year).
I'd say that so far, Apple has gotten a lot of good apps in spite of their App developer/app submission infrastructure, rather than because of it. It's basically been an obstacle rather than a help.
Is this a sign that their Jobsian approach to third-party developers is changing?
I'm not going to argue that there aren't crap apps on Apple's app store, since there definitely are, but if it were easier to let apps onto the appstore, wouldn't there be even more crap apps? I doubt a loosening of restrictions would mean a massive surge of quality apps. Sure, it might mean some good apps that had been rejected or had avoided the appstore because of restrictions could get on, but the number of those quality apps would be minuscule compared to the crap app surge.
There's already insane amounts of crap apps in the Apple app store.
What Apple should build is robust quality app discovery, filtering out the crap.
What I'm seeing at the moment (seven years after the launch of the app store ) is a software architecture that appears to rely on the app store submission process being a guarantee of quality. What a joke...
> Apps larger than 100MB in size will not download over cellular networks (this is automatically prohibited by the App Store)
I have a 10GB data plan, why is this still a thing?! At least give me an option to turn it off buried deep in the settings somewhere. I wish we had something like `defaults` on iOS.
> I have a 10GB data plan, why is this still a thing?!
Where are you living and holy fuck how much are you paying?
Not everyone lives in Finland, unfortunately. It's a small number of countries where 100MB won't eat up like half your monthly data allowance and it's good that Apple prevents morons with unneccessarily huge apps (FACEBOOK!!!) to screw their customers.
I also have a 10GB/month data plan, on Vodafone UK. It costs GBP £46 (USD $65) per month over 24 months, including a 20% discount [1]. It came with a 'free' 128GB iPhone 6, 2 years of Spotify and 6 months of Netflix.
I have 50GB from Telia in Denmark and pay roughly $50, but that includes Spotify and HBO Nordic subscriptions in the bundle. Most everything else in Denmark is pretty expensive though.
In Switzerland, you get unlimited LTE 150mbit/s with no limit & no speed reduction for CHF59 (~ USD60) per month. Just to put it in context, 60 francs in Switzerland is the price of a dinner in a good (but not excellent) restaurant for one single person.
Finland? T-Mo in the U. S. (you know, the country that is sooo much worse than Europe when it comes to mobile?), two lines with combined 14Gb data, $120/month. Not quite 10Gb per phone, but close enough for our use. We had the unlimited data, but we didn't use enough to justify the extra $30/month.
Here in Germany it's more common to have 1 GB for $10 per month. So more or less the same price you pay per GB, but not many people can justify paying >$100 per month for a mobile plan. I also have to manage with 1 GB data per month, simply because I don't have to pay more than maybe $10-15 per month.
Keeping in mind that the $120 we pay includes unlimited text and voice calls. We don't need the 14Gb, as we rarely go over 1Gb, but the difference is minimal enough that I pay the difference from a cheaper plan "just in case".
Everyone replying to you is echoing the "got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude, personally I'd also like it if my phone didn't /automatically/ download large things which will chew my cap, and rather wait until I'm near wifi.
to me, that's good UX, it's unnecessary to automatically download anything over 100mb right now, you can always manually force it- I guess this thread is in "hate apple" mode though.
But you can't manually force it. If you could, I'd agree it's good UX. Now it's just limiting.
It gets especially ridiculous in the Podcasts app, where it won't let you download a 100 GB podcast, but will happily let you stream the whole thing...
Everyone replying to you is echoing the "got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude, personally I'd also like it if my phone didn't /automatically/ download large things which will chew my cap, and rather wait until I'm near wifi.
to me, that's good UX, it's unnecessary to automatically download anything over 100mb right now, you can always manually force it- I guess this thread is in "hate apple" mode though.
Apple manages their perception by attempting to make poor user experiences impossible.
This means people never see the edge cases and perceive them as 'faster' or more reliable. Solely because they prevented the user from downloading a large file over a spotty cellular connection.
That's interesting, so within apps (like a Podcast app), you can download things that are greater than 100mb. I can see how if you try to download podcasts straight from the store, you might find that limiting, but there are plenty of work arounds that you get used to.
"People mentally challenged by otherwise pretty well known, and not-really-techie-or-subtle things like roaming and overage data charges that download multi-100MB mobile apps on their feebly data plans" if you prefer.
I had to get a 2G contract and a data only sim (which is LTE/data only and meant for a tablet) to boost it to 22G
I pay 2 contracts for this because there's no uncapped data plan, the highest I could buy is 5G. (which I certainly exhaust in a month with my iphone).
