I can’t understand Apple’s Critical Alert policy (2023) | Hacker News Reader

I can’t understand Apple’s Critical Alert policy (2023)

jhan.bearblog.dev

98 pointslogistra69 comments

I think the main point is being missed here:

> Apple’s own Health app uses Critical Alerts for its medication reminders, so I assumed my use case would qualify. I submitted a request for access to the API, but it was rejected.

I think what is being developed is a competitor to a space that Apple are in and want to be more involved in, and that is why you will not get permission to use the necessary API.

That anti competitive stance has been working very well for Apple lately.

I use "Apple’s own Health app" medication reminders and from what I can see, they do not use Critical Alerts. They behave differently from the app I use that prompts me of the sugar levels of a relative (that app does use Critical Alerts, and the difference is very clear.)

Critical alerts are available as an optional setting for medication reminders in the iOS Health app.

I don’t know if a pill reminder app rises to the level of importance where a critical alert is needed.

There are only five apps on my phone, out of over a hundred, that use critical alerts.

PulsePoint, if someone near me is having a heart attack

Messages, if one of my kids is in trouble

Health, if I am having a heart attack

Home, if my smoke alarm is going off

ActiveAlert, my fire department’s dispatch notification app, which will tell me where to drive the ambulance if someone is having a heart attack

If I’m in a darkened theater and someone nearby needs cpr, my house is on fire, or one of my kids is in trouble I want the phone to make a sound.

I want someone else’s phone to make a sound if they get those notifications, too.

If it’s time to take their atorvastatin I don’t give a shit their phone better stay shut the hell up.

If someone’s calendar app slipped through the cracks and got permission to issue critical alerts, THAT is the problem, not the fact that a pill reminder app can’t.

If I miss the dosing window by more than an hour or so it'll either ruin my sleep or ruin my day after lunch, I have responsibilities and can easily lose track of time for an hour or two while working or in meetings, so the iOS medication reminders are very useful to me personally, at least.

edit: though if I remember or see the initial reminder and log it, it obviously won't go off with sound. If it pings, I've basically always already forgotten.

With all due respect and without knowing your clinical history at all, this level of sensitivity to a statin probably warrants a review of your med with your provider.

No it doesn't.

Some of us are just like, really particular about schedules.

(The internet is full of weirdos, sorry).

Sorry, maybe/probably should have clarified I meant a different medication - meant to comment more on the general utility.

Now evaluate a glucometer.

Bluetooth-enabled continuous glucose monitors are medical devices and have access to critical alerts.

> I don’t know if a pill reminder app rises to the level of importance where a critical alert is needed

Doesn't that depend a lot on the types of pills a person takes and their mental needs?

> If it’s time to take their atorvastatin I don’t give a shit their phone better stay shut the hell up.

I have it on good authority that some people's phones even make sounds when they get something as trivial as a phone call

But not in dnd

Just because you don't have to roll for initii....

Why can't I, the user, give a special permission to a specific app to override the silent mode just like I can with my emergency contacts?

Because you are always only the user instead of the owner with an apple device and software.

I understand and share your feeling, however I think OP question is interesting enough to deserve a more complete response. Trying to frame it another way:

Is that specific non-par feature voluntary from Apple or might them just didn’t thought about it yet? If that’s voluntary, what’s the logic that make them think it’s better for their business to not allow that feature?

From my experience apple tries very hard to remove or hide any feature it can, there argument is probably to not overwhelm user and simplicity

That’s a fair hypothesis. Thanks.

For do not disturb, you can: settings -> focus -> do not disturb has a section at the top for allowing specific apps or specific people.

But that does not bypass silent mode. Critical alert does.

>> By this logic, even the Health app shouldn't be allowed to use it.

Apple is well known for giving their own apps permissions that no(or few) other apps can get - it's an unfair advantage and they keep getting slapped for it in courts but clearly not enough for them to stop doing it.

I could shorten this to "I can't understand Apple" much of the time. I love Apple products, but they do make some wacky decisions that surely make sense somehow (probably due to scale, regulation, or business aims) but the reasoning is entirely opaque nowadays. One thing I thought Steve Jobs did reasonably well was at least try to justify Apple's decisions, but they don't have anyone who levels with people in that way anymore.

I have checked all apps on my phone. Besides Apple first party apps such as Home and Message, only one earthquake alert app has this level of notification.

You have functionality that is overlapping with something provided by Apple.

It's possible they will find reasons to reject your app indefinitely.

if that is so they could just say that they reject the app because it replicates built in functionality - it's a well known cause for rejection

They could be A/B testing.

Or more likely, Apple reviewers aren't paid so well and have 3 minutes to review each submission so they just reject for the first reason that comes up.

Sounds like apple really needs a better review/appeal process, official set of standards, etc. Seems like it's bad for their ecosystem at this point.

a) They have an appeals process: https://developer.apple.com/distribute/app-review

b) Standards has been in place for over a decade: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines

The appeals process does not apply to Critical Alert Entitlement requests, which must be submitted through the external form: https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/notifications-cr...

