Google will close gmail accounts, take away adsense revenues, or remove youtube videos on a whim.
Visa blocked users from giving their money to political causes they decided didn't aligned with their view of the world.
For years Microsoft made it super hard to buy hardware without paying the Windows licence. They killed xbox remotely. They have invasive telemetry in Win 10.
Paypal may refuse to pay the money you have on their account at any moment. Your money, no appeal.
Twitter and facebook censorship rules are on a case by case basis. If your famous, you may be able to use hate speech. I you are an anonymous political activist, China may ask for your shut down.
Big companies exist to make money. If they get too much power, they will abuse it. Not because they are evil, but because it's the logical thing to do for them.
This is why I was advocating in another comment that we should not use WhatsApp new payment system:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23553455
Thinking about the power we give to big entities is a central mechanism to build the society we live on. That's why we should think about what we buy, the media we consumme, etc.
They are votes, just as much as during an election.
That is why I am absolutely against abolishing paper cash.
Edit: I know there are countries where you have a democratically elected representatives and every part of the government and even companies is held ( more or less ) accountable to the people and does not need to worry ( much ) about big business or government taking over some basic right. Yes cashless in that case is great. Is like utopian.
Unfortunately not everyone has that luxury.
A cashless society would mean a society where some neuro-atypical people might periodically have to worry about starving to death.
Of course this is also an area that requires government regulation in order to prevent banks from taking advantage of their customers. And that requires a government that actually cares about this sort of thing.
Yeah. If we want any semblance of actual freedom left, cash is a part of the future.
Ah, took me a second. You don't mean paper cash in reference to fiat money vs the gold standard. You mean hard cash being replaced by plastic account balances in a sort of cyberpunk vein. Totally agree, great point.
At the moment. All those things can and do change, and then what will you do?
Same goes for Uber eats etc. Call the restaurant directly, don't be a dick.
- protects you from this type of arbitrary abuse of power
- helps in keeping third parties from mining you for all your data
- helps in resisting censorship
- protects you from surprise changes or cancellations of services (Google Reader, Google+, Microsoft PlaysForSure, etc.)
- gives you more control over your data
So get that Raspberry Pi, that old laptop without a screen, that abandoned diskless client or some other low-power (as in power consumption) machine with a few GB of memory and a few GHz of CPU and start tinkering. There are readymade solutions for those who dislike tinkering but this being Hacker News I'd assume most of you do. There are plenty of posts on this board and elsewhere on this subject so I won't repeat the whole list of services and software which can be used except for one: add a git repository (e.g. gitea [1], sourcehut [2], gitlab being too heavy for most SBCs) so you can be master (pun intended) over your own data. Nae lairds, nae kings, we are free.
ISPs can ban users just as capriciously as any other company. And they do.
Decentralized internet alternatives are both harder to use (and "host your own infrastructure" is already impossibly hard for the vast majority of people) and too limited to be useful.
It's time to accept that and emergent behavior of the internet is to become more centralized, not less.
They will then attack your Domain Register, or your DDOS protection (CloudFlare) or ISP (as more residential plan forbid running any server the ISP will ban you not for political or other reasons but for running a server on a residential plan), have your bank account / credit card cancelled (this has happened) etc etc etc
The next day I got an email saying my adsense was closed for 'fake views / clicks', no way to challenge it or anything.
That was like 10 years ago. I still can't use adsense to this day.
I haven't been able to trust gmail with anything important after that.
Visa and their competitors (Mastercard et al) are companies that should almost certainly be investigated over antitrust concerns and regulated like utillities. The fact they have so much control over things like online payments should be absolutely terrifying.
But yeah, this is why we should definitely avoid giving large companies too much power, and arguably avoid relying on them as much as possible in general.
Elsewhere on HN today we have 'On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B (1975) [pdf] (web.mit.edu)' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23549203 in a way, you could say it applies to this whole situation quite well.
Just curious, what were the political causes affected?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-m...
I wonder if it would be better than what we currently have?
I want to go online and fill out a long, myers briggs like personality test that judges my political leanings, and then have that data fed to a script that votes on all the issues for me directly, skipping the middlemen. Collectively those scripts would be a far better representation than any human.
Replace all politicians with tiny shell scripts.
So I'm not sure what 'buying the government' actually would mean or how it would be different...
It's now so bad people are refraining from trying out innovative business model or apps just because they think there could be a chance someone at apple validation wouldn't like it and kill the product at any time.