I'm not too happy about you calling my countrymen idiots to be honest, not when there's no choice.
>I'm not too happy about you calling my countrymen idiots to be honest, not when there's no choice.
How in God's name did the discussion get to be about your countrymen?
I haven't even mentioned them or made any hint that this is about some specific country. If anything, I was mostly talking with US examples on mind.
Heck, what I said isn't even targeted at people with 10GB plans, much less to people from a specific country...
It's not having or not having a 10GB data plan that I described as idiotic -- it's going over one's plan by doing something as downloading gigs of mobile apps, and then complaining about the extra charges.
I think OP was categorising those who will download 100mb+ apps without 10GB mobile plan without realising what they do as idiots. Not everyone with low caps.
BTW, wat? I'm in Turkey with a 20GB mobile data plan. It's not cheap (38 EUR/month for just data) but it's an option. I guess they sell higher if you want too. How did you guys ended up with that mess in the middle of Europe?
>I think OP was categorising those who will download 100mb+ apps without 10GB mobile plan without realising what they do as idiots. Not everyone with low caps.
You can have fifty, a hundred, two hundreds apps that are 99mb each and it will download those updates automatically whenever they have a new release... But you can't install a 20mb over-the-air iOS system security update, and you can't manually install the FB app even if you try (it's just above 100mb)
Also, they have recently overhauled the Developer Member Center, which instantly breaks all of the tutorials on the internet on how to set up that certificate crap for push notifications, dev deploy and prod deploy.
Android is "obtain a key from GCM, then ionic build android (and distribute the apk to whomever you want, as long as the target device has Play Services)"... iOS is "okay, generate a CSR here, (insert 20 steps), still not finished", and to make stuff worse it's a true PITA to debug push notifications.
Apple's developer workflows suck, not to mention the ridiculous 100-test-devices-per-account policy (huge company and all agencies are invited to their account => huge chaos).
Actually, when you go to 'Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles' section it is unchanged, so the tutorials should still be usable :).
On a side note, I usually didn't need to go there very often. These days XCode takes care of most of the certificate/provisioning profiles crap. Still, for a newcomer this can be overwhelming and they should really try to simplify it.
>> "iOS is "okay, generate a CSR here, (insert 20 steps), still not finished""
A few years ago maybe. Now Xcode handles most of this stuff for you automatically. There are still some situations when the member centre is queried but for the most part Xcode seems generate everything you need when you try to build & run for the first time.
i hate to admit it, but you're right, its much easier now. i am on about 7 "teams" and Xcode handles it really well - provided i only ever use the one machine.
Don't you need admin access for that to work? I'm doing work for another organization, and their sysadmin has me under a restricted role (very reasonable) so Xcode can't automate any of that.
I have recently switched to automatic provisioning profile management, only to have it completely broken in Xcode 7.3 (radar filed and confirmed). Still using Member Centre for now.
They've done a pretty good job automating the provisioning stuff. It still can be annoying to debug when it doesn't work, but for an individual or a small team it's pretty seamless these days.
I will agree with you about the Push Notifications (and other related features like IAP, GameCenter, etc).
Any company larger than a handful of developers should be using an Enterprise account, which costs about as much as three individual accounts, and has no limit to the number of devices for testing.
yeah but some team selection dropdowns still don't distinguish between the Enterprise and App Store teams, so you end up with two "MyCompany Inc." entries. Using any "fix issue" magic becomes an even more risky gamble then.
Android and Google's developer console seemingly gets a new UI every time I venture in to get a push or maps API key, so I wouldn't say it's much better. The play services api also seem to change its mind every couple of months on how and where you even insert the api keys.
I think the biggest annoyance by far is iTunes Connect. It's an odd beast.
It's awkwardly separate from the rest of developer centre, and have this bizarre requirement that you use a separate Apple ID for each iTC organisation, so you end up with one primary Apple ID tied to all developer programs and separate Apple IDs for each iTC account.
no pictures of an apple fruit
"3. Variations, Takeoffs or Abbreviations: You may not use an image of a real apple or other variation of the Apple logo for any purpose. Third parties cannot use a variation," (http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/guidelinesf...)
They seem to have increased restrictions on purchases outside Apple's control (section on 'Purchasing and currencies').
Subscriptions Outside of an App
Subscribers to magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video
and cloud storage services who were acquired outside of your app
can read or play content through the app. However, you may not
provide external links in your app that allow users to purchase
subscriptions outside of the app.
