App Store doesn't accept “too simple” apps
notes.alinpanaitiu.com
notes.alinpanaitiu.com
When I first submitted my app on there, they rejected it and complained that I used HealthKit but didn't mention it in the app description. The thing is, I did. My app description had a list of "highlighted features", one them being "Apple health integration".
I was about to file an appeal, but then I saw a couple other apps with "Integrates with Apple Health" on its own line in the description. Figured that's probably what they were looking for (even though the guidelines don't explicitly say that) so I changed it and boom, the app was approved. I hate it, but it's not worth my time or the risk to fight it.
For what it's worth, I think your app looks really good!
I a way, they could just publish their internal checklist to make this process better for everyone, but I suspect it might cause bad actors to find ways to comply with the rules and still deliver crap to the store; almost like the rules they currently use are security by obscurity (with the side-effect of rejecting apps for seemingly random reasons).
I think this sums up so much about the situation we're all slipping into.
It also guarantees we'll slip into it up to our necks and never get out.
I went on to add OCR detection for receipts so you don't have to type in the amount, I added more tipping modes, I added split bill functionality, and eventually added an entire social network with the ability to share your receipt for the world to see, like or comment on.
Must have spent months trying to get approved by Apple.
I'd rather no one ask me why.
For the record, I will continue to point to this as an argument in favour of being able to load ones own software without needing approval from a third party.
It's ok to make stupid apps as long as you're not scamming.
The oh-so-serious nature of the current online experience sucks
Oh I remember those two. I think they were installed via Cydia[1] no? Or maybe it was right after, when the official AppStore was launched. Silly, but great wow factor in those early days.
[1] for the youngsters here: Cydia was the only way to install apps in your iPhone before the AppStore was created (circa 2008). You had to jailbreak your phone, install Cydia, and then we had a handful of apps that demonstrated iPhone's capabilities.
I remember my first app was some marble labyrinth game, that served as a fantastic demonstration of iPhone's accelerometers. Pretty surreal at the time.
Saurik, Cydia's main developer, is frequently seen around on HN threads.
In my ideal world, Apple wouldn't have a walled-garden at all. But if they will, then there needs to be a certain bar for apps to meet to be included. And to be clear, there are plenty of existing apps that don't meet such a bar. But Tip 69 definitely doesn't.
Not every app has to be a serious thing that revolutionizes the world. Sometimes, people want and appreciate “stupid” apps.
I'm thinking of adding an IRC client so that people that go to the same festival can talk about it in the days before the event, but it's all anonymous and ephemeral so I don't get into GDPR and privacy territory.
That's a really cool idea. One of the more unfortunate side effects of this curated feed filter bubble people find themselves isolated into, is the demise of the shared experience. Festivals (and other real life events) are the last bastion of shared experience, and you've found a good way to translate that to the digital realm.
> Homescreen widgets: utterly useless, but can't get more iOS-y and less webapp-y than this, right?
This especially, but really the whole post reads like the system working as intended.
Granted (as the author notes) way too much shit gets through anyway, but that's not an excuse to do even worse. I do, as a user, wish they'd tighten up the rules a lot and improve enforcement. I'm quite sure it'd improve my experience on the store (and probably on the web—imagine how much better the Reddit site would get, probably overnight, if their app got pulled over not being well-justified).
In fact, aren't these preferable? I just want a weather app that shows me the current weather and a forecast, without any social bullshit, accounts, ads, etc.
Also, if iOS users have that "one app" they can't live without, surely it makes them stickier? Why would Apple want to limit the chances of hitting that spot with their users by curbing the number of apps available?
They do one thing, and (usually) do it pretty well, probably because the developers probably don't have the time and resources to do anything more than that. But that's perfect for someone who just wants the thing on their phone to do what it says on the tin.
Apple has no interest in any right that won't make them richer
The deal is the same as it ever was: Apple can continue selling their extremely safe applications with their extremely secure payment system and state-of-the-art curation team; the only condition is that other shops get to play along too. There's zero downside to them going this route, I think it would allow them to further secure the iPhone by paring back the entitlements allowed for their store. Nobody would criticize them for this, but Apple's greed prevents them from conceding.
Just think about how you'd feel if your Mac could only use the App Store to install software. Personally, I wouldn't even be able to do anything on it if that were the case.
The EU is dead wrong. EU commissioners have absolutely zero clue about what makes for good "customer experience". There's one party that has proven, for 15 years now, to have the most clue about that. It's Apple.
