[trebbble]

They've done this since the early days of the app store. Mostly-content apps without really broad appeal have long carried a high risk of rejection.

> Homescreen widgets: utterly useless, but can't get more iOS-y and less webapp-y than this, right?

This especially, but really the whole post reads like the system working as intended.

Granted (as the author notes) way too much shit gets through anyway, but that's not an excuse to do even worse. I do, as a user, wish they'd tighten up the rules a lot and improve enforcement. I'm quite sure it'd improve my experience on the store (and probably on the web—imagine how much better the Reddit site would get, probably overnight, if their app got pulled over not being well-justified).

[smoldesu]

I think Apple has every right to tighten up their first-party App Store, but they should also acknowledge the user's right to install what they want. Maybe some people do want a "too simple" app, and I don't think Apple has the right to tell the user what is-and-isn't appropriate. It's common sense. This would be a great time for them to add a Developer Mode a-la Android, and also start purging their own shopfronts. If Apple genuinely believes they can compete in a free market, they should have no problem restocking their store.

[SturgeonsLaw]

> Maybe some people do want a "too simple" app

In fact, aren't these preferable? I just want a weather app that shows me the current weather and a forecast, without any social bullshit, accounts, ads, etc.

Also, if iOS users have that "one app" they can't live without, surely it makes them stickier? Why would Apple want to limit the chances of hitting that spot with their users by curbing the number of apps available?

[worble]

Exactly this, one of the things that really struck me about apps on fdroid is just how simple they are.

They do one thing, and (usually) do it pretty well, probably because the developers probably don't have the time and resources to do anything more than that. But that's perfect for someone who just wants the thing on their phone to do what it says on the tin.

[Apocryphon]

I'm convinced that if iOS was opened up to third party app stores, a potentially popular store wouldn't be a Facebook/Google monopoly store that exists solely for user tracking, but rather something boutique and niche like F-Droid (except maybe without the FOSS focus). The current App Store is huge and unwieldy, its search and discovery UX dated. There's ample room for third party app stores that specialize in high-quality design, or high-functionality minimalism, or privacy and security. They might even have higher standards than the official App Store.

[Marsymars]

> The current App Store is huge and unwieldy, its search and discovery UX dated.

It’s worse than dated. The top results are ads. I’d pay a monthly subscription fee to return to the App Store search/UX from before it had ads.

[Apocryphon]

And those ads actually cancel out search results!

https://twitter.com/tgrapperon/status/1492460177001431042

[ccouzens]

Couldn't better search and discovery by achieved today by building a curated website that links to the Apple app store?

[LtWorf]

But with no ads, apple doesn't make money :'(

[winkeltripel]

> the user's right to install what they want

Apple has no interest in any right that won't make them richer

[tptacek]

There are other products people can buy if they want to install random apps. At this point, everybody knows what the iPhone ecosystem is about.

[smoldesu]

Well, the EU is starting to think the iPhone ecosystem is about anti competitive behavior and poor customer experience. The intentions of a multinational corporation are completely irrelevant when talking about the real-world impact on thousands of developers.

The deal is the same as it ever was: Apple can continue selling their extremely safe applications with their extremely secure payment system and state-of-the-art curation team; the only condition is that other shops get to play along too. There's zero downside to them going this route, I think it would allow them to further secure the iPhone by paring back the entitlements allowed for their store. Nobody would criticize them for this, but Apple's greed prevents them from conceding.

Just think about how you'd feel if your Mac could only use the App Store to install software. Personally, I wouldn't even be able to do anything on it if that were the case.

[Bud]

Screw the impact on developers. As a user, I'm more concerned about the impact on users.

The EU is dead wrong. EU commissioners have absolutely zero clue about what makes for good "customer experience". There's one party that has proven, for 15 years now, to have the most clue about that. It's Apple.

[politician]

That's a fine perspective to have, but many people feel that a government of elected representatives is a better place for determining and adjusting impacts on people.

