PDA

View Full Version : Apple Rejecting Applications Based on 'Limited Utility'




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Sep 4, 2008, 12:08 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

One developer emailed this video and rejection letter for their app called Pull My Finger. Especially concerning is that Apple did not reject it due to it being offensive, but instead rejected it due to "limited utility":"Hello Developer,

We've reviewed your application Pull My Finger. We have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad iPhone and iPod touch user community, and will not be published to the App Store.

It may be very appropriate to share with friends and family, and we recommend you review the Ad Hoc method on the Distribution tab of the iPhone Developer Portal for details on distributing this application among a small group of people of your choosing.

Regards,

Victor Wang
Worldwide Developer Relations
Apple, Inc."I think this sets a very bad precedent. How useful is Koi Pond [App Store (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=286420263&mt=8)]? (which remains the #1 app in the App Store). A video of the app being demonstrated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnm-P3Z0ozo

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/09/04/apple-rejecting-applications-based-on-limited-utility/)



archesdevil
Sep 4, 2008, 12:10 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

One developer emailed this video and rejection letter for their app called Pull My Finger. Especially concerning is that Apple did not reject it due to it being offensive, but instead rejected it due to "limited utility":I think this sets a very bad precedent. How useful is Koi Pond [App Store (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=286420263&mt=8)]? (which remains the #1 app in the App Store). A video of the app being demonstrated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnm-P3Z0ozo

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/09/04/apple-rejecting-applications-based-on-limited-utility/)

"Pull my finger"? Are you 12?

dukebound85
Sep 4, 2008, 12:11 AM
i agree bad precedent

let the consumers decide what apps should be used as long as it fits the sdk requirements

appleguru1
Sep 4, 2008, 12:12 AM
Heh, I want it!

EricNau
Sep 4, 2008, 12:18 AM
I can understand Apple's decision. If left unmanaged, the app store could easily become overrun with useless apps, and cluttered to the point where finding useful apps becomes tedious. This could affect overall sales, as well as punish the developers who's apps were created with significant amounts of time and resources.

Besides, I think a clear distinction can be made between apps like koi pond and others of "limited utility" like pull-my-finger, whoopee-cushion, and the infamous I Am Rich.

notjustjay
Sep 4, 2008, 12:18 AM
I'm with Apple on this one. Perhaps one compromise would be to put it out to the community -- remove apps that consistently get rated poorly, a self-pruning as it were. Of course, to do that, you'd need a fair way of reviewing apps...

puckhead193
Sep 4, 2008, 12:20 AM
i'd buy it for like $2 or so :p

arn
Sep 4, 2008, 12:20 AM
I can understand Apple's decision. If left unmanaged, the app store could easily become overrun with useless apps, and cluttered to the point where finding useful apps becomes tedious. This could affect overall sales, as well as punish the developers who's apps were created with significant amounts of time and resources.

Besides, I think a clear distinction can be made between apps like koi pond and others of "limited utility" like pull-my-finger, whoopee-cushion, and the infamous I Am Rich.

Should Crazy Eye be removed then?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=284827332&mt=8

or More Cowbell?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=285559215&mt=8

I think the line is less clear than you think

arn

macduke
Sep 4, 2008, 12:26 AM
This app looks a lot better than some of the crap on the app store. For instance, ezone.com's Crazy Metal Head, which is just a metal skull that costs 99 cents and lets you use your finger to move the jaw up and down. Apple either needs to implement these standards across the board or not at all. They can't have it both ways. Half the apps in the store are crap anyway.

IDANNY
Sep 4, 2008, 12:30 AM
very funny Id like to have it.

LimeiBook86
Sep 4, 2008, 12:32 AM
It's not like Apple has limited space on their servers or something. Apple should allow all the programs that follow the rules (and that aren't crash happy). If nobody wants it, that's not Apple's problem. It's a silly app, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed into the store.

Come on Apple, just allow the app, being so choosy is hurting the App Store. :rolleyes:

daze
Sep 4, 2008, 12:32 AM
Never understood how "pulling a finger" equates to a fart noise. Can anyone enlighten me?

daze
Sep 4, 2008, 12:33 AM
It's not like Apple has limited space on their servers or something. Apple should allow all the programs that follow the rules (and that aren't crash happy). If nobody wants it, that's not Apple's problem. It's a silly app, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed into the store.

