[OT] A tale of App Store rejection
warren at warrensweb.us
Sun Jan 20 18:56:35 EST 2013
On 01/20/2013 04:10 PM, Robert Sneidar wrote:
> They are saying, "can you make more utilitarian and useful to the
> general market?" Why is that pissing so many people off in the name
> of freedom? I don't get it. It seems some, not you I think, have a
> bone to pick with apple, and this seems an easy target.
Whose argument are you dismissing as being probably disingenuous? It
might be that this is the bone and here it is being picked, no?
As far as "they are saying, "can you make.."" I wonder why it's so hard
for you to understand why that strikes some people as arrogant and
unacceptable. Not that I'm saying you have to agree and support this
position, but that you say you don't get it.
It's ironic that you chose the word "utilitarian" because that word
often describes a simple tool that serves its purpose without frills or
adornment. Precisely what might cause an app to be rejected as in this
case. As for the "general market" part of your comment, can't we ask,
does failing to serve a large group of people mean that something is not
acutely useful to some smaller group for which it is intended? I really
don't think either part of your statement is true regarding this
particular rationale for rejection. It seems to me that Apple is saying
"it just doesn't have enough bells and whistles to fit the image of
'kewl' that we want to maintain for our devices". Just that simple.
I don't feel Apple has any interest that justifiably trumps the interest
of consumers to determine for themselves what is useful and valuable or
the interests of developers who have an idea they believe is useful and
worth their time to develop and attach their name to. There are a lot of
people who still adhere to the adage that less is more. Certainly at
least a few of them use iDevices.
More information about the use-livecode