Apple Stands By Decision To Terminate Account Belonging To WWDC Student Winner (techcrunch.com) 80
TechCrunch's Sarah Perez reports: Apple is standing by its decision to terminate the Apple Developer Account of Appstun, a mobile app company created by one of Apple's own Worldwide Developer Conference 2021 student winners. According to an announcement published on Appstun's website, Apple moved to terminate the developer's account after multiple rejections of its app that Apple says violates its App Store guidelines. Apple's decision to shut down the developer's account was recently highlighted on X by Apple critic and 37signals co-owner and CTO David Heinemeier Hansson, where he celebrated how much better web developers had it, noting they could run their businesses without the involvement of big tech gatekeepers. "No fear on [sic] capricious rejections that might suddenly kill the business overnight," he remarked.
Appstun co-founder Batuhan Karababa says that he and the other co-founder had been trying to work with Apple over the App Store rejections. (Karababa tells us that he's only the formal founder on paper.) "We responded transparently and collaborated with Apple to ensure our app doesn't violate any guidelines. However, as the process continued, we began to face rejection for the issue that we thought we had already resolved in previous submissions. Apple didn't find our solution good enough," according to the announcement on Appstun's website. The company went back and forth with App Review, receiving multiple rejections over an app for designing Apple Watch faces. In addition to a more standard watch face, Appstun also came up with a workaround that would allow it to offer more highly customizable watch faces. But these weren't actually watch faces in the traditional sense, but rather custom images and animations that run independently of the App Watch face system. Essentially, the app would take over the screen showing an image that was similar to a watch face, allowing Appstun to offer more customization. Of course, running a custom animation in this way could drain the Apple Watch battery faster.
Apple was also concerned that customers wouldn't understand that they weren't running a normal watch face, and that Appstun deceived them by suggesting that's what it was offering. Though Appstun added notifications to its app that these were not real watch faces, in an attempt to placate App Review, Apple instead decided to terminate the company's developer account after repeated back-and-forth. The company pleaded on its website for any help in getting its developer account restored. According to Apple, there's more to this story, and it thinks it made the correct decision. The iPhone maker said Appstun's app repeatedly tried to mislead users into thinking that it offered features and functionality that it didn't support and also marketed the app with deceptive ads, leading to negative app ratings and reviews. [...] Apple pointed to its guideline 5.6 -- a developer code of conduct -- that warns developers that "repeated manipulative or misleading behavior or other fraudulent conduct will lead to your removal from the Apple Developer Program."
Appstun co-founder Batuhan Karababa says that he and the other co-founder had been trying to work with Apple over the App Store rejections. (Karababa tells us that he's only the formal founder on paper.) "We responded transparently and collaborated with Apple to ensure our app doesn't violate any guidelines. However, as the process continued, we began to face rejection for the issue that we thought we had already resolved in previous submissions. Apple didn't find our solution good enough," according to the announcement on Appstun's website. The company went back and forth with App Review, receiving multiple rejections over an app for designing Apple Watch faces. In addition to a more standard watch face, Appstun also came up with a workaround that would allow it to offer more highly customizable watch faces. But these weren't actually watch faces in the traditional sense, but rather custom images and animations that run independently of the App Watch face system. Essentially, the app would take over the screen showing an image that was similar to a watch face, allowing Appstun to offer more customization. Of course, running a custom animation in this way could drain the Apple Watch battery faster.
Apple was also concerned that customers wouldn't understand that they weren't running a normal watch face, and that Appstun deceived them by suggesting that's what it was offering. Though Appstun added notifications to its app that these were not real watch faces, in an attempt to placate App Review, Apple instead decided to terminate the company's developer account after repeated back-and-forth. The company pleaded on its website for any help in getting its developer account restored. According to Apple, there's more to this story, and it thinks it made the correct decision. The iPhone maker said Appstun's app repeatedly tried to mislead users into thinking that it offered features and functionality that it didn't support and also marketed the app with deceptive ads, leading to negative app ratings and reviews. [...] Apple pointed to its guideline 5.6 -- a developer code of conduct -- that warns developers that "repeated manipulative or misleading behavior or other fraudulent conduct will lead to your removal from the Apple Developer Program."
