Apple Has Removed Dash from the App Store
blog.kapeli.com
blog.kapeli.com
What I found unacceptable is "We are banning you and we won't tell you anything about it". This pattern is extremely common. And extremely frustrating. You can't put one in jail without telling why (and right to defend). In many developed countries you can't even fire a worker without a solid reason. It should be prohibited for companies to halt service someone without providing a reasonable explanation.
By US standards, that would require an absurd level of legislative and/or judicial overreach. I don't think I'd even want to do business in that kind of regulatory climate.
Or does it even matter if the Apple App store is the only marketplace of its kind?
So, choose your poison. We can govern them, or they can govern us.
What a terrible idea.
Local insurance claims gears the local premiums, obviously.
If you live in the city with the worst drivers in the country, your premiums will be high.
https://consumercomplianceoutlook.org/2013/second-quarter/ad...
Such protections exist for employees, involve lots of lawyers and complexity, and sometimes screw companies and sometimes screw employees and sometimes screw both (though they do also fill an important need). But the economic cost of compliance and management of these rules is quite high, and there are a lot more employees than software developers by several orders of magnitude.
I'm in no way implying that such activity happened in this case, just that the policy makes sense.
An appeal process should be in place though.
If you don't want it to behave this way, as a consumer or developer, you just have to choose to not deal with it. But you don't want to, because it makes you money and makes you life more comfortable in some way.
What it means is that you value money/confort more than been respected by this company. Accept this is what you choose and don't bitch about it, this is dishonest. You can't have it both way.
A company can't dump chemicals in any river without oversight; it could be compelled to accept an appeals process when terminating a contract with a developer.
Now we can act as a society to make it illegal, but this won't happen.
Certainly not if everyone heeds your advice to "Accept this is what you choose and don't bitch about it". Bitching about stuff is a necessary part of the democratic process.
Making this illegal would result in an arduous approval process just to join a marketplace. Additionally it could result in bad actors being unable to be expelled from a market while the legal process unfolds. That could result in a net loss to consumers. Imagine a malware developer -- Apple can't evict them quickly because they'd have to perform extra legal investigation so they wouldn't get in trouble for acting too quickly.
There is a reason we don't accept that for our law system. We currently accept that from companies, and I don't think it's a good idea.
But don't get me wrong. I don't think going legal is the right way to go. I think either you accept it, and enjoy the benefits of playing with apple and stop complaining, or you don't accept it, complain AND follow the complaining with action such as putting your business elsewhere.
Imagine it this way: you are a contract developer, should you have no right to terminate a contract with a client under the terms of the agreement? Almost every contract I'be ever signed as a developer has some form of "either party can terminate this agree with <some days> notice."
From what I am reading here, we want to hold Apple to different rules than the ones we ourselves routinely follow?
I get it: Apple should give the guy an explanation. However making laws to require it? That's absurd. Should there be a law that when a girl (or guy) doesn't accept a dinner invitation that they provide a valid reason? That's really what this comes down to. And no, Apple isn't a monopoly. This company can still sell their products, just not at that particular store.
I feel bad for the situation, but extending government power into private business relationships is a bad idea. Contract law already covers this.
Society isn't harmed by this company not being able to sell on the App Store. This isn't dumping chemicals into rivers or denying service based on skin color.
If the developer was wronged, he could file a lawsuit. However given that the contracts governing the relationship were known in advance, the situation is just the realization of the risks inherent in doing business.
Precisely. You signed the contract. You could have not done so, but you wanted the money. And you wanted it to come from this source, because this source fits some of your needs. So you decided it was worth putting your life into their hands, and sometime, you loose. It sucks, but you are half responsible.
When a corporation behaves this way, it needs to hurt.
Yes you can (if you're Goldman & Sachs). It's called "contempt of the court". See the Martin Armstrong case. There are others.
My wife was banned a bit before more. She sold one textbook and fulfilled the transaction perfectly. She found out she was banned when they said they were keeping her money for 45 days, and they would be kind enough to release it to her if the buyer confirmed receipt of the book (they did, and she did get her money eventually).
Based on the mail that was arriving, we _think_ that someone who lived at our apartment before us was doing something shady. Amazon doesn't care though.
This kind of thing is why it's incredibly frustrating that people blithely let a few companies control most commerce.
Admittedly, we at least had recourse, while you don't for whatever reason, in the event that you one day do want to become a marketplace seller. My point is that it's really easy to get blacklisted. Perhaps it's because they prefer to have some false positives, rather than deal with real bad actors. Just a conjecture.
Might be $500 max for the court fees.
Then they eventually have to explain it and litigate with you. And eventually revise their ridiculous CS practices.
Sooner or later the IT infrastructure companies will need to be regulated like infrastructure providers.
IT infrastructure has nothing in common with this aside from ISP.
Really, given that this is a market that is growing double digits by year, the amount by which amazon dominates it is shocking.
And that is in a market that is still growing rapidly. For Facebook/Whatsapp this is even more obviously not true. Facebook even failed to leverage its social network monopoly to establish its messenger against insurgents, simply because they were a bit late.
The idea that economies of scale make it impossible for a company to never face competition is ridiculous. The only thing that can do that is govenment protectionism.
