[LeoPanthera]

Apple gets a lot of flack for making iOS a closed system and I genuinely believe that the decisions they make are what they believe are in the public good.

...except for App Store reviews, which are frequently irrational, contradictory, and kafkaesque. (Automatically denied because the app shared the name with a version disallowed under the previous policy? Then denied because they had tried too many times? This is all absurd.)

Apple seriously needs to do a complete reset and reevaluation of how the App Store review system works, because the unfairness and absurdity of it all is tarnishing the reputation of everything else they do.

[cebert]

> I genuinely believe that the decisions they make are what they believe are in the public good.

Yes, because users would much rather make purchases outside apps like Kindle because of Apple’s revenue cut. Apple is such a great company that it’s inconceivable they’d ever to protect their own interests and stifle competition.

[caseyy]

> I genuinely believe that the decisions they make are what they believe are in the public good

Time and time again leaked emails show the decisions they make are what they believe are in the interest of money. They have some "do good" ideas, but they don't represent the interests of any public body of people, nor is it their main interest.

If they did, their products would be designed around repairability, for one. And the way they steer general computing into whatever restrictions make them more money (when they could just make general computers like they used to) is definitely not in the interests of the public.

All in all, I don't have a problem with Apple. It's a company, it serves its own investors' needs. It functions very well in the capitalistic system — very successful. But the idea that they, all in all, make decisions for the best of the public is contrived and reaching.

[lxgr]

Often enough, Apple's and consumers' selfish interests overlap. That's ok, they're not a nonprofit organization, and this type of win-win is a great example of capitalism working out well!

But I'd never mistake that for altruism or "taking decisions in the public good". They're a for-profit corporation, and these sometimes have the unfortunate habit of turning to rent seeking to keep supporting the profits expected of them even in the face of changing market realities. That's why we have regulators.

[kelnos]

> I genuinely believe that the decisions they make are what they believe are in the public good.

The decisions they make are in service to their revenue and market share numbers. If marketing their decisions as "for the public good" helps those, then that's what they do.

That's not always a bad thing! Sometimes the interests of a capitalist corporation actually aligns with the interests of its customers. The problem is that the link isn't always there, and things can change for the worse for arbitrary reasons.

[reaperman]

Nit: flak

[LeoPanthera]

Flack is a common alternative spelling.

[ClumsyPilot]

> Then denied because they had tried too many times? This is all absurd

The purpose of the system is what it does

[threeseed]

> frequently

You can't make statements like this without looking at it statistically.

There are tens of millions of updates a year and we only see the most egregious rejections make its way into the public sphere.

[Larrikin]

Because you risk getting punished for the arbitrary back and forth crap that might not get you banned completely if you hear give in to seemingly random whims and how much the reviewer feels like looking through your app that day. As an Android developer that works with iOS devs it's frustrating that the problems that crop up on their side are becoming more common in Play store reviews now too