Nobody wants to tell Apple what to sell in their store
We want Apple to stop trying to restrict what we do with OUR phones
They can do whatever they want in their own store -- just like with the Mac App Store
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nobody wants to tell Apple what to sell in their store
We want Apple to stop trying to restrict what we do with OUR phones
They can do whatever they want in their own store -- just like with the Mac App Store
Again, "approved" is the official term Apple itself uses. Apple decides what that particular action is called and they decided for that.
Apple is in control of the official terminology: if "approved" is a problem is on them to change it to something else, not on a developer to use a different term than the official one.
That's because there is no wrongdoing nor need for rewording on their part: they are using the term Apple uses.
Seriously, a developer is using the official term from Apple and it's somehow the developer's fault?
Although “approving” (or denying approval) are very fitting terms, in light of Apple’s app review process.
Nobody is stopping you from doing what you want with your phone. Apple is not obliged to help you. And if the product doesn’t meet your criteria there are products, hopefully, that do.
Just to clarify, Apple doesn’t charge consumers 30%—they charge developers, which are businesses not consumers.
Apple uses the term “approved” in direct communications with developers, because more clarification is not needed in that context. Apple DOES NOT use that term alone in marketing and social media because in the general context the term by itself means something else. This is exactly how false news is spread, when someone quotes without providing proper context, then shrugs off blame because “hey it was a quote”.
Apple is and has been actively hindering users from installing apps.
Even if you have a Mac with Xcode and load your own self-signed apps, they impose (very low) arbitrary limits on number of apps, expiration of certificates, etc.
Isn't that amazing?
What grounds do they have to put limitations on self signing apps for your OWN devices!?
One thing is clear: there are no security or privacy grounds to do so.
It’s about discouraging distribution and use of sideloadable apps - and maybe (to a lesser degree) maintaining their brand image (by limiting reports of something “having gone wrong”).
Either way, they’re not only not helping - they’re actively impeding users’ ability to install apps.
Again: …unless someone pays good “enterprise” money to them. That’s what overrides any concerns about security and privacy on Apple’s part.
Apple is not obligated to do whatever you want with your phone. People can do whatever they want with persistence and ingenuity.
That’s their policies though.
People in this thread are not specifying that Apple should let any content only in alternate app stores. Apple already doesn’t filter content in alternate app stores, as evidenced by this article, so why would they be complaining about something that already is? If they’re simply complaining that they don’t have access to alternate app stores, then why would they complain so generally and not specify that?
You can already do whatever you want with your iPhone. Just like with all your other belongings, no one is stopping you. What you are actually demanding is for Apple to bend to you by giving it capability that it doesn’t have nor was advertised to have. They have zero obligation to do this.
What crazy stuff?
Are you saying(or implying) that iOS is NOT Apple’s property?
First we settle this point then I’ll come to your silly analogy.
Nobody is stopping you from doing what you want with the device as it was sold to you. You can use it as is or hack it to your heart’s content so that it does something it wasn’t intended to do. But you can’t buy a product and then demand the seller retroactively change it to be something else. Apple could have sold you a device that allows no third party apps at all. Or Apple could have sold you a stapler. If you bought it, all you can expect it to do out of the box is what it was intended to do. But if you have the know-how to modify, go crazy.
And McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs to consumers. But that doesn't mean McDonalds has a monopoly on the hamburger market.
Then why aren't Samsung and Amazon and Epic and all the other App Stores doing better on Android? Why hasn’t someone come in and undercut them, stealing developers away? I'll tell you why - because the prices ARE competitive - and consumers prefer the two stores.
You just don’t like the choices Apple made, so support using the government to bully them into doing what you want over the desires of Apple and most of their customers so you don’t have to use Android. (How’s your new phone, by the way)?
Maybe not tomorrow, but they are perfectly capable of saying "my friend got this sweet porn app on his Android, and I can't get it, so next time I buy a new phone I'm getting an Android" - which is how the free market works. It’s my understanding you recently did the same. What’s not the free market: bureaucrats coming in and saying WE KNOW BETTER.
No one forces them to pay Apple unregulated rent. If they want access to Apple’s customers on Apple’s platforms, using Apple’s purchase APIs, then they can pay the reasonable fee Apple charges. If they don’t find that worth it, pull an Spotify.
