nhughes
About
- Username
- nhughes
- Joined
- Visits
- 117
- Last Active
- Roles
- editor
- Points
- 1,914
- Badges
- 3
- Posts
- 770
Reactions
-
App Store review ridiculousness: Apple rejects AppleInsider's iPhone X app update because ...
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).kkqd1337 said:I don’t really understand why you charge a subscription for your app. Surely the more regular readers your have the better??
-
App Store review ridiculousness: Apple rejects AppleInsider's iPhone X app update because ...
randominternetperson said: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.
Why would we lie about this? What a weird reaction to have.StrangeDays said: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?
-
App Store review ridiculousness: Apple rejects AppleInsider's iPhone X app update because ...
I, for one, welcome our new App Store overlords.PabloTresUnoSeis said:You all should issue an apology and beg for forgiveness. Like down on your knees forgiveness.
-
App Store review ridiculousness: Apple rejects AppleInsider's iPhone X app update because ...
To be clear, I don’t think Apple is trying to control our editorial content. I think that an over-eager App Store reviewer (or maybe an automated process?) followed the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of it. But it isn’t the first time our app has been rejected for unexpected and confusing reasons. This latest example is just especially bizarre.lkrupp said:Well, if true, I would have to agree with AppleInsider on this one. If true, that is. I’m betting this will suddenly be resolved and the reason will not have been editorial content. The reason will turn out to be some low level idiot who threw the switch for some inane reason.
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. Other tech sites are banned from attending events because of their steadfast anti-Apple positions, Gizmodo being the biggest example. To this day Gizmodo is outrageously anti-Apple because of the iPhone 4 skulduggery.
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.
Anyway, I’m thinking AppleInsider’s rejection will soon be history. It would be stupid for Apple to ban an app over its editorial content.
Like you, I expect it will be resolved soon. But considering the fake “Cuphead” release on Monday, it’s obvious that Apple still has some improvements to the process that they need to make.
-
Apple buys original space drama TV series from 'Battlestar Galactica' creator
Well then, it's a good thing my story specifically says in the first paragraph that Ronald D. Moore created the remake of "Battlestar Galactica." As for Roy Moore, well, no comment.spliff monkey said:Roy Moore is not the original creator, that was Glen Larson in the 70's. If you like good endings you're going to hat Roy Moore. Other than that seems like a good acquisition for Apple's entertainment aspirations. I'll watch it.
