Screens Rejected From the App Store

Perhaps I'm missing something, but while technically a "rejection" really the reviewer is asking for clarification on some questions relating to sharing of collected data, which might not actually be 100% clear. Would it be too difficult to just provide that info in a quick response and move on?

@Gabriel It seems like the questions were already answered in the linked privacy policy, and is there not already a form to fill in all the privacy information that Apple wants? Now you also have to do an interactive Q&A with a random app reviewer to confirm that you actually meant what you submitted?

It seems more and more likely that the people apple employ or sub-contract to do App Store reviews have found it beneficial to their metrics to be seen to have blocked an app under review and ask for clarification of something - no-matter how asinine. And letting through scammy apps doesn't seem to have implications. That Apple don't seem to care about this is really disappointing.

But they are doing very well, financially, without having to care that much and the App Store is generally more safe than the Android alternative so Apple management clearly thinks their way of doing things is good enough.

Not accepting 'good enough' used to be what Apple was about. Is it not possible at their current scale \_(ツ)_/

Maybe we need a new phrase? 'If it ain't broke, why fix it? And even if it is, look at the profits.'

@Michael Tsai I get that, but yeah reviewers tend to be lazy in my experience, not necessarily malicious. As I pointed out, this isn't a rejection for the fact screens is asking for users to opt in, but because the reviewer wasn't sure about the data collection and wanted clarification. (yes he could have found out that info by himself with a tiny bit of digging).

So we're upset when scam apps get on the store… but also upset when someone at the store does more than typical due-diligence.

I mean... Screens is a remote-access screen-sharing app, right? Literally an app for looking at what's on our desktops.

As a user, I'd want to be as sure as possible that they're accurate as possible about their privacy practices.

If any class of apps needed extra scrutiny, it'd be this one.

We want the benefits of regulation without the inconveniences of regulation.

@Someone else It’s faux scrutiny. How does asking a yes/no question about what happens to crash report data, and accepting the developer’s answer at face value, have anything to do with ensuring that the screen sharing app isn’t selling access to the contents of your desktop?

@Someone else

The issue is the App Store retardedly has no concept of reputation. Reputation is the backbone of threat detection and trust.

Devs with a long-time track record of being reputable get no good faith consideration. It takes 10 seconds to look at this situation and realize this is not a heel-turn nor a Facebook-tier covert exfiltration of data. But Apple's retarded interns have a daily rejection quota so this will do.

So much for the "we'll allow this update, but make sure you've updated X by the next release" exception that's supposed to be in place.

This type of BS is made more egregious by scammers so easily getting through. If reputation was considered, newer devs and releases would be scrutinized much more heavily until they've proven themselves.

@Michael Tsai,

Dunno — but an app maker giving an actual written response is one level of scrutiny higher than checking a box — whereas a scammer might not answer it at all.

@Hammer,

See above.

Apps get sold all the time to unscrupulous folks. Code libraries/modules that the computer world builds on has the same issue.

Anyway, back to my thesis:
We collectively apparently hate inconvenience — whether that’s being scammed by an app on the app store or being asked if we’re scammers when we try to put something on the app store.