[geedee77]

Maybe it is shit, but it's also documented and the punishments for ignoring the policy are clearly laid out.

As much as you or I may think it's a bit dumb that Apple won't allow the easter egg, we can't be surprised by their reaction to it once they knew about it.

[apgwoz]

Apple will allow easter eggs, but you have to disclose them to the review team (they promise to keep them confidential). This "easter egg" wasn't disclosed, and was an attempt to get a feature into the phone that was rejected by Apple before.

Right or wrong, this violated Apple's documented restrictions--this shouldn't even be a story.

[andrew1]

> this shouldn't even be a story.

If people are interested in the issue then of course it should be. Just because a law or rule exists doesn't mean that people should be happy with it, or accepting of it. If my government passed a law that I didn't agree with and prosecuted someone for breaking it, then I'd be happy for that issue to be discussed in the media. It doesn't matter whether the person knowingly broke the law or not, I'd still want the issue to get publicity.

[apgwoz]

The story isn't about that though. The story is about how someone created an Easter Egg and Apple took the app down--exactly like they said they would.

If this story was "$500K worth of users want to use the volume button to take pictures, but Apple won't let us" now you have a story that might actually be worthy. Until then, no story.

I'm getting awfully annoyed at all these stories about how the App Store sucks, and the approval process sucks. Non-developers don't care about this. They buy the apps that are approved and follow Apple's guidelines. Apple doesn't care because its vetting process protects its users, and its brand. Only developers care. And if developers care, they shouldn't waste their time writing software for the platform. And they shouldn't use it either. Force Apple to change by voting against them. Until then, they'll only see it as good exposure, and find another app that users will tolerate.

[notahacker]

It's hardly "backstabbing" to allow an additional feature that users want that has no negative consequences for Apple whatsoever

[powrtoch]

I certainly thought it was a stretch to call it "backstabbing", but of course that's not Apple's choice of language. Really though, if you get rejected specifically for a certain feature, then secretly enable it anyway and try to slip it past the reviewers... obviously Apple cannot be expected to say that's okay. Even if you dislike the review process, surely you can't expect Apple's policy to be "it's okay to include functionality we've specifically rejected and hide it from us".

[thewileyone]

It doesn't make it right to shoot someone in your garden just because you put a sign that says you'll do so.