Stupid Apple Rejection of the Day | Hacker News Reader

Stupid Apple Rejection of the Day

matt.coneybeare.me

11 pointsconeybeare25 comments

Christ, dude, they're asking for a disclaimer in the description. There are true problems with the App Store review process, but this doesn't strike me as one. Add the line and get your app in the store.

Agree, feels like a cheap marketing stunt by OP.

Or just re-submit it another time and see what happens, try to negotiate, try to get an explanation why this requirement is not in the submission guidelines, whatever.

The people reviewing submitted apps are just that: people. They sometimes make mistakes just like you and me. If you're unlucky an overzealous reviewer looked at your app, or someone misinterpreted the guidelines. Could be anything. Or maybe Apple simply changed their guidelines and you have to comply, as an end-user I can see why Apple would want to include a warning about battery life for apps that do continuous GPS tracking. Big deal...

My thought exactly, what's the problem here. It would have taken less time to add it and resubmit than to whine on a blog post.

I hope this app is rejected.

> To fall in line with Apple’s expectations that iOS 7 apps always stay up to date in the multitasker, background GPS is necessary here so that I can keep the multitasker preview up to date with current information on the closest station.

This guy thinks it is a good idea to trash the user's battery so the app switcher screenshot is up to date. Is this guy serious?

Apple does encourage you to update your switcher screenshot especially in gaming. This could be a valid use, but it could kill the battery and the dev should warn users of that.

He does say that it's off by default, so I don't think that your speculation about his thinking is warranted.

Apple has realized that by publishing strict rules, many developers will fight the explicit letter of the law while ignoring the spirit thereof. Ergo, general rules have been published but the reviewers have great leeway to determine that a submission has missed the obvious point (ex.: a battery-sucking background app should at least inform a user that it will do so).

They're not going to explicitly declare exactly what is/isn't allowed to perfect clarity precisely because written language isn't perfectly clear when readers don't want it to be (ex.: USA's Bill Of Rights). Rather than get into ongoing fights over what exact wording should be, Apple understandably opts for a verbose but imperfect description of the point of their limitations, and hires gatekeepers to make sensible per-case decisions on whether an app adheres to the point of the rules. Wording of a rule may sensibly apply in one case but not another, based on culture & context. User experience does not decompose well into precise requirements.

If all it takes is a brief disclaimer in a description, and that disclaimer is a fair notification to the user of some behavior that reasonably isn't expected, then put it in and resubmit.

I would rather see that disclaimer then download your app, install it, and wonder why my battery is dying so fast. That is a problem that I had on the Windows Phone. I downloaded a few apps and one of them was killing my battery so I had to go one by one disabling each app every day to figure out that the culprit was a GroupMe.

I'm surprised they also aren't rejecting you for the .99 cent In-App Purchase just to remove ads. They discouraged that practice at the last Tech Talk that I went to.

If you choose to be a sharecropper you must accept the landlord's rules. As for myself I'm through with it and my future apps will be Mac/Windows/Linux desktop apps. Mobile has a lot of potential but I won't bow down to the gatekeepers any more.

Sometimes legal litigation forces companies to take extra measures and describing the obvious is something that already was tested in court. You feel that's obvious because you understand the tech behind it but some users (maybe the less educated ones) don't understand this, and then they sue apple for shorter than published battery life. By forcing you to include this label in your terms it releases legal responsibility.

For absurdity in warning labels follow one of the most famous cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...

That case wasn't as absurd as people think. From the article:

> Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

She got third-degree burns from coffee stored at an unsafe temperature. McDonalds had ample evidence that this was a problem.

Coffee snob here. Optimal brewing occurs at 195-205 degrees F, and is consumed soon after. Good coffee is served HOT, and people in general know this - yet continue to demand it at the drive-thru, and continue to do stupid things with it. Heck, the very existence of the drive-thru is a much bigger problem: dwarfing the 700 complaints of coffee burns, eating while driving reportedly contributes to some 80% of all automotive accidents, more dangerous than the much-maligned texting while driving - yet there is no call to eliminate drive-thrus for obvious on-the-run consumption.

Yes, people get severe burns by placing properly brewed coffee between their legs while driving. This is well-known, and there is little to stop it short of people not doing stupid things.

"eating while driving reportedly contributes to some 80% of all automotive accidents, more dangerous than the much-maligned texting while driving"

Source?

Google is your friend. (I looked for the authoritative documentation you'd demand, but came a point I've got other things to do than preemptively do research for the skeptical. Suffice to say it's widely referenced, if a bit hard to pin down.)

ETA: I'd prefer research to snide retorts. I researched it to my satisfaction, you research it to yours; comparing the results would be much more enlightening than a put-down.

Lots of things that are widely referenced aren't actually backed by truth.

> Good coffee is served HOT

It's McDonalds coffee, not cat poop coffee served by servants in tuxedos. I suspect purchasers of drive-through coffee would accept sub-par coffee at a temperature that doesn't cause severe burns.

Actually McDonald's has about the best fast-serve coffee available; this fact translates into very large profits from happy customers. That quality suffers fast if brewed under 195F and served under 180F; why opt for sub-par when being nigh unto ideal is easy? Some things that make life better are harmful if you do stupid things with them...don't put hot coffee between your legs.

My battery is not your playground :)

You're publishing to a closed system. Apple isn't exactly a paragon of openness and acceptance. What did you expect?

Don't you know Apple doesn't allow complaining about their decisions? They are listening! IT KNOWS.

Reasonable request is reasonable.

It's like the Mafia, lot's of unwritten rules.

All of the rules are written down. It's just that developers don't read them.

The whole article is about how there was no rule written down. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a problem. He was following the rules to the point already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com