Stuff like this is one of the main reasons I focused my efforts on web apps, not native ones.
Looks like the devs were smart enough to make it a web app, so it can still be used.
Looks like the devs were smart enough to make it a web app, so it can still be used.
"4.2 Minimum Functionality - Your app should include features, content, and UI that elevate it beyond a repackaged website."
[0]: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#min...
The point is that having a webapp allows them to continue to serve users if their actual app is removed from app stores. It has no bearing on how their native app functions, whether it is in native code or a web wrapper etc.
Websites are not applications. The browser is not an OS.
just tell mobile users to bookmark the page, on iOS that can make an icon on your home screen
There is nothing more I can say here without getting downvoted. Most people here will not believe me. I advice you to read things for yourself and draw your own conclusions: go to https://quora.com and search for Hong Kong questions. Many Hong Kongers reply there, as well as other groups that are closer to HK such as Singaporeans and even mainland Chinese. Their view on things will fascinate you.
To expand on whoevercares' comment, recently someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To close this loophole and prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the region, including Taiwan and mainland China.
The proposed law even explicitly stated that it's not applicably to crimes political in nature. But some HK people were nevertheless concerned that it might be abused by China to target political dissidents taking refuge in HK.
So they have taken to the streets to protest that law. As a result, the law was quickly suspended before it had a chance to pass, and a few weeks ago the HK Chief Executive officially announced the withdrawal of the law.
However, despite the concession from the HK government, the protesters pressed on, demanding four more concessions from the government, chief among them universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved candidates, then voted on by a committee.
It's not entirely clear that China even had anything to do with the proposal of the law which started this ordeal. But the protesters have shrewdly painted a picture, to great effect, of big bad China stomping on the poor helpless people of HK.
(EDIT: spelling, wording)
This is only true since the handover from the UK in 1997.
Prior to the handover, the executive head of HK had been the governor, appointed by the British government.
https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
Directly from the article:
> And when Mao founded the People’s Republic of China in 1949, he and Zhou Enlai decided not to seize Hong Kong—which the British at the time expected
The other side of the story is that China could've easily seized HK from the beginning, and the people of HK would've been under the direct rule of China, and never gotten any of the freedom and autonomy they enjoy today.
Countries without extradition treaties can still extradite criminals on a case by case basis. It was also very cheeky of them to use a criminal from Taiwan R.O.C - a democratic nation with a strong rule of law - as an excuse for an extradition treaty with the Mainland Area of China, a communist dictatorship where laws are at the whims of party members.
China already has an extradition treaty with Taiwan, and has had it for years now. With Taiwan of all places. What does that tell us?
None exists between China and HK. And the murderer is still at large.
https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/cp.aspx?n=FD37619195CF6DA5&s=CED28...
You are probably thinking of this. It's not an extradition treaty. It's also now widely ignored.
That doesn't seem to be true in this particular case, since said suspect is still enjoying his freedom in HK. An extradition treaty to cover the case seems like a reasonable initiative.
> Mainland Area of China, a communist dictatorship where laws are at the whims of party members.
I agree that's a valid concern, and that the proposed law didn't include adequate protection for HK citizens. And I support the initial peaceful protests against that law. What I cannot support however, are the ongoing and escalating violence from some of those protesters, before and especially after, the announcement of withdrawal of that law.
That is: not saying China is evil, but also not denying that China is problematic, while focusing more on the practicality of the way the protesters do things.
You don't have to believe my word for it. Go look up Hong Kong related questions on https://Quora.com and read what Hong Kongers think. A whole new world will open for you.
The answers posted there are too detailed and too well-argumented to be simply propaganda by paid Beijing workers. Propagandists are paid by comment, so they are incentivized to write many short comments instead of long and elaborate ones.
I am curious. How do you know that?
WHYYYYYYYY do the protesters think violence is the answer?
Chinese government not perfect but you have to remember how things were like in the 1950s. Maybe young generation does not appreciate what they have? Maybe HK culture wants to be special and needs to learn that that they are not on a separate level from the rest of China?
^ if this is what you call 'fascinating' and 'a whole new world' opening perspective I would question whether you are not a propagandist yourself.
There is only that far technology can go.