Are there cases where Apple has retaliated against developers that do speak out publicly? Or is the reticence to go public because they know that any chance of special treatment is worth keeping silent?
edit: publicly not privately
Do you mean publicly?
How would you determine if a developer was retaliated because they spoke out? I don't think Apple would ever issue a press release saying "yeah, we banned developer X from our platform because we didn't like his New York Times interview."
The thing with Apple is, app store rules are vague and arbitrary, and Apple is the judge, jury, and executioner. They interpret and apply the rules inconsistently. They have utmost plausible deniability. How would you prove that you were removed, not for violating a vague rule that thousands of other apps violate in the same way, but for speaking out?
Even if someone thinks about raising a stink after getting banned, they probably won't go through with it. As we have seen on HN, Apple is so well loved that when a developer speaks out against Apple, most people side with Apple and attribute the developers complaints to not following rules, sour grapes, greed, hating users, etc.
I suppose developers are most likely to speak up when Apple has applied the rejection. And that is when you want a lifeline the most -- public shaming doesn't necessarily help your friendly HN-reading Apple employee to reach out and make a case.
The App store rules don't seem that vague -- just draconian. Sure, 30% of a paid app. IAP through a nice end-to-end Apple experience, where consumers don't have to enter any new information, are 30%? Make sense.
Can't offer IAP yourself? I can go either way, but to me this is the line where Apple is turning the screws. Boy do they turn them. Can't offer subscriptions outside the app. Can't link to other options for payment. Can't have a front end to a SaaS app that is primarily used on other platforms. Can't even mention the fact that Apple is taking a cut.
The app store rules do seem somewhat arbitrarily enforced. Ok, your 1.0 goes in but a critical bugfix? Now we shake you down.
If I were affected by this, especially for a subscription app I'd be contacting other affected parties and trying to educate the public on exactly why their subscriptions cost $14.28 instead of $9.99
Through Google SEO, of course, instead of inside the app, because Apple restricts what you say in the app about app store pricing.
I’m almost sure they issued guidelines that included something just like that.
The language was: "If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."
This language was on the current "App Store Review Guidelines" page [1] from when it was first published around September 2014 [2] until on or before June 18th 2016 when the bullet vanished. [3]
I think this is a very important line because this page featuring this language appeared literally a month or two after I published an appeal for our late app, Gliph, which was pulled from the app store over Bitcoin transfer capability. [4]
I don't think we were trashing Apple, but the press does like to make hay out of these moments.
I'm not sure how anyone could interpret this line except as having a purposeful chilling effect on trying to build public support for your private case with Apple.
This is particularly notable because I believe there are multiple occasions where Apple changed course solely because something got press coverage.
Perhaps Apple is okay with going to the press, but only if you do so with positivity? How is this really possible if you're making a case that is in opposition to the findings of Apple? Also as I mentioned, you can't control the editorial decisions of press in giving a story a negative spin--the press makes money from clickbait.
So this line had speech-limiting implications.
--
Having gone through a ton of updates of this page on Wayback Machine, I think there's a great study to be done on the evolution of content.
Two things that stick out to me are that the language used to be pretty heavy handed, even dark. It read like someone who was kind of mad.
Now it is very positive sounding and has a last updated date.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20140903022336/https://developer...
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20160618044341/https://developer...
> Now it is very positive sounding and has a last updated date.
I wonder whether the change is just in tone or in attitude. I am not too optimistic that it is the latter.