[durbin]

I would like to counter this advice by saying that I don't think acquiescing to the whims of walled garden rulers is the best solution. If your vision was to create what you have already created, how could you modify it to a product that you think is worse for your users because its what Apple wants? It pains me just reading suggestions about implementing these tacked on functions.

[raving-richard]

If you want control over your own vision, you don't build for Apple iThings. You build for open platforms. Walled gardens are not for people with a vision that conflicts with the walled garden owner's.

Apple? Fuck them. Their "Eden" is a place without knowledge of sex, without knowledge of freedom, etc. And if you eat the forbidden fruit (jailbreak your device), then beware the consequences.

[johnsea]

Apple? Fuck them.

Fully agree. The Apple app store 'universum' became too large in order to allow Apple to continue censoring it. Government need to (somehow) enforce alternative app stores.

Until this happens, boycott Apple (or bear the consequence of your conduct which only supports Apple).

On the other hand, it's not bad that Apple cares deeply about the apps they carry. If there was an alternative store, I'd buy an iPhone at once. (Well, would have, not sure if I'd be able to part again from my Jolla now).

[gareim]

I don't think the answer to everything we are annoyed at should be more government regulation, especially in this case.

If the cons of deving for Apple's app store outweigh the pros, then people will stop submitting to the app store. Simple as that. If people want apps that they can't get on iOS more than they want iOS, they'll move to a different platform.

But I don't think we should be all "Oh, Apple didn't allow an app I want. GOVERNMENT, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THIS APP SO REGULATE THIS". Just get a different phone.

[johnsea]

If it's a few huge multinationals vs. individuals it's not so easy 'to just get another phone'.

Isn't society/government here to provide general regulations? Ok, some are stupid but (at least in Europe) many are reasonably good. And e.g. protect a consumer where you also could have said 'his problem, he made a mistake'. Or regulations about people's health where you could e.g. say, oh, why does he/she eat that many burgers?

Why should a government not take care that app/content can flow down to consumers freely?

[danabramov]

Sometimes I wonder if future historians will think we literally believed the religious imagery we used in technological flamewars.

[TuringTest]

Future historian: the answer is no, we don't. (Just in case).

[leviathan]

You don't necessarily need to cater to their whims. I know it's just one example but I had a long back and forth with them over the course of 2 months, over an app that they claimed offered not enough features. Many emails, phone calls, and replies later, I still wasn't gonna bloat the app just to get it through. I appealed to the review board as a last step. It took them 2 weeks to review my appeal and they finally let the app in as is.

My point is that the reviewers are human and don't necessarily have the best judgement. If you think you have a strong case, you should appeal to the board. They do give it a fair trial.

[Meekro]

That's painful, but those users will be even worse off if they can't use the app at all. If the creator's goal is to serve his users, and not his pride, then he'll have to swallow it and play by the rules.

[soperj]

Simple answer is to not service apple until you've built a following on Android. They'll accept an app that is coveted.

[tyomero]

Fuck stupid rules!