Apple absolutely has the right to control what apps are available on its store, and what apps are not. This isn't about what is "appropriate"; you just made that up.
This also has nothing to do with "common sense", or at least what you think is common sense.
If I own a gadget, I own it. That means that I _have the right_ to do whatever I want with it, including jailbreaking it, disassembling it, or throwing it from a cliff.
Apple might not like it, and might take punitive action. Void the warranty, maybe even cancel your Apple account. But they can not send me to jail.
What's at issue is whether you have the right to force Apple to carry any apps you want, in their App Store. And you don't. It's really that simple.
I’m all for rejecting ‘low effort’ apps, but this app clearly isn’t low effort.
I got the "too simple" response.
Which was the whole point. A camera with zero buttons. I still pointed out the 5 or 7 features it had that technically the iOS camera wasn't doing. I would get a different reason back then. So I'd argue a different point. Then after weeks of this, it came back with the "too simple" reason again.
And I was left with the same conclusion. I don't think Apple wants anyone "outsimpling" their camera app. Maybe if I had added a social network to it or filters or something I could have finally gotten it approved. But I lost the desire to keep fighting :)
(Just by posting this, now I fear I broke some kind of TOS, and can never publish an iOS app again?)
The biggest problem I try to convey is that you have no way of knowing you'll get the rejection without putting the work in first.
So you, like me, wasted probably days (if not weeks) to create a fully functional app, spent much of that time on user-facing functions that you would have probably not needed, only to find that it was for nothing.
It's not like on Android where you can just share an APK with your friends.
TestFlight still has to review your betas, if you want to at least share the app with someone else.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32526387
The app is by the same developer, and is findable at https://apps.apple.com/us/app/zero-ui-gesture-only-camera/id...
So clearly, the App Review process is not deterministic, and highly dependent on which reviewer you get or something similar.
Is your thought process here that 3.7 million apps is where Apple decided to draw a line in the sand?
It’s not that they decided to set an arbitrary threshold of 3.7M apps, but that they have become more stringent on app approvals in light of the growth and quantity of apps in their store. I don’t think GP’s comment requires an incredulous snarky response, despite me not doing a great job making this point…
"Candidates for this job are required to have released an app on the iOS store"
"Fortune 100 corporation is suing Apple because it won't accept its app"
"Only 1 in 154 app applications is accepted by Apple"
"College admission consultants are starting to recommend high school students seeking admission to top colleges to release an app on the Apple store"
"Study shows college applicants who have release an app on the iOS store are twice as likely to gain admission to an Ivy League school"
"82% of Harvard's class of 2028 released an app on the Apple store prior to admission"
"Study shows that releasing an app on the Apple store and advertising that fact in your online dating profile triples your odds of a match"
Apple refusing Fortune 100 apps happens more often than people think IMO.
Big corps churn out apps that are mere browsing shells of an otherwise widely available online service, just to have an icon on the AppStore. And they’ll get shutdown for that, forced to add some dumb gimmick to the app to get approval.
If they ban all new indie apps, then the next hits are going to happen over in Android land, and Apple miss out on a lot of revenue.
Maybe that is the idea, make a hit on Android first, then you are allowed in the Apple store!
If you wanted to play a map you would just upload it yourself, which then counts as a separate map in the popularity statistics meaning all new maps had pretty much zero popularity in the ranking.
Compare this to warcraft3 where playing a map downloads it onto your computer and people thereby build up a collection of maps they can host organically through playing the game. People host maps they like so you got an automatic ranking system where good maps spread on everyone's computers and bad maps don't get shared further.
To your point, there’s two mechanisms already at play: indie devs need to spend significant effort to be published, so they need to at least believe in their ideas (weeds out an enormous number of new apps already), and they need to keep maintaining their apps, as they’ll get garbage collected if the app stays unupdated.
They have their business reasons, but this comes at the detriment of some many things, as they’re fighting tooth and nails against side loading.
Namely the billions of unique apps for ever single brandless Chinese peripheral ever.
One way to get around this might be to have a mandatory tutorial that must be executed on first install. At least you know the random reviewer assigned to your product will be aware of all the features available, and as a benefit you have a way to onboard new users who might be mystified about why this product is useful. This might be a hassle for new users, but after your first approval, you can add a skip option in an update.
Is there any way around this? The prospect of building a functional piece of software that cannot be deployed is kind of tragic :/
>[...]
>(Just by posting this, now I fear I broke some kind of TOS, and can never publish an iOS app again?)
