I wouldn't expect Apple to understand compliance for every possible use case. Apple doesn't have to bend their rules to comply with apps that want to comply with local/state/provincial/federal laws, they can just say "We don't support x feature, and therefore you can't distribute through our store."

> I wouldn't expect Apple to understand compliance for every possible use case.

Wait, you're actually saying that the richest business entity on the world can't be expected to employ people that use their brain and do a bit of fact checking on outlying cases?

No I'm not saying that. Let's take an example. Let's say a local government wants to deploy iPhones to all their staff but as part of their local laws, all communication on government owned equipment can be monitored. So a developer writes up an app to record all typing on the iPhone (this is a hypothetical). They submit to Apple and Apple rejects this because it's against their policies (apps are sandboxed and wouldn't really be able to do this, but you get the point). Apple shouldn't be forced to comply with this local requirement, nor could they since every single government or private business would have different pieces of compliance. It would be impossible for them to develop an operating system that would allow for all these corner cases.

Were there any articles describing how they actually work? I wouldn't be surprised at all if they simply employed a number of clerk-level people following a set of rules for the app verification. Otherwise it would take a lot of very experienced QA engineers.

Silly decisions like banning dictionaries for including swear words only seem to confirm it. The rules matter, not the judgement.

| "We don't support x feature, and therefore you can't distribute through our store."

Of course, for iOS, this also means "you can't write apps for our platform."

This isn't accurate. You can certainly write iOS apps and distribute using the Enterprise distribution mechanism for a number of use cases.

But that will mean that they can't be too upset when industries that require whatever compliance they won't allow into software moves to another ecosystem. It seems arbitrary to me to ask devs to remove functionality (except for in-app purchases that evade iOS or similar), but it's hard to judge without details.

> But that will mean that they can't be too upset when industries that require whatever compliance they won't allow into software moves to another ecosystem

That is quite right, and they don't get upset at all. Apple don't pretend to compete in every market for every niche and have no interest in doing so. If the Apple way doesn't suit you, they'll quite happily wave you goodbye as you move to Android or elsewhere.

I often see people get upset because Apple doesn't address their particular use case or preference, but the fact is Android, Windows and Linux exist and are fine options for many people. The only case where this is really an issue IMHO is when someone buys in the Apple but didn't realize the limitations they would be under or when the limitations change to become more restrictive but that's not very common. Usually restrictions actually ease over time, such as the explosion in cross application functionality and opening of access to the JIT javascript engine in iOS made possible by secure cross process communication in recent iOS versions.

Yea, that's what they did say. I sent copies of our laws. No change.

Arrogance is exactly the right word. Arrogance that is not justified at all by their execution lately. Developers were willing to look the other way while the app store gold rush lasted but those days are long over and it's increasingly looking like a Faustian bargain sold cheap.

What functionality did they want removed?

Without getting too into it, they thought some data visible in the App was in violation of US drug law (Schedule 1)

Yet other, semi-related consumer apps have this data.

In fact other apps in the store assist with the purchase/sale of these regulated items. A clear violation of Apple policy.

I'm not so mad about being blocked. I'm really mad about the inconsistent/random application of said policy.

Translation: edoceo built an app to help marijuana stores sell weed and keep track of weed and implement controls on the amount of weed purchased and where it came from and where it went.

Other apps either do the same thing or are less obvious about what their functionality is for, and Apple ignores it or is unaware or turns a blind eye.

edoceo thought an app which documents compliance with State law (and documents non-compliance with Federal law) should be allowed in the app store. Apple didn't.

This is a correct summary.