App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours
Apple’s rejection of “Dark Hours,” a science-based astronomy app mistakenly labeled as containing live tarot and astrology features, has reignited criticism of the App Store review process. Commenters highlight how arbitrary, inconsistent enforcement coexists with a flood of scammy or low-quality apps, undermining Apple’s safety narrative while giving it gatekeeper control over software distribution. The debate widens into whether users should be able to install apps from alternative stores or the web, and if market forces alone can fix the power imbalance created by the Apple–Google mobile duopoly.
Dark Hours rejection & astrology/tarot confusion
- The app is an astronomy app; commenters stress it has no tarot, horoscopes, or astrology features.
- Apple repeatedly cited a supposed “live tarot” feature as justification for rejection, even on appeal, which many see as clear factual error being rubber‑stamped upward.
- Some point out that constellations and “astro-” naming might superficially resemble astrology to a rushed reviewer, but argue this doesn’t excuse ignoring corrections.
Apple’s spam/duplicate-app policies
- Apple’s guidelines discourage new apps in saturated categories (e.g., timers, dating, fortune telling) unless they’re meaningfully differentiated.
- Some devs report submitting simple timer apps or other “discouraged” categories and getting approved, suggesting inconsistent enforcement.
- Others describe categories like “wireless printing” flooded with near-identical, subscription-heavy apps, contradicting Apple’s stated anti-spam stance.
Review process, competence, and possible AI use
- Many see the review as cursory, box-ticking, and sometimes done by people without technical backgrounds. A cited deposition says reviewers mainly need basic device skills and spend minutes per app.
- Experiences include rejections over old screenshots, JS-rendered privacy policies not loading, or seeing “Mac” in a Mac app description.
- Some speculate LLM-style tools may be involved in misclassifying apps, which lower-level reviewers are reluctant to overrule.
Gatekeeping vs. user freedom and safety
- Strong criticism of centralized app stores as gatekeepers, especially when iOS effectively has one distribution channel controlled by Apple.
- Others argue restrictions protect non-technical users (“grandma”) from malware and scams; opponents respond that scams thrive even inside app stores.
- A recurring compromise idea: allow user-controlled repos / side-loading with a “restricted mode” for less technical users, but several commenters doubt it would prevent manipulation of those same users.
Broader ecosystem & regulatory worries
- Many note that despite all this friction, scammy gambling/malware-like apps remain abundant, while high-quality niche apps get blocked.
- Some call for regulation (especially in the EU) or at least alternative stores; others insist markets, not governments, should correct Apple’s behavior.
- Several developers say these experiences pushed them toward web apps or away from mobile native development entirely.