This is how your loyalty to Apple's racket is rewarded. This is your prize for buying hundreds of dollars of their equipment and paying hundreds to license their development kit and get your software reviewed for their locked-down phones.
Transparency is a dependency of trust. Apple is not transparent, and therefore I trust an iDevice about as far as I can throw it.
hundreds or hundred?
If only they had a decent source of steady income.
I suppose that the kind of enthusiast Apple prefer to see on their platform is an enthusiastic consumer. Which very much aligns with their desire to keep their gadgets in the class of locked-down home appliances, like a TV or a gaming console.
I have no idea what Apple is trying to achieve with the App Store. If every app were a Top 10, that would be amazing, and that's what you'd think you get from all the human curation. (How can every app in an app store be the best? Reality distortion field, trust me.) Instead, you just spend a million hours getting your crap app through human reviews until the human is like "you know what? FUCK IT" and they just let it in. The result is an App Store that's probably going to have laws made against it, for absolutely no gain for the end user. I don't get it.
It's way easier to get good ratings on the App Store than on the Play Store. I was confused why, until I noticed that it's just that the standards for apps of iOS users are way lower. There is so much trash around. Especially trash that wants to scam you for money and gets thrown into your face at the top of the list. They crave for anything that isn't a complete pile of shit.
On Android it's different. There is lots of good apps and thus users are way more critical even if the app is the exact same one as on the App Store.
"Thanks for purchasing the Acme Kettle! In order to boil your water, you need to download an app! But don't worry, it's easy! You just need to create an account, enter your personal data, accept our legally binding terms and conditions and verify your phone number and your email, "for your safety"! Oh and we will push mandatory OTA updates to your kettle's firmware! We may remove functionality to your Kettle from time to time, to protect you and your loved ones!
Release Notes
v 0.0.112 - we are sunsetting the "boiling" functionality. the ability to boil water has been removed. Acme Corporation recommends using the kettle as a jug, it's ideal for cold drinks!"
The Google and Microsoft stores are absolutely full of completely useless featureless apps, many of which exist only to trick you into thinking that it is something else.
My general mental rule is "could this app be a website"? And in this case it absolutely could be.
By this logic the overwhelmingly vast majority of the App Store's catalog shouldn't exist.
...and I wouldn't necessarily object to that outcome, but still.
More to the point: "Is this app interactive?"
I'm not convinced this one is. It displays information and allows the user to passively do things with that information (like adding shows to their calendar or buying tickets), but there's nothing the user can do to customize their experience within the app.
Browsing a list of events is nothing like it
Can't every app other than a browser, phone and messaging be a website?
The whole idea of the App Store is, to me, actually worse than no App Store at all. If you want to find popular software, normally you google for it, and go with the recommendations from a trustworthy publication. Yes there is malware on the internet, but there is also malware in the App Store! Let the market try to solve these problems since Apple and Google can't.
Sure, you can stay on older iOS Versions, but you would be loosing actual improvements
Apple shouldn't be the one to tell me what kind of apps I can have on the device I've bought with my money.
That being said, a choice has to be made because two different entities have mutually exclusive rights: Do you side with an individuals' right to install whatever they want on a device they purchased? Or, a large company's right to restrict devices however they see fit?
Absent government outlawing a bunch of the bad behavior Apple tries to curb, I like being free to have that choice to opt into their regime. When corporate dragnet spying and other hostile bullshit is outlawed and the laws are effectively enforced, sure, I'd want Apple to tear down the walls on their garden.
(please don't just post "but you wouldn't have to use alt stores!" in response—it's been done to death on here, and everywhere else, differences opinion are apparently irreconcilable and we're not likely to gain any ground here today, and Android's still kickin', so the option for that kind of environment does exist for those who want it)
Amusingly, advocacy of optional regulatory regimes enforced by corporations is usually a right-Libertarian position. Not that that's necessarily a point in its favor (see again: I'd much prefer this crap simply be illegal) but those folks do love free markets.
Ok, well then there is similarly competition of regulator regimes in the literal sense.
> I like being free to have that choice to opt into their regime
Different governments, are competing with different set of laws. I like the fact that I can have these government laws.
And if Apple does not like these laws, then it can opt out of the EU market, when their laws come into effect.
They can opt into a different country, by not selling their product in a place that has laws that they don't like.
I'm confused. Did you buy an iPhone not knowing that it's not a general purpose computer?
