Since there has been no clarification on this issue and I really need to push an update (company logo change... nothing but images), I decided to go head and submit it.
Not completely sure if by checking the box saying I've "read and agree to the terms of..." was completely honest though since I don't fully understand what those terms are, very specifically in this deep linking issue.
AFAIK, my app supports deep linking if launched with the correct arguments since no one would know what those arguments should be!
I will post an update if/when I get some sort of response
edit: @EnTerr, yes that was me that posted on the blog site
edit2: No "@" mentions? I'm too spoiled by github I guess
"nocarrier" wrote: Since there has been no clarification on this issue and I really need to push an update (company logo change... nothing but images), I decided to go head and submit it. ... I will post an update if/when I get some sort of response
Don't sweat it - that's peanuts! Have a look here to see what apps have passed review recently viewtopic.php?f=34&t=96083 - one does nothing, the other two are miscategorized. You'll be fine.
Here is what i figure is happening - apparently the Co has decided recently push for massively broadening^ the "universal search". That feature is great on its own and every publisher who can, already wants to use it. What is not great is that somebody has decided to extort developers into using it. Which is silly, since whoever can use it, will use it anyhow (it brings traffic!) - and whoever cannot (a game! how do you "deep link" into a game?) - well, you can't get blood form a stone.
There are 2 possible explanations behind the mis-statements of the blog and not correcting them yet:
Either it's unintentional - due to "broken telephone game", the evangelists did not understand what is being asked by the higher-ups and are misrepresenting into caricatures the mandates for deep linking and device support
Or it's an intentional move - being unclear on purpose, to use FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) in forcing as many as possible into joining uni-search
I don't know which of the two is the case though.
(^) maybe for marketing purposes? "our Search scours through $(GAZILLION) content providers!"
Thanks for the insight. I was imagining it was probably something along those lines too. I just don't like speculating on something that should be concrete. If there are guidelines, the should be defined properly. If it just gets thrown under the rug from not enough squeaky wheels though, it may just end up being another thread like your unanswered questions one. This is different though. We have to comply with a rule and have no idea what it is. Neither does anyone who has set the rule, I imagine.
Channel was approved btw. Delayed because I had to cancel halfway through due to "branding" and other such non-dev stuff. I have to apologize for my tone in my first post. The dev support team really is doing a great job what quite possibly is what Enterr has suspected. Either way: https://forums.roku.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 88cb29da69