Sure, they've created the OS, but this is starting to feel a bit like a troll guarding a bridge, forcing every one to pay up to walk across.
> this is starting to feel a bit like a troll guarding a bridge, forcing every one to pay up to walk across.
Starting? This has been the way Apple does business for over a decade now. For years they charged people just for the privilege to develop software on their own device.
We got caught with this when developing an app... It was really annoying going back and forth with the reviewers until they accepted the app (even links to the website without linking to the pages where people can purchase the app was forbidden).
This is not new. This was put in place in 2011. This is why the Kindle app (for example) does not allow you to buy books in the app, and the Amazon app can order physical goods but not downloads.
I don't know why anyone would expect it to be another way. I don't mind Apple's walled garden, but still, it's a walled garden and this restriction fits pretty well with the shrewd concept of that garden.
Related: Amazon restricts sellers in their site's (not app) marketplace from sending links to an external website, for fear of letting someone buy a product through another site. When I was selling books on Amazon for a book store, we'd get many requests through Amazon from customers asking to see our store's website, or asking if they could visit our store, and I learned pretty quickly that the only answer I could give and not get into trouble with Amazon was "I'd like to answer that but Amazon doesn't allow me to". Sometimes if I were feeling bold, I'd suggest that the customer google our store's name for more info.
OK, this is not going to be a popular opinion but this is terrible, harsh and condescending language. Only apple can get away with this.
Phrases like 'think about the children', 'amateur hour', 'run to the press' simply don't help. I know how to take care of my kids, thank you. And the lesson I am giving them is not to get into walled gardens where someone else controls what my children can see and do. Calling things amateur is sad - who are they to decide? Let the market decide, don't decide for the market. Did these guys see the airbnb video the other day where Brian said everyone said the idea was totally stupid. 'Lasting entertainment', yeah right.
I don't know about you guys but this is as close to big brother speak as I have seen.
(I don't own any apple product and never will because I cannot imagine buying a device where I cannot install my own software without purchasing Apple laptops. Seriously? This is progress?)
> Calling things amateur is sad - who are they to decide?
The owners of the platform?
> Let the market decide, don't decide for the market.
That's completely nonsensical, every content owner or provider makes decision about the content they want to publish, at best "the market" "decides" whether it likes their content or not.
> Seriously? This is progress?
This is old news, mostly. These are a curt form of the developer agreement (with a short form of the reasoning behind them), the original version was leaked back in 2010 or something, back when it was still an internal guidelines document for appstore reviewers.
I don't get your line of thinking. You are condoning their actions because they own the platform? It's their garden, they can do whatever, so we just stop talking about it?
Can we then do the same for, I don't know Korea, Middle east and the like? It's their land, they can do whatever with human rights. Why talk about it?
> I don't get your line of thinking. You are condoning their actions because they own the platform? It's their garden, they can do whatever, so we just stop talking about it?
Feel free to talk about it, but the outrage seems eminently artificial, especially given these guidelines are years old for the most part.
> Can we then do the same for, I don't know Korea, Middle east and the like? It's their land, they can do whatever with human rights. Why talk about it?
Don't you think there's a slight difference between living in "I don't know Korea, Middle east and the like" and deciding to develop for ios?
As you note, you have the freedom to not buy apple devides, to not use them, and even more so to not develop for them, you're not exactly stuck between whoever's running the place and whatever "big boy" nation has decided today was good weather for an airstrike.
>especially given these guidelines are years old for the most part.
What part of the guidelines being old makes the outrage '[very] artificial'?
Seems valid outrage/annoyance to me, and I didn't artificially manufacture my annoyance, there's nothing 'eminently' fake about it.
Is the holocaust less shitty because time has passed? To draw a less emotionally charged parallel, was your coffee any less bitter that one time because you drank it two days ago?
>Don't you think there's a slight difference between living in "I don't know Korea, Middle east and the like" and deciding to develop for ios?
Obviously. It's an analogy. It's not supposed to be a direct representation of the current situation/issue.
To be clear here, your response is this: they own the devices/platform, they should be able to decide every aspect of how people code/develop/hack on that platform?
A purchased device should be, given the above, owned(or at least controlled) by those who created the device, not by those who bought it?
Yes, we do have the freedom to not buy Apple products, which is why many of us don't.
I don't believe there is a difference. Once you allow a tyrant to dictate the terms without reproach, you will inevitably be giving up your rights, which is a plunge into the chasm of inevitable repression.
