Hacker News Reader

Comment by pxlpshr | Hacker News Reader

I'm in total agreement, we've been publishing to the store since 2008 when it first opened.

However, ironically enough a big app we've been working on was rejected last week due to this violation: "4.3 Apps that use location-based APIs for dispatch, fleet management, or emergency services will be rejected."

I've had absolutely no luck contacting anyone within Apple for more information. Last week we also field tested this app with major government emergency response services (ems, police, fire, etc.) within Texas with both success and enthusiasm that a product like ours is coming to market. It's unfortunate seeing that Mr. Jobs recently took a medical leave of absence. Not that he needs it, but an American studying abroad sure might.

View on HN

" major government emergency response services (ems, police, fire, etc.) "

I can just imagine what the liabilities for Apple would be on that one. Somehow I think they'll be quite content to avoid it by simply not allowing any emergency service apps in the App Store.

Why does Apple have to be liable for everything you put on your phone? Is Microsoft liable for the viruses and spyware that people install on their Windows PCs?

The liability argument is weak, though Apple may have made the case itself by its stringency with the App Store. Now one could say that there was a reasonable expectation nothing he/she could get from the App Store could cause a problem in his/her life because Apple publicly embarked on a vetting process before offering the app for sale.

God forbid anyone dial 9-11 and it not connect thanks to AT&T or bad antenna design.

That seems like a bad precedent that could harm some apps that create a lot of value. It also seems like if they are applying that rule it might be subjective -- I can think of three off the top of my head that are still in the app store:

- Taxi Magic (Taxi dispatch app)

- Uber (Black Car dispatch app)

- Fire Department (notifies neighbors abt CPR emergencies)

I don't know about Fire Department, but in regards to the other two, booking a taxi isn't the same as dispatching. Dispatching would be the taxi company telling sending a driver to a location.

Were you aware of that clause when you started working on your app?

I doubt he was since the 4.3 beta was just made available to developers a couple weeks ago.

edit: oops, my mistake. Thanks Xuzz.

That's section 4.3 of the guidelines, not iOS 4.3.

They just don't want to get sued. Simple as that.

See iTunes EULA:

>>> THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. <<<

This is a standard practice with all electronics manufacturers. I've been seeing it for decades at the end of component datasheets from Fairchild, National Semiconductors etc, even for things as trivial as discrete transistors, 555s and 741s. I think its primarily due to the possibility of contributory liability. And it also allows them to price discriminate and sell defense grade components at ~ 4-10x the price.

That's too simplistic a view and, I believe, simply incorrect.

The very existence of Malware has shown that the software business has been broken for years. The more non-technical people bought and used computers the worse it got. The cry of most developers has been that the users are stupid and lazy - "they should simply stop clicking it!"

You could argue that developers have been proven to be untrustworthy and unhelpful and deserve what they got.

The App Store exists because it was needed. It's phenomenal success shows that Apple were right and have gone a long way towards solving the real problems of selling safe software.

We developers need to just take the medicine and stop moaning. It was a long-time coming and it isn't going away.

By bitching we are still serving an injustice to our users. We may not need an App Store - but they do.

Perhaps this is a candidate for the Enterprise provisioning model, rather than the general-audience App Store?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com