For example, when I purchased my device, Fortnite was still available on the device, and Apple wasn't actively blocking Xbox's Cloud Streaming (back then it was xCloud Beta)
Example: I can buy an Xbox and curse Microsoft that I can't play The Last of Us on it, but that's really on me.
Just because it’s the best of two bad options doesn’t mean you have to be happy with it.
The appstore connect website keeps giving timeouts and errors. One client took me 2 hours to create all products manually. Scripts wouldn't run.
I submit around 5-10 apps per month. Much more more automized updates, same codebase, sort of same content.
The process is pretty standardized.
50 procent is accepted no problem. 50 procent is rejected.
They refer to vague guidelines written by lawyers. And when asked for specification often refuse to give an answer.
IAP products are reviewed independently so if they are not in sync that causes an app reject without notifying you.
All of it sucks.
Apple makes it complicated on purpose and they don't care much for new small developers.
And the IAP thing you mention... Happened to me except they approved the app without the IAPs?! Users would just see these IAPs as unavailable until I had to resubmit a whole new build.
I submitted a bug issue once over the phone. She was nice. Took me two weeks to submit all kinds of request of screen recordings and browser details. All i got back was after 2 weeks is to update my safari and see if it keeps happening.
Once the giant is taken down, there will be few left rooting for them.
@Apple Seriously?
1. What the dev themselves use. I don't want to use an app that the dev doesn't use daily.
2. What the development experience is like (tooling and API)
3. If you wish to monetize your app at all, iOS users spend disproportionately more. It's not about % of devices so much as it is about % paying users. (Same idea for the % of the target market, how many music festival goers use iOS?)
On iOS you have to go through the jailbreaking process first to do the same.
This is true in a limited sense. Pretty much any app that relies on Google Play Services has a sort of DRM built-in, you can package it into an APK but it won't let you use the app without buying it. Installing it on a device without Google Play Services won't let it run at all.
Kinda scummy, but a decent tradeoff to keep pure AOSP devices without DRM.
True.
> because by default you can install any apk file on Android.
False, its because majority android apps are freemiums with shitload amount of ads, that was Google's way of introducing the app store to the masses and particularly the reason why android even survived. People try to make the general population the villain that they don't like to pay,but Google's whole business model revolved around showing ads on apps also I have rarely found irl people in my college/work life who have actually tried installing apks outside store.
In short, I hope you can put the blame on Google for making people addicted to the ad infested model.
I think you're overestimating the number of people who both know you're and can be bothered. Even in tech circles I don't personally know anyone doing this. People may not be paying for apps, but the piracy is not rampant either.
Notifications coming in iOS 16
Share button has long been available (navigator.share)
Location - implemented long ago
Buy - ApplePay for the Web
Add to calendar, subscribe to calendar is possible
Sending emails and SMS is possible
WebRTC and speaking with people in real time
Even the Contact Picker for adding contacts from your address book! You can turn it on right now in "experimental" features. Does anyone know if it's coming in iOS 16?
I also know of at least one app, a sanitary self-certification app that allows your entry into a European country by generating a QR code to display, that is also basically a shell around a simple web app with a form. It absolutely should be an app given how convenient it makes accessing the entry requirements and generated QR code, but its existence does make these app store requirements seem absolutely arbitrary.
But, I absolutely hate when I have to download an app for something that could have been a website.
Guess you can't make everyone happy
> > Thank you for your response. We encourage you to consider ways to make your app stand out.
> We understand that it can be difficult to determine what the best experience is to offer your users.
> While there isn’t one set answer that works for every app, the following iOS development videos offer great
>information for helping understand how your app can provide a great user experience: – Essential Design Principles –
>Design Tips for Great Games
> You may also want to review the Human Interface Guidelines available on Apple Developer.
> Best regards,
> App Store Review
That is some passive aggressive, nose all the way in the air, *bullshit*.
Be better than this Apple.
It is just a rent-seeking racket and enough people are drinking the koolaid keeping this flywheel moving. All 'app store' platforms by bigtech players AAPL, MSFT and GOOG are guilty of arbitrary high-handedness and developer apathy.
- you can have personalisation in the app without needing to create an account
- can have access to location without asking the user every time
But really, the biggest reason why I wanted this to be an app is because I like how native apps feel as opposed to a website.
Push Notifications, map panning and zooming and the calendar integration have a low quality feel when used on the web (in iOS).
- use local storage
- persist previous location, have quick way to use a map or request location if needed
https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocki...
("7-Day Cap on All Script-Writeable Storage" heading about half way down)
Tarting it up with shit that no one wants or needs doesn’t change the fact that this would be just fine as a web page.
