Call me very skeptical. What was the actual wording of the rejection? Without a direct quote, I'm let to believe that the "reason" is speculation rather than Apple's justification.
Seeing the actual wording of the rejection would be nice. As is it sounds like secondhand info -- that you're reporting on what your dev told you. But did you see the rejection personally? What did it say?
Why would we lie about this? What a weird reaction to have.
I don’t really understand why you charge a subscription for your app. Surely the more regular readers your have the better??
The subscription is optional for people who want to remove ads. Many readers said they would like an option to remove ads, so we provided it. The app remains free and ad-supported for those who don't want to pay. And the website remains free as well (mobile and desktop).
Call me very skeptical. What was the actual wording of the rejection? Without a direct quote, I'm let to believe that the "reason" is speculation rather than Apple's justification.
Seeing the actual wording of the rejection would be nice. As is it sounds like secondhand info -- that you're reporting on what your dev told you. But did you see the rejection personally? What did it say?
Why would we lie about this? What a weird reaction to have.
I'm sure you have to find it a little humorous to be on the other side of the "defend Apple at all cost against all enemies" fans. I'm sure someone will even question whether or not you changed your rejection notice. It was pretty obvious, to me at least, that you wouldn't make an easily proven/ disproved claim that wasn't true. It was also obvious the tone of your editorial was one of frustration and not accusation.
It’s no secret that Apple does discriminate against certain tech journalists because of past offenses. Leo La Porte is one example. Years ago he was caught on tape at an Apple event streaming the keynote on his iPad. Since then he has never received an invitation to any official Apple event.
On the other hand Andy Ihnatko seems to criticize Apple on a regular basis but he is still in Apple’s good graces, probably because he is a respected tech wordsmith.
And you don't see a difference between those two examples? In one case, you have an arrogant blowhard willfully defying the agreement he signed to not live stream the Apple event. In the other, you have a writer expressing an opinion.
Call me very skeptical. What was the actual wording of the rejection? Without a direct quote, I'm let to believe that the "reason" is speculation rather than Apple's justification.
Seeing the actual wording of the rejection would be nice. As is it sounds like secondhand info -- that you're reporting on what your dev told you. But did you see the rejection personally? What did it say?
Why would we lie about this? What a weird reaction to have.
I'm sure you have to find it a little humorous to be on the other side of the "defend Apple at all cost against all enemies" fans. I'm sure someone will even question whether or not you changed your rejection notice. It was pretty obvious, to me at least, that you wouldn't make an easily proven/ disproved claim that wasn't true. It was also obvious the tone of your editorial was one of frustration and not accusation.
We (along with every other website on the internet) have a bit of a troll problem, along with the current "teh media is FAKE NEWZ~!" paranoia climate. Intelligent discussion and even a healthy dose of skepticism are perfectly fine, but accusing me of fabricating or exaggerating the content of a very plainly stated rejection letter is bizarre. Why on earth would I ever do that? If anything, publishing this editorial only makes things more difficult for our developers (who expressed as much to me this morning).
Call me very skeptical. What was the actual wording of the rejection? Without a direct quote, I'm let to believe that the "reason" is speculation rather than Apple's justification.
Seeing the actual wording of the rejection would be nice. As is it sounds like secondhand info -- that you're reporting on what your dev told you. But did you see the rejection personally? What did it say?
Why would we lie about this? What a weird reaction to have.
I am somewhat confused.
What do they mean by “the app or its metadata contains information on jailbreaking”? Do you imbed the articles in the app?
Did the reviewer open open the app, click on an article and then reject it because the article was about jailbreaking?
If that’s the case then this reviewer must be rejecting every app that touches the internet.
Call me very skeptical. What was the actual wording of the rejection? Without a direct quote, I'm let to believe that the "reason" is speculation rather than Apple's justification.
Seeing the actual wording of the rejection would be nice. As is it sounds like secondhand info -- that you're reporting on what your dev told you. But did you see the rejection personally? What did it say?
Why would we lie about this? What a weird reaction to have.
Wow. So basically, either a person or an algorithm at Apple is automatically rejecting any apps that contain the word "jailbreak" regardless of context. Maybe this is Siri's part time job when she's not too busy screwing up voice transcriptions.
Call me very skeptical. What was the actual wording of the rejection? Without a direct quote, I'm let to believe that the "reason" is speculation rather than Apple's justification.
Seeing the actual wording of the rejection would be nice. As is it sounds like secondhand info -- that you're reporting on what your dev told you. But did you see the rejection personally? What did it say?
Why would we lie about this? What a weird reaction to have.
I am somewhat confused.
What do they mean by “the app or its metadata contains information on jailbreaking”? Do you imbed the articles in the app?
Did the reviewer open open the app, click on an article and then reject it because the article was about jailbreaking?
If that’s the case then this reviewer must be rejecting every app that touches the internet.
I can't say for sure, but I wonder if the rejection was part of an automated process, where it searches for certain banned key words. Regardless, we published a story about jailbreaking on Friday, and I learned about the rejection Monday evening, so, you can do the math. Or maybe not? Plenty of people in the comments accusing me of making this up.
Owning an app developing company I can only confirm that the App Store approval process is very developer unfriendly.