Re:When I hear these Apple stories every day... (Score:4, Interesting)
Many app developers get frustrated with Apple because they misunderstand the process.
They submit an app, get a rejection with a list of problems, fix those problems, and then get rejected again for new reasons that weren't mentioned the first time or might even contradict the list of problems from the prior rejection.
They can't understand the inconsistency and capriciousness because they think subsequent rejects are by the same reviewer.
But the process doesn't work that way. Each time you submit an app, you get a random reviewer who is unlikely to know anything about prior rejections and has their own opinion about how anal to be about various requirements.
My experience is that apps reviewed in the morning, especially right before lunch, are more likely to be rejected than apps reviewed in the afternoon. But there's a delay between submission and review, so this isn't something you can control.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many app developers get frustrated with Apple because they misunderstand the process.
[...bunch of reasons...]
You think developer don't understand the process? And that if they understood, they would get less frustrated?
Even when understanding the process, how can a developer not be frustrated when the approval process is so random!? How can they not be frustrated that Apple can't be bothered with tracking of previous rejections and their reasoning to guide the next reviewer? How can they not be frustrated that Apple can't write guidelines that are clear, consistent and complete, with the result that developers jus
Re:When I hear these Apple stories every day... (Score:5, Informative)
And that if they understood, they would get less frustrated?
Yes. Understanding the process lowers expectations, and low expectations are the key to avoiding frustration.
Understanding the process helps a developer to appropriately respond to rejections. I've had apps rejected for bogus reasons. Instead of doing extra work to make the reviewer happy, I just resubmitted the app with no changes, got a different reviewer, and passed.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Apple's process is just complete bullshit. Always has been and always will be. No one (or company) needs to depend on Apple to survive. The sooner they realize that the better off they will be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple's process is just complete bullshit.
Many things in life are BS. You can learn to cope with that, or you can give up and fail. I have much bigger problems in my life than app store rejections.
No one (or company) needs to depend on Apple to survive.
If you're an app developer, you do. My spouse and I have an app business. We get half of our downloads from Apple but over 90% of our revenue. Android users are much less likely to pay for apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Many things in life are BS. You can learn to cope with that, or you can give up and fail. I have much bigger problems in my life than app store rejections.
Those are not the only two options that people have. However, they are the only options that a loser will see.
If you're an app developer, you do. My spouse and I have an app business. We get half of our downloads from Apple but over 90% of our revenue. Android users are much less likely to pay for apps.
*yawn* Alls that proves is that your app(s) aren't all that interesting or useful except to idiots who already overpay for everything. Or you aren't monetizing your apps correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
.... I just resubmitted the app with no changes, got a different reviewer, and passed.
Good thinking. Dealing with stupidity and inconsistency really merits this strategy to gain Apple's complete satisfaction and approval.
Re:When I hear these Apple stories every day (Score:5, Informative)
I've had apps rejected for bogus reasons. Instead of doing extra work to make the reviewer happy, I just resubmitted the app with no changes, got a different reviewer, and passed.
Thank you for clarifying that their walled garden, is more garden than wall. At least we know what fertilizer they use.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Understanding the process lowers expectations, and low expectations are the key to avoiding frustration.
No. Lowering expectations doesn't get apps published. You're attributing something to the developers that is irrelevant. Whether a process is frustrating or not isn't important to anyone if they can't get their app published and when they don't get paid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:When I hear these Apple stories every day... (Score:5, Informative)
This has been escalated, so I'm assuming some senior person has reviewed it but I can see how this specific app would be a problem. From the summary it seems you're running this app continuously in front of everything else without giving the user an option or indication that they are in an app. This is what every malicious Android app is capable of, capturing and emulating the underlying OS while fully capturing user input.