I wish the Hey story makes people realize it is not reasonable to have one actor control the only software distribution channel to hundred of millions of customers.
I'm fine with apple wanting to provide a highly curated experience to their users by having them download apps from a store they control. But this shouldn't be the only option.
I've recently got the PinePhone in and while actual Linux on smartphones is very early, it's also an opportunity to have some real impact. I'll never go back to a walled garden, no matter how appealing it may seem from the outside.
For the majority of users, this is irrelevant because linux is unusable for them. And they are the customers. To have a sustainable business, we have to target the platforms that paying customers use. That platform is not gnu/linux.
How about Apple telling me they don't like my business bank (a well known UK bank I've been with for 10 years) and simply refusing to set up the account. In a very cold, "go away already", manner. I wasn't going to kill the relationship with my business bank just because Apple told me to, so the app never got onto App Store and I shut down my dev account.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's abhorrent, but it's something you should think about.
I once tried to open a new bank account with my bank of 10y, and set up direct debit to it. The point was that I was going to pay my rent from that new account (both me and a roommate would pay into the account, and a direct-debit would go to the landlord).
I filed the paperwork, in person, and heard nothing, a week passed, I phoned the bank, they said call back tomorrow.
I did, "please call in a week".
Waited a week, "please call back next week"..
So I go in person to the bank, and I refuse to leave until they fix it- I was being pressured by the landlord, I couldn't take the keys of the new property until proof of direct debit was handed over.
I waited for 5hrs in the lobby, basically from a few minutes after the branch opened until the mid-afternoon. Eventually a teller decided to help me because none of the bank managers were going to look at it.
What was the problem? apparently because I had claimed to have an income on one of the forms they wanted proof. I had never been asked to delclare proof before; and bearing in mind that previously I had never declared any income on any account _and_ I had standing orders/direct debits coming from the account; this was also the account that was where my salary landed, the only account I'd had since I was 13.
I tried to give proof, I showed bank statements and payslips... contracts etc; but because the payslips were on my phone they didn't accept them, I asked if I could use a printer and they said no.
So, I walked across the street to Barclays, opened 3 accounts with my passport and a proof-of-address, set up all my direct debits in 1hr, transferred all my money and that was the end of it.
What pissed me off most was the lack of transparency on exactly /why/ they decided not to move forward, expecting me to just sit on my hands forever is not good.
Fuck you HSBC, that was nearly 10 years ago and I still fucking hate you.
er... my point is that corps can be fickle and you shouldn't trust any of them. Especially the ones that implore you to trust them.
The same should happen to Google with search, Chrome, and Android. You can't use dozens of entire markets as your product moat.
But... Why? Are you not an Android user maybe? Because it didn't make sense to me as an Android user. My default browser is set to Firefox with ublock origin installed. Search backend is still set to Google, but it's pretty easy to switch between providers. You're not forced into anything here
The real issue there is the deep coupling between Google services and Android, removing at least 70% of the phones utility if the phone isn't signed into a Google account.
The same applies to apple devices though, with the added issue that everything else is forced as well. While I'd be glad if Google opened up the services api, that's a very different issue to the one the original discussion was about.
I hope it's not going to be a talk about which commission rate is fair, because it completely misses the point. If apple wants to charge 30% commission for being able to distribute on the store, use their development tools, their apis, and have people pay using apple, fine. But just let my customers free to install my software on the hardware they own the way they want to.
Compare that to games on PC: even though competition has fortunately started to pick up recently, it'd still be madness not to publish on Steam.
All platforms seem to naturally tend towards monopoly, with an enormous first mover advantage. I wish I knew of a solution :/
Also, for startups, making sure you have an alternative option to distribute your app in case it gets shut down on apple’s store makes it almost a guarantee that they’ll try to deploy on as many different stores as possible.
I find it amusing that people and businesses are willing to put their future in the hands of a company that has historically destroyed anyone who gets enough users on their platform.
If this is the best option, I think that the best option would be to actively work with a platform competitor. Do developers have a sense of stockholm syndrome ?
Apple's callous "walled garden" practices have always been well known. Honestly, developers who continue to participate in this shitshow had it coming.
Remember:
developers : Apple == taxi drivers : UberMicrosoft and other brands are getting better at making quality hardware faster than Apple is innovating in the space.
Apple still has the lead in their os just feeling so much nicer and solid to use but again it's still stagnant while windows is slowly evolving and when it comes down to it you can't even build a mac with the power you're working with on the Windows side so it stops really being an option if one means your work can be done multiple times faster (GPGPU workloads for example) than on the Mac side.
