Apple is well known for giving their own apps permissions that no(or few) other apps can get - it's an unfair advantage and they keep getting slapped for it in courts but clearly not enough for them to stop doing it.
thats because App Store review is a.) random and b.) they play favorites so the same rules don't apply to everyone
we got rejected because of "Mac*" in the name. we pointed them to a dozen others that had it, where it seemingly was no problem. didn't help.
To be fair, it’s understandable for many reasons that they don’t want other companies to use “Mac” in the name of the software.
- Brand dilution
- Losing trademark if Mac becomes a generic word
- It’s also annoying actually with apps that name themselves that way. Just because I’m on a Mac doesn’t mean I need that a whole bunch of my apps start with “Mac” in their name. Likewise for apps that start their name with lowercase i on iOS, and apps that end their name with droid on Android.
Also, for the ones that were allowed anyway, were those already big outside of App Store by chance? Or have they been allowing even new apps that don’t have an existing user base into the App Store with names like that?
This is interesting considering that it was a common word before Apple started. Both the variety of apple called Macintosh and a Mac raincoat (named after Charles Macintosh).
Though it would be really funny if the Beatles were referring to a computer in Penny Lane:
"And the banker never wears a mac in the pouring rain. Very strange"
> Also, for the ones that were allowed anyway, were those already big outside of App Store by chance?
These two points contradict each other. If Apple were concerned about losing a trademark, they would have already sued popular apps that have "Mac" in the name.
Time for an alternative app store. It is needed across the world. Single point of failure and control is not good for any ecosystem. Too much dependence on one single entity if one wants to exists in that is really some sh*ty concept.
Break free and break good! EU has to help here...
There are too many apps with local data that can only be backed up via iCloud. For what’s essentially an archive upload to storage, Apple raises a lot of barriers.
Apple is pulling some shit that will probably be declared illegal the moment it hits the courts with installation fees when distributing apps outside of Apple's ecosystem, but AFAIK Epic is taking care of that for AltStore and Mobivention probably factors it into its corporate pricing structure.
There's a lack of apps on these stores, though.
https://mjtsai.com/blog/2024/03/17/ios-notarizations-human-r... https://mjtsai.com/blog/2024/06/14/utm-blocked-outside-app-s...
"have it evaluated based on the Notarization Review Guidelines (a subset of the App Review Guidelines)" https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/distribut...
And you need a few million dollars in the bank to be allowed to implement one (plus some other ridiculous requirements). The whole system still makes it impossible for a small team to develop and shift software without a huge middleman
Not really. Just allow users to install applications without a middleman. Like we've been doing since forever in pretty much any other platform.
The whole point of an app store is to limit and control what a user is allowed to run. Alternative app stores just shift the blame elsewhere
Is that specific non-par feature voluntary from Apple or might them just didn’t thought about it yet? If that’s voluntary, what’s the logic that make them think it’s better for their business to not allow that feature?
It's possible they will find reasons to reject your app indefinitely.
Or more likely, Apple reviewers aren't paid so well and have 3 minutes to review each submission so they just reject for the first reason that comes up.
b) Standards has been in place for over a decade: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines
The "Apple Critical Alerts" API is clearly intended as a replacement channel for cellular emergency alerts[0]. (If not a "replacement", then perhaps a "supplemental" option. Redundancy is good when we're talking about whether "911" works).
The "Apple Critical Alert" API policy, restricting who's allowed to call the API, is a good thing. You just do not get performant public notifications if you allow just anybody to broadcast. (Milli)seconds count, people.
I hate Singleton patterns as much as anybody. And I hate when business happens behind closed doors, with limited public access, and restricted opportunity for public comment.
But again, if we're talking about the choice between """ locking down this one special channel, because it's responsible for real-time public safety alerts """ vs. """ asking how many broadcasters can possibly share that channel, before contention and congestion result in human-perceptible delays to alert delivery. """ Then I would opt for the former.