[trebbble]

I find myself in the utterly bizarre position (to me, anyway) of defending a megacorp against government interference because government has failed to reign in the bad behavior of the entire rest of the software market. Granted the EU's headed the right direction, but they've still not gone far enough, and the US is way behind. I hope EU citizens get what they want, but am also hoping we don't see those effects bleed over into the US market—yet, with the legal protections we have in place right now.

My preference would be that spying and hoarding data about users simply be outlawed (plus a bunch of other things, some of which Apple does, unfortunately, allow) and those laws be well-enforced—and also the walled gardens opened up, by law if necessary, but I'd much rather not see the latter without the former happening first, since the current state of things in-fact lets me choose to have some protection against that bad behavior, without significant time investment on my part. If that private regulatory service breaks down for any reason, I'll simply be worse off, as things stand.

[Bud]

A "government of elected representatives" (which is not what ruled in this case, of course, that's not what the EU body in question is) actually is the worst possible way to determine what a good customer experience.

Which is why God invented corporations for this purpose. I'm all for democracy, and there's a place for that. This isn't it.

[Apocryphon]

How are users aware of the existence of "too-simple" random apps they're missing out on, if those apps were banned from the App Store?

[xg15]

I don't. Please tell me.

[winkeltripel]

anything running linux, windows 10, or a rootable android device.

[trebbble]

macOS, for that matter, despite over a decade of predictions that that'd be taken away.

[vorpalhex]

Well only if your app is codesigned and notarized..

[int_19h]

Every developer does, but I doubt that's the case for users. They like the App Store, true, but few of them are aware of what kinds of barriers Apple places to new apps there.

[Bud]

The user has no "right" to "install what they want". Words have meanings.

Apple absolutely has the right to control what apps are available on its store, and what apps are not. This isn't about what is "appropriate"; you just made that up.

This also has nothing to do with "common sense", or at least what you think is common sense.

[otikik]

> The user has no "right" to "install what they want". Words have meanings.

If I own a gadget, I own it. That means that I _have the right_ to do whatever I want with it, including jailbreaking it, disassembling it, or throwing it from a cliff.

Apple might not like it, and might take punitive action. Void the warranty, maybe even cancel your Apple account. But they can not send me to jail.

[Bud]

Relax. Nobody is talking about sending you to jail.

What's at issue is whether you have the right to force Apple to carry any apps you want, in their App Store. And you don't. It's really that simple.

[vorpalhex]

> whether you have the right to force Apple to carry any apps

We are explicitly talking the opposite - let me install apps even if Apple disapproves of them. No need for the Appstore. Just let my sideload my own software on my own device I paid for with cash.

[dane-pgp]

No, what's at issue is whether Apple has the right to gatekeep the relationship between people who have bought one of their phones and developers who write software which is capable of running on those phones.

The EU has decided that Apple doesn't have that right, just as companies don't have the right to enforce a contract which requires that the signer becomes their indentured servant. We don't accept slavery of meatspace humans, so it is only consistent that we don't allow companies to own our digital selves too.

[otikik]

Relax. My post didn't talk only about jail.

> you have the right to force Apple to carry any apps you want

You might be talking about that, but I get the impression that the rest of us are talking about something else. I have, for example, specifically mentioned jailbreaking.

[Bud]

Ah, jailbreaking. You mean that thing that you can now, and have always been able to do, without anyone interfering?

Having trouble seeing which tiny sliver of a point you have left.

[cvalka]

We're talking about sideloading, buddy.

[Aeolun]

I don’t see why you’d reject ‘mostly content’ apps as long as they have the content to justify keeping on your phone? If I want an app instead of a website that is my business.

I’m all for rejecting ‘low effort’ apps, but this app clearly isn’t low effort.

[ece]

Offline content as an app without extra permissions seems pretty justified. This is a curated Flipboard or subreddit with the ability to buy tickets, which maybe you could do on Flipboard/Reddit, but then Flipboard/Reddit would profit from the curation, not the person doing the curation who made an app.