[cageface]

Devs should not have to mount social media campaigns to get bad app store decisions reversed.

I'd like to see some regulation of all app stores that requires a formal appeals process for decisions to ban existing apps that also mandates that the app stays in the store until the appeal is resolved.

[oauea]

Even worse, the developer has to pay for the privilege of releasing software on Apple's store. So they're paying to be treated this poorly.

[amyjess]

What I want to see is Apple broken up.

Split them into a hardware company, an OS company, an app store company, and an applications company, and permanently forbid those companies from collaborating or moving into new markets.

[fastball]

???

Well then I'm glad you're not in charge.

The best thing about my Mac is how well integrated the OS is with the hardware.

And from there how well the applications, which are well-integrated with the hardware, work alongside the corresponding applications on my iPhone.

[parasubvert]

Not only is this completely ludicrous (the latter part of they can’t work together), I don’t think most Apple customers would want this, only its competition.

Making it illegal to be successful and give customers what they want sure seems to to be a winning economy policy?

[mmglr]

What a laughable opinion. Who would break up Apple? The U.S. gov't? Assume they do, what is to stop Apple from moving operations overseas to evade the breakup. That would be a huge loss to the engineering talent in Cupertino.

Also I have noticed this narrative increasing online. A size-able company/mega corp does something the public assumes is done with malice and the ONLY solution is to "break up" the company. I think this narrative is misguided.

[fakedang]

Is there any chance of this happening? Heck, even Facebook and Google are taking too long to be broken up. I'm expecting a minor antitrust fine in the order of 10s of millions.

[parasubvert]

Google has a slight possibility. Facebook larger.

Apple is not a monopoly and has not been anticompetitive by any historic or contemporary legal definition. So no, it won’t get broken up any time soon.

You might see markers get regulated (eg. Mobile app stores) but that’s not antitrust, that’s legislation.

[jmull]

Well, it's ambiguous whether the social media action was needed or helpful.

It sounds like this was resolved through the appeals process and may have had the same outcome regardless.

Unlike some other controversial cases, this one did seem like a basic misunderstanding on Apple's part (specifically the reviewer/reviewers), and not a tricky judgement call.

The social media probably didn't hurt though, because the OP was professional and persuasive.

[swiley]

And if you don't care about the dev: what do the users do when the dev doesn't mount a social media campaign? Tough luck?

What an awful platform.

[themodelplumber]

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't feel these are mutually exclusive methods. The techniques used by the developer in this case could easily be genericized and shared out as a useful framework for those who end up in this position. That's a big deal, even if it is a short-term benefit while longer-term solutions are designed and implemented.

[zepto]

There is no evidence that social media was involved in this decision.

Also, Government regulation of app stores would be fatal for software freedom.

If you want to guarantee that the Apple App Store is never assailed by a competitor, your suggestion is a good one.

[cageface]

What would constitute evidence in this case? Apple is not going to admit they were swayed by bad PR here.

The pedantry of HN really is tiresome sometimes.

[JimDabell]

It’s not pedantry.

My typical experience of stupid Apple rejections is this:

1. Stupid rejection.

2. File appeal.

3. The appeal result is to approve the application

In this case, it went like this:

1. Stupid rejection.

2. File appeal.

3. Don’t wait for the appeal result.

4. Run to the press.

5. The appeal result is to approve the application.

There’s no indication 3 & 4 were necessary here. This seems like a trigger-happy reviewer whose decision was always going to be reversed.

[cageface]

The fact is we don’t and can’t know if bad press factored into Apple’s decision here so there won’t be any “evidence” unless Apple provides it, which they won’t.

Apple has relented on similar cases after getting a lot of bad press so it’s a reasonable hypothesis that they do care about looking bad in public.

[zepto]

What cases involve a name change like this?

The only recent relenting involving the press that I am aware of is ‘Hey!’, which required Basecamp to implement a feature to conform to Apple’s rules.

[oauea]

It's interesting you gathered that much experience in 6 months. Before that, appeals were simply not an option.

Do you not think it's strange you had to go through this process multiple times in 6 months?

[JimDabell]

This is not correct. You could raise objections through iTunes Connect for many years, and also respond to many rejections directly. I think the first time I did this was 2010. What happened six months ago was an improvement to these channels and an expansion to allow people to challenge guidelines directly.

[zepto]

A report of some kind could easily indicate more about what happened even if they don’t ‘admit’ anything.

Without that, you’re just making up an assumption based on nothing.

[cageface]

Report written and published by whom?

[zepto]

Even a report of a statement from Apple would give us some indication.

Or a report from the developer detailing their interactions might tell us.

There isn’t guaranteed to be evidence, but there obviously could be.

The absence of evidence is clearly not justification for your interpretation.

At best you can say media pressure may have been an influence.

Asserting that it is the cause, is simply faulty logic.