Along with economies of scale is the opposite effect: the inefficiency of bureaucracy and having competing interests between business units.
Being large isn't the magical unicorn you think.
I get that there is money to be made on the iOS app store-- but why is there a willingness to set up shop in a town where if one of the local officials doesn't like you-- for any reason-- he or she can effectively confiscate your hard-made product so you can't sell it anywhere else and kick you outside the walls?
Here is one key tradeoff I see: the App Store brings more visibility in exchange for a cost. This situation accentuates another downside: plug-pulling for intentional or unintentional reasons.
FWIW, I use plenty of apps not on the app store.
Stories like this from Dash (and others) is a real-living and breathing worst-case scenario... it makes the choice to not participate in this marketplace all the more obvious to me.
The smartphone 'market' is an oligarchy, ergo, it's not really a free market, and those kinds of principled positions just don't hold.
It's pretty reasonable to argue that Apple's arbitrary control of the AppStore is an anti-competitive practice.
If the market were commoditized, like, the choice you have for where you want to 'eat lunch' or 'buy a car' - it would be different.
If a particular bit of conduct would be a poor idea if everyone were to do it, that's a pretty good idea it shouldn't be allowed at all.
Can I choose my opportunities? To some extent.
The point I was making is that this rhetorical device of "I need to eat" is used way too often as a euphemism for "I want to make a lot of money". It's used that way because the former statement elicits sympathy and the latter statement attracts derision.
In the context of the original comment, the "need to eat" phrase was used in the context of an app developer. You don't create an app on the app store as a last ditch attempt to feed your family. You do it to make money, and you do it knowing the risk that it won't be successful and you won't make any money. Apple's inscrutable opaque approval process is another annoying risk on top of that, but whether you're going to eat shouldn't be a part of the equation here.
At least Apple only takes ~1/3 of the value of the work you put into in the App Store.
One example, on iOS WebKit if you flick to scroll, and then "click" (touch) on the screen while the scroll animation is still running, the click event will report a position on the webpage that was as if the scroll had never happened (e.g. you had clicked on the same place on the screen without having scrolled in the first place).
"I called them again and they said they can’t provide more information."
They terminate your account and then they even refuse to tell you why. A basic human thing, a chance to fix the issue, but no. Go f* yourself from Apple and that's it.
Which is, in and of itself, a problem.
It's understandable that the information might not be immediately on hand, but then the correct response would be to direct the caller to someone who can help. Otherwise, yes, it does come off as a big "fuck you".
Not saying it is ok to do it. Just that business will always pick the cheapest option they can get away with - that is, that does not affect the bottom line.
There really is no analogue to the relationship Apple has with iOS developers except perhaps, "Extremely bad contracting relationship." Apple has a lock on the perception that you need to publish on their platform to be serious about mobile dev. As such, they don't need to treat developers well unless there are very large corporate relationships to maintain (and while I assure you such things are in play, sadly I'd be in very big trouble for getting into specifics on any of them).
Apple's model is to convince developers that they're obligated to prop Apple's platform. It is not the stunning core iOS experience that drives people to the platform, nor the beautiful default app toolkit. It's the sweat and prowess of its developer community, and yet the power of the relationship is completely inverted.
While Google can be a faceless cancelmachine, my experience shipping a few apps now is that Google is actually really responsive once you get to the stage where you have a direct rep. Getting Apple to respond to my needs historically has been Game of Thrones level politics and a function of how connected our startup funding network was.
$100/year says you're wrong.
Any developer who thinks they are a "customer" in any meaningful sense of the word needs to re-read their click-thru contract with Apple. The concept of "customer" is distorted beyond belief here.
And you deal with murderers by putting them in prison, which is equally irrelevant because the person in question is neither.
Saying something about some other company does not in any way justify the questionable actions.
Chocolate and Vanila, Male and Female, Apple and Google. All these things are binary, and are always inversely related to one another.
/s
Sure, we should add add a lot of names to this list: "Try contacting [Apple|Google|EBay|PayPal|AmazonAws|.*] about anything."
I see no reason for them to, nor do I expect them to, provide me support for things like GMail, or Hangouts, or their search.
I wish I could pay for my browser, my email and my search...
Google does the same thing when they kill your AdSense account for "invalid click activity" right before you're about to get a big payout. Amazon does the same thing with Amazon Payments. No explanation, no recourse. Infuriating.
And we still continue to use their service lika a b*ch we are :( They have no incentive to change, because no one else cares.
For instance, I went through quite a Kafka-esque nightmare just a few months ago. Something got messed up with our order software so that when we shipped something it wasn't marked as shipped and the tracking info was not uploaded to Amazon for a few days during a busy season. Customers weren't complaining since they were getting their stuff. Amazon sent a warning that our late shipment rate was too high just an hour or so before they sent an notification saying we lost selling privileges. I immediately figured out what went wrong. I got the order software working right again, and I manually marked all the "unshipped"-but-actually-shipped orders as shipped and added the tracking. I wrote to Seller Performance about this, exactly as they instruct you to. I explained what happened, showed them how I fixed it, and explained how we'd ensure it didn't happen again. Their response was simply that our late shipment rate was too high and that my account was suspended as a result. I sent the same info I had sent, and this time included full tracking info for all of the affected orders (and by this time most of them had already been delivered). I received the same response as before. I tried doing their "Contact Us" methods, but no one would respond to my messages or talk to me on the phone, since the account was suspended. All anyone would say is that I need to contact Seller Performance to attempt to get back on. Finally, after several emails to Seller Performance about this, where I basically explained the situation and how I fixed it and how all the supposedly-unshipped orders were actually fine or already delivered, but just phrasing it slightly differently each time, I was unceremoniously let back on, more than a week later. I asked very politely why it took me so many attempts to get back on, even though I just told them the same thing each time, and they said they could not discuss it, and that I may have my account suspended (!) if I contacted them again about this.
