Just to add some balance to the conversation; this silliness isn't limited to Apple; we've had Play Store reject our app several times for doing something it literally doesn't do; they required us to add a data-protection policy to explain why we did it, and wouldn't accept that it (our app) literally doesn't (the app connects to a self-hosted server the user runs themselves, so it can easily be checked). In the end, we gave up and just added the DPP text anyway and it got approved.

Edit to add: This was for an update, over half a decade after release, not the initial release, and nothing had changed in how it functioned in this regard in that time.

Edit 2: Typo + clarification

Here to see all the creative justifications for why Apple is correct, and it's actually the app developer's fault for not clearly stating why an app that users explicitly downloaded to take photos takes photos. It's for the users' own protection of course.

Even after all these years the reality distortion field is strong as ever. Meanwhile if Google had done this people would already be outside their HQ with pitchforks and calling for the government to break up their evil monopoly.

I'm the Halide cofounder who shared the silly rejection that blew up. I'm knee deep in our iPhone 16 update and tired, so I don't feel like engaging the discourse that comes up over and over around the App Store. Instead I'll just paste the follow-up I just posted to Reddit:

Hey everyone. Apple followed up with us to confirm this was a reviewer goof. Normally, they don't sweat that description when it's obvious it's a camera app. They're stricter on apps that don't really need camera access. This was human error, there's no need for us to change the description, so we're all good.

I once had a very frustrating battle with a new reviewer who told me my utilitarian app did not offer an "innovative experience" and wasn't "interactive" enough.

So I had to add a completely useless feature where a user could partition their database by marking some items as "favorites" and have a separate "favorite" view.

This was then approved, with the assertion that "it's now the magical kind of experience users expect from the App Store."

I'm pretty invested in an Apple ecosystem for some very specific software, but that was nearly enough to make me ragequit (unfortunately, the specific software is not something I could develop/imitate under Linux without a huge financial investment).

The most bizarre App Store rejection I’ve seen was for a TV app which was rejected by Play for ‘Policy Violation’ without much explanation… After several rounds of resubmissions and emails it turned out the problem was some channels on it were in 4:3 (not widescreen). Google required we add a ‘warning’ to the App Store description that it contains 4:3 content!

The Apple Camera app comes preinstalled with no warnings or permission requests notifying me why it's requesting camera access.

> I don’t know how to explain why a camera app needs camera permissions.

Developing for the App Store is about as much fun as filling out tax forms and talking to an IRS agent.

> The camera will be used to take photographs.

That is a terrible reason to request camera access. It is just restating the access request and it should be rejected. Why will photographs be taken? Because it is a camera/photography application and will only take photographs on explicit user request.

Really needs to be regulated with some kind of oversight for this kind of silliness, and even better, needs a way for users to sideload when they choose to accept the risk and let devs sell direct. I side with Epic on that one.

I guess the reviewer might not be familiar with the name, but after seeing what the app is for, it should be obvious. Unfortunately it seems the reviewer didn't have the competence to reach the second part.

If it were just some random app, even something obvious like a camera app, I could be a little forgiving. Maybe the reviewer hadn’t heard of it. Maybe it wasn’t immediately obvious that it was a camera app.

But the app was featured in the Glowtime event just weeks ago. The app has won an Apple Design Award. It has been in the App Store for, what, seven years? Of all the apps to reject, the reviewer sure made a poor choice.

My app was rejected for about 1 week because some home screen widgets I have advertised don’t show up on their simulator. This is a known bug with the iOS simulator and the widgets show up after killing the app and opening it again. I explained this and they ignored it and continued rejecting it. After I pushed a new build which targeted ios 18 (and did not fix the issue they were claiming was there), they accepted it within minutes.

App Store reviewers need to get their acts together. Last week our app was rejected for submitting it for iOS 18, then they accepted it right away after realizing their mistake. Very weird.

Apple previously published extensive Human Interface Design guidelines that were too-notch. For a generation of computing they really raised the bar on usability and improved experience. (Recently all of computer usability has gone far downhill, IMHO, especially starting with all the flat interfaces, and the penchant for mystery meat icons everywhere, but I digress from my main point...)

If Apple is going to have strict usability requirements on the clarity of the permissions requests, that has the potential to be a good thing. But that requires establishing guidelines, and publishing them, and being clear about what in the prompt does not meet the guidelines.

