[skissane]

What’s needed is for regulators to step in. Create an independent government-run tribunal to which app store review decisions can be appealed by the developers, and legally mandate Apple/Google/etc to obey its rulings. Maybe the EU will do it.

If the EU mandated it other jurisdictions would likely follow. Even if they didn’t, you’d likely just be able to incorporate an EU subsidiary, then resubmit the app in the subsidiary’s name, and then lodge the appeal in its name if the submission still gets rejected.

[pjlegato]

Allowing government bureaucrats to oversee the app store review process seems like quite possibly the only single thing that could make it even slower, more frustrating, and more arbitrary than it is now.

[skissane]

> Allowing government bureaucrats to oversee the app store review process seems like quite possibly the only single thing that could make it even slower,

How could it possibly make the review process slower? Such a tribunal would have zero role to play in reviewing the app. It only steps in if the developer wishes to appeal a review rejection. At which point it is reviewing, not the app itself, but rather the reasonableness of the review process which lead to the rejection of that particular app.

Also, I wouldn’t suggest government bureaucrats as appointees. My uncle, who is a lawyer, used to sit on one of these government tribunals in Australia (not reviewing app store rejections, reviewing rejections of applications for refugee status). He was not a bureaucrat and nor were any of the other appointees. The government advertised for lawyers in private practice to apply for appointment to the tribunal, and he applied, and he was appointed. His background was in criminal defence not government bureaucracy. And it was a part-time role, so he was still carrying on his private criminal defence practice while he sat on it. It is considered a quasi-judicial role (not technically a judge and not having the same prestige or qualifications or privileges as a judge, but performing some of the same functions)

[tshaddox]

A government tribunal is probably one of the very few ways to make the experience worse than it already is.

[dghlsakjg]

I live in Canada where there are Ombudspeople and tribunals for many dispute resolution processes. Getting them involved usually lights a fire under a company's ass in my experience.

it is far preferable to hashing everything out in court (or not, if you aren't swimming in cash).

I wish the lawmakers would just step in and regulate gatekeeping on devices, rather than reviewing every dispute. I would be perfectly happy with the same model they use on my macbook for unapproved binaries. If I download a non-approved app, just let me know that it is donwloaded from the internet/not approved safe by Apple, and let me run it if I so choose.

[throwaway2037]

Australia also has a consumer protection bureau. It does exactly the same when you complain -- lights a fire under the ass of the maker. There are so many posts from Ozzies here about being "saved" by that bureau from a bad product.

[skissane]

> Australia also has a consumer protection bureau

Australia does have relatively strong consumer protection laws. There is both a federal agency that does consumer protection and competition law (the ACCC, roughly equivalent to the US FTC) and also each state has an agency (my state’s is called Fair Trading NSW)

> There are so many posts from Ozzies

Random aside, I’d never thought about it before but it’s true - as someone pointed out on the Assange post, we Australians generally don’t call ourselves “Ozzies”, nowadays the standard spelling is “Aussies”

[throwaway2037]

Hat tip about "Ozzies". I'll make a note!

[curiousdeadcat]

HN. Very free market. Except Apple. The cognitive dissonance, and entitlement is crazy.

Even funnier after years of "Apple knows best". God forbid anyone buy an Android phone. No, apparently folks would rather force their abuser to be slightly nicer and then stay in that toxic relationship.