When dealing with voluntary transactions your rights are pretty much limited to (a) no violence or enslavement (b) whatever we agree to you must do and (c) if either of us break this deal, we will try to put things back the way they were before the deal.
> I don't get your line of thinking. You are condoning their actions because they own the platform? It's their garden, they can do whatever, so we just stop talking about it?
Isn't this what you meant by 'let the market decide'?
I don't think it's harsh and condescending. But it certainly reads as flippant and unprofessional to me. I get the impression some college intern wrote this thinking it sounded more laid-back and relatable or something.
> OK, this is not going to be a popular opinion but this is terrible, harsh and condescending language.
Whereas I think it's refreshingly clear and honest, unbound by the artificial construct of committee-approved PR-speak.
> I don't own any apple product and never will because I cannot imagine buying a device where I cannot install my own software without purchasing Apple laptops.
Each to their own. I'm a developer and I consider my personal phone an appliance, not a hacking station. Even if I didn't own any other Apple devices, I'd still have an iPhone.
(And considering Apple laptops have among the best build quality, considering they ship with an OS with an open UNIX core, and are competitively priced, I couldn't be happier with them.)
"Calling things amateur is sad - who are they to decide? Let the market decide, don't decide for the market"
It's their market. That's who they are to decide. And they're right. Having a bunch of crappy, shoddy apps hurts those who actually put time, effort, and yes, money into apps with the hopes of making a return.
Seriously, by that token, any grocery store should be forced to carry my shittily packaged and shitty tasting food.
"I don't know about you guys but this is as close to big brother speak as I have seen."
No, it isn't. It's telling developers not to try and submit just any old crap and hope it sticks. Quite frankly, Apple has plenty of developers and apps; they can afford to be picky.
"(I don't own any apple product and never will because I cannot imagine buying a device where I cannot install my own software without purchasing Apple laptops. Seriously? This is progress?)"
> Seriously, by that token, any grocery store should be forced to carry my shittily packaged and shitty tasting food.
If we had just 2 main grocery stores and each store acts in such an authoritarian fashion, then it's the duty of the people in know how to educate people about the situation. Over a course of 10 years, you will only get only "chips" and "biscuits" approved by them because they decided what is good for you. In fact, once biscuits becomes profitable enough, they will kick out existing players and make their own since they control the market (and Apple has much history of just merging existing products and calling it their own).
> Nobody cares.
Sure, if the above reality seems appealing to you, go ahead and not care. But many of us do and we are doing our bit to change it.
The "nobody cares" part was directed at your chest thumping bravado of "I Don't Have Apple Products", like you deserve some kind of cookie for saying so.
I remember being surprised the first time I read it, but maybe some context will help.
> Amatuer hour
Many developers would love to build a shitty first app and throw it on the app store to proclaim to the world: look I made it on the app store. This runs directly contrary to what consumers' expectations are for apps. Apple knows their consumers and therefore erected this wall to help them.
> Think about the children
I really don't see how this is bad. Apple has always been anti-porn and they're going to continue trying to tread the moral high ground. That's fine if you think this affects your free will, but really it doesn't -- Apple is just one platform.
> Run to the press
They are looking to review an app and will make a judgment they deem appropriate. Since that is their right, they mean to nip the problem in the bud so you don't think you can get public opinion to sway their judgment.
> close to big brother speak as I have seen
I find big brother speak in my US govt that worries me a lot more than Apple protecting their app store. Oh and on that note, isn't it Apple that is standing up to the US govt?
> where I cannot install my own software without purchasing Apple laptops. Seriously? This is progress?
> ... not to get into walled gardens where someone else controls what my children can see and do
These are your beliefs, which I'm sorry to say does not reflect the general public. The general public finds it easy to use Apple for everything. So when you ask them "Is this progress?" The resounding answer is "yes"
I find your diatribe to be greatly exaggerated and do not believe this is the sign of something evil. I think it's just your personal opinion validating why you'll never own an Apple in your life. Good for you. Me and probably the rest of the average consumers do indeed like it that Apple looks out for children + does not permit shitty apps on the app store.
I agree, the language here is condescending at best.
I don't want an organization talking to me as if it were my friend. Apple is not a friend -- it is a company that wants my money. (If anything that makes it an enemy.)
One thing I have found is not to trust anyone above oneself that tries to stoop to your level. They often do this because either they think you are not smart enough to understand what they really want to say, or they just really don't want to say it but they need some words to put on a page.
