Exactly, this article would of had more credibility if they quoted what apple said.
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.
FlickType Pulling iPhone Keyboard App After Continued Rejection Issues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For macOS apps, there are also specific fields where developers have to justify their use of entitlements like file read/write access. I'd guess Apple also has its own internal review notes attached to each app.
Although the APIs and review guidelines do change a lot, the review process is frustrating and this developer's experience sounds completely believable, I will say that most aspects of this have been gradually improved compared to when I started working with the App Store 12 years ago: faster review times, fewer surprise rejections, more flexibility with addressing issues, fewer failed uploads with incomprehensible error messages. In my experience, iOS changes that cause app bugs is the only area the developer mentioned that hasn't improved. For comparison, this almost never happens with my Android versions of the same apps.
The keyboard API's are buggy and they cripple/hamstring other keyboards. I can only imagine the horrors of adapting a keyboard for the blind on IOS. I just want a keyboard that lets me enlarge the keys, but it's not allowed!!!! Gboard on IOS is awful.... crippled by the API. Google voice dictation is 90% accurate and requires almost no editing, and its a way to sneak in the Google assistant on IOS but the whole experience sucks. Tried three other keyboards thinking Google's laziness was to blame, but it's all Apple.
If not for that facet of, "the resolved this rejection reason 3 years ago" because it was rejected in error for that, you might have a point.
Third party keyboards and browsers on IOS are basically lipstick on a pig for Apple's implementation.
Android has allowed third party keyboards since day 1 with much more openness and how often do you hear of keylogger exploits in them? You don't.
Never mind this is a keyboard for THE BLIND. Good luck keylogging that input method.
Sure...great idea. Let's all install third-party keyboard apps from untrusted sources and keep our fingers crossed that nothing bad happens.
If you don't like the walled garden, there's always android. Seriously. Nothing about this has changed in years - both users and developers know what they're getting into before starting. Other things have changed (as we saw last week for example), but on this, it's a known quantity.
It's like wanting your car to run on ethanol years after you bought it. Nope, sorry, get a new one.
If you don't like the walled garden, there's always android. Seriously. Nothing about this has changed in years - both users and developers know what they're getting into before starting. Other things have changed (as we saw last week for example), but on this, it's a known quantity.
It's like wanting your car to run on ethanol years after you bought it. Nope, sorry, get a new one.
Only for sign-ups on device. Spotify cares so much because they actually _do_ get substantial on-device new subscriptions, and there are also a substantial number of people who will choose to have the subscription brokered through Apple (since Apple makes cancelling a button tap, vs a series of support escalations for 1-2 hours)
This ^^^^. Any company that lets you sign up on the web, but then makes you call in to cancel deserves eternal damnation in the 8th ring of hell.
Or worse, federal legislation to ban the practice....
There aren't a lot of examples you hear of apple banning devs from the App Store for breaking the rules once, even as premeditated as Epic did. You typically see bans when developers do really scammy or harmful behavior.
If app review 100% worked there'd be no reason to ever ban a developer; they could just keep paying annually but never have any of their scammy apps make the store.
I am not surprised by this news. He was right about the fake apps taking his business and Apple failing to timely action. He is also not the first developer to say he was ignored when trying to make contact with Apple staff. The latter should not be happening with any developer, in my opinion.
Pro tip: switch your address to an address in California before you try to cancel. California has a law requiring an online button to cancel. Switching your address will magically allow you to cancel with the click of a button.
He’s one of the foremost people exposing the **** Apple does gladly allow into the App Store — scam apps and subscriptions, apps which replace the user experience entirely with “forbidden” content when accessed from certain countries, and more — so it frankly smells of retaliation to me.
Last edited:
This supports the idea that Apple isn't punishing critics by rejecting their Apps which is my point.
So, first, if the developers are able to write into it, then it is not a secure place for one reviewer to inform the others that "we decided that thing X isn't a valid reason for rejecting this app for rule Y, because of reason Z", because developers could mess with that information (like putting in fake notes for the next reviewer, say, "this app looks like a keylogger, but Apple has investigated and it's totally not a keylogger"). I'm talking about a secure place for one reviewer to leave useful notes for subsequent reviewers, citing decisions that were made about features that seem to run close to the edge of the rules.
And, second, if they have/had such a facility, then why are we seeing cases of apps getting approved for one version and then rejected for the next version, which, say, simply fixes a typo, when the rules haven't changed? Is it the second reviewer failing to read the note that the first reviewer left? Is it the first reviewer failing to record that thing X which looked like a reason to reject is actually not a problem?