Come on Apple, just allow the app, being so choosy is hurting the App Store. :rolleyes:

This will always be a problem when there is judgement involved. It will always remain subjective. Period.

Carbonic
Sep 4, 2008, 12:33 AM
I'd like to have this.

I've seen a bunch of useless crap on their, and something like this can't get on their? Oh please Apple.

dukebound85
Sep 4, 2008, 12:34 AM
Never understood how "pulling a finger" equates to a fart noise. Can anyone enlighten me?

whenever someone says "pull my finger" the person farts

is this a US only thing? lol

here is some history on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pull_my_finger

LimeiBook86
Sep 4, 2008, 12:34 AM
This will always be a problem when there is judgement involved. It will always remain subjective. Period.

Which is an unfortunate side of the way Apps are submitted and reviewed by Apple. I guess there's always ad-hoc... but then you can't save it can you? :(

theloon
Sep 4, 2008, 12:36 AM
It's simple either you let people publish applications, which pass all the basic decency and reliablilty criteria or you will get bypassed and they will end up on Installer...

You locked us all in with almost every other bit of your products, which we hack around anyway...

It is not for you (Apple) to make a determination as to the perceived "value" of application.

:eek:

emt1
Sep 4, 2008, 12:36 AM
I'd like to have this.

I've seen a bunch of useless crap on their, and something like this can't get on their? Oh please Apple.

*there


Seriously people. Go to middle school.

arn
Sep 4, 2008, 12:38 AM
There's a suggestion that Apple just has it in for anything related to flatulence.

http://www.iphonedevsdk.com/forum/iphone-sdk-development/3129-app-store-rejection.html

Though, if that's the case, they need to reword their rejection email.

My "issue" with this isn't that they rejected a farting application. If that's a defined criteria, that's fine. My problem is rejecting an app due to "limited utility".

arn

Merlyn3D
Sep 4, 2008, 12:43 AM
I can understand Apple's decision. If left unmanaged, the app store could easily become overrun with useless apps, and cluttered to the point where finding useful apps becomes tedious. This could affect overall sales, as well as punish the developers who's apps were created with significant amounts of time and resources.

Besides, I think a clear distinction can be made between apps like koi pond and others of "limited utility" like pull-my-finger, whoopee-cushion, and the infamous I Am Rich.

I think you all are forgetting the "I Am Rich" application. $1000 and how much utility did it have? How could that one make it through and this one be held back?

jsep
Sep 4, 2008, 12:49 AM
maybe apple is just now starting to crack down on new useless apps? :confused:

Ntombi
Sep 4, 2008, 12:49 AM
I think that's a really bad decision by Apple. I would never get that app, but so what? I'm sure there are apps I'd love that other people would roll their eyes at. Who cares? As long as it's not extremely offensive (and yes I'm aware that's subjective too), let it in.

EricNau
Sep 4, 2008, 12:51 AM
I think you all are forgetting the "I Am Rich" application. $1000 and how much utility did it have? How could that one make it through and this one be held back?
A change in policy perhaps? After all, it was removed shortly after it was released. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the "I Am Rich" app that lead Apple to reconsider their policy.

dreadloquito
Sep 4, 2008, 12:55 AM
The only reason this rejection letter is the least bit surprising to me is that it means apple is actually doing some degree of screening of Apps submitted to the store. But to block that app when they've let through so many others with "limited utility" or in fact no utility. Not to mention their apparent lack of screening for blatant copyright infringements in Apps. I'm not a huge fan of strict app screening, but because the App store allows users to make one-click impulse purchases without knowing the actual content of Apps, I think Apple owes it to customers to a certain amount of quality control. But since the current offerings belie any real attempts at quality control so far, it's a fairly lame explanation to give for not accepting this app.
On a side note, the apps that seem to me to be most worth removing from the store are the dozens of repackaged public domain books for sale. They seem rather obviously aimed at tricking the ignorant into paying for things that they could have for free to make money for some lazy sod who doesn't want to actually create anything useful. But maybe that's just me griping.

