Hacker News Reader

Comment by 4eleven7 | Hacker News Reader

Untrue. As long as it meets the technical requirements (ie, not using private APIs, doesn't excessively drain battery etc), and the licensing issues aren't a problem (some OSS licenses are an issue, as well as using the Quake assets may be an issue), there is no reason why Apple wouldn't approve a game for the Apple Watch on the App Store.

View on HN

Apple is more than willing to reject apps that follow all the guidelines.

Can you show an example? I’ve been an iOS developer for 10 years, and I’ve only ever seen/been rejected for things that fall foul of the guidelines, never arbitrarily.

Apple is unable to interpret their guidelines consistently. We ran into this with iSH a while back: https://ish.app/blog/app-store-removal

And yet, you aren't rejected, and are in the store. While their interpretation of their guidelines can be ropey, as is anything handled by a human, my point still stands. Quake 1 would be allowed on the App Store.

What you’re probably missing is the two weeks of concerted effort we put in to design an appeal and then a PR campaign to get Apple to actually listen to us. iSH would not be on the store otherwise.

I'm not missing anything. iSH is very much an edge case. My entire point was that Quake would be allowed on the Apple Watch via the App Store.

EDIT: To clarify 'very much an edge case', I mean, you can see how a non-technical reviewer at Apple may view iSH as a program that executes remote code. While you or I may know better, and it is unfortunate that you had to go through that process in the first instance, you can see why it happened compared to a standard todo list, or a typical web-client based app.

I don't actually feel too bad about iSH being flagged by a non-technical reviewer. It's a specialized app that has characteristics similar to apps that are genuinely against the App Store Review Guidelines. That it gets scrutiny is a sign that the process is working as it says it should, rather than just receiving rubber-stamp approval as is also all too common.

The specific issue is that iSH did end up getting reviewed by non-technical reviewers. We went through at least four levels of appeals, and about half a dozen interactions with people doing review. Several of these people gave the obvious impression that they understood what our app did, and might even be personal familiar with Linux/the command line. The core issue was not a technical one, but a policy one: our app does execute remote code. The reviewers read this as being "any remote code". Our (correct) interpretation was that this rule was designed to prevent remote updates by the developer. A user downloading code in our app and executing it is fully within the guidelines, which we ended up confirming with the highest levels of the review team once the app had been re-approved.

The core problem is that the actual guidelines (which includes both the written guidelines, and a bunch of "case law" that supplements it) is only really known within Apple to a handful of very senior reviewers, and getting to them is very difficult and requires an exceptional appeals process. For iSH, you can see how the written guidelines were misinterpreted by technical people; for apps like these it is very possible that they get flagged by some sort of "game includes IP that's not yours" or "app is unplayable on Apple Watch" and the person who would review this Quake game could get flagged even while complying with the guidelines.

They reject apps for being too simple so meeting technical requirements is clearly not enough.

Yes, they publish their guidelines which states as such… but how is Quake 1 too simple? Downvote all you want, but within the context of Quake 1 being approved on the Apple Watch, “too simple” isn’t relevant.

The point is that they can reject you for subjective reasons even if you fully comply technically.

I've never heard, or seen that before. Everything I've ever seen rejected by Apple (either personally from my own apps, clients, or from press reports) has always been a guideline issue.

So, "Subjective reasons" such as? Example?

Here is an example of a 3D game running on the Apple Watch, that was approved by Apple, on the App Store, which looks rather "Quake like". Mindkeeper: The lurking fear (Apple Watch)[https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mindkeeper-the-lurking-fear/id...]

Don't they reject apps that are "out of scope" for the device they run on? The Watch isn't made to run 3D games, even if that is possible. It's a "bad experience", even if it is a cool technical demo.

No, they don't. There are 3D games running on the Apple Watch, available in the App Store.

Mindkeeper: The lurking fear (Apple Watch)[https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mindkeeper-the-lurking-fear/id...]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com