So maybe you've had an experience having your account suspended on Amazon that went smoothly, but that's definitely not how it always is.
i'm just guessing here.
After getting frustrated with the absurdity of that situation, I contacted support and they said it was a mistake and they reset my account and to try again. I did. Same errors. Then support told me that if I didn't submit ID documents within a certain number of days, my account would be permanently closed. I responded saying I had been trying to do so repeatedly over multiple periods of time and constantly got locked out and prevented from continuing every time I tried. No reply. Then a final announcement my account was permanently banned.
In the year since, I've contacted them sporadically trying to see if they've changed their policy or will reconsider, and just get blanket statements about my account being closed and nothing they can do. The last time I did this, they got fairly aggressive and said they could not and would not be reinstating my account, would not tell me why, and would not respond to any further inquiries from me.
It's a matter of perspective. In their eyes, they are being incredibly generous with that deal.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-ipho...
(Just to be clear: It's not that I think they are not important, it's what I perceive as their attitude when things like this happen)
You can fix an app if the platform changes, but you can't put an app on a platform if the platform won't let you.
That said, it's not always that way with them, and I suspect Apple is similar. We always hear about the rough encounters, but few people write about "I just had this issue, and it got cleared up immediately. The end."
With a free Apple developer account you can build an app via Xcode onto your device. These will only be signed for 90 days, but it's something.
It’s not just apps, either. There is frequently a “less disruptive” option for any major action; for instance, you can “delete” files by starting with the instantly-reversible "chmod 000", and after some period of time you actually go ahead and "rm -Rf". If, in between, a panicked user E-mails you back and says they really needed those files, you undo your "chmod" and instantly fix the issue. Why should anything on the App Store take days?
And certainly when fraud is detected some refunds will occur. So they set the tolerances such that they can pay those refunds with the fees they extract on the other side of the curve.
You'd be amazed at what a few billion in the bank will attract, especially when it's cheaper to settle than litigate.
Class actions suits have to show damages, no? After the money is refunded, what would the plaintiffs allege?
First of all, if it's actually fraud that totally doesn't scale.
But in a more nuanced case, look at the iMessage App that allowed people to send images that looked like a stock Messages blue bubble. Good idea for humor, not so good for non-trolling UX. Apple pulls it but gives the developer a week to see if there's any way to salvage the situation to ease the heartstrings and pocketbook.
IMMEDIATELY calls go out to download the infringing app, several thousand more than anyone who might otherwise (full Streisand effect)...
Then imagine that app actually has Malware! Lots to think about, and if people hate on Apple for this, fair enough — as an iOS dev it's tough to defend. Really love Dash. Hope it gets straightened out. 8 years in on the platform and you can do a ton of things you couldn't do back in 08, and vice versa.
There are certainly a lot of issues with the app store model. But using a service like download.com was also rife with issues.
They didn't, though; they just muddled through and asked their friends or some tech support service to reinstall Windows occasionally, when the viruses, adware and other crap made the computer too slow, or when the ramsomware encrypted all their files.
a) Educate users and give them more knowledge and better tools to easily protect themselves
or
b) Have app-stores organized in such a way that user interests and legitimate security concerns are not conflated with commercial interests of the platform owners as it's currently the case. Either treat app stores as a public utility with rights and regulations or require all devices to support competing stores.
Google Play is full of crap, Apple's app store has plenty of low value apps, the Windows 10 App store sucks, etc, etc, etc.
They've improved user security, but the amount of garbage to sift through is terrible.
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
And companies, individuals, non-profits, and others are all allowed to run their own repos, or mirror these.
Similar approaches to the apple app store vs. android store... up front binary check from apple vs. a permissive store with user reports being the primary thing that pulls apps from circulation.
From my POV, it's like complaining that the seat belt left a bruise after an automotive collision; IOW, missing the bigger picture. I can sort my own garbage, thanks (and that's not to say that you're not right about the quality in app stores). It's easy, and if I screw it up then I've just got a garbage binary taking up space that is otherwise harmless.
But what I grow increasingly tired of is wondering if bad actors have found new ways to make my life difficult before I install that random app. Download from an app store, the app might be garbage, but at least I can be confident that it won't trash my machine. Servers, my dev machine? Sure, I'm willing to put up with a little more rigamorole for more control, etc. But my phone? I don't want to put up with that crap, vetting everything binary that goes on the box. I just want to tap and download, and if the quality of the app sucks, then fixing that is a long-press away.