All these whinging developers seem to have forgotten that they made an agreement with Apple which included:
"10. Term and Termination. Apple may terminate or suspend you ... at any time in Apple’s sole discretion."
Don't like the terms, don't sign the contract. I learned that the hard way at the age of 19, it wasn't in tech, it was a housing contract, but I learned my lesson:
Before you agree to anything with legal standing, read it and reread it. Understand it, and if you don't seek help to get that understanding. Once you understand the terms you have to make a choice to agree or walk away. Then you have to live with the consequences.
This is the basis of legal justice (as it stands) and much of society relies on it.
When your opposition has an absolute chokehold on major markets it's a near unassailable position - throw in that the vast vast majority of users simply don't care whether an app store is open or not or know why they should care - attention is finite and the only way things will improve is if governments lead it and well see my earlier paragraph about who has the money...
While Apple hasn't officially announced yet, they should have reached 1 Billion Active iPhone user in the past few months. They are just waiting for the moment to make the announcement.
The Mission Impossible 5 lines always come up in my head when I read these stories.
The App Store, was a hypothetically brainchild of certain people within Apple. Recruit former developers from other platform, supply them with tools, use them to grow the ecosystem and surgically remove our competitors, both at home and abroad. Its operation was to be hidden within Services in a virtual account that Steve alone would control. It would have made him a Judge, Jury and Executioner with zero accountability.
This is very true. I know of many people who have legitimate App ideas that would flourish today had it not been the extreme restrictions that Apple and Google is putting on mobile devices. Sadly, I can testify, that Apple and Google are actively putting obstacles in the way of innovation because it hurts their business models.
Switch to Android. You just realized the same reason why I switched 8 years ago.
That and consistently raising prices. Apple is doing this to satisfy their never-ending rising stock-price and it will only get worse.
Ps. Android exploits are worth more than iOS once now. How times have changed...
The fact is that those companies are not telling people what they did wrong and even more persuasive these days not explaining why their apparent transgression is leading to a particular punishment. Or how that transgression fits the punishment. I for one will not subject myself to such a form of tyranny.
In this case even if having your app in TestFlight too long, why is now (3 years in) the time to revoke the app? Having 200 test users is too much. Why not tell people beforehand they exceeded a limit if that is your rule?
Lets say you are invited into a country as a citizen, but the conditions are: You can be punished arbitrarily, even banished, without recourse, harassed, given arbitrary commands by minions. You pay a 30% tax on all your proceeds, but your proceeds are your sole responsibility. There is no right to have your grievances addressed by the tyrant, not even by one of the lower minions. Would you go? I will not. Now say you already find yourself in such a country. I'm sorry for you. I think I would organize and try to collectively have those rights improved.
<rant>
Seriously, just how hard is it for these companies to communicate properly? Would it kill them to send something like "We saw X on your account so we are closing your account temporarily. Contact us.". Instead it is just "We closed your account. Get screwed.".
This is why so many developers are going the web app way these days. Dealing with a closed platform who won't even talk to you is just infuriating.
Sorry for the rant.
Don't apologize, your rant is valid and unfortunately this issue is not limited to Apple. Google is infamous for closing accounts and sending an automated message along the lines of "You may have violated a rule. We won't tell you which rule, and we won't offer proof, deal with it." They don't just do this to their free users, it's happened to businesses using paid Google services for their core infrastructure. It's maddening that a corporation can get so big that it's effectively a human walking through an ant hill, oblivious to the thousands or even millions of lives it's disrupting in the name of moving forward and making profits.
When you type your password into your computer, if you do it incorrectly, you get a generic error like "That didn't work, try again". If instead the OS gave out more specific hints, like "Your username is good but your password isn't" and "You tried 9 characters, but your password is not 9 characters", it would only make things easier for the attacker.
And, might I add, Safari performs way better for me than Chrome, on macOS.
They fear it would kill their fraud prevention efforts because they'd just be giving evil actors a list of instructions on how to stay as close as possible to their undesirable activities.
> We saw X on your account so we are closing your account temporarily
There will always be some idiot who goes 'oh so you're descriminating against X' or some other bullshit but legally valid reason and sues them. Can't have that.
Because of the nature of a couple of my apps, I’ve had them bounced for “providing commonly available services” (i.e. competing with OS tools). In each instance, I have appealed, citing some unique features, and have prevailed.