If you have never been a developer, then you can never understand the frustration of repeating over and over that 1+1 = 2 to the app review "team". I know a developer that had to delete a paid version of their app with 1000s of users. Why? Because it was similar to their free version 🤣. It went on for weeks before the developer finally gave in. So all those paid customers lost the app that they paid for.
And if the scammer simply re-submits the app, perhaps with a different name, it's back in the store a day later.
Allowing other app stores would create competition, and somebody would make a store a thousand times better than what we have now. Apple would then either need to make their App Store as just as good or else developers will jump ship (and users will follow the developers). Wether Apple improves their store or not, we'd still have a better store.
The biggest problem with the App Store is their review team appears to spend almost no time at all reviewing each app, and according to Apple they reject about a third of them. The time they spend is not long enough - so legitimate apps are routinely rejected without any sensible reason and illegitimate apps are routinely approved.
When you've been working on a product for years, it's pretty **** for someone to accuse you of breaching a rule that you clearly and obviously haven't breached, while also noticing the app store is full of apps that do breach that rule and haven't been rejected.
Adding to insult to injury, many app developers are paying a third of their gross revenue (before expenses are taken out) to Apple. I've been working on my app 40 hours a week for 11 years. If Apple wants a third of the profit from all that work, is it really asking too much for Apple to spend more than 30 seconds on it?
Lets say you are right. That someone decides to invest in making a store that not only reviews every app, but checks the code for security, polices scam apps, and gets rid of copy cat apps instantly all for under 15% profit (yah right, where is this store on android). Don't you think, for every one of those, you won't have a thousand who gives a bleep stores that can undercut that store because they do absolutely nothing. People care about price. If a copy cat app that is a fraction of the price of your real app is available somewhere else, you end up out of business because these stores will be hosted in countries you will have no recourse.
At the end of the day, customers are paying by credit card which means they can request a chargeback from their bank if the app doesn't do what it advertised and the app store refuses to issue a full refund.
While a chargeback is usually a 15 minute phone call for the purchaser, the review process takes time (at least two months), which means the store may have already paid the developer with a non-reversable transaction. So the store has lost $2 out of their own pocket. Plus the bank will charge up to $100 as a chargeback processing fee (as an incentive to handle refunds with good customer service, instead of involving the bank).
In other words, it's really not an option for an app store to "not give a bleep". They have to be reasonably good - and since Apple's store exists, they really have to be better than the Apple one in some way otherwise they won't survive.
Sounds like just hate on Apple. They really don't care about these blind users, otherwise, they would just try to overturn the rejection. If their app doesn't work without full access then it doesn't deserve to be in the App Store.
Bonus internet points for referencing the correct circle/ring.
And this is why, as a customer, I prefer iOS over Android. I want the apps on my phone written by developers who are legitimately scared of Apple's wrath, not apps written by developers who feel unimpeded to do whatever the ffkk they want.
My phone isn't your plaything.
You are right. A store has to be better then Apple's to survive. Isn't having Software that Apple doesn't have at a fraction of the price considered "better" for the consumer?
Why would the customer want a refund? They got an app for a fraction of the price of the real one. The only one that looses is the developer who put in all the work to come up with the idea, create the software, create the assets, and pay to produce it only to have everything including the assets copied. The copy cat "developer" doesn't care if he charges $5 for your $100 App. The customer doesn't care about it either, they saved $95.
Most consumers don't have any knowledge about developers, apps, stores, copycats, etc. All they care about is getting a app that solves their problem. Being told that you can get the same app found at this store for 95% off will make that store very successful.
I've got ZERO sympathy for you Kosta Eleftheriou. You publicly attack Apple and are obviously in the "crack open iOS" camp, you sue Apple and now you throw a tanty because Apple ignore your calls to help with their review process.
Why don't you go and write a wallpaper app mate....
Why don't you go and write a wallpaper app mate....
The whole idea that you need approval by Apple to run apps ON YOUR OWN DEVICE is ludicrous. It has been ludicrous from the beginning. Steve knew it, but being the jerk he was, he tried to get away with it and he managed to--so far. Apple knows it. Everyone who looks at it rationally knows it. The faster people realize this, the better.
The app store monopoly needs to be broken. Now it looks like this may happen by law. I surely hope it does.
The app store monopoly needs to be broken. Now it looks like this may happen by law. I surely hope it does.