Try change the wording from "Buy Tickets" to "Get more information" or "Visit Website" to get around the review process, and work from there
The current state of affairs with iOS is the context is which we must make decisions. So many of the posts here strike me as useless complaining about the reality on the ground which cannot be changed.
You want to hack? Simple - get an Android or PinePhone.
You want to share your hacks with friends? Simple - make a PWA.
You want to make an app for the general public and don't want to deal with app store bureaucracy? Simple - make a PWA.
Your app requires native features? Then learn to navigate the app store approval process.
I have several friends and colleagues who have launched public apps. Some went the PWA route. Some went the app store route. All have achieved their mission. It's informative to hear their answers as to their choice. Those that choose the PWA route mostly did so because they already had a web service, and just wanted a good mobile version. Those that went the app store route said in effect that it's not really an app (in the minds of their user audience) if it's not in the app store, and were not already providing some service via the web.
Granted this is a small sampling of half a dozen. I would love to have a wider sample to review as I am interested in transitioning from desktop web to mobile app development, and want to invest myself in a good foundation. Does anyone know of a good (and recent) article where developers of successful apps are interviewed and ask to explain their platform decisions?
A final comment is this. I think Apple is working to make PWAs a viable choice partially to reduce their approval burden and incentivize developers of "simple" apps - like that of the OP - to go the PWA route.
That you are blaming a fellow developer is most unbecoming.
This frustrated me at first but then i did some thinking and came up with some ideas.
I got mine over the line by having a favorites list that uses core data and the ability to sent notification reminders.
Both are using core aspects of iPhone so more likely to be considered unique enough for App Store.
However, if we assume that the rejection policy was correct (just for the sake of argument), I don't see how adding things like parallax, push notifications, or even a map, makes the application substantially different in the context of this rejection.
As an alternative, would be interesting to offer third party review for the existing store. Offer pay-to-expedite, more transparency, preapproval before people start building, clearer guidelines on competition ('too many flashlight apps already').
I’m guessing this is related to that kind of thing.
“Revise the purpose string in your app’s Info.plist file for the camera to explain why your app needs access and include an example of how the user's data will be used.”
I argued back and forth with whoever was reviewing for Apple at that moment. After 3 hours our app was approved. Smh.
Our extension got taken down that replaced all in-page ads with ads from our network while paying the user in a certain Ethereum token for every ad impression they see. The ostensible rejection reason being that it both replaced ads & served as a crypto wallet.
Also powered by Google Sheets, as OP's app is.
I’d love to see some memes of classic mac apps and this email stuck to it.
> But I think they just don't like the idea of the app, and no matter what I add to it, they won't accept it.
It's awful how gatekeepers usually behave this way instead of coming out and telling you that you should stop and they're never going to approve your product, since that usually is how it works.
On the bright side if he was actually using Google Sheets as his data backend, Google was going to shut the sheet down permanently eventually and maybe ban the account, so he dodged a bullet.
I thought google encouraged using their google sheets APIs? I'm clearly wrong. Do you have a source for this?
Meanwhile the same app already on the App Store features a dozen ads, popping up as soon as you open the app, before you click the button, after you click the button, and all around the button. I guess those are the features they're looking for.
Android is not perfect, but at least I am able to, you know, use my phone as I see fit.
I know that I can just simply not side load, but the smallest attack surface the better.
It's not increasing the surface area in terms of system complexity; the OS is already checking signatures to create this barrier to general purpose computing in the first place.
If you don't want the additional key, you skip the step, to be never asked again until you factory wipe+reset the device.
Your listed wants and the freedom to run your own software are not mutually exclusive.
This basically prevents any user friendly third party app store, but also allows users to, you know, use the device like they own it.
But I thought there was some ability to load apps without a developer account? Am I wrong? I've always just purchased the account because I was getting paid and wanted to show some professionalism but I thought there was a workaround.
And that is precisely why you need control of your device, and not hand it over to some third-party, especially a corporate who has a vested interest to make as much money as possible from you, with the very data that you seek to protect! Would you really even be happy if some other third-party, like your government, took over this role of acting as your device's protectorate and let them decide on locking / controlling your device to "protect" you?
This argument of "it's for your own good, because people are stupid" is quite weak even if we ignore how this so called "high security" offered by locking down hasn't prevented new jailbreaking techniques to keep surfacing. If you understand security concepts and attack surfaces, then you do know there are technical ways to lock down a device and still give complete control over this to the user.