Re: (Score:3)
This is what every malicious Android app is capable of, capturing and emulating the underlying OS while fully capturing user input.
It's not though. You can't fully capture user input - just touches. An app can't overrule gestures or system functions. It can't pretend to be the swipe down menu since you can't block that.
Overall it's not the easy malicious attack vector you think it is. To trick the user into using a fake overlay app you basically need to replicate the underlying system which requires detailed knowledge of the user's device. It would be immediately obvious to anyone if their phone suddenly started behaving differently af
Re: (Score:2)
You sure overestimate the average person. Hey, my pop up keyboard is different, is not something people think before entering their bank details.
Re: (Score:3)
That reeks of terrible customer service
Apple doesn't see developers as its customers.
Just like a bookstore doesn't see authors as its customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple isn't the bookstore, it is the publishing house. And the publishing house most certainly views the authors as customers, to whom they provide publishing services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, this is the essence of the publishing services.
Re: (Score:3)
And the publishing house most certainly views the authors as customers, to whom they provide publishing services.
You are describing a vanity press [wikipedia.org].
In standard publishing, money flows from the publisher to the author. The author is a supplier, not a customer.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm describing any publishing house. Thanks for quoting Wikipedia, but there are those among us, who have published a book or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Publishers *pay authors*. Customers do not get paid by vendors. Your analogy is terrible. Publishers absolutely do *not* see authors as customers. They see *readers* and *book stores* as customers.
Sheesh.
Re: (Score:1)
People laughed at Steve Ballmer (because he is silly) but the "Developers! Developers! Developers!" rant actually had a point. You can question whether Microsoft did a good job with developer relations, but at least they recognized the necessity of developer relations.
Re: (Score:1)
Customer Service is nominal from Apple, and usually bad. Good Service costs extra, and only after wasting lots of time and effort.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: When I hear these Apple stories every day... (Score:3)
Weâ(TM)re swapping anecdotes, but Iâ(TM)ve had better support from Apple than many other places. It takes patience and tedious repetition, but they will eventually escalate a real issue to an engineer and resolve it.
Re: (Score:3)
Each time you submit an app, you get a random reviewer who is unlikely to know anything about prior rejections and has their own opinion about how anal to be about various requirements.
They need some sort of ticket tracking. I wonder if there is an app for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But in this case they did exactly that, and instead of continuing the process as your outlaid it. Apple cancelled the company's account completely. So no, that is not how it works. You need to suck Apple's dick and pray for mercy
Re: (Score:2)
many developers get frustrated with Apple because the process is unfair, tyrannical and dysfunctional ...
Re: (Score:2)
I think you were going for funny and the moderators didn't get the joke. If you weren't going for funny, then I'd be interested in more about your experiences developing for Apple, presumably as an outsider, not as an Apple employee.
Re: (Score:1)
Many app developers get frustrated with Apple because they misunderstand the process.
They submit an app, get a rejection with a list of problems, fix those problems, and then get rejected again for new reasons that weren't mentioned the first time or might even contradict the list of problems from the prior rejection.
They can't understand the inconsistency and capriciousness because they think subsequent rejects are by the same reviewer.
But the process doesn't work that way. Each time you submit an app, you get a random reviewer who is unlikely to know anything about prior rejections and has their own opinion about how anal to be about various requirements.
My experience is that apps reviewed in the morning, especially right before lunch, are more likely to be rejected than apps reviewed in the afternoon. But there's a delay between submission and review, so this isn't something you can control.
I've had this before, it's jobsworthian, some people have no idea what they're doing, no pride in what they do and know they're not qualified to be doing what they do but yet, are being paid to do it. So to these people, justifying their existence is done by being a pain in the arse to others. Randomly throwing roadblocks so that they have to be involved in a decision making process that would be better off without them.