Furthering your analogy one of the mall’s operators says “sell in our parking lot, we don’t care” and you’re still demanding that developers be allowed to set up shop in Apple’s mall because “they deserve access to the customers in the mall Apple built, for free”.
It is a valid reason, you just don't agree with it. And Apple doesn't NEED a valid reason - it's their platform and in jurisdictions that don't turn others' property into public utilities, that's all that matters.
15-30% is not through the roof. And again - sell a subscription on your website. It works for Spotify and Netflix. They just want more more more for free free free.
Good thing Apple doesn’t have a monopoly then, so your argument doesn’t apply.
I seem to remember the US government and courts were also pursuing Apple and others for anti-competive behaviour.
I don't care what x person wants to sell in their store. If store x doesn't sell the thing I want, I just go and buy it elsewhere. This is the sensible, normal thing to do. I'm not quitting drinking just because my local grocer is dry for some vague moral reasoning - I'm going to the corner store and buying my booze there.
What's the problem with the porn app? There are tons of existing apps you can find porn on that are in the official App Store. And don't parents have the ability to restrict which apps their kids can install? Let the parents worry about it.
So if the app violates the law, then those countries will force it to be removed from the third party store. If it is legal then there is no problem.
Why some people want a private for profit company to impose their own rules rather than letting democratically elected governments to enforce laws is beyond me.
Why some people want a private for profit company to impose their own rules rather than letting democratically elected governments to enforce laws is beyond me.
What I want is for everyone to have their due rights, which includes not being forced to compromise their principles. If I had my own private business and I was strongly against something that I believed was objectively wrong and/or destructive (fill in the blank, not necessarily porn), I would be extremely troubled if the government forced me to allow my company to facilitate spreading that very thing. Even if it didn’t actually facilitate spreading it in practice, officially supporting it would be forcing me to symbolically legitimize something that thing I’m fundamentally against. I wouldn’t want that for me and I wouldn’t want that for anyone else.
And even if it was just a business move, not an actual personal moral conviction (although there is no way for someone to prove this one way or the other), the government still isn’t justified to change someone’s business model without very good reason. And the whims of some customers is not a good reason. It’s not a customer’s right to force me to change my business, it’s only their right to use it or not.
I'm no fan of the EU (and I am a fan of the free market), but let's be fair here: Even a broken clock is right twice per day! I think this is one of those times. I think the EU's right to insist that, if you buy an iPhone, that iPhone is your property and not Apple's.
Even if you disagree with my take: That a fan of the free market could have it shows that this is not a simple case of "free market vs socialism".
This page from Apple's developer help section proves why AltStore's statement is incorrect and why Apple shold continue to push for AltStore to stop saying Apple approved the app when they did not.
https://developer.apple.com/help/ap...in-the-european-union/submit-for-notarization
Firstly that help page clearly indicates that notarization is a subset of the App review process. You can see via the Application Review Process that to get their app notarized they have to tick the notarized box and then save it. The developer then has to click 'Add For Review'. That click is extremely important because it proves that the app has not been approved, it proves it is now waiting for review.
There are 5 step in the App review guidelines (https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/)
1. Safety
2. Performance
3. Business
4. Design
5. Legal
Notarization is a subset of these guidelines. They are a specific set of checks that must be passed before the app can move onto the next step in the review process. Therefore passing those checks does not constitute approval, all it means it that the app passed a certain part of the app review process.
This subset of guidelines includes 5 checks https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#notarization-for-ios-apps
1. Accuracy
2. Functionality
3. Safety
4. Security
5. Privacy.
If an app passes these notarization checks it moves back into the app review process. Therefore with regards to the Hot Tub app, it passed notarization but failed the app review process.
The above developer links prove that Apple did not 'approve' the app, all that happened is that the app passed some of the app review checks. AltStore is in the wrong because you do not 'approve' part of a review process, you 'pass' part of the review process. Approval or 'approved' is when ALL the checks have passed. Hot Tub failed the app review therefore is was not 'approved', regardless of how AltStore try to word or spin it.
Last edited:
Maybe dont give your child a smartphone. Problem solved. People think everyone else is supposed to be a parent for their child. Parents need to di their own parenting. An iPhone is not a portable babysitter.
Don't people use Safari already, an Apple application? This statement is ridiculous.