I've been having some odd conversations on Twitter around a story that @DHH tweeted and frankly they're so obnoxious that I had to take the time to write something longer-form.
Here is the story. Long story short:
Here is the story. Long story short:
- App author writes a client to play Go games via OGS.
- App author gets a rejection from Apple because his client doesn't offer "Sign in with Apple".
- Author appeals to Apple because author doesn't control the login form on OGS, and he's simply a third-party client.
During appeal, the author notes to Apple that by section 4.8 of their own App Store Review guidelines he doesn't need to offer "Sign in with Apple" because his application fits the 4th bullet point under "Sign in with Apple is not required if:"
- Author is rejected again for the same reason.
Section 4.8 of the App Store Review guidelines covers "Sign in with Apple" and specifically states that you don't need to provide support for "Sign in with Apple" if:
Your app is a client for a specific third-party service and users are required to sign in to their mail, social media, or other third-party account directly to access their content.
This is exactly the category of the author's application. The author says:
Since my app is a client for OGS
The author does not run or maintain OGS, his app is only a client for playing Go games via OGS. This is the same situation of any Twitter client like Tweetbot from Tapbots. Tweetbot is a third-party client of Twitter and Twitter is completely under control of the authentication system.
Here is Apple's tone-deaf first response from the initial submission:
The tone-deaf response to his appeal was:
It is quite apparent that nobody at Apple took the time to read what he wrote nor look at the application. If they had they would realize this app is a third-party client of OGS like Tweetbot is to Twitter.
They are suggesting that he add code to OGS which is ridiculous. What's worse is that they parrot back Section 4.8!
The story is bad enough up to this point but once DHH tweeted the link to the author's story out came the Apple lovers on Twitter to defend Apple's honor.
Here are some examples of the people I have been interacting with:
@dscape obviously didn't read the article and neither did the people who liked his tweet.
Here @MichalLangmajer and @simped both are defending Apple and both clearly didn't read the article. @simped's response is absolute Apple Defender gold too:
Just because he doesn't own the login process, they should change the rules for him?
Really? This suggests that Tapbots would have to change Twitter's login process. This is a ridiculous stance. But @simped didn't bother to read the article as he thought it was about the Go programming language.
For a wonderful look into some pure Stockholm Syndrome, with a touch of victim blaming, look at this line of thinking:
Read that line of responses and stew on it a bit. It truly is breathtaking. I actually laughed out loud when he said:
It's funny how everybody with a different opinion in this discussion "didn't read the article". Is it your only argument here?
I honestly don't understand where these people are coming from and I'm a huge Apple fan. This is not the first time they've made a mistake like this and it won't be the last. I also know it won't be the last time The Defenders ride out to defend the Billion Dollar Company from Small Developer.
This story is also yet another indication that people are forgetting how to read with comprehension. Twitter is literally killing our brains. Let's not take the five minutes required to read the article nor another five minutes to let it digest a bit. Let's just fire off a response because, well, Apple's honor is being questioned.