App Store to require developers to describe why their apps use certain APIs

Shady developers are going to hate it; the good ones are okay

There’s not a lot of reason to hate it if implemented correctly which it very well might not be at first and likely will cause some headaches. Regardless, Apple should also do a better job of telling users the reasons too if they are going to be doing this.

Right now, you fill out a whole bit of information about why your app might use specific private info, but Apple only shows minor information about it to the user. I’d much rather the user know the specific reason I’m using, for example, location instead of just for “App Functionality”. Would make a better user-developer relationship in my opinion and promote good transparency.

I'm a developer and don't hate it on its face.

IMO it's only a problem in the context of iOS not having side-loading. I'm imagining an app that uses an API to block ads and Apple just being like "no" and then you can't get that app.

> > > Developers are going to hate this, but it’s good for the rest of us. > >

Some, but not all. There's no reason a developer should have to explain why they're using UserDefaults. It's a local-only place for storing very small amounts of data. The data is created in the app and read only within the app. There are no privacy or other concerns in its use. It's just a tedious waste of everyone's time to provide a reason.

That all depends on Apple's ability to run it effectively, and they have basically no demonstrated ability to do that.

App Review is an absolute joke. Listen to last week's Accidental Tech Podcast. One of the hosts is developing an IMDB competitor app, and he's been rejected three times as of that episode. One rejection was for playing copyrighted video without permission -- in an app that doesn't have any code that can play a video. One was for not having a link to his T&Cs in a field in the app store that can't render links. And the third was for displaying copyrighted media in his screenshots (maybe? no one really knows), and that media was the cover art for movie and TV shows. None of those even pass the sniff test. We all know that you're allowed to show the cover art for a movie in an app that has information about movies. We all know that's Fair Use, but beyond that, a third grader knows that literally everything in the world that presents information about movies does it. At the exact same time that all this is happening, Apple happily published some scammer's app called "Threads" and let it collect 300,000 people's information who thought they were downloading the actual Threads app from Meta.

It's always been this way. I personally wrote the original iPhone app for a large US retailer in 2008 -- the first year the App Store existed. App Review's only purpose then was to detect your use of private APIs, usually because that would let you build things Apple didn't want you to build. That's the only purpose it serves today, 15 years later. Everything else is random noise that just punishes you unpredictably for no reason. I had an update of that app rejected once for using our own company logo as the icon. They don't catch obvious scams. They never have. The people doing these reviews know nothing or are given so little time that the way to game their metrics is to just randomly reject sometimes without analysis. Unless they change something, it'll just be a thing that scammers fill out however they want with no consequence to them at all, and a random 5% of legitimate developers will waste a few weeks arguing over when it's applied to them with no logical basis in reality.