The other day one of my apps was rejected because we asked the user to give his e-mail address. While the e-mail address was essential for a functionality in the app to deliver better customer service, Apple did not want to understand it was necessary. It took 35 days before the app eventually got approved You don't have a direct contact (chat, email) to discuss sometimes futile rejections, you only have a single text field in the approval form to give comments, which is a ridiculous way of working in 2017. In this case the Android version of the app was ready and we had started my marketing campaign for the app. These 35 days have turned out to be very expensive, basically killing the business case for the iOS version of the app.
I had once a new version of an app rejected and the only change was some spelling mistakes in the French translation, demonstrating the lack of consistency and common sense in the process.
Apple is ignorant about the business impact for the developer of its approval process, and that is a shame
I don’t use your app, I always just go to the web site. Do you classify the AI app as a news app or an entertainment app?
You guys may have to decide if you’re going to be a source of journalism or a source of advocacy.
If you’re journalists, you should be able to cover the subject of jailbreaking without giving advice on HOW to jailbreak.
Also, the headline reads as petulant and childish. Surely it could be rewritten to be a bit more analytical and less emotional.
This article is clearly labeled as an editorial. We are a news website, and the app is listed in the news category. We didn't tell anyone how to jailbreak, either.
Perhaps Apple Insider should stop glorifying jailbreaking. Apple has a right to protect their ecosystem, and if Apple Insider is going to work against that, then the app store rejection is well deserved.
Perhaps Apple Insider should stop glorifying jailbreaking. Apple has a right to protect their ecosystem, and if Apple Insider is going to work against that, then the app store rejection is well deserved.
Call me very skeptical. What was the actual wording of the rejection? Without a direct quote, I'm let to believe that the "reason" is speculation rather than Apple's justification.
Seeing the actual wording of the rejection would be nice. As is it sounds like secondhand info -- that you're reporting on what your dev told you. But did you see the rejection personally? What did it say?
Why would we lie about this? What a weird reaction to have.
I am somewhat confused.
What do they mean by “the app or its metadata contains information on jailbreaking”? Do you imbed the articles in the app?
Did the reviewer open open the app, click on an article and then reject it because the article was about jailbreaking?
If that’s the case then this reviewer must be rejecting every app that touches the internet.
I can't say for sure, but I wonder if the rejection was part of an automated process, where it searches for certain banned key words. Regardless, we published a story about jailbreaking on Friday, and I learned about the rejection Monday evening, so, you can do the math. Or maybe not? Plenty of people in the comments accusing me of making this up.
I am 100% positive you’re not making this up. I’m just trying to understand what happened. The message seems to indicate that Apple may well have a point, but I’d need more information, because they also might not.
In one case, I’d be curious to know why your app or its metadata would need to contain the hard-coded string “jail-breaking”; in the other case I’d like to know if Apple is reviewing apps or the opinions of developers.
Call me very skeptical. What was the actual wording of the rejection? Without a direct quote, I'm let to believe that the "reason" is speculation rather than Apple's justification.
Seeing the actual wording of the rejection would be nice. As is it sounds like secondhand info -- that you're reporting on what your dev told you. But did you see the rejection personally? What did it say?
Why would we lie about this? What a weird reaction to have.
Agreed, it's a terrible reaction to demand "PROOF!" as tho you can't be trusted. There's that small handful of AI members...
As for the rejection I tend to side with a couple of others here that it will get sorted at a higher level, but it's still a time and cost to you that shouldn't be necessary. But keep up the good work here reporting Apple rumor and news no matter what the App Store decision is.
Comments
I hope you manage to get it through in the end.
And you don't see a difference between those two examples? In one case, you have an arrogant blowhard willfully defying the agreement he signed to not live stream the Apple event. In the other, you have a writer expressing an opinion.
What do they mean by “the app or its metadata contains information on jailbreaking”? Do you imbed the articles in the app?
Did the reviewer open open the app, click on an article and then reject it because the article was about jailbreaking?
If that’s the case then this reviewer must be rejecting every app that touches the internet.
The other day one of my apps was rejected because we asked the user to give his e-mail address. While the e-mail address was essential for a functionality in the app to deliver better customer service, Apple did not want to understand it was necessary. It took 35 days before the app eventually got approved You don't have a direct contact (chat, email) to discuss sometimes futile rejections, you only have a single text field in the approval form to give comments, which is a ridiculous way of working in 2017. In this case the Android version of the app was ready and we had started my marketing campaign for the app. These 35 days have turned out to be very expensive, basically killing the business case for the iOS version of the app.
I had once a new version of an app rejected and the only change was some spelling mistakes in the French translation, demonstrating the lack of consistency and common sense in the process.
Apple is ignorant about the business impact for the developer of its approval process, and that is a shame
You guys may have to decide if you’re going to be a source of journalism or a source of advocacy.
If you’re journalists, you should be able to cover the subject of jailbreaking without giving advice on HOW to jailbreak.
Also, the headline reads as petulant and childish. Surely it could be rewritten to be a bit more analytical and less emotional.
In one case, I’d be curious to know why your app or its metadata would need to contain the hard-coded string “jail-breaking”; in the other case I’d like to know if Apple is reviewing apps or the opinions of developers.
As for the rejection I tend to side with a couple of others here that it will get sorted at a higher level, but it's still a time and cost to you that shouldn't be necessary. But keep up the good work here reporting Apple rumor and news no matter what the App Store decision is.