This seem indefensible at first blush. The app has been available as-is for years, so if the explanation given him is correct, it's a really bad look for Apple.
It's a computer, and the most popular computer in the US. It's also the only computer a lot of people own.
It's not a dedicated gaming device - people use iPhone to call, edit media, find jobs, pay for things, calculate, date, do email. It's a computer. Arguments like "but you can't install on a Nintendo" aren't equivalent. Nintendo makes one of a dozen different game platforms, all of which have wide penetration and lots of alternatives. And it's just for games. This is closer to "you can't repair your tractor", which is also an issue for farmers.
Computers, especially those with massive market share, should be open to 3rd party installs.
It's an expensive device and it got to where it is because of a trillion dollar company backing it. You can't compete with that.
You own an iPhone and you're happy installing just from Apple? That's fine. But there are a lot more people in this world that will benefit from open computing. Apple can still have their App Store, charge for distribution, and will still be making bank.
Computing on computers should be free and open.
If we let this slide, we'll one day own nothing. Stallman was right about everything.
Why? If you don't like it, don't buy their product. I think iPhone is shit because of this, and other tactics to lock the user in, so I don't use it and wouldn't recommend it to anybody.
My personal favorites were the 2010-2012 mac pro. keyboard on first generation macbook pro with keys that were concave not flat. unibody on later macbook pro - the one with ports and sd card. I will say the iphone peaked for me at the iphone 8, which is relatively recent.
As a shareholder or a product user?
Shareholders want to make money. Users do not always have the power to change things, when things are going off the rails and a tilted playing field is forming.
It only took 2-3 hours for one of the largest, most powerful corporations, to reverse their decision.
It only took 2-3 hours for Apple to assess the PR cost of banning the app and decide it's not worth the income increase.
we have the law and court for a reason, and i think the public should have more access to it to demand justice and fair treatment. So that all entities of all sizes have equal access to it.
Prior to the current Anti-Trust issues on App Store policy, Apple doesn't even bother responding to people out rage on twitter. Even if they did it takes days and sometimes weeks to get something resolved.
The only reason they are having such turn around time now is only because they are under scrutiny.
That way, when you do get kicked out from an app store, at least you can direct users to your web site (which is probably a violation of app store guidelines, but if it's your only/main revenue generating app, and already kicked out, having this option can be a lifesaver).
Off to the right you see the text > "...you agree to charge a $36 a year subscription to this payment method."
There's no mention of a $36 / annual anywhere else. It's on the margin to clearly trick the user when simply adding a payment info.
The original purpose of the App Store guidelines were to protect the users / customers. And it did!. It worked great. And Apple charge you 30% for Digital Goods. And nothing for physical goods. It was Fair. 30% for the likes of Gaming, Productivity Apps such as Office, Camera, Calendar, Photo Editing etc etc. That was fine. And true to its words, Steve's Apple had all the rationale in nearly all rejection cases.
These days App Store policy is much more about rent seeking, their sole purpose is no longer serving its users and customer's best interest. But used in every opportunity to extract more revenues from these Apps and Services. Not to mention how many of these letters from Apple suggest Developers of Free ( as in beer ) Apps contributed nothing to the App Store and act as a "Free Rider" on Apple's platform. Compounded by Tim Cook's comment on App Store and being user first.
Normally I give some benefits of doubt to CEO as they may not be on top of all the things happening in a company. But judging from the Apple vs IMG and Apple vs Qualcomm cases I think he knows exactly what he is doing.
This whole things stinks and reeks of hypocrisy to me.
A human reviewer applied the app store policies as best she understood them but in the end was mistaken and the decision was reversed.
Review systems like this are better when they optimize for false positives rather than false negatives because of the fence leaning problem. If you give publishers the the benefit of the doubt then the result is people cozying right up to the fence of allowable behavior or leaning juuuust over it but not enough to trigger a ban. However, if you throw down the banhammer on everyone near the fence regardless of what side they're on people will actually say clear of it.
Decision reversed. Link and title should be updated to reflect.
"9 minute review time after being held up for weeks..."
But it was immediately approved on appeal, to our great surprise. I wonder if Apple is aware that they're treading on thin(ner) ice with regard to the App Store.
All i need to know. Why even have an app in the EvilStores?
