Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pigalowda | Hacker News Reader

I think it makes sense if the goal is to never approve such an app. A rejection and subsequent tinkering might allow a derivative to make it through. Perhaps they believe in leaving such projects in purgatory and the developer unable to troubleshoot.

View on HN

Except that other apps with very similar functionality / level of obviousness while in use are still available. Without Apple providing information on what this app does that violates their rules which the other apps do not violate, there’s no way to know that equal enforcement is being applied. I don’t think the author would have posted if all such apps were removed.

This is a bit like arguing that one shouldn't be punished for a traffic violation because not every other potential offender got caught.

Sure, if you limit “traffic violations” to “driving without a license,” and every car made you present a valid license before it would start.

EDIT: The difference being, Apple says YES / NO to every app, and every app always goes through the process, unlike policing traffic violations. If Apple is not being inconsistent, they need to say why.

So don't buy macs.

Either way, in this case they blocked a developer that was making what sure as hell looks like spyware to me, I'm not convinced this is a bad thing.

Also, you absolutely do need a license to operate a car. Probably not a good metaphor for your case.

Not sure if you replied before or after my edit to clarify. Apple has the capability to consistently enforce its rules here, unlike law enforcement, and does not appear to be doing so.

I personally think all such apps should be blocked. What bothers me is the inconsistency, or the opaqueness that means we cannot determine whether or not there is an inconsistency.

That's not a fair strategy. Say if this developer has published several reasonable apps before this, that strategy would forever cut them off from updating those as well.

I’m not trying to be abrasive here but I do believe it’s fair collateral damage if your hypothetical scenario is true. If he lost update access to his other assets by trying to push this risk onto the app store, I’m ok with it.

The app he made in our example is privacy degrading with control and abuse likely being its best feature. He took his shot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com