I think that reviewers have a number of “1-button” responses, provided by some kind of dashboard, in order to ensure a narrative is maintained. This is actually common for many customer interaction scenarios. I don’t like it, but understand why it happens.
I’ll bet that the more heated an exchange gets, the more “canned” these responses become, because...lawyers. He may, in fact, be communicating with a human, who keeps hitting canned response buttons (not much different from ‘bots).
I’ve wondered whether or not folks might use TestFlight for “shadow release.” I have seen app makers use Enterprise in that fashion. I have no idea (or opinion) on whether or not that was the case, here.
I’m not sure I would want to pursue my case in the court of public opinion. It’s a risky gambit, but this chap may feel he has nothing to lose.
EDIT: One thing that I should mention, is that I never have a release in TestFlight for more than a few days. It has a "time bomb"; I think, maybe 60 or 90 days. That means, in order to maintain an app in TF for three years, he'd need to keep re-releasing every couple of months. That speaks to some kind of intent.
It wasn’t a fun process but I like having a human contact on the other side of the things.
Sometimes I think, people having issues must be omitting some part of the story because I am not a big-time publisher, I have no privilege but at the same time, I don’t have these problems of ”evil Apple destroying the little guy” sort.
"Apple threatens to close my developer account" is a very different situation from Hey's disagreement with the business practices of Apple.
At the start I also got canned responses, which was a bit frustrating (because I knew that these won’t help me in the slightest) but then I got real help and it also felt like the support actually wanted to help, which is often not the case in such scenarios.
I guess what I wanted to say is that this is what brings value to interacting in any business. You need to be able to listen and talk.
They are. I know a real estate company that distributes its app to its customers that way. I don't know why they do it, but it's annoying not to be able to just download it from the App Store like a normal app.
That's insane. Their brand must be in the toilet. This guy has a "niche" product that is probably only of interest to a few geeks. A real estate company, on the other hand, has a brand that it needs to protect and project.
Also, I'll bet they will get to interact with the account fraud department, sooner or later.
It sounds like OP is dealing with the account fraud department instead
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bet...
I encourage you to read through the entire AppStore guidelines, there might be more sections that apply to Apple's decision to terminate the account
I didn't read through all of your privacy policy on the app's website, but definitely worthwhile to cross check it with the AppStore guidelines as well.
As others have said, GMail was 5 years in beta, it's normal for products to be in beta for years as long as they are not monatized. Maybe he didn't get the updates reviewed according to the guidelines though.
But from the way it sounds the author was not actively developing the application, so I am not sure how many changes went into each 90 day revision, perhaps Apple does not look kindly on resubmitting a build just for the sake of resetting the TestFlight 90 day activity counter. This might be seen as a way to try and avoid deployment and the final app review process.
The 90 day counter is mentioned here https://testflight.apple.com/ Look for it under "Testing"
From the way I have understood the 90 day counter before is that the app should be updated with new functionality/patches to be more beta tested, otherwise your app is obviously not being developed so no need for beta testing anymore
"Note, however, that apps using TestFlight cannot be distributed to testers in exchange for compensation of any kind, including as a reward for crowd-sourced funding."
If you have taken the time to read the information posted you would see that the information is relevant on monetization outside of the app.
I am just giving possible considerations for the author that they haven't consider in the article, we don't know how the app link has been distributed throughout the last 3 years, maybe they posted a donation link somewhere before and Apple considered this as compensation for the beta distribution of the app.
And if not, and a single Apple ID is also used for development, (1) can it remain intentionally unassociated with any payment method in any specific country, and (2) is there a threat of losing it if Developer account is terminated for some unfathomable reason?
If it’s a business ID then I’d still say you have little to lose by using a separate one for the Dev account. You can even switch IDs on iOS for using the App Store if you need to login using the dev account.
If Apple were not years behind PWA integration, switching to a PWA instead of native app might be an option. But this is sadly not in Apple’s interest.
I wonder how many people will choose Android over Apple in the future because of PWAs. I can imagine there will be a flood of useful PWAs, freely to use and only fully working on Android, not Apple.
In this case, it seems we've sleepwalked into a situation where there are conflicts of interest like never really seen before - companies with global scale, able to arbitrarily decide which competition they wish to allow to be present on "their" marketplace, and make them either raise their price by 30%, or be 30% less profitable.
Resolving these conflicts, and recognising these aren't simple "creation of a moat", but rather some actual, tangible, anti-competitive practices would be a good starting point. But what is the outcome? Apple's view is "we're protecting users from bad things on the internet", but perhaps this kind of arbitrary decision-making is not one to be getting made arbitrarily?