People should realize that Apple plays favorites and lets their own apps use private APIs. Developers that bet on Apple platforms (iOS in particular) are at the mercy of Apple, and the company doesnt even try to play fair most of the time.

Apple has always considered their apps to be part of the OS.

It was only because of legal disputes that they were ever split off.

And it is shocking that Apple the OS company has a favourable relationship with Apple the app company. Never happens in IT.

This seems like something you could fix by reminding them that the DMA exists (if your app is available in the EU)

The same is with CarPlay for example. You need to apply form entitlement. For me this is weird, it is user choice if he would like to have critical alerts, CarPlay UI and so on. And Apple have review process to not pass apps that abuse this mechanisms./

If this reminder app to take meds can't access this API, how can HomeAssistant's iOS app access it where, I the user, can base the trigger for a critical notification on virtually anything?

Yeah. That's why I am so confused.

> What’s even more confusing is that I’ve seen general-purpose to-do or reminder apps on the App Store that somehow got approved for Critical Alerts, even though their use case seems far less urgent

thats because App Store review is a.) random and b.) they play favorites so the same rules don't apply to everyone

we got rejected because of "Mac*" in the name. we pointed them to a dozen others that had it, where it seemingly was no problem. didn't help.

> we got rejected because of "Mac*" in the name. we pointed them to a dozen others that had it, where it seemingly was no problem. didn't help.

To be fair, it’s understandable for many reasons that they don’t want other companies to use “Mac” in the name of the software.

- Brand dilution

- Losing trademark if Mac becomes a generic word

- It’s also annoying actually with apps that name themselves that way. Just because I’m on a Mac doesn’t mean I need that a whole bunch of my apps start with “Mac” in their name. Likewise for apps that start their name with lowercase i on iOS, and apps that end their name with droid on Android.

Also, for the ones that were allowed anyway, were those already big outside of App Store by chance? Or have they been allowing even new apps that don’t have an existing user base into the App Store with names like that?

> Losing trademark if Mac becomes a generic word

This is interesting considering that it was a common word before Apple started. Both the variety of apple called Macintosh and a Mac raincoat (named after Charles Macintosh).

Though it would be really funny if the Beatles were referring to a computer in Penny Lane:

"And the banker never wears a mac in the pouring rain. Very strange"

Trademarks are specific to a kind of product or service. A Mac raincoat does not violate a trademark on Mac computers or software.

> Losing trademark if Mac becomes a generic word

> Also, for the ones that were allowed anyway, were those already big outside of App Store by chance?

These two points contradict each other. If Apple were concerned about losing a trademark, they would have already sued popular apps that have "Mac" in the name.

So you agree that “thats because App Store review is a.) random and b.) they play favorites so the same rules don't apply to everyone”

Ok sorry, I'm going to state the obvious.

The "Apple Critical Alerts" API is clearly intended as a replacement channel for cellular emergency alerts[0]. (If not a "replacement", then perhaps a "supplemental" option. Redundancy is good when we're talking about whether "911" works).

The "Apple Critical Alert" API policy, restricting who's allowed to call the API, is a good thing. You just do not get performant public notifications if you allow just anybody to broadcast. (Milli)seconds count, people.

I hate Singleton patterns as much as anybody. And I hate when business happens behind closed doors, with limited public access, and restricted opportunity for public comment.

But again, if we're talking about the choice between """ locking down this one special channel, because it's responsible for real-time public safety alerts """ vs. """ asking how many broadcasters can possibly share that channel, before contention and congestion result in human-perceptible delays to alert delivery. """ Then I would opt for the former.

--- [0] You know how your phone will buzz REAL loud if there's like, an Amber Alert or Tsunami or something? That's a feature of the cellular system. To my knowledge, emergency alerts and 911 calls go over a separate dedicated mini-channel, which has gone by various names through POTS/2G/3G/5G and beyond. A.K.A.s: - Public Warning System (PWS) - Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) - CMAS (Commercial Mobile Alert Service)

P.S. I'm sorry to be grouchy about it- I just don't think folks realize that yes, 1. emergency infrastructure really does run over the same networks as everything else 2. That We carve out special lanes for emergency/911 packets. That traffic is special.

What?!

You mean I don’t get to have every phone in a store buzz, when we have a special on tinned prunes?

What is the feature for, if not that?

Overzealous marketing is why we can’t have nice things.

I don't think it's just about latency. Actually I think it's mainly about not diluting the meaning of emergency alerts and opening it for abuse. But yeah, I agree. I think what TFA has run into is by design, and frankly I'm kinda glad it works this way.

> The "Apple Critical Alerts" API is clearly intended as a replacement channel for cellular emergency alerts

I don't see how it is "clearly intended" for this purpose, and nothing seems to be indicating that.

Apple's own applications use it for a lot of things that are not at all related to those large-scale alerts, and so do many other applications. Their critical alerts API is just about bypassing the silent mode when needed.

You say it yourself, there is another system for large-scale alerts, which is unrelated to Apple.

That would make sense if Apple's description and usage didn't completely contradict what you wrote. It's not "clearly intended" for that purpose if Apple uses it for other purposes. This seems like your interpretation rather than Apple's policy.

