Comment by Pigalowda
4 years ago
I think it makes sense if the goal is to never approve such an app. A rejection and subsequent tinkering might allow a derivative to make it through. Perhaps they believe in leaving such projects in purgatory and the developer unable to troubleshoot.
Except that other apps with very similar functionality / level of obviousness while in use are still available. Without Apple providing information on what this app does that violates their rules which the other apps do not violate, there’s no way to know that equal enforcement is being applied. I don’t think the author would have posted if all such apps were removed.
This is a bit like arguing that one shouldn't be punished for a traffic violation because not every other potential offender got caught.
Sure, if you limit “traffic violations” to “driving without a license,” and every car made you present a valid license before it would start.
EDIT: The difference being, Apple says YES / NO to every app, and every app always goes through the process, unlike policing traffic violations. If Apple is not being inconsistent, they need to say why.
2 replies →
That's not a fair strategy. Say if this developer has published several reasonable apps before this, that strategy would forever cut them off from updating those as well.
I’m not trying to be abrasive here but I do believe it’s fair collateral damage if your hypothetical scenario is true. If he lost update access to his other assets by trying to push this risk onto the app store, I’m ok with it.
The app he made in our example is privacy degrading with control and abuse likely being its best feature. He took his shot.