Hey now, you're assuming Apple learned anything from being legally held liable for collusion with respect to the publishing industry, which if you read the statement from their lawyer following the verdict, they apparently did not.
Their actions are anticompetitive towards developers and app publishers. These are individuals and companies, both valid entities in an antitrust complaint.
Starting with the Nintendo Entertainment System, most video game consoles have included lock-out technology to prevent the console from running unlicensed software. Has any console manufacturer been stopped from doing this by antitrust law? How is this different from the iPhone?
In a lot of ways, but thats the thing with legal analogies, they fail for reasons you didn't even consider. Its not "the lock-out technology" we are even debating.
>Their actions are anticompetitive towards developers and app publishers.
On their own marketplace. That they created themselves and can control as they like, and which is not even a monopoly (though that's also legal to be).
Not on the overall market.
That's like saying a supermarket can't decide what they sell or not, and whether they'll promote a particular product or not.
Correct, and all of the app developers and users are agreeing to the contract.
This has absolutely zero bearing on the establishment upholding the conditions of those contracts. Especially with said contract's arbitrary, vague and opaque, enforcement.
You heard it hear first. App Stores are an antitrust violation waiting to happen.
Their whole thing about sex in the second paragraph—anyone have any idea, given this, why if I type "sex" in to the app store search I get a good amount of apps blatantly about sex? First one is Sex Positions 3D.
Pay to be promoted in search? Ugh. How about offer a portion of credits out of the 30% cut to go toward search/category promotions. Or lower the cut taken. Or offer a choice between the two, plus an additional means for buying ads. But digging further into the 70% devs are pocketing before taxes? Lame. And paid promotion seems like it's already going to make the App Store even more awful for users and smaller developers.
TestFlight/Crashlytics still have the 100 devices limit. The answer is actually to get Enterprise distribution if you need to install it on more than 100 devices.
Nope, TestFlight is now 2000 devices. And I thought Crashlytics always used the enterprise distribution mechanism? That's certainly the only exposure I've had to it.
Apple recently rejected a tvOS app of mine due to the 2.12 no long lasting value item.
I sort of anticipated that and while for some users the amount of content and long lastingness is sufficient in that build I think the features I had initially planned for the first update will really make a better 1.0 with appeal to more users.
When I first browsed the Apple TV app store I was really disappointed by the vast amount of crap, so from a consumer's perspective I'm glad they started taking their guidelines serious now.
147 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 219 ms ] threadInteresting how terse and forward they are here as compared to other Apple docs. Reads as if a jaded reviewer wrote it :)
So if I have a cross platform messaging app, I can't say, "syncs with android and Windows phone devices". Really?
>Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind
Ahem Lyft.
Edit: Alright, I'm taking a slaughtering on karma. Point taken. You can implement your own widgets on iOS.
Please accept my apologies to all for my original comment that I thought Google wasn't in compliance and for my misguided interpretation.
To all whom I have offended, I apologize.
[0] and their accessibility support, and "skin" changes with the system's evolution
There are like 300.000 apps on the App Store with their custom UI contrary to iOS look -- including truly hideous items.
What if that is the whole point of the app? ie we run a deals engine, users who install would be installing exclusively for such content!
[0]: https://marco.org/2014/12/01/app-store-rule-5-6
Really[1].
1: http://www.cultofmac.com/320141/apple-rejecting-ios-pebble-a...
You can't say it in the application or its metadata (e.g. appstore listing), no.
> Ahem Lyft.
Report them?
Why? It's a clear win for everyone but Apple to mention cross-platform capabilities when you have them. The iOS store is full of apps that refuse to acknowledge the existence of any non-apple products you might use or want to sync/integrate with.
If anything, you should push back against Apple directly. Good luck....
Edit: disregard, I cannot read.
The App Store submission guidelines, by contrast, aren't a legal document. They're essentially just documentation, and as such can be written however Apple sees fit.
Here's a good example: https://about.500px.com/terms/
I'm guessing the lawyers would reject that for fear of what'd happen in case of conflicts between the "lawyer" version and reasonable interpretations of the "human-readable" version.
Is this an indication that things like CodePush[0] may be rejected in the future?
0: http://microsoft.github.io/code-push
As per the DPA's rule 3.3.2 code downloaded and executed via the built-in webview is exempt from this limitation:
> 3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple's built-in WebKit framework or JavascriptCore, provided that such scripts and code do not change the primary purpose of the Application by providing features or functionality that are inconsistent with the intended and advertised purpose of the Application as submitted to the App Store.