Agreed. Apple also has the category of Time-sensitive notifications which is available to all apps and would fit fine for this usecase. Worst case one would need to direct users to add the app as a Do Not Disturb exception.

Yet zenduty is allowed to use critical alerts api while being unrelated to public safety in general

Zenduty is very much related to public safety depending on the industry.

If you're at a power company an incident could mean a life saving medical machine goes offline.

And I've personally seen a P1 related to a power outage at an infectious diseases lab.

The article, and Apple's messaging therein, contradicts your understanding of this feature.

> Because Critical Alerts are disruptive, they are meant to be used for a very restricted number of purposes. This include medical- and health-related notifications, home- and security-related notifications, and public safety notifications.

Only the last use case matches what you describe. And as the article says, Apple's own Health app uses this feature, along with, apparently, simple TODO apps. Apple's health app makes sense, since Apple specifically calls out medical apps. Is a medicine reminder app a medical app? I would say so.

Apple's developer documentation states:

> Critical alerts ignore the mute switch and Do Not Disturb; the system plays a critical alert’s sound regardless of the device’s mute or Do Not Disturb settings. You can specify a custom sound and volume. > > Critical alerts require a special entitlement issued by Apple.

Apple's Critical Alerts aren't a broadcast system though. It's just an API to bypass the mute switch and DnD, but users have to go into settings to enable it on a per-app basis. The alert is otherwise just a normal notification.

It does tend to be used for public safety notifications, but it's strictly opt-in. There are also several apps using it for smart home security alerts, health reminders, etc. already.

I haven't seen any hint that the Critical Alerts entitlement would use any special infra compared to regular push notifications.

It's just metadata in the notification body indicating to the device to ignore silent mode etc.

It's e.g used by Pagerduty [0]. It's just a way to override notification settings.

The software for the systems you mention have this entitlement (or some equivalent), but are otherwise completely unrelated to this.

[0]: https://support.pagerduty.com/main/docs/mobile-app-settings#...

Nice to see PagerDuty mentioned here. I was on the mobile team at PagerDury that battled to get the entitlement to use Critical Notifications in the app. We were refused multiple times before we got the entitlement.

Nah it’s for apps like those that monitor a user’s continuous glucose meter. In addition to simple monitoring they alert the user when the reading is on the extreme ends of a safety range. The app for Abbott’s Freestyle Libre requires the setting to be enabled and will not allow the use of the app without it enabled. I suspect that’s what Apple means in their rejection. I can turn it off but the app won’t work without it.

For some reason the submission title is labeled (2023) even though the blog post is dated 08 May, 2025.

hey so idk if folks remember how DoNotDisturb got intro'd.

(anybody else do "Lock-in" drills in school where we all had to be SILENT?)

They seem to shoot based on vague reasons. And they don't reason. If it is a no, it is a no.

Time for an alternative app store. It is needed across the world. Single point of failure and control is not good for any ecosystem. Too much dependence on one single entity if one wants to exists in that is really some sh*ty concept.

Break free and break good! EU has to help here...

Let the App Store contain backup providers that are allowed to compete with iCloud while you’re at it. The ability to self host it yourself would be a game changer for the lockdown.

There are too many apps with local data that can only be backed up via iCloud. For what’s essentially an archive upload to storage, Apple raises a lot of barriers.

You can install alternative app stores on iOS (within the EU). AltStore, Epic Games Store, and even a corporate-targeting store from Mobivention.

Apple is pulling some shit that will probably be declared illegal the moment it hits the courts with installation fees when distributing apps outside of Apple's ecosystem, but AFAIK Epic is taking care of that for AltStore and Mobivention probably factors it into its corporate pricing structure.

There's a lack of apps on these stores, though.

You can, indeed, but all apps have to pass Apple review. So they can still reject app on vague reasons.

That’s not true, they get notarized but not reviewed.

You are right, apps are not reviewed by humans. But there is automatic review in the process of notarization. And you still need to ask apple for all entitlements you need (Critical alerts, CarPlay etc), as in the case mentioned in this blog post.

guessing it won't be long until they add an LLM type thing into the mix. Then they will "claim" it's automated and fair.

Bullshit. "Notiarization" for iOS apps in the EU is just App Review by another name, completely different from the automated Notarization they originally introduced for macOS apps.

https://mjtsai.com/blog/2024/03/17/ios-notarizations-human-r... https://mjtsai.com/blog/2024/06/14/utm-blocked-outside-app-s...

"have it evaluated based on the Notarization Review Guidelines (a subset of the App Review Guidelines)" https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/distribut...

> You can install alternative app stores on iOS (within the EU).

And you need a few million dollars in the bank to be allowed to implement one (plus some other ridiculous requirements). The whole system still makes it impossible for a small team to develop and shift software without a huge middleman

> Time for an alternative app store.

Not really. Just allow users to install applications without a middleman. Like we've been doing since forever in pretty much any other platform.

The whole point of an app store is to limit and control what a user is allowed to run. Alternative app stores just shift the blame elsewhere

It's easy to understand: Apple is deliberately abusing its power to gain an unfair competitive advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com