That second problem remains unsolved (crap apps blasted into the stores just to show ads fit my definition of abusive advertising).
Also, still the best implementation.
Anyone who argues that all users must be herded into a walled garden in the name of security and alternatives are not acceptable is essentially advocating a digital nanny state.
That is the herpes of the Linux world. That is one of the worse things that someone can suggest to install something.
Is it a bad idea? Maybe, especially if you're not technically versed. Does that mean we should take everyone's freedom to make their own choices. "because we know what's best for you"? I don't think so.
I believe that most non-technical users are self-aware enough that they stick to curated app-stores of their own volition.
If the walled gardens charge 50% on top of the manufacturer's price (or 33% what the customer pays), there is plenty of room to undercut there.
For most people, that's probably the walled gardens that people not on HN don't complain about.
How many of us have set up a clueless person's computer? We give them a restricted user account, so they can't install 500 random spyware/adware toolbars. We change the IE/Edge shortcut to open Firefox instead. We install ad-blockers and script-blockers with an overly generous whitelist. Maybe we even install Linux with remote admin, and automatic updates, and just slap on a wm that looks vaguely like Windows. Their expert is us, or people like us, and our services are not always bought with spendable currency.
I don't always enjoy being that expert, or getting paid for it in cookies and ugly sweaters. And in that situation, the walled garden is great. We can all roll our clueless friends up in carpets and dump them over the wall, where they can stumble around all day without getting hurt.
But some people can actually make a business out of it. They do exist. And some of them won't shamelessly price-gouge their clueless customers.
This developer's woes are nothing compared to the challenges to getting shrink-wrapped software in boxes, getting people to download and install an executable, or god forbid getting a mobile app onto one of the mobile carrier's app stores,
Happened 30 years ago with Nintendo.
Apple's arrogance in running their store may eventually cause it's decline.
That is quite right, and they don't get upset at all. Apple don't pretend to compete in every market for every niche and have no interest in doing so. If the Apple way doesn't suit you, they'll quite happily wave you goodbye as you move to Android or elsewhere.
I often see people get upset because Apple doesn't address their particular use case or preference, but the fact is Android, Windows and Linux exist and are fine options for many people. The only case where this is really an issue IMHO is when someone buys in the Apple but didn't realize the limitations they would be under or when the limitations change to become more restrictive but that's not very common. Usually restrictions actually ease over time, such as the explosion in cross application functionality and opening of access to the JIT javascript engine in iOS made possible by secure cross process communication in recent iOS versions.
Wait, you're actually saying that the richest business entity on the world can't be expected to employ people that use their brain and do a bit of fact checking on outlying cases?
Silly decisions like banning dictionaries for including swear words only seem to confirm it. The rules matter, not the judgement.
Of course, for iOS, this also means "you can't write apps for our platform."
Yet other, semi-related consumer apps have this data.
In fact other apps in the store assist with the purchase/sale of these regulated items. A clear violation of Apple policy.
I'm not so mad about being blocked. I'm really mad about the inconsistent/random application of said policy.
Other apps either do the same thing or are less obvious about what their functionality is for, and Apple ignores it or is unaware or turns a blind eye.
edoceo thought an app which documents compliance with State law (and documents non-compliance with Federal law) should be allowed in the app store. Apple didn't.
To avoid these problems, don't sell on the App Store, it's as simple as that (and very sad). Apple's processes suck and Apple doesn't care, as it has had year to fix things, but hasn't. Complaining won't change it. People have complained, and it didn't change.
As someone who comes here every day, I don't think tens (or even ones) of this type of story hits the frontpage every day. I'm not saying it's not a problem, though.
At least as this is software for developers, I reckon most won't mind buying it outside the appstore, it sounds really useful.
I like to think this is a foulup and will be fixed soon. However, XCode 8's help system is massively improved and this might be a case of Apple trying to force developers down that route. Which is a bloody shame. I really hope this is just some screwup :(
It works quite well for me.
Like code signing. Or the encrypt-then-compress DRM adding many MB to binary sizes. Or code signing causing pre-main startup times to bloat. Etc, etc.
Developers will continue using and supporting Apple products regardless. We hear a story like this at least three or four times a year.
Geeks love their Apple products far too much to ever walk away no matter what Apple does.
.app bundles are great, just not a complete solution.
Just like the App Store, but without the App Store.
Sparkle is the de-facto standard used by almost all apps.
>no standard uninstall mechanism
Deleting the .app file would do that for most apps. The config files might be handy to keep around if you re-install (and are inert anyway), else it's pretty easy to remove those too. It would be nice for the OS to be able to track "all files installed by an app" though in case those are installed by an installer (and thus, are not self-contained in the .app folder).
>and going from "I have this .dmg/.zip file in my downloads folder" to "I'm running this app from my Applications folder and don't have any leftovers in my downloads folder" is several non-obvious steps.
It's a few steps, but its still as obvious as things get in computing. If users can't manage that, how they'd manage USING the app?
There's a reason so many downloads include a custom background image with a big "DRAG ME TO THE APPLICATIONS FOLDER" message and an arrow pointed to a /Applications alias. This is such a common use case that I don't understand why Apple didn't just make a "This disk image is an installer" flag, and automatically prompt the user with "Do you want to install this to the Applications folder?"