RonCarr
Sep 4, 2008, 12:55 AM
First we complain about the **** apps in the store then when Apple decides to do something about by cutting out the useless apps people complain, probably the same ones. And to the ones who say they would PAY for it... that is BS. If that app made it to the store and had a price you would bitch about it. Grow up. The store was not made for grade school prank apps. Go Apple for taking care of this problem. :apple:

nlivo
Sep 4, 2008, 12:56 AM
Of-course you can do random sounds.

dukebound85
Sep 4, 2008, 12:57 AM
First we complain about the **** apps in the store then when Apple decides to do something about by cutting out the useless apps people complain, probably the same ones. And to the ones who say they would PAY for it... that is BS. If that app made it to the store and had a price you would bitch about it. Grow up. The store was not made for grade school prank apps. Go Apple for taking care of this problem. :apple:

im all for useless apps being cut out. HOWEVER, when its subjective criteria being used, thats when i have an issue

have the line be black and white. period

Mr. Zorg
Sep 4, 2008, 12:57 AM
There's a suggestion that Apple just has it in for anything related to flatulence.
...
Though, if that's the case, they need to reword their rejection email.

My "issue" with this isn't that they rejected a farting application. If that's a defined criteria, that's fine. My problem is rejecting an app due to "limited utility".

arn
Yeah, I'm with you. Be honest and say you find it offensive, or are afraid others will. Maybe they're trying to be polite? lol

Niiro13
Sep 4, 2008, 12:58 AM
The entertainment section wouldn't be nearly as large if it weren't for applications like these.

dreadloquito
Sep 4, 2008, 01:07 AM
First we complain about the **** apps in the store then when Apple decides to do something about by cutting out the useless apps people complain, probably the same ones. ... Go Apple for taking care of this problem. :apple:

While I agree that it would be nice to trim some of the **** from the store, I think you're giving apple wayyy too much credit in treating this letter as "taking care of this problem." I'd say it's much more accurately described as: a drop in the bucket; a disingenuous rationale for removal; too little, too late; a shoddy pretense of actual standards; and/or capricious and arbitrary. Most of all I think we can safely call it a mildly interesting bit of trivia that, in the broader picture of things, is rather insignificant.

joekun
Sep 4, 2008, 01:13 AM
I'm fine with them keeping this out of the store, and as pointed out in other posts, there is already plenty of crap in the app store. It's not as though apple is saying it can't be distributed, they suggested he use an ad hoc method of distribution available to developers. Perhaps that should be explored.

arn
Sep 4, 2008, 01:17 AM
I'm fine with them keeping this out of the store, and as pointed out in other posts, there is already plenty of crap in the app store. It's not as though apple is saying it can't be distributed, they suggested he use an ad hoc method of distribution available to developers. Perhaps that should be explored.

Ad-hoc distribution is limited to 100 people.

arn

sushi
Sep 4, 2008, 01:21 AM
Apple is in a difficult spot right now as to what to include in the app store.

It will get sorted out over time but there will be growing pains in getting there.

SFgadgetman
Sep 4, 2008, 01:24 AM
The individual app reviewer must have been farted on as a kid. It's scarred him forever. I really hate that had to happen to poor young Victor. He can probably still smell it when he thinks about that horrible day.

Has anyone thought about helping Victor with some fart immersion therapy to help him get over his phobia? Good God people this is obviously a man being tormented by his past. This is a SENSITIVE matter and should be handled very delicately!

:D

SFgadgetman
Sep 4, 2008, 01:26 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

One developer emailed this video and rejection letter for their app called Pull My Finger. Especially concerning is that Apple did not reject it due to it being offensive, but instead rejected it due to "limited utility":I think this sets a very bad precedent. How useful is Koi Pond [App Store (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=286420263&mt=8)]? (which remains the #1 app in the App Store). A video of the app being demonstrated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnm-P3Z0ozo

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/09/04/apple-rejecting-applications-based-on-limited-utility/)

THIS WORLD NEEDS MORE FART JOKES!!!

Pelorus
Sep 4, 2008, 01:28 AM
Ad-hoc distribution is limited to 100 people.

arn

Then make an insanely great app and ask people to pay for it.

Would people pay $100 for NetShare? That's nearly $10000 sitting there then. If Apple incresed ad-hoc to 1000 then you could really test the theory of '1000 fans'

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php

thatguy_youknow
Sep 4, 2008, 01:33 AM
Maybe there is a better way to layout the appstore that makes browsing through hundreds of apps way easier. Looking at video games on a wall is easy. Maybe have developers make cool "packaging" and apple could display it in a more compact way then it is now.

nagromme
Sep 4, 2008, 01:33 AM
This app has a lot of functionality--it may not be something you want to do, but it does it well. As "gimmick" apps go, this one packs a lot of features!