--- [0] You know how your phone will buzz REAL loud if there's like, an Amber Alert or Tsunami or something? That's a feature of the cellular system. To my knowledge, emergency alerts and 911 calls go over a separate dedicated mini-channel, which has gone by various names through POTS/2G/3G/5G and beyond. A.K.A.s: - Public Warning System (PWS) - Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) - CMAS (Commercial Mobile Alert Service)
You mean I don’t get to have every phone in a store buzz, when we have a special on tinned prunes?
What is the feature for, if not that?
Overzealous marketing is why we can’t have nice things.
I don't see how it is "clearly intended" for this purpose, and nothing seems to be indicating that.
Apple's own applications use it for a lot of things that are not at all related to those large-scale alerts, and so do many other applications. Their critical alerts API is just about bypassing the silent mode when needed.
You say it yourself, there is another system for large-scale alerts, which is unrelated to Apple.
If you're at a power company an incident could mean a life saving medical machine goes offline.
And I've personally seen a P1 related to a power outage at an infectious diseases lab.
> Because Critical Alerts are disruptive, they are meant to be used for a very restricted number of purposes. This include medical- and health-related notifications, home- and security-related notifications, and public safety notifications.
Only the last use case matches what you describe. And as the article says, Apple's own Health app uses this feature, along with, apparently, simple TODO apps. Apple's health app makes sense, since Apple specifically calls out medical apps. Is a medicine reminder app a medical app? I would say so.
Apple's developer documentation states:
> Critical alerts ignore the mute switch and Do Not Disturb; the system plays a critical alert’s sound regardless of the device’s mute or Do Not Disturb settings. You can specify a custom sound and volume. > > Critical alerts require a special entitlement issued by Apple.
It does tend to be used for public safety notifications, but it's strictly opt-in. There are also several apps using it for smart home security alerts, health reminders, etc. already.
It's just metadata in the notification body indicating to the device to ignore silent mode etc.
It's e.g used by Pagerduty [0]. It's just a way to override notification settings.
The software for the systems you mention have this entitlement (or some equivalent), but are otherwise completely unrelated to this.
[0]: https://support.pagerduty.com/main/docs/mobile-app-settings#...
It was only because of legal disputes that they were ever split off.
And it is shocking that Apple the OS company has a favourable relationship with Apple the app company. Never happens in IT.
There are only five apps on my phone, out of over a hundred, that use critical alerts.
PulsePoint, if someone near me is having a heart attack
Messages, if one of my kids is in trouble
Health, if I am having a heart attack
Home, if my smoke alarm is going off
ActiveAlert, my fire department’s dispatch notification app, which will tell me where to drive the ambulance if someone is having a heart attack
If I’m in a darkened theater and someone nearby needs cpr, my house is on fire, or one of my kids is in trouble I want the phone to make a sound.
I want someone else’s phone to make a sound if they get those notifications, too.
If it’s time to take their atorvastatin I don’t give a shit their phone better stay shut the hell up.
If someone’s calendar app slipped through the cracks and got permission to issue critical alerts, THAT is the problem, not the fact that a pill reminder app can’t.
edit: though if I remember or see the initial reminder and log it, it obviously won't go off with sound. If it pings, I've basically always already forgotten.
Some of us are just like, really particular about schedules.
(The internet is full of weirdos, sorry).
Doesn't that depend a lot on the types of pills a person takes and their mental needs?
> If it’s time to take their atorvastatin I don’t give a shit their phone better stay shut the hell up.
I have it on good authority that some people's phones even make sounds when they get something as trivial as a phone call
> Apple’s own Health app uses Critical Alerts for its medication reminders, so I assumed my use case would qualify. I submitted a request for access to the API, but it was rejected.
I think what is being developed is a competitor to a space that Apple are in and want to be more involved in, and that is why you will not get permission to use the necessary API.
(anybody else do "Lock-in" drills in school where we all had to be SILENT?)
DecentShoes•9mo ago