Perhaps, but they just need to be told once what to do, and it's dead easy. Having an installer is not that more intuitive -- they'd still have to be shown how to use their first one.
>This is such a common use case that I don't understand why Apple didn't just make a "This disk image is an installer" flag, and automatically prompt the user with "Do you want to install this to the Applications folder?"
Yeah, some apps do it automatically when opened from the DMG.
The reason it's a problem now is that screwing it up is easier than doing it right, and unless the DMG's author manually added it, there's not even a hint that you should do something other than open the image and run it from there.
IMO the "some apps do it automatically" is even worse because it's inconsistent. Some apps will do it automatically and teach you that it's the way to get things installed, and then the rest of your apps won't. If checking on run and offering to move is the solution, it ought to be standardized systemwide so that users can (correctly) learn to expect it.
So mush nostalgia.
This is a sort of question that makes me hate windows. Do you want to browse files or play music? Do you want to uninstall program? Do you want to change that setting? You have unused icons, so I decided to install updates now, you can't stop me. Oh, come on!
For a more Mac-like method, make it a special Finder mode where instead of showing the directory contents, installer DMGs display a big icon of the app with an Install button under it.
If you really want to get at the files directly, right clicking in the DMG could give a "Show disk image contents" item similar to how app packages are handled. Right clicking on the big application icon would include an "Open" item to circumvent installation and execute from the disk image.
Is there anything particularly wrong with doing this? I know that it's not the typical use scenario, but it doesn't seem like it causes any problems, and it's dead easy even for people for whom the correct procedure is hard.
> making your computer limited to a whim of someone on the other side of the world
That's a really weird way to say this. Security is not a whim.
You're right, just ditch whole damned sandbox thing because a few tools won't work.
Or in an ideal world where we didn't have to decide between one extreme or the other, we could sandbox everything that doesn't have a problem with it, reserving the exceptions for those few tools that don't get along well with a sandbox. (Vetting the hell out of those non-sandbox apps, of course, because we don't want to "<make our computer> limited to the whim of someone on the other side of the world" which in this case wouldn't be Apple.)
The App Store ones were a simple matter of logging in with my Apple account and reinstalling (this included Dash, mentioned here). The other tools meant hunting around for installers, realising that most of the installers now were several versions ahead of the ones I used, in many cases breaking my music projects. It also meant trawling through 9 years of emails to find licence file attachments and serials numbers so I could re-register the applications, or try and purchase upgrades for those where I couldn't find an installer with the same version as I had bought.
Giant PITA. For once I was glad that App Store apps were all auto updated through the time I had them, and I didn't have to bother with activation codes etc. In fact, I ended up trashing the fresh install idea and migrated my old machine to the new. I was actually easier to put up with old junk apps I didn't use anymore than to try and manually install just the ones I needed.
NB: A lot of my audio software is licenced via an iLok device. Whilst I HATED the idea of a 'dongle' like an iLok before, this hardware upgrade has made me appreciate the fact that I didn't have to worry about re-licencing all of my audio production software the used the iLok either.
`brew cask install $APP`
> ...to find licence file attachments and serials numbers
Store these in 1Password (other password managers are available)
Your point about versioning is a good one though. A lot of sites don't make it easy to find older versions of their software and I don't think package managers like homebrew support versioning (although I could be wrong).
[1] "Dash (DASH) is an open sourced, privacy-centric digital currency with instant transactions." https://www.dash.org/
Apple contacted me and told me they found evidence of App Store
review manipulation. This is something I’ve never done.
Apple’s decision is final and can’t be appealed.them: "what exactly?"
apple: "evidence"
them: "..."
Sure it sucks but the real test of whether Apple gives a rats behind is if they fix it a reasonable amount of time. If this drags on for more than a day without a human response from their support line I'd say, no they don't care. I bet that happens.
I imagine atleast once a day, some developer is having their worst day ever somewhere, cursing apple.
I'm going to hypothesize that this isn't a technology glitch. It seems more likely that the move triggered a look at his account by some human who for reasons that are unknown to us decided his account looked fishy.
Try dealing with Apple's joke of a bug tracker. Their backend systems don't exactly get the same smooth experience their consumer products get.
This sort of thing will continue as long as people persist in developing for proprietary walled gardens like iOS.
Once again, and despite my annoyance with the man in general, Stallman is right. This sort of thing is unethical, and we as developers shouldn't be supporting it by developing for iOS.
No thanks!
It's because there's such a large (and arguably, wealthy and influential) incarcerated population.
They can even freeze the money that goes to developer until the issue resolved, but cutting the app from the market and failing on both app users and the developer?
I don't think this is the best approach.
"Hi Matthew,
Thanks for your email about this app.
I did look into this situation when I read about it today. I am told this app was removed due to repeated fraudulent activity.
We often terminate developer accounts for ratings and review fraud, including actions designed to hurt other developers. This is a responsibility that we take very seriously, on behalf of all of our customers and developers.
I hope that you understand the importance of protecting the App Store from repeated fraudulent activity.
Thank you,
Phil"
... but Apple just randomly removes apps that people have purchased from the Apple Store (thus stealing their money and their product, doing everything short of uninstalling it, but preventing reinstallation), and the EU stays silent?
