Hacker News Reader

Comment by eps | Hacker News Reader

Well, this does look like a straight Wordle copy.

It is also disingenious to say that's a copy of Lingo, when it's bloody obvious it's a Wordle clone.

The fact that other clones were approved by Apple points at another issue.

What's your opinion on the Minesweeper clones? Shouldn't they be allowed on the App Store? What about Scrabble? Or Tetris?

Also - like the post says - the app is in Swedish with a Swedish dictionary. Wordle is unplayable for anyone who doesn't speak English.

Point taken about the wording though, I've updated the blog post to say: "I figured I could make a Swedish Wordle-style game myself"

Microsoft does not have an official Minesweeper application for iOS, never has, and probably never will, so clones are more acceptable in that case.

Scrabble and Tetris are actually trademarked names and have official applications as far as I know. They can sue any competitor for trademark infringement. There are competitors like "Block Puzzle," but they may predate the official Tetris for presence, but I'm not certain on that.

> "What’s even less surprising is how (little) Apple apply their Guidelines when it comes to their own apps" (from post)

Actually, I think any resemblance is forced (particularly with the Translate app) and that the design decisions are more logically-based than copying. How else would you make a Translate app by Apple look?

Several of those are clearly ripping off assets from Windows minesweeper. Which is worse than mimicking gameplay. There's also no Wordle iOS app either, just a website.

Apple also happily accepted 2048 which is pretty much a straight up clone of the earlier Threes.

I bought a Tetris game from EA back when I had an original iPod Touch when the App Store was first introduced.

It was a one time purchase. It was never updated for larger screens and disappeared with the 32 bit to 64 bit transition.

Of course EA released another version around the iPhone 5 with ads an in-app purchases (?)

You are assuming that the original copyright owner is always against the clones. Sometimes they just don't care about it.

The original copyright owner has allegedly nothing to do here; this is Apple rejecting games based on Apple's copycats guidelines, not based on DMCAs as far as it's shown.

My experience begs to differ. Until the original copyright owner files the complain with Apple (as author was suggested to do when he mentioned other Wordle clones), Apple may do nothing. Especially, when copyright violation is not obvious.

If Minesweeper, Scrabble or Tetris were the whirlwind phenomenon similar to Wordle, of which you made a clone trying to ride their coattails and had it rejected, then your question would've been relevant.

But they are not, so it's just a random question only tangentially related and an answer that has very little to do with your situation.

The fact that Wordle is currently popular has nothing to do with the logic of the situation.

> The fact that other clones were approved by Apple points at another issue.

It's also irrelevant when evaluating whether OP's app is also a clone. If 100 cars on the highway are speeding and I happen to be the one that gets pulled over, the judge isn't going to care that the cop didn't pull over the other 99 drivers.

Those situations are incomparable. Even if 100 cars are speeding, a cop can only pull over one driver at a time (although I've heard in some states police can do a bit better by patrolling in groups). But apps aren't speeding past app store reviewers onto the store; every app that makes it is explicitly approved. The problem here is not limited resources (at Apple for crying out loud!) but rather inconsistent application of the rules.

Yes, they even say they were inspired by Wordle and included the word 'Wordle' in their original app store submission, then stuffed it with what looks to be IAP's and their own currency system.

Cry me a river!

The simple explanation is that apple is successfully rejecting 99% of the incoming wordle clone spam (as experienced by the article author) and failing and letting in 1% (which still is a large number of apps). The author experiences one of the thousands of rejections, but can see all the acceptances.

>Well, this does look like a straight Wordle copy.

Did you not read the article? It's in Swedish, so not actually a straight copy. That right there should be more than enough to allow it, as presumably there are plenty of Swedes who would like to play the game in their native language.

Isn't Wordle a Lingo/mastermind clone then? How many Tetris clones are there?

Not that it matters to the point about the App Store, but Mastermind (aka Bulls and Cows in the original pencil-and-paper version) plays significantly differently from Wordle—needing to be a word constrains both combinations and guesses severely. It’s a simple change (once someone has thought of it), but influences gameplay a lot, more even than for Threes! vs 2048, which are also surprisingly different.

Banning low-effort clones would make the App Store a better experience for me as a consumer. So the fact that Apple rejected this wordle clone makes me like the App Store more, not less.

Obviously Apple isn’t 100% successful given the screenshot of other clones allowed in, but I hope they improve — not weaken — that process of weeding them out.

How could this be termed a low-effort clone when it's a different language?

With additional features and when no official app store Wordle app even exists. People need to read the essay.

Giving users no option to play Wordle-alikes in their native language is a better experience? I don't see how that's possible. Apple could easily fix app discovery to surface high quality apps that are more relevant to the user, but instead, they take this route.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com