Halide rejected from App Store because it doesn't explain why it takes photos
Apple’s rejection of the popular Halide camera app for stating that it uses the camera “to take photographs” triggered wider criticism of App Store review practices and gatekeeping power. Commenters debate whether strict, sometimes inconsistent permission-justification rules meaningfully protect users’ privacy or merely create opaque, arbitrary hurdles for developers in a de facto mobile software monopoly. Many call for sideloading or alternative app stores to reduce Apple and Google’s control, even as others defend tighter permission policies in principle while acknowledging frequent review errors—Apple ultimately admitted this rejection was a mistake.
App Store Rejection Incident
- A popular camera app update was initially rejected because its camera permission text said essentially “used to take photographs,” which review deemed insufficiently explanatory.
- Many commenters find this absurd for a camera app whose sole purpose is taking photos, especially given its long history on the store and prior Apple promotion.
- Later in the thread, it’s reported that Apple called the developers, acknowledged it as reviewer error, and allowed resubmission without changes.
Permission Prompts: How Explicit Should They Be?
- One side argues the text was fine: users downloaded a camera app specifically to take photos, so extra explanation adds no value.
- Others support Apple’s policy in principle: permission prompts should clearly explain purpose and context, not tautological statements.
- Several propose slightly richer wording (e.g., “this is a camera app; it needs access so you can take photos when you choose”) as a reasonable bar.
Privacy, Data Protection, and Policies
- Discussion broadens to Play Store and GDPR-style rules: some apps were forced to add privacy/data protection policies even when processing seems local or minimal.
- There’s disagreement over when a developer is a “data controller” or “processor,” and whether on-device-only processing still requires formal policies.
- Many accept that stores can require a policy regardless of legal thresholds; others see it as overreach or legal misinterpretation.
Monopoly, Regulation, and Sideloading
- Strong sentiment that Apple (and to a lesser degree Google) have too much control over what software can run on mobile devices.
- Proposals include regulation, mandated sideloading, open web installs, or multiple app stores; skeptics warn regulation could add more bureaucracy.
- Some argue the term “sideloading” itself is misleading, implying Apple has legitimate authority over owner-controlled devices.
Developer Experience & Consistency
- Multiple developers recount arbitrary, inconsistent rejections on both App Store and Play Store, sometimes blocking time-sensitive launches.
- Criticism focuses on opaque review processes, low-context reviewers, and lack of meaningful support despite the platform’s revenue share.
- A minority defend strict reviews as beneficial for user security and UX, even if individual cases are frustrating or occasionally farcical.