Basically someone justifying their job, which they know contributes nothing.
LOL Wut? (Score:4, Funny)
Appstun co-founder Batuhan Karababa (Karababa tells us that he's only the formal founder on paper.)
Well that doesn't sound suspicious. Nope. Perfectly normal. Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:2)
Suspicous of the author of the article. Obviously they referered to him as co-founder, but he then either corrected them as only being founder on paper, or they found that extra detail, and didn't correct their description of him as co-founder even though he explicitly does not claim to be that.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem Funny, even in context. The quote is from the story summary, BtW, so there were two contexts to consider. Still missing the joke, but maybe you can explain what the moderators found funny?
We don't need no stinkin' innovations (Score:1)
Unjustified censor mods. Why do such moderators have mod points to bestow negatively? I want to attach that meta-comment to the FP, though my interest is in a different angle of the topic, per the revised Subject.
I think the significant aspect is how Apple wants to control "important" innovations. Many "successful" corporate cancers talk about wanting innovation, but I think all of them are lying, and they just lie harder as they become larger and more successful and more dominant in whatever niche (or nich
Re: (Score:2)
Delayed censor mod? Or just a mindless fanboi? Though my primary interest is where I got it right and triggered the censor...
Re: (Score:3)
People also entirely make their living trying to convince "rooted Android phones" to install their cool apps and then use that to hack their phones silently.
App store reviewers aren't just some sort of unhinged "app haters" hating on developers. They have a job: keep out the chaff and the bad actors.
the EU will not like this an this bans them from 3 (Score:1)
the EU will not like this an this bans them from 3rd part store uploads
If you burn CPU, then useability becomes patamount (Score:3)
If I wrote an app that does nothing but display time but at incredibly fast nanosecond resolution, you bet your sweet fanny that I will lose my Apple developer accoubnt.
Re:If you burn CPU, then useability becomes patamo (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is the only one allowed to sell watch faces. Dance with the devil, get burned.
There are plenty of non-Apple watch faces available, some costing significant money.
Re: (Score:1)
No loser, it is your mom that is loose.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that Apple will prevent me to buy your femtosecond resolution time display app, which I really need, simply because they can't do what you do and disregard both my needs and your skill to provide a solution?
As the guy upthread said, it is so nice there are other options.
/ yes, I can see with femtosecond resolution.
Re: If you burn CPU, then useability becomes patam (Score:2)
Love your veiled facetious comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Does Apple have a history of doing that? I can't think of any instances. Sherlocking is usually (almost always?) done by releasing something for free or incorporating it as a core OS feature. If you consider services, those are competitively priced (arguably anticompetitively priced, since Apple doesn't have to pay itself the 30% App Store fee like other devs do).
Re: (Score:2)
More likely its functionality is coming as part of the core os in the next release, but more efficiently because they can modify the core OS.
It's the same thing that got Microsoft in hot water so many times in the olden days and DOJ took notice after the settlement.
Try running your own web renderer outside of Europe. Same reason to distrust the monoculture ecosystem.
I'll bet they gamed App Review (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially from reading about misleading ads and bad reviews, I'm almost sure at least one factor here was the app behaving one way during a review period, then the more advanced/unpleasant stuff was enabled later on with a server flag. It could have even been the advertisements triggered by push notifications, also a no-no.
That would for sure be the kind of thing that would get your whole account banned, as opposed to just the one app itself being taken down.
It's really a shame as you could easily parlay that student award into a pretty good job or as a boost to a more meaningful real-world app.
I don't know what leads some developers to beat their head against an obvious wall like this, where Apple would not be happy with fake watch faces, and users would at the very least not be happy with watches going dead mid-day.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you read this a lot more innocently than I did.
All I see is a mega-corp ironically screwing over one of their award-winning developers because they ultimately want it for themselves.
