The process should be more accommodating of these situations, but if you're a developer you should know the policies and limitations of your deployment environment. If you don't and get bit by a policy violation, I feel bad for you, but it is still on you to know and your failure to own it.
Development isn't just slamming in code because Product wants a feature.
I feel like this is the difference between bureaucracies and individuals.
If you're an individual developer, you interact with many bureaucracies. Not only the app store, but probably two of them, and a bank, and a couple of social media platforms, and a hosting company, and you use a bunch of software that each has its own license etc. Each of these come with a wall of text which is like 50 pages long. You have not read them, you would not understand them even if you did because they're written in lawyer, and the thrust of most of them is something like "the company reserves the right to do whatever they want".
No one is ever in compliance because the rules are designed to be broad enough to allow the company to declare you persona non grata under an unrelated pretext if they want to, so complying with the rules is not only not expected but purposely impossible. Then people have little idea which rules are real and enforced and which ones are just there so the company can act with impunity, and you can't glean this from reading them (which you don't have the time or understanding to do anyway), so instead they just behave as an ordinary person would while ignoring whatever it says in the documents, which is reasonable enough to keep most people out of trouble until it isn't.
Bureaucracies behave completely differently. They hire lawyers, because they have the resources to hire lawyers, and then demand that the rules are something they can actually comply with because otherwise they engage in malicious compliance and are big enough for that to cause problems for the entity making the rules. Then they pretend it would be reasonable for individuals to do the same thing, even though it's not.
I agree to a degree, in that the policies are a lot to take in.
When your work poses a risk to the bottom line of another company, they have every right to be protective and implement the policies they feel will bring in more customers and money. If the store policies are too much for you to understand, that's on you for blindly adding to the risk of that company.
I'm speaking specifically from the Android side of things. People want to be on the Play Store and not FDroid or the many others because that's where the customers are, but you're free to use another store or distribute directly, which is not the case for iOS, particularly outside Europe. I do believe Apple is anti competitive in the US due to this, but it doesn't change the fact that you're your own victim for wanting to be in their store and not following the contact you agreed to. They take in the risk of hosting your app, you take on the risk and pain of dealing with their store policies.
It's no different than having a stall at a flea market, if they say you can have a stall, but have policies against selling certain items, and you sell them anyways, you can get the boot. If someone falsely accuses you of doing so and they suspend your stall while they investigate, then you come back the next week under a different name, don't be surprised about the result when they recognize you.
AnthonyMouse|1 year ago
If you're an individual developer, you interact with many bureaucracies. Not only the app store, but probably two of them, and a bank, and a couple of social media platforms, and a hosting company, and you use a bunch of software that each has its own license etc. Each of these come with a wall of text which is like 50 pages long. You have not read them, you would not understand them even if you did because they're written in lawyer, and the thrust of most of them is something like "the company reserves the right to do whatever they want".
No one is ever in compliance because the rules are designed to be broad enough to allow the company to declare you persona non grata under an unrelated pretext if they want to, so complying with the rules is not only not expected but purposely impossible. Then people have little idea which rules are real and enforced and which ones are just there so the company can act with impunity, and you can't glean this from reading them (which you don't have the time or understanding to do anyway), so instead they just behave as an ordinary person would while ignoring whatever it says in the documents, which is reasonable enough to keep most people out of trouble until it isn't.
Bureaucracies behave completely differently. They hire lawyers, because they have the resources to hire lawyers, and then demand that the rules are something they can actually comply with because otherwise they engage in malicious compliance and are big enough for that to cause problems for the entity making the rules. Then they pretend it would be reasonable for individuals to do the same thing, even though it's not.
dan-0|1 year ago
When your work poses a risk to the bottom line of another company, they have every right to be protective and implement the policies they feel will bring in more customers and money. If the store policies are too much for you to understand, that's on you for blindly adding to the risk of that company.
I'm speaking specifically from the Android side of things. People want to be on the Play Store and not FDroid or the many others because that's where the customers are, but you're free to use another store or distribute directly, which is not the case for iOS, particularly outside Europe. I do believe Apple is anti competitive in the US due to this, but it doesn't change the fact that you're your own victim for wanting to be in their store and not following the contact you agreed to. They take in the risk of hosting your app, you take on the risk and pain of dealing with their store policies.
It's no different than having a stall at a flea market, if they say you can have a stall, but have policies against selling certain items, and you sell them anyways, you can get the boot. If someone falsely accuses you of doing so and they suspend your stall while they investigate, then you come back the next week under a different name, don't be surprised about the result when they recognize you.