|
|
|
|
|
|
by ksec
2058 days ago
|
|
|
After the reversal, Developers are chanting "Awesome", "This is great", "Running to Twitter helped", etc etc. Not a single developer asked why and how did it happen in the first place. The original purpose of the App Store guidelines were to protect the users / customers. And it did!. It worked great. And Apple charge you 30% for Digital Goods. And nothing for physical goods. It was Fair. 30% for the likes of Gaming, Productivity Apps such as Office, Camera, Calendar, Photo Editing etc etc. That was fine. And true to its words, Steve's Apple had all the rationale in nearly all rejection cases. These days App Store policy is much more about rent seeking, their sole purpose is no longer serving its users and customer's best interest. But used in every opportunity to extract more revenues from these Apps and Services. Not to mention how many of these letters from Apple suggest Developers of Free ( as in beer ) Apps contributed nothing to the App Store and act as a "Free Rider" on Apple's platform. Compounded by Tim Cook's comment on App Store and being user first. Normally I give some benefits of doubt to CEO as they may not be on top of all the things happening in a company. But judging from the Apple vs IMG and Apple vs Qualcomm cases I think he knows exactly what he is doing. This whole things stinks and reeks of hypocrisy to me. |
|
|
A human reviewer applied the app store policies as best she understood them but in the end was mistaken and the decision was reversed.
Review systems like this are better when they optimize for false positives rather than false negatives because of the fence leaning problem. If you give publishers the the benefit of the doubt then the result is people cozying right up to the fence of allowable behavior or leaning juuuust over it but not enough to trigger a ban. However, if you throw down the banhammer on everyone near the fence regardless of what side they're on people will actually say clear of it.