If Halide were an alarm clock, the explanation would be wholly unconvincing: the rejection only seems silly if you know what Halide is.

“This is a camera app”, might be a better explanation.

We have a real problem with app stores.

The thing is. I like apps needing to display and even better request permissions for resources like the camera, files and clipboard.

But that should be the limit. What I don’t want is somebody, anybody other than my self deciding if an application actually needs those permission.

WE need an alternative to walled garden app stores. It can be fine that a curated store exist that does these things. But they need to live side by side with stores or catalogs that do less and more.

It’s an uphill battle because Apple and Google both know that it will be a loss of revenue for them. What is silly though is they could make the App Store have sub app stores curated by different entities (or not at all) and solve all this and keep revenue. But they won’t.

Why does this app use the camera to take photos?

"The camera will be used to take photographs"

Given how that reads, I'd think listing any single specific reason a user would want to take photos with this app instead of the default camera app would have worked fine.

They were probably looking for something like: 'The app needs camera permissions so _you_ can take photographs'. 'The camera will be used to take photographs' is not clear that the app might be taking extra photographs that you did not intend.

Personally, I don't even think this is sillyness. yes it should be strict to release apps and you should be accountable and have to explain why you need access to specific permissions on the app stores.

The age of open permissions is should be long over.

I'm sick over overreaching app permissions wasting my battery trying to collect more data on me. If you want more data, provide more value.

Apple's process is correct here, in my opinion. They (rightfully) require that an app declare why it needs access to resources/data, and they verify (rightfully) that it is meaningful and does not use circular logic ("The camera will be used to take photographs"). Remember, this is not only for users, it is also for reviewers - to keep out apps that unnecessarily access things (that many users don't have the energy to think about, and will just tap "allow" in the permissions spam they will come to expect from every app if this policy was not enforced).

Given the enormous volume of app submissions and the large number of points each app must be reviewed on, it might be unrealistic to require that reviewers always use the full context of the app when reviewing each individual component - the person reviewing the message might not even know what the app is! And they shouldn't have to! The message should be self-explanatory. The app needs access to the camera because it is a photography app, not because it takes photos.

I applaud Apple's thoroughness on this topic. It's much better than the opposite problem, which is what plagues virtually 100% of other software platforms historically, and I'm disheartened for software as a whole that some people (especially HN users, who should be more thoughtful) can't see beyond the petty "it must be mindless Apple defenders" catch-all, or the "rejection reasons are sometimes non-specific" problem, (the latter of which I am assuming on good faith is a real problem, though I've never personally encountered it).

Public lashings for overzealous reviewers.

Hard to have sympathy for anyone choosing this path at this point, over a decade of stories like this and the “quality” of what Apple does let through tells you everything you need to know about their opinion and respect of software.

Even ChatGPT can give me better worded version in 5 seconds

“Halide needs access to your camera to capture photos and videos with advanced controls for pro-level photography.”

For user facing text I tend to always try a LLM version, just because the results are so middle of the road, which is exactly what I want in a case like this.

This rejection seems like a bureaucratization of the app store, which doesn't help with fraudulent applications, clones and other shenanigans. They should address the latter. Whoever is in charge of this process is utterly incompetent.

> The camera will be used to take photographs

Isn't providing functionality provided by existing iOS apps still a reason for rejection?

The description should at least say "for taking photos with advanced customisation suitable for professionals"

The problem stems from the name "Halide". It's not clear that it's a camera app. Unlike "Apple", which clearly indicates...

This is the first product of Apple Intelligence(tm)!

“AI” or outsourced low budget review staff.

Ive worked as a mobile app dev consultant since before the iPhone and have submitted nearly a 100 apps over the years. I always warn clients that when submitting an app you are at the mercy of the reviewer and their knowledge of Apple HCI guidelines, which is a lengthy tome of a document... I have had all manor of rejections for weird reasons, but have also had rejections where I just resubmit with no change or justification and get approved. I have also never had to specifically justify camera use and trust me, I have clients build some stupid ass apps that use the camera. This was random and probably the result of poor internal communication.

Another story for me to add to https://github.com/andrewmcwattersandco/app-store-rejections !

Please submit others if you have any.

Why the f do any companies get to decide what code I can or cannot run on my device? I didn't rent the device from anyone, I bought it.

Does anyone really think giving 20-30% of ecosystem revenue to some gatekeeper makes better ecosystems?

We need new open computing laws.