Hacker News Reader

Comment by jabart | Hacker News Reader

Having an app that competes with an existing Apple app is considered a duplicate app and you can be rejected because of it.

View on HN

This was more of an issue early in the App Store’s history than later on. Apple’s relaxed on that a lot a long time ago and you can use any number of contacts, calendars, email clients, browsers, camera apps, messengers, maps apps and so on.

But it still exists in their rules. That they don’t enforce it as often as they used to is cold comfort: they still can whenever they feel the need to do so. So if you get too successful they can still very easily chop you down.

not really for browsers, they allow them but they all have to use Safari's engine

Yeah but browser ≠ rendering engine. I know they get conflated a lot in tech, but when I’m using e.g. Arc on my Macintosh, I’m not using Chrome despite using the same rendering engine.

ehhhh kind of, what's a browser without a rendering engine? just a fancy bookmark manager?

Most browsers don’t have a rendering engine unique to them. Apple made that a policy for iPhones and its derivatives, but a browser is more than its rendering engine.

My point still stands though, I want to use an alternative browser engine like I do on every other computer... but Apple doesn't allow it

So do I, but that doesn’t negate my original point: for almost every category of App that comes on a stock iPhone, you can replace it with a 3rd party alternative.

The exceptions are: SMS, Settings, and the Phone app for the numbers tied to your SIMs (there’s still a billion VoIP options including extra lines from carriers like T-Mobile’s Digits) and probably a couple others I’m forgetting. I think the Clock app has a couple of privileges not available to 3rd parties actually.

You can use a 3rd party browser, but that browser will use the version of WebKit that comes with the operating system (except soon, in the EU, whenever 3rd party browsers with their own rendering engines ship there).

"almost every" is the problem:

* no alternative browser engines

* no alternative wallet apps

* no alternative app stores (specifically so Apple can capture a % of sales)

* no software streaming

* no super apps

* Apple-only special SMS features

* Apple hardware (watches) get special access to iPhone hardware

that stuff adds up

Note that the "rendering engine" on iOS also takes care of JS, implementing web standard APIs, etc. And it is tied to the OS version.

So, something like WebUSB comes out? Gotta wait for Apple to implement it, and also for your customers to upgrade their devices.

Correct. Except the part about waiting for Apple to implement WebUSB because they’re not going to.

The extension ecosystem of browsers is pretty important though, and that is tied to the rendering engine.

On Android, I can install firefox-for-android and run ublock origin to no longer see ads on websites.

On iOS, that's not possible. Apple prevents mozilla from shipping a browser capable of running firefox addons.

This is a case where Apple's policies are hampering security since, well, blocking ads on the web is the thing has had the single largest positive impact on security for my elderly relatives. Giving them ublock origin stopped them from clicking on a ridiculous number of scammy ads and popups.

Not sure why you are getting downvoted.

I also want alternate web tech, WebAssembly, Javascript implementations.

And as a developer, to be able to create tools that use the memory allocation/permissions API for JIT compilation.

Wouldn't that rule out so many apps? E.g. Netflix competing with Apple TV, Goggle Photos vs Apple Photos, Google maps vs Apple maps, any note-taking app, camera, email client, browser, or weather app... What actually gets you rejected?

Does Apple ever have to give you a reason why you're rejected, or tell the truth even if they give you a reason?

That's probably the biggest reason I think that Society (with a capital S) should rein in Apple a bit. They have a lot of power and money over the consumer, but on top of that they have no obligation to provide transparency and truthfulness. Given how dependent people are on their phones, I think it's perfectly fair for the state to step in and say that the power imbalance between consumers and Apple should be equalized a bit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com