Item — HN Reader

Honestly, after looking through the "apps" they created and what little I could find about reviews for them, I am having a hard time not feeling that Apple was in the right here.

On the other hand, I certainly understand that having your business shut down with little or no notice and right of appeal lies with the "prosecution" can feel crummy.

4 comments

If you're going to say that, I think you need to explain why you feel like Apple was in the right. This sort of vagueness and ambiguity is extremely unfair to the accused, and this is notoriously what big tech does (and I think it's wrong).

What is it about the apps that you feel either does or should violate policy?

> What is it about the apps that you feel either does or should violate policy?

OK, using the article's words, let's count the ways:

Within 10 days, we updated each of the six applications: removed all rating requests, revised all payment screens in line with Apple's recommendations, added Intercom for swift user assistance, established a help center with articles on canceling trials, requesting refunds, and implemented subscription management directly within the applications.

6 apps * ~5 fixes = 30 problems ... they knew what they were doing

I'm just glad the state doesn't work as you suggest, lol.

"Dear citizen, we have detected wrongful behavior on your part. Stop doing the wrongful behavior. You should know what we mean. As long as the behavior continues, the state will appropriate 20% of your salary. Here is a list of behaviors that you might or might not have been engaging in: [link to the penal code]"

What makes you say that? The article is light on details about what the apps actually do, and why they might be violating.

Looking at "Fontly Color Fonts", and some of their other apps, they are mainly repackaging websites as an app. For example check out the actual website at - https://fontly.org/

I don't think that's necessarily a "bad" thing but I hardly find it reasonable to believe they are charging for the privilege.

That app does not seem like a wrapper around that website you linked at all. Can you give me a specific example? I may just not be seeing it. One is a blog and free font repository, kinda. One is a collage maker.

Then why is Apple keeping the money instead of refunding it?

Seems like an unfair comment. I've had their Boomerang app on my phone for a long time. Made some fun stuff with it in the past, haven't used it in a while, but there wasn't anything particularly wrong with it. Just another niche app.

I don’t think the Boomerang app is theirs. It doesn’t show up in the link of their Google Play apps.

If it is, that’s Instagram’s trademark.

Apple allows “for X” and “powered by X” type app names per official policy cited by App Store reviewers

There are other patterns they allow that I’m unfamiliar with. Perhaps “X Maker” is one of them because it appears there are many other developer accounts using this pattern from a quick search.

The point is that using another trademark isn’t itself a violation necessarily

Yes, but the app depicted doesn’t do that.

https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/introducing-b...

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/boomerang-video-maker/id145467...

The second link you provided isn't the boomerang app from instagram, it looks like the official one does not exist anymore.

There are a dozen Boomerang rip-off apps on the App Store.

Would be surprised if you're even using theirs.