(emphasis mine) which is why e.g. you can build a browser around the system webview or build code-push, but you can't publish your own browser with its rendering and JS engines.
[0] https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/information/iOS_Pro...
[0] IIRC it was originally an internal document, which got leaked way back
They're not rules they're guidelines. That's in the name. Which is why they don't mention the webview exemption to guideline 2.7 for instance.
> The Developer Program License Agreement referenced in 27.1 is something else.
No, the agreement the actual thing developers sign on and must follow.
From the website:
> If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical App.
Is this a sign that their Jobsian approach to third-party developers is changing?
What Apple should build is robust quality app discovery, filtering out the crap.
What I'm seeing at the moment (seven years after the launch of the app store ) is a software architecture that appears to rely on the app store submission process being a guarantee of quality. What a joke...
Yes. Look at Android and Windows Phone.
I have a 10GB data plan, why is this still a thing?! At least give me an option to turn it off buried deep in the settings somewhere. I wish we had something like `defaults` on iOS.
Where are you living and holy fuck how much are you paying?
Not everyone lives in Finland, unfortunately. It's a small number of countries where 100MB won't eat up like half your monthly data allowance and it's good that Apple prevents morons with unneccessarily huge apps (FACEBOOK!!!) to screw their customers.
[1] https://advantage.vodafone.co.uk/
Finland? T-Mo in the U. S. (you know, the country that is sooo much worse than Europe when it comes to mobile?), two lines with combined 14Gb data, $120/month. Not quite 10Gb per phone, but close enough for our use. We had the unlimited data, but we didn't use enough to justify the extra $30/month.
to me, that's good UX, it's unnecessary to automatically download anything over 100mb right now, you can always manually force it- I guess this thread is in "hate apple" mode though.
It gets especially ridiculous in the Podcasts app, where it won't let you download a 100 GB podcast, but will happily let you stream the whole thing...
to me, that's good UX, it's unnecessary to automatically download anything over 100mb right now, you can always manually force it- I guess this thread is in "hate apple" mode though.
This means people never see the edge cases and perceive them as 'faster' or more reliable. Solely because they prevented the user from downloading a large file over a spotty cellular connection.
Gotta download large games over wifi though!
I had to get a 2G contract and a data only sim (which is LTE/data only and meant for a tablet) to boost it to 22G
I pay 2 contracts for this because there's no uncapped data plan, the highest I could buy is 5G. (which I certainly exhaust in a month with my iphone).
I'm not too happy about you calling my countrymen idiots to be honest, not when there's no choice.
I highly doubt that Sweden is alone with this.
How in God's name did the discussion get to be about your countrymen?
I haven't even mentioned them or made any hint that this is about some specific country. If anything, I was mostly talking with US examples on mind.
Heck, what I said isn't even targeted at people with 10GB plans, much less to people from a specific country...
It's not having or not having a 10GB data plan that I described as idiotic -- it's going over one's plan by doing something as downloading gigs of mobile apps, and then complaining about the extra charges.
BTW, wat? I'm in Turkey with a 20GB mobile data plan. It's not cheap (38 EUR/month for just data) but it's an option. I guess they sell higher if you want too. How did you guys ended up with that mess in the middle of Europe?
Exactly!
you can still choose to download 100mb+ updates, they're just not applied automatically. (unless I'm mistaken).
and how it happened was that it was unlimited for a while, but they realised if they all just stick together they can charge for data caps. :\",
This isn't true at all
Tre offer Unlimited calls+SMS and 20 GB data for 550 SEK/mo, or 50 GB for 649 SEK/mo https://www.tre.se/privat/handla/erbjudanden/kop-utan-mobil-...
Tele2 offer 20 GB (149 SEK/no), 50 GB (249 SEK/mo) and 100 GB (399 SEK/mo) plans http://www.tele2.se/abonnemang/abonnemang-utan-telefon
Even Telia offer a 40 GB plan https://www.telia.se/privat/telefoni/abonnemang-kontantkort/...
Android is "obtain a key from GCM, then ionic build android (and distribute the apk to whomever you want, as long as the target device has Play Services)"... iOS is "okay, generate a CSR here, (insert 20 steps), still not finished", and to make stuff worse it's a true PITA to debug push notifications.
Apple's developer workflows suck, not to mention the ridiculous 100-test-devices-per-account policy (huge company and all agencies are invited to their account => huge chaos).
