Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Brotkrumen 3392 days ago
"We are in full compliance. Everything is fine. The house is not on fire. The heat you are feeling is coincidential."

Man, do I dislike marketing speak. A "We knew we were non-compliant, but think the security benefits of quick bugfixes outweigh the disadvantages. We will work with apple to return to compliance." would've been honest, better and not bs.
4 comments
Slartie 3392 days ago
True, but in this case "return to compliance" means "scrapping the company", because its key product depends on the non-compliant behavior and is impossible to implement otherwise.
link
eddieroger 3392 days ago
It more meant "don't build a company on shaky ground," which Rollout clearly did. The only reason to be so specific about not breaking the rules is when you know you are breaking the spirit of the rules. The blog post he linked to is a year old - they're lucky to have survived this long.
link
Dylan16807 3392 days ago
You say that as if apple hasn't repeatedly shut down apps that were in compliance. Sometimes changing the rules after, sometimes not even doing that.

"We have always been in compliance with the guidelines, and we are asking apple and trying to figure out why we're somehow not in compliance" is a fair statement, and not at all BS.

link
ballenf 3392 days ago
don't forget to change their lines about "hundreds of apps use our system and none have ever been rejected by Apple"

to: "we've been getting away with it for a long time, so there's that"

link
digler999 3392 days ago
> Man, do I dislike marketing speak

Did you see the article on HN last weekend about Wifi routers? "I have a 1.3gbps wireless ac router...but only at the PHY layer, but only in an RF test lab, but only if the client is MU-MIMO enabled, but only if they talk on all 4 channels, but only if the signal connects at 100%, but only if your data is 10:1 compressible, but only if you have one client, " even after like 5 "but only if"'s , there was still this unexplained 20% discrepancy between the advertised "speed" and what the device was physically capable of. I'd love to hear their lawyer explain how thats not false advertising.

link
AstralStorm 3391 days ago
Don't worry, they actually wrote "up to 1.3gbps" on the box. You just haven't read it closely enough.
link