Apple today has the ability to remote delete and wipe out all your personal data and lock you out of your device. There are no laws or regulations to prevent this. How is that in any way acceptable?
People don't understand that our right to privacy protects us from becoming easy and vulnerable political targets. It is essential to provide us a sense of security that is essential for our mental well-being ("life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the US constitution puts it very simply). You may be a minority - a gay person or ethnic / religious / linguistic etc - and even if you live in a healthy democracy, you can be subject to light prejudice. Can you really feel secure if a Google search or a facial recognition software reveals everything about your identity to a stranger or a person in authority who can politically abuse it? Obviously, No. And this is not just confined to minorities. Even the majority community does experience anxiety and insecurity in a foreign or multi-cultural environment (a popular political saying in India is that everyone becomes a minority when they step out of their community). That sense of personal security and belonging can only come if you have a right of privacy and are in control of how much of your personal identity you want to reveal to someone. Democracies exist to protect minority rights. And everyone of us, sometime feel like a vulnerable minority because of some part of our identity. Without a right to privacy, our democracy fails us.
2. OP was talking about loading apps on his/her OWN phone. Apple could offer some “OS variant” or some settings for people like OP while the default is closed for people like you. This doesn’t seem mutually exclusive technically — it’s probably just not in apple business best interests.
If I want a hackable pocket computer, I’ll buy a device specifically for that purpose. Or pay the rather minimal fee. (Edit: If needed.)
For most people, they couldn’t care what happens to their computer. Not everyone is the same, but it’s not an uncommon situation.
So security for the phone is more important for some people than computer security.
On top of that, apps installed this way expire after a number of days, possibly as few as 7 days? And there’s a limit to how many can be installed this way, might be as few as 5 apps.
And don’t mind re-installing the app every 7 days by connecting your phone to Xcode and installing again or it will expire and stop working… And yes there is wireless connectivity to Xcode, but it’s still extra work, especially if the app itself can deploy using JS in-app updates.
So yep, you can do it. Technically. But the first time my app “expired”, I went and bought the subscription again. It’s waaaay too annoying if you actually want to use an app to use the free edition. The free edition is for, like, class projects maybe. Not apps you actually want to build and use.
Thing is, I use the app a lot. It's very unique and has no competition because it fills an extremely narrow niche. Side loading it has worked for several years on several increasingly newer phones.
I'm not sure if that's exactly what your question is about, but I think it might be.
When we reach 128-bit architecture, that app will fail. But I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
It wasn't (and isn't) well publicized. But "side load to your phone is hard" is a way to lock it away from your grandparents and to power users only.
Many good apps are available by sideload only. They seem to do well enough.
I don’t want to worry about what the app that I side loaded last month is now doing with my photos or or if the phone is spying on me for an ad company.
I believe I have a good balance. A free for all on one hand and a locked down device on the other. I personally like this balance and don’t see a compelling reason as to why I should change anything.
P.S. I know the iPhone and the review process won’t eliminate the risks all together. It just needs to improve my chances which it does for me effectively.
The entire line of reasoning makes no sense to me. You login to bank websites, store photos on computers, and those are not locked down.
Yes somehow, for some reason, your mobile devices needs it?
It makes no sense to me, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic. It just doesn't line up.
What if I copy my data to two portable devices? Do you now see the flaw in your reasoning?
Remember this when reviewing job applications, folks. Apple, Google, and Facebook employees, current and former, are morally derelict and have profited from harming our society - treat them with reciprocity.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/security-measure-forces-wi...
Even aside from the most egregious cases like that linked above, operating systems like Linux need their bootloader signed by Microsoft in order to boot on a Secure Boot enabled PC. The conflict of interest is obvious.
> "Cool, does it play Doom?"
"Funny thing, that..."
No, it cannot do simple things anymore. We've just come that far.
Not very super if it doesn't do the things I want, sigh.
They think copyright law should apply to everyone except themselves. Such bravery.
I find your sense of entitlement morally derelict.
"The iPhone and the App Store exist, therefore developers should be thankful they exist regardless of how Apple treats them as they try to get their apps approved."
So yes, they're entitled to 'something' because clearly Apple thinks they're entitled to the money of thousands of developers. Maybe they are, but the only way to find out is opening their platform, which they're obviously too afraid to do even as an experiment. They know apps like TikTok, Facebook and Fortnite have the ability to tip the scales away from their favor; so why shouldn't they? Why doesn't the customer have a right to decide?