On a side note, I usually didn't need to go there very often. These days XCode takes care of most of the certificate/provisioning profiles crap. Still, for a newcomer this can be overwhelming and they should really try to simplify it.
A few years ago maybe. Now Xcode handles most of this stuff for you automatically. There are still some situations when the member centre is queried but for the most part Xcode seems generate everything you need when you try to build & run for the first time.
I will agree with you about the Push Notifications (and other related features like IAP, GameCenter, etc).
Any company larger than a handful of developers should be using an Enterprise account, which costs about as much as three individual accounts, and has no limit to the number of devices for testing.
It's awkwardly separate from the rest of developer centre, and have this bizarre requirement that you use a separate Apple ID for each iTC organisation, so you end up with one primary Apple ID tied to all developer programs and separate Apple IDs for each iTC account.
Starting? This has been the way Apple does business for over a decade now. For years they charged people just for the privilege to develop software on their own device.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/apple-reverses-course-on...
Related: Amazon restricts sellers in their site's (not app) marketplace from sending links to an external website, for fear of letting someone buy a product through another site. When I was selling books on Amazon for a book store, we'd get many requests through Amazon from customers asking to see our store's website, or asking if they could visit our store, and I learned pretty quickly that the only answer I could give and not get into trouble with Amazon was "I'd like to answer that but Amazon doesn't allow me to". Sometimes if I were feeling bold, I'd suggest that the customer google our store's name for more info.
OK, this is not going to be a popular opinion but this is terrible, harsh and condescending language. Only apple can get away with this.
Phrases like 'think about the children', 'amateur hour', 'run to the press' simply don't help. I know how to take care of my kids, thank you. And the lesson I am giving them is not to get into walled gardens where someone else controls what my children can see and do. Calling things amateur is sad - who are they to decide? Let the market decide, don't decide for the market. Did these guys see the airbnb video the other day where Brian said everyone said the idea was totally stupid. 'Lasting entertainment', yeah right.
I don't know about you guys but this is as close to big brother speak as I have seen.
(I don't own any apple product and never will because I cannot imagine buying a device where I cannot install my own software without purchasing Apple laptops. Seriously? This is progress?)
The owners of the platform?
> Let the market decide, don't decide for the market.
That's completely nonsensical, every content owner or provider makes decision about the content they want to publish, at best "the market" "decides" whether it likes their content or not.
> Seriously? This is progress?
This is old news, mostly. These are a curt form of the developer agreement (with a short form of the reasoning behind them), the original version was leaked back in 2010 or something, back when it was still an internal guidelines document for appstore reviewers.
Can we then do the same for, I don't know Korea, Middle east and the like? It's their land, they can do whatever with human rights. Why talk about it?
Feel free to talk about it, but the outrage seems eminently artificial, especially given these guidelines are years old for the most part.
> Can we then do the same for, I don't know Korea, Middle east and the like? It's their land, they can do whatever with human rights. Why talk about it?
Don't you think there's a slight difference between living in "I don't know Korea, Middle east and the like" and deciding to develop for ios?
As you note, you have the freedom to not buy apple devides, to not use them, and even more so to not develop for them, you're not exactly stuck between whoever's running the place and whatever "big boy" nation has decided today was good weather for an airstrike.
What part of the guidelines being old makes the outrage '[very] artificial'?
Seems valid outrage/annoyance to me, and I didn't artificially manufacture my annoyance, there's nothing 'eminently' fake about it.
Is the holocaust less shitty because time has passed? To draw a less emotionally charged parallel, was your coffee any less bitter that one time because you drank it two days ago?
>Don't you think there's a slight difference between living in "I don't know Korea, Middle east and the like" and deciding to develop for ios?
Obviously. It's an analogy. It's not supposed to be a direct representation of the current situation/issue.
To be clear here, your response is this: they own the devices/platform, they should be able to decide every aspect of how people code/develop/hack on that platform?
A purchased device should be, given the above, owned(or at least controlled) by those who created the device, not by those who bought it?
Yes, we do have the freedom to not buy Apple products, which is why many of us don't.
Godwin Index = 4 Replies
Isn't this what you meant by 'let the market decide'?
Whereas I think it's refreshingly clear and honest, unbound by the artificial construct of committee-approved PR-speak.
> I don't own any apple product and never will because I cannot imagine buying a device where I cannot install my own software without purchasing Apple laptops.
