Hacker News Reader

Comment by jlgosse | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand this. The author goes on about how they don't know what's wrong with the app, but then goes on to quote herself (from an email to Apple):

"Our app is a beautiful photo frame with a few nice things you can put over your photos."

There's her problem. I'm assuming the app is a full screen digital picture frame app, and then you can put their special widgets on top of it. The only thing wrong is she said "a few nice things" instead of "widgets".

It's her own fault the app got rejected.

EDIT: Not sure why I'm being down voted for this, but basically I'm saying that Apple was quite clear about what the issue was, and it shouldn't be difficult for her to understand this. When they update the terms of the contract, I'm sure it'll make more sense. Updating contracts isn't as simple as adding in one sentence - things take time.

View on HN

The real problem is the App Store Guidelines make no mention of "no widget/desktop apps". And initially, the application was approved. Then, Apple changed their minds (without updating the guidelines or providing any route to fix the problem) and suddenly this app removed on them.

It would be like if drinking Coca Cola suddenly became illegal to drink, but the laws were not updated to let citizens know. So you're on a hot summer's day, drinking your cool refreshing Coke like you always do, suddenly you're arrested and the cop won't even explain why (but he says he thought your Coke looked especially delicious). It's a little bit outrageous.

I realize it wasn't listed in the rules, but when Apple comes knocking on your door and gives you a reason for the rejection, and blatantly tells you "NO WIDGETS!", it shouldn't be hard to realize that the damn "nice things you can put on your photos" are what have to be removed.

Except that by then you have already spent time and, possibly, money on developing said widget.

I still don't understand what the definition of a widget is.

It's more like pg suddenly deleting your comments here, telling you, "No obsequious comments", leaving you wondering just what how that applies to your comments.

You do realize that "no widgets" is just a bullshit distraction?

For all you know, the whole app is a "widget." The term "widget" is semantically empty without a relevant context from which to derive a definition. It really just means "thing." The closest thing to a relevant definition on the iPhone is "user interface element," but clearly those are not banned from the platform.

Their app is still available in the store.

Here's a better analogy. You start up a Coke stall on the "sidewalk". You're making money. You buy a couple more and place them in surrounding streets. Now you're making even more money. You buy two more stalls, and then the local council steps up and says "you can't operate anymore stalls. The three you have are fine and you can continue to operate them and make money, but you can't expand any further." Now you feel like shit because you've bought two stalls that are useless, but at least you're still making money on the first three.

Let me further expand on the problem here. the author says, and I quote:

"They refused to be pinned down to an exact reason, simply stating that they were doing a cull of any applications that presented widgets to the user."

And then she says she doesn't understand what she would have to take out of the app to have it re-approved.

So then, she goes on to say, and I quote:

"Our app is a beautiful photo frame with a few nice things you can put over your photos."

I take this as: you can use their app to make your iPad into a digital photo frame. Since the whole screen is taken up by the photo app, I'm sure that as a feature, the developers added the ability to add "nice things" to a layer on top of the frame, such as a clock, or speech balloons, or SOMETHING which Apple may consider the equivalent of a widget.

You're just guessing. Much like the author.

Guessing shouldn't should be part of the platform development process.

Looking at the app in question (http://www.groundhog.com.au/myframe/), it is pretty easy to see what is so "widget"-y about this app, and the way in which it "creates its own desktop". There shouldn't be any mystery for the developer based on Apple's statements.

The issue is that it's retroactive. Did Apple have a rule against widgets when it was developed? Did they clearly state it to their developers? Did they elaborate on what they meant?

In no way is this fault of the developer, except that she knew developing for the app store carried this kind of risk. If Apple had said before development "no widgets" (although defining what they meant), then it would be fair and clear. The whole situation is crap, and I honestly don't see how anyone can defend a practice as unfair as this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com