It is confusing because between all the different levels of being static or server side rendered or client side rendered, next.js can pretty much do (and potentially mix) them all, right?
I'm quite confused on _why_ they want next to act like this? You can use anchor tags to force a browser navigation, but what does it get you? You're still loading JS bundles and it's not like <Link /> breaks anything like history or open in new tab. People put turbolinks in their rails app to get something that works half as well.
You could also use unstable_disableRuntimeJs on some pages and your <Link /> will still fully degrade to act like a completely server rendered page.
Two options: a reverse proxy or you serve both from the same system.
For reverse proxy you can go the old and trusted route with e.g. Nginx, go fully managed with something like external rewrites on Vercel, or even hack together your own thing with edge workers.
For all from one system, whatever you're using for your backend, be it React (with Next.js) or Ruby on Rails, can probably also serve any kind of static content, but it might not be worth intermingling that based on your situation.
You can also just hop on, without any planning, in Germany anyway, and the price will only be expensive, not outrageous.
An ICE is no different than a bus in this regard. A flight is a totally different story, probably planned weeks in advance and stress starts on the morning the day of.
I mean you say that, but having done about ~60 releases for the same app on both platforms over the last three years, google has only once caused us an issue (due to changes in privacy policy disclosure requirements that we had to rectify), whereas Apple has prevented us from deploying at least a dozen times over the same period, several times for issues that they hadn't flagged in previous releases, and sometimes having us wait for up to 2 days for re-review.
I guess it's a matter of anecdotes. I certainly don't have enough data (one + a half apps with countless updates) to make any serious claims. For us google has been more trouble, but I've heard other bad stories about apple too.
I'm freshly frustrated because I'm dealing with a random metadata rejection (on an "internal testing" build! nothing has changed!) just now.
The anecdotal remark is fair, it may just come down to the nature of one particular type of app vs another, but on a personal note, I find things like automated metadata rejections a lot less frustrating than fickle human rejections because I can debug metadata and resubmit to receive instant feedback - akin to fighting with a compiler - whereas with apple some issues require multiple days of back and forth with reviewers while I pathologically refresh the review status page. What I find to be most frustrating is when the reviewer responds with a change request, we fix the build, then the next reviewer rejects some other random thing that wasn't mentioned in the previous review, dragging out the release date even longer. Anyway, fuck em both, cheers!
Yeah, I've found App Store rejections to be harsh (functionality is not useful? ok) or restrictive, but always parseable. I even successfully asked the reviewer if a certain change would remedy the issue, they said yes, I resubmitted and that was that. Took about 2 days in all.
Play Store rejections are either an algorithmic mystery or reviewer incompetence. I don't mean reviewer incompetence in using the (maybe unintuitive) app. I mean their internal review UI had some kind of unrelated error and they sent me a screenshot of that.
Their own console UI even sort of urges you to just resubmit with a potentially meaningless change instead of opening an appeal / request.
Feels like it's the worst of both automatic and human review.
> I even successfully asked the reviewer if a certain change would remedy the issue, they said yes, I resubmitted and that was that. Took about 2 days in all.
You're lucky. I've asked them such questions. Most of the time they refuse to respond. Even if they do, there's a good chance you'll get a different reviewer for your next update with a completely different opinion and interpretation of The Guidelines.
I'm quite confused on _why_ they want next to act like this? You can use anchor tags to force a browser navigation, but what does it get you? You're still loading JS bundles and it's not like <Link /> breaks anything like history or open in new tab. People put turbolinks in their rails app to get something that works half as well.
You could also use unstable_disableRuntimeJs on some pages and your <Link /> will still fully degrade to act like a completely server rendered page.