This is some bullshit.
It's not about market power by various metrics, it's about market penetration in numbers, period.
Suing Google for running a far more open platform while Apple continues to exert as least as much if not more control on the direction of the market is just another case of misguided European regulatory overreach.
Atttibuting 1-word quotations is a guessing game, I might as well be...wrong
1) Upvote
2) Downvote
3) User made a politically charged comment in a thread that has nothing to do with politics as a way to insert opinions.
As for what the third button does. I don't know. It doesn't really even have to do anything, it'd make me feel better just being able to count the appearances of such comments in every thread this election year.
A joke, of course, but only kind of.
It's unfortunate that a presidential candidate epitomizes that sentiment, but that's what comes to mind when I hear something like "It's just business".
Edit: now I need to go and rewatch "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"
(this is, incidentally, a major reason why I have not bought an Apple device in twenty years)
So that they can fully control, secure and curate the experience, which is what I am buying Apple phones for.
Well, not really (I'm mostly buying them for the hardware and software combo, which I prefer to Android offerings), but I can appreciate that having a single, sandboxed, signed, etc source of software on a phone, makes it more secure and hassle free thing for users (of which an extremely tiny minority are in any way computer geeks). It also creates a ecosystem that moves in lockstep with the hardware and OS changes -- even if just because it is forced to.
For others, there's always a custom Android install.
Yes, but it's not about individual interests. It's about the aggregate interests of users of a platform, the majority of which are average Joes which would otherwise get every malware possible in their phone.
It's kind of like democracy: you may know your best interests yourself, but you only get one vote. So what laws get passed etc, is what the majority decides. Only in this case Apple makes their political platform (iOS) and people vote with their wallets whether they like it or not.
For lone-wolfs that tend to their own personal interests, there's always Android, or even OpenMoko.
On my devices it sure as heck is about my individual interests. I do not like authoritarianism in politics or software.
I hate that a generation is being raised without the freedom to tinker, to own their hardware and to own their data.
And you're always free to individually buy something else.
>I hate that a generation is being raised without the freedom to tinker, to own their hardware and to own their data.
You mean the same generation that has all kinds of compilers and developers tools for free (unlike back in the 80s and 90s), can reach the whole globe with a simple $5/month server app, and has hardware platforms like Arduino and Pi for less than $100 backs?
I lived in the 80s. We didn't tinker on our smartphones because we didn't have any. Now we have something like 10,000 PDP-11s on our pockets, and an environment so accessible that there are 1,500,000 apps for it. And if we don't like forking $100 to the gatekeeper to get to publish apps for it, there are also web-apps, and Android, where we can just publish anything.
Then don't buy their device.
> Then don't buy their device.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12647379:
> I have not bought an Apple device in twenty years
I think this is conflating two different meanings of trust. Apple hopes that you will trust them to choose to respect your best interests; but what I think most people are inclined to trust is that they are able to respect your best interests. The vast majority of non-techie users are not able to act in their best interests, even though they (presumably) want to do so.
The major reason is that I got into Linux before the Mac I bought in 1996 got too old to use. I've not looked back.
No, Apple's control of the iPhone was perhaps the major reason I never bought one, way back before I had a smart phone (or even a cell phone).
I have several major problems with Apple: I prefer Linux; their software is not free (this is related to the previous item); they control your devices (this is related to the previous item); since they got rid of the old iBooks and iMacs their design language has been boring and, frankly, ugly; I dislike the cult aspects of Apple (having once been a True Believer); I am tired of Apple's high opinion of itself (this is related to the previous item); I think their hardware is over-priced. I could probably think of more.
Now, some of that is just a matter of taste (some people like Jony Ives's rectangles and circles — that's OK), but some of that is indicative of things which are, from my perspective at least, 'wrong on Apple's part,' to use your phrase.
A valid reason is that you trust them to curate available programs according to values that you agree with. This reduces your risk considerably. (Consider the state of Windows executables in the bad old days.)
Problems arise when a) you don't agree with their values, b) they don't actually act on their values. A lot of people are content to make the uninformed choice to trust Apple, and will continue to do so until their is an obviously better alternative.
So any music streaming service that wants to try to compete with Apple music has to pay a tithe to Apple of 30% or miss out on half of America (or make customers jump through hoops).
The 'you dont have to use it' comment is moot -- iOS accounts for millions upon millions of people; you generally need to use it.
No, you don't need to use it. You want to use it, and you want to make money using it -- which is a different thing, and this is what Apple charges for: having built a platform/market with millions upon millions of people in it.
It's the price Apple charges to profit from their distribution channel.
I don't like giving Apple a cut but I recognise that it is their property and I cannot dictate that Apple has to change their rules to accommodate me.
An iPhone-owner's phone is not Apple's platform: it's its owner's platform. It is not Apple's property once money has been exchanged for the phone.
> From what I understand, Apple doesn't force anyone. It's up to them to use it or not. They can always NOT deliver apps for iOS if they think 30% is too much.
Is it not clear that he is talking about the 30% cut that Apple takes for distributing apps on their app store? Do you own the app store if you buy an iPhone? Is it this what you are saying?