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
If we enforced the law as written, I think the "cookie law" would be a net positive for everyone.
In terms of who deals with the anti competitive situation, I don't think that matters. But this is textbook market distortion that traditional antitrust laws were made for, and I think it's high time we saw them used to break up anti-competitive market practices.
Speculation but my money would be on some unethical competitor or even just a jerk who doesn't like Andy is spamming negative reviews and reported him to Apple for fraud. Since I've never heard of this happening, I don't know if Apple's fraud department takes a guilty-until-innocent approach or if they agreed fraud occurred. Either way the lack of transparency and communication is not right. I'll echo sentiments that I've spoken to humans about app issues but never about fraud.
Well there you have it. The rest of devs will be happy they're still under Apple's wing, and nothing will change.
I have not read the blog post above fully, but a speed-read suggests that the author was publicly distributing an app through TestFlight rather than App Store.
I am not accusing anyone of anything here. But if my speed-read is accurate, then its not at all surprising Apple have taken issue with him.
TestFlight is a dev tool. Its not for production deployment. Its meant for beta testing.
What's completely unacceptable here is that Apple does not specifically say what the author did wrong and this can't be defended by apologists.
What is surprising or not coming from Apple is irrelevant, stop normalizing this abusive behavior from app store gate keepers.
I agree that Apple’s lack of communication with developers is a massive problem, but I also think there are a couple of gaps in his story that need filling in.
TestFlight betas expire after a short amount of time – one or two months, if I remember correctly. He says the application has been available through TestFlight for three years. This means that he will have had to publish a new build well over a dozen times to keep it active for this amount of time. And if it’s already on TestFlight with external testers, it’s really not much effort at all to push it live. The build is already in Apple’s system – you've got to fill out a couple more form fields and click submit.
So looking at it that way… he gets hundreds of users, keeps pushing new builds to those users on a regular basis for three years, but never submits it to go through the public App Store review process. If I were Apple, I’d think he was probably trying to bypass the review process as well. Apps with a public invitation link are common, but this behaviour is not.
But yes, they should talk to him about it and this is a failure on Apple’s part even if he is acting suspiciously. I’ve been saying for a while that Apple need a VP of Developer Relations to take ownership of this type of thing, because it seems clear nobody owns it at the moment.
It's outrageous, but people rag on Apple disproportionately, as though their model (curated App Store vs free-for-all) is the issue. We need sweeping technology reform from the top. Governments need to start understanding the technology that they oversee, not just dealing on a 'business level' with lobbyists and execs who will do anything to maintain their autonomy.
When these companies are service providers to a majority of the population (in aggregate, or individually) they must be treated as infrastructure providers and held to basic standards of accountability, transparency, and governance.
And, as the author extensively explains, the major sin of Apple is not that they removed the app from Testflight, but that threaten to suspend his developer account completely and give no explanation _why_, even after multiple attempts of the author to reach out to Apple to solve this situation.
If that's the case, surely the better action would be for Apple to just remove the app from Testflight (and maybe reset the list so testers have to sign up again)?
As for TestFlight lengths - if you are required to guess what the issue is you have already proven his point.
Is there still no way to release an iPhone app out with the iOS app store?
To enable this countries and regions have drafted laws to govern what business and trade practices are permissible.
Some non-rhetorical questions out of curiosity because I genuinely don't know:
Is it illegal for supermarkets to only partner with certain brands and carry their products over those of their competitors? If there is only 1 Walmart within driving distance of 50,000 people, and that Wal-Mart chooses to throw out all toilet paper brands and sell their store brand, is this allowed under current law? What if they allow the brand to stay if they pay an additional whimsical commission to Wal-Mart? Is that legal?
Is there something that makes the App store different from the physical store equivalent?
Putting aside the letter of the law, does it violate the aforementioned "spirit" of the law? i.e. ought there be laws against this kind of behaviour? I am sure there are good arguments for both sides.
The problem is that the iPhone itself isn't a monopoly. You can buy an Android phone that can access any store and install any app you want, so monopoly law doesn't apply (in the strictest sense). Now, one could say that you shouldn't have to move towns just because your favorite toilet paper isn't sold. But as it stands today, you have to, as I understand it. (With that being said, Apple, start acting right.)
By his own description of what it does, I'd say the app is highly likely to be selling access to content that the author hasn't licensed, and is on sketchy copyright grounds.