Each to their own. I'm a developer and I consider my personal phone an appliance, not a hacking station. Even if I didn't own any other Apple devices, I'd still have an iPhone.
(And considering Apple laptops have among the best build quality, considering they ship with an OS with an open UNIX core, and are competitively priced, I couldn't be happier with them.)
It's their market. That's who they are to decide. And they're right. Having a bunch of crappy, shoddy apps hurts those who actually put time, effort, and yes, money into apps with the hopes of making a return.
Seriously, by that token, any grocery store should be forced to carry my shittily packaged and shitty tasting food.
"I don't know about you guys but this is as close to big brother speak as I have seen."
No, it isn't. It's telling developers not to try and submit just any old crap and hope it sticks. Quite frankly, Apple has plenty of developers and apps; they can afford to be picky.
"(I don't own any apple product and never will because I cannot imagine buying a device where I cannot install my own software without purchasing Apple laptops. Seriously? This is progress?)"
Nobody cares.
If we had just 2 main grocery stores and each store acts in such an authoritarian fashion, then it's the duty of the people in know how to educate people about the situation. Over a course of 10 years, you will only get only "chips" and "biscuits" approved by them because they decided what is good for you. In fact, once biscuits becomes profitable enough, they will kick out existing players and make their own since they control the market (and Apple has much history of just merging existing products and calling it their own).
> Nobody cares.
Sure, if the above reality seems appealing to you, go ahead and not care. But many of us do and we are doing our bit to change it.
> Amatuer hour
Many developers would love to build a shitty first app and throw it on the app store to proclaim to the world: look I made it on the app store. This runs directly contrary to what consumers' expectations are for apps. Apple knows their consumers and therefore erected this wall to help them.
> Think about the children
I really don't see how this is bad. Apple has always been anti-porn and they're going to continue trying to tread the moral high ground. That's fine if you think this affects your free will, but really it doesn't -- Apple is just one platform.
> Run to the press
They are looking to review an app and will make a judgment they deem appropriate. Since that is their right, they mean to nip the problem in the bud so you don't think you can get public opinion to sway their judgment.
> close to big brother speak as I have seen
I find big brother speak in my US govt that worries me a lot more than Apple protecting their app store. Oh and on that note, isn't it Apple that is standing up to the US govt?
> where I cannot install my own software without purchasing Apple laptops. Seriously? This is progress?
> ... not to get into walled gardens where someone else controls what my children can see and do
These are your beliefs, which I'm sorry to say does not reflect the general public. The general public finds it easy to use Apple for everything. So when you ask them "Is this progress?" The resounding answer is "yes"
I find your diatribe to be greatly exaggerated and do not believe this is the sign of something evil. I think it's just your personal opinion validating why you'll never own an Apple in your life. Good for you. Me and probably the rest of the average consumers do indeed like it that Apple looks out for children + does not permit shitty apps on the app store.
I don't want an organization talking to me as if it were my friend. Apple is not a friend -- it is a company that wants my money. (If anything that makes it an enemy.)
One thing I have found is not to trust anyone above oneself that tries to stoop to your level. They often do this because either they think you are not smart enough to understand what they really want to say, or they just really don't want to say it but they need some words to put on a page.
Except it does, until the US and EU Antitrust commissions make you guys stop this shit.
On their own marketplace. That they created themselves and can control as they like, and which is not even a monopoly (though that's also legal to be).
Not on the overall market.
That's like saying a supermarket can't decide what they sell or not, and whether they'll promote a particular product or not.
This has absolutely zero bearing on the establishment upholding the conditions of those contracts. Especially with said contract's arbitrary, vague and opaque, enforcement.
You heard it hear first. App Stores are an antitrust violation waiting to happen.
See here: https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violati...
but if we take a lesson from the games industry, we know that 30% is what valve takes.. and what Sony/Microsoft takes.
Not to mention the up front cost of the verification (which is a significant amount of money honestly, Apple's is minuscule by comparison).
But for that money Sony/Microsoft/Valve will not promote your product, they will simply be available for the platform.
I'm not sure how the Play store works of course, but my point is that marketing budget and release "tax" are separate.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an announcement of a big clear out at WWDC - if not this year, then certainly next.
I sort of anticipated that and while for some users the amount of content and long lastingness is sufficient in that build I think the features I had initially planned for the first update will really make a better 1.0 with appeal to more users.
When I first browsed the Apple TV app store I was really disappointed by the vast amount of crap, so from a consumer's perspective I'm glad they started taking their guidelines serious now.