Gut feeling is Apple will offer highly customizable watch faces by Black Friday. And the developer will get a coupon for a free Apple Watch strap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sherlocking is a very real problem, but in this case, I don't think so. Apple is the complete opposite of highly customizable. That's their whole shtick. Not gon happen.
Highly customizable basically describes every damn thing in tech today.
A G-Shock watch, used to come in one size. One color. Your background on your flip phone, never changed. And came in one color. Same with the one before that. Today, we can match assault rifle finishes with the fucking bathroom holiday decor. With complementary two-tone magazines.
Anyone not seeing how highly customizable products are today, doesn’t remember or refuses to acknowledge how much they were not for the longest time
Re: (Score:1)
Your background on your flip phone, never changed. And came in one color. Same with the one before that.
My flip phones have had customizable backgrounds as long as they have had color displays. In early days there were gatekeepers for loading content, except that it was usually pretty easy to get your hands on the service software and you could both unlock the ability to load whatever. Motorola also sold software that would make mp3 ringtones, so instead of paying per ringtone you could pay for the software and the cable. Unless you were doing a whole lot of ringtones, though, it was hard to come out ahead.
Th
"Learn to code, you will have a bright future... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.....CRAP! All of the burger flippers have been replaced by robotics and AI!"
Yeah, but who replaces all of the human employees that used to eat burgers for lunch? AI is a terrible customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Web developers (Score:2)
CTO David Heinemeier Hansson, where he celebrated how much better web developers had it, noting they could run their businesses without the involvement of big tech gatekeepers
What the hell makes this idiot think that Apple / Google / etc. cannot interfere? They write the code for the browser. If they really wanted to they could just put your domain in a blacklist and have the browser refuse to open it. Or intentionally degrade your site's experience to drive away your visitors.
Most people being completely clueless would blame the site in this case for not being up to Apple / Google / etc.'s standards. Even those that did know wouldn't be able to change it. The governments wou
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and Google could sabotage their browsers and reputation, but they can't sabotage them all, and once they become known as "the browser publishers who use domain blacklists" they wouldn't remain as popular for long.
The web is still open. We try to view it as not, because some big players have some large market share, but that large market share isn't set in stone. That's why we're not discussing this on MySpace.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom or proprietary software, choose one. (Score:2)
Know what does and does not belong to you then choose accordingly. If you're competing to serve /bigcorp remember it's their game and their rules.
Now if there only were meaningful checks (Score:3)
I mean, I could understand the deal that mobile phone manufacturers lock down their phones in exchange for meaningful checks against malware,... but this obviously is not the case. The app-stores are full of ad-ware, spy-ware and other kinds of malware. Developers seem to think that third-party usage trackers are something completely normal.
If they had otherwise meaningful checks, I could understand them rejecting this app for the reasons sketched out in the article. However third party trackers are a _much_ bigger issue than slightly reduced battery life.
Just to make it clear: No this isn't an Apple vs. Google thing. Both companies are doing basically the same thing here. However on Android I can, at least, have F-Droid for an app-store that at least tries to be malware free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's one option, the other option would be to ditch checking apps at all and, for example, establish a complaint system or something, or ditch app-stores at all.
Well ... (Score:2)
where he celebrated how much better web developers had it, noting they could run their businesses without the involvement of big tech gatekeepers. "No fear on [sic] capricious rejections that might suddenly kill the business overnight," he remarked.
Um, yeah ... it's not like the big tech gatekeepers might decide to suddenly terminate your hosting and domain registration. That never happens ...
(Though granted, less likely and less often than the two big app stores.)
Seems simple (Score:1)
Donâ(TM)t lie to customers.
Ok, so if thats the case (Score:2)
Why is the app store full of crap pay-to-play apps that do exactly what this story describes. Are all those apps going to be banned as well? There must be more to this.
Pebble had this feature (Score:2)
I think I may survive.
Gee, that summary quotes almost the whole article (Score:2)