Also, the fact that a vote manipulation app...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21122737/iowa-democractic-...
...was distributed via a test platform with the financial backing of former Clinton and Obama / recent Pete Buttigieg staffers...
https://apnews.com/5232ce5601996c1de440806ad30fa4fb
...has likely put Apple in the position of being compelled to more actively police what goes on in test apps. I get the knee-jerk tendency to blame corporate oppression of indie developers since that is usually what we see from the Googles and Microsofts of the world, but Apple has little monetary interest in kicking a successful app developer off of their ecosystem, unless that app developer is blatantly flaunting civil / criminal statutes or trying to scam Apple out of their cut of the profit.
If I had a to guess I'd say this guy is doing both.
Also, I'd say referring to that app (however problematic it was, and I agree they did a terrible job building and deploying it) as a "vote manipulation app" is unnecessarily inflammatory.
> distributed via a test platform with the financial backing of former Clinton and Obama / recent Pete Buttigieg staffers This implies that TestFlight has financial backing from those groups. Maybe that's just unclear wording, but interpreted as written the claim is unsupported by the provided source.
Assuming you meant to say the Iowa caucus app was supported by those former staffers, it should be clarified that the company who made the app also provided services to those campaigns. I wouldn't consider Shadow Inc. to be competent as a technology company, but it doesn't surprise me that Democrats would buy political tech from a company founded by people who worked on digital outreach for the most recent Democratic presidential campaign.
1) Desire to cut Apple out of their share by trying to monetize a test app
and/or
2) Desire to escape the review process which might flag and reject an app designed to allow the user to easily fetch data from source that would be in violation of copyright laws.
This is relevant to the political example for a similar reason. Sure, we can say there's nothing wrong with the judge in a politician's criminal trial being seen with the politician in a restaurant after the politician's acquittal.... on the same day (look up Edwin Edwards and you'll see examples of just that), but it certainly does look bad, doesn't it? Similarly we can say that people from the vote counting app and their investors being seen in a bar with the guy responsible for failing to count the votes is not necessarily nefarious, but when the guy who counts the votes fails to count the votes in a way that favors the candidate whose staffers were also at the same get together at the same bar, it sure does look bad, doesn't it?
There's no reason for a guy with a successful app to fail to launch it and monetize it, unless he's trying to skirt Apple's rules in some way. It's just a matter of what way he's trying to game their system, isn't it?
So basically he was calling something a 'beta' and distributing it through Testflight for 3 years.
Yep, no clear reason here. Big Apple bad!
Apple has a lot of problems, and I agree, but most of these 'developer stories about mean Apple' always have two sides of the story. I remember the same outrage about Kapeli's Dash situation, and then came out an account in his name was doing fraudulent activities ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680131 )
Techically this is of course just like web browser, but Apple could see it differently.
[1] Objectionable Content
The fact that a faceless entity can lock you out of developing like this is just wrong. I fear for the future of such closed off ecosystems.
We really shouldn’t have to do that kind of shit.
Paid customer service where the customer pays money (say $100-$1k depending on how serious the issue is) and each company can have a special channel to respond to these paid requests and be compensated (say 80% of the fee the customer pays). That way companies will have the will and ability to attend to serious issues and filter them out from the "useless" customer requests that flood any large size business.
Apparently it looked too much like the iPad Settings app.
Insane.
Just find an alternative business strategy that doesn't rely on Apple. You can't rely on them. They don't give a crap about developers and never have. Why do all developers keep enabling them? Seriously, just sacrifice a small % of your income by ignoring Apple and you will help make the world a better place. Developers have to stand up for themselves.
I would suggest requiring cause to be stated for account termination or threatened termination, and a formal right of appeal to request evidence.
Of course this would be onerous for the smallest businesses, so we’d need some threshold for when it kicks in. E.g. 2 years, or $1,000 of transactions.
This wouldn’t make any particular kind of termination illegal. It would simply force transparency, so that then if there really are abuses or patterns of abuse taking place, we can expose them.
It would also apply to all businesses - Google, Banks, Gyms, whatever.
There's not much they can't do, now.
Forget that useless malicious platform already. It's not worth it.
I just googled this, found some references to the anime image boards. Most were Hentai / Porn. If the main purpose of an app is viewing adult content, its main purpose is viewing adult content - even if you have to add the ressources yourself. (I might be wrong, I don't have a clue about the Boorus community).
So prop. Apples "Freedom from Porn"approach?