No, I'm saying that if I bought an iPhone, then it would be my right to install software written by anyone I pleased on it. I'm also saying that any software developer who wishes to has a right to write software for that putative iPhone. Apple simply isn't a party to such transactions.
You have the right to do with your property as you please, but what you really want is that Apple changes their product so it's easier for you to install what you like. You simply do not have this right. This limitation is well known and advertised so you should have known before you bought an iPhone, and even if you didn't - you can return the iPhone and get your money back.
The phone, the physical device, is yours. You can put it in the oven if you like, or crash it with a steamroller.
The platform remains Apple's.
In the same way that when you buy a subscription from Netflix you don't suddenly own their network and dictate terms.
Hmm. Apple prevents me from that. Seems more of a rental agreement, than outright purchase.
For an indie developer it doesn't sound like a big issue, but for big corporations uncertainty in the business model is a big deal. Often large budgets and many jobs depend on it.
And the play store ToS rules around in-app purchases also don't apply to physical goods, or products or services that can be used outside the app. This means that a companies like netflix or spotify are free to collect payments for their services without giving google a 30% cut, like they have to give apple. This is not an unenforced clause, a grey area, or a cause for uncertainty; the play store terms are very clear.
I think you know very well that I was talking about the Play Store.
> And the play store ToS rules around in-app purchases also don't apply to physical goods, or products or services that can be used outside the app
Apple in app purchase ToS:
3.1.5 Physical Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than IAP to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry. Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies (e.g. Bitcoin, DogeCoin) provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions.
It is not identical (I wrote it is _similar_) as Netflix does have to give Apple a cut, but there are many exceptions both on Apple's side just as there are other exceptions on Google's side.
What really annoys me about your comment though is that my comment wasn't about saying Apple is better or Google is better (clearly some people here can't even mentally handle anyone criticising their beloved company), I'm not even interested in such a conversation.
My comment was about the issues companies have with the fact that Google doesn't enforce their own ToS. (or even worse, maybe they do in some cases and most developers don't know)
Small developers are incentivised to ignore the rules while larger businesses can't risk allocating large budgets towards a business model that contains such uncertainty.
Maybe you can next go through my comments and correct me on grammar errors. English is not my native language after all so I'm certain there's lots of material to find there. Have a nice day!
So if Apple really leaves Dash off of the Purchases tab (I can't find it here), it would be the first time I'm aware they've done this.
Hopefully they'll work things out soon one way or another.
Basically don't expect an organisation that large to jump up the same day a solo developer gets banned even if it was unfair.
When was the last time you saw a story about Google fucking an Android developer over? I sure as hell can't remember one.
Because it's not a monopoly, and they can do whatever the damn they like while not one?
How is that difficult to parse?
Google's trouble in Europe is about:
1. Not paying taxes
2. Using their dominance in Search to promote their other products and services while obscuring competitors
3. Using their dominance in mobile to promote their search and web browser
4. Not allowing third parties to use the Play Store which is the default and dominate store for android devices.
Allowing third party stores is not just a great feature for third parties. Its also a good excuse for not letting them into the real store.
Google does not prohibit you from installing third party stores.
Also, how are they using their dominance for search and browsers to do something? I can install Firefox on Android, I cannot install Firefox on iOS. I can do "Hey, Cortana" if I install Cortana on my Android phone and do Bing searches, but not with iOS. I can install the Bing app and get a launcher widget to perform searches with, just like I can with the Nexus Launcher's integration, but not with iOS. I can change the launcher out entirely, I can't on iOS. I can replace the lockscreen, but not with iOS.
And as for taxes, Google paid the taxes that was required of them by Ireland. The EU thinks that they can post-facto change the law to effect Irish companies. This is illegal and immoral.
This is also what the founders of Google have complained about, that US companies can do this, and are forced to do this by their shareholders. They are being punished by the EU for not following the status quo and being made an example of.
So, explain to me, again, how Apple is the bastion of user freedom? Android is a shit OS, but at least it allows me to run whatever I damned please.
There was no post-facto change of the law. It is simply very normal for illegal acts to be discovered after they were perpetrated. Anything else would border on precognition.
No they aren't.
They are using their dominance in search to push chrome on users every chance they get, which has resulted in them dominating the browser space as well. Or do you think Chrome was just good enough to push out IE entirely on merit?
> This is illegal and immoral
Immoral is exploiting tax loopholes for billions of dollars.
Pretty much the case for older versions of IE. It became the dominant browser even when it was not installed by default.
Microsoft is catching up though.
You are severely misinformed.
Ireland broke rules it agreed to under treaty in order to join the single market that have been enforced for decades, often regarding EU based companies. State aid is defined as giving advantages to one company but not others, thereby distorting competitive markets. Ireland is required to apply the same tax rules to all companies and not deal under the table to certain favourites. If they want to distort their markets in this way fine, they can, they just need to leave the EU first.
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en....
The US would be wise to adopt similar rules because its one of the sources of political corruption whereby companies buy tax deals from politicians.
I don't know which action you are specifically referring to but I know Google have broken any number of accounting rules though e.g. in the UK they claim to carry out no sales activities, all happening in Ireland, despite of course collecting millions of GBP and employing hundreds of UK sales staff...
For instance, suppose I were the CEO of a company that negotiated a deal with, say, Utah. I held up my end of the agreement. I'm happy. Utah's happy. Then the US Gov't comes along and says "Utah, you and I agreed that you were going to charge more than you did." Why is that now my problem? I did everything I was supposed to. I don't why if someone has to be on the hook for the difference, then it's me and not Utah (or Google and not Ireland).
Besides, liability laws are a clusterfuck.
It isn't as clear cut since Ireland is stating that they never offered Apple any unique benefits but rather there were available for any company in a similar situation.
Who said Apple was ?
It's hilariously bizarre how you put this strawman up like criticising Google for their legitimately dodgy and anti-competitive practices has anything to do with Apple.
Yes you can.
By Apple rules, any web view inside of an app must use the Safari engine this way.
On one hand you have outright banning competition.
On the other hand you have allowing but discriminating against competition.
You can argue that outright banning isn't as bad as creating a marketplace and then punishing participants that aren't you.
The outright banning is wrong too, but it's a really complex issue that doesn't necessarily have a clear correct path.
Which means they just made "voting with the wallet" infinitely harder - you can't choose a phone with headphone jack, because you're locked into iOS ecosystem which means that your choice of phone has resulted in your choice of communication platform (iMessage), house appliances (HouseKit), TV (AppleTV), source of media (iTunes), car (CarPlay and iPod integration) and others. If you want to exercise your choice as a consumer, you're essentially forced to give a lot of things to get a feature you want and that also hides consumer wishes to the corporations themselves.
The state of electronics market is getting pretty dire, sometimes I'm starting to feel like we're back in 1985 on the eastern side of Iron Curtain with a single item of each type on the store shelf.
I have an iPhone and I don't use HomeKit, AppleTV, CarPlay or the iTunes Store, and use Whatsapp instead of iMessage.
And I'm afraid I can't see how replacing the headphone jack with a physical keyboard would make your argument better. If you want to charge your phone using microUSB there are hundreds of options.
You can choose your own messaging platform (WhatsApp, Line) home appliance integration (Zigbee), media player (Spotify, Tidal), TV (Plex), car integration (Bluetooth). I use all of those apps and technologies daily and none are dictated by Apple.
That's never been true. If you bought it, you can still download it.
This might be an effective way to handle these as I've seen a bunch of them.
EDIT: I would like to know the source, I have apps on the app store and I wonder if it is a simple as someone putting in a fraudulent claim of fraudulence.
This should hold not only for Apple, but also Google, Uber, AirBnB, et cetera.
And I'm sure I am not the only one :)
I ended up removing my app from the app store after I realized that Apple would never actually allow me to do what I wanted to do without having me go through hoops to get it approved every time i made an update.
Never been happier. I am sure Dash will do just fine outside the app store too.
> Just noticed that Dash offers iOS docs. I wonder if Apple has a rule against charging a fee to provide their own documentation?
That seems like a good hunch.
The company he most likely used for the iOS app is, I assume, KAPELI APPS SRL which seems to have been incorporated in September 2016.
Which means that for the OSX app he used another company or he sold it as an individual.
This conflict as well as the company having no history might have triggered something on the Apple side.
It's beyond Apple's intent for the free version of Xcode, but what does he have to lose? Fuck 'em.
Chat and Phone T1 and T2 Advisors all said there is nothing they can do and kept suggesting I restore a backup. Too bad "Transfer Purchases" was removed in iOS 9 with App Slimming - meaning that there is no way to backup/extract an ipk file from iOS using native tools. They also couldn't offer any sort of iTunes Store credit or refund.
Long story short, if Apple decides to remove an App from their platform, it's gone - period and they don't give a sh*t how much you paid for it.
I use dash if I had done the wipe & reinstall I was planning to this coming weekend I would have to repurchase it.
So Apple, how do I get my $$$ back so I can rebuy it from a reputable source ???
My first response is why don't distribute it on your own, like an HTTP link to 'apk'... then I realised general user cannot install stuff without App Store.
Why open source project bother to support people not using open source system? You cannot save to whole world (like someone lock himself intentionally during a fire, and reject to open the door. It might not be a good example but I hope you get my thought)
everytime i've encountered a problem that someone couldn't resolve with apple over the phone, i've managed to resolve it by phoning them.
i wonder how much effort the developer really made, and how he talked to the people he dealt with. my experience of apple, and infact most customer service is that if you are nice and sympathetic and explain thoroughly the nature of the problem, then people will do their best to resolve it.
How do I know? I'm still waiting for two weeks to get apple to see my company DUNS number that was generated for me pretty much instantly. I try every day, but so far nothing happens.
Things I've never seen on HN.
Well, that's the problem with a walled garden in a nutshell, isn't it?
The #3 item on the front page has (Longest humans can live) had 44 points and was posted more than 1 hour ago. The #4 item (Typora) has 42 points and was posted more than 1 hour ago.
However, this post on the App Store is at #8 even though it has 172 points and was submitted 47 minutes ago.
Unfortunately, it seems, the writing truly was on the wall once Dash had to be removed from Jaxx Wallet.
I'm not even a Dash user, but choice in such a new space is important.