Apple needs some feedback on this poor judgement. Help users find the apps they want, yes. Have some standards, sure. But don't reject something that has been done well and that some people will actually want.

I hope it gets reinstated, and I hope this attention raises it to the top 10 :p

(I'm not jumping on Apple too hard for making one bad call out of the thousands they face with the App Store. But I am sure it was the wrong call.)

simoleon
Sep 4, 2008, 01:41 AM
This was totally a good call on Apple's part.
They don't want to be associated with the pimply little *****s using their iPhones to gross out old codgers in restaurants. Do you really think they'd stand by while teenage boys turn such a cool device into "that dreadful, flatulating phone"?

NeoMayhem
Sep 4, 2008, 01:47 AM
The last thing I want is the iphone to turn into something like windows (tons of crappy apps), but they cant just reject it because they dont like it. While I wouldnt use this app, it looks better and more stable then a lot of other apps I have tried.

bob_hearn
Sep 4, 2008, 01:52 AM
This app looks a lot better than some of the crap on the app store. For instance, ezone.com's Crazy Metal Head, which is just a metal skull that costs 99 cents and lets you use your finger to move the jaw up and down. Apple either needs to implement these standards across the board or not at all. They can't have it both ways. Half the apps in the store are crap anyway.

Yes, that's the problem. Since the app store went up, of necessity, the standards have changed. Do you realize there are now 667 apps in the games category alone? There is too much crap, and the bar has to be raised.

That said, I think they made the wrong call on this one.

BTW, after "I am Rich" was pulled, I submitted "I am Poor", which was an "I am Rich" clone, but for $0.99. The idea being, fool your friends, tell them you were one of the 8 that bought it, etc. Rather an obvious idea, I thought. Of course, Apple rejected "I am Poor" (after 12 days in review!). OK, fine, I have no problem with that.

Bevz
Sep 4, 2008, 01:55 AM
There's a suggestion that Apple just has it in for anything related to flatulence.

http://www.iphonedevsdk.com/forum/iphone-sdk-development/3129-app-store-rejection.html

Though, if that's the case, they need to reword their rejection email.

My "issue" with this isn't that they rejected a farting application. If that's a defined criteria, that's fine. My problem is rejecting an app due to "limited utility".

arn

I agree.
You simply cannot have an app rejected due to a persons subjective feeling that it's simply not useful (i.e. limited utility), if this was the case, this person should reapply to the app store as someone else might review it next time and have a different decision (just reviewing this thread shows how different people's opinions are on the value of this particular app!). App store rejection should only be based on objective rules clearly laid out; of course apple have the right to add new rules if they wish, but the important bit is they must not be open to interpretation, they must be clear and easy to understand by all so that a single persons opinion does not factor into the decision. It's the only fair way to run the store...

I really hope their wording of "limited utility" was just a poor choice of phrase, otherwise this is a very dark day for the app store...

mocciat
Sep 4, 2008, 02:01 AM
This is the most useless and annoying app ever. I can't believe I spent the time to watch the video and post a comment.

With that talent come up with something more useful!

joeshell383
Sep 4, 2008, 02:13 AM
$1000 and how much utility did it have? How could that one make it through and this one be held back?

$300 per download for Apple

Flowbee
Sep 4, 2008, 02:30 AM
im all for useless apps being cut out. HOWEVER, when its subjective criteria being used, thats when i have an issue


How can judging the utility of an app be anything but subjective? What about an app for keeping track of how many days it's been since your accordion was tuned? Or an app that helps you identify different types of accordions? Limited utility, or not?

SteveLV702
Sep 4, 2008, 02:30 AM
ill take it.


while yes its extremely stupid its also kinda funny at the same time.

Incrimn8r
Sep 4, 2008, 02:31 AM
BRING IT ON I want it! ROFLMAO

<----Big Kid!

fuigo
Sep 4, 2008, 02:33 AM
It's probably one of the most innovative programs on iPhone!

PhilipOrr
Sep 4, 2008, 02:35 AM
Again, I think it shouldn't be Apple that decides on what content we want to put on our iPod or iPhone.

dukebound85
Sep 4, 2008, 02:35 AM
How can judging the utility of an app be anything but subjective? What about an app for keeping track of how many days it's been since your accordion was tuned? Or an app that helps you identify different types of accordions? Limited utility, or not?

easy have it written in the sdk what the app must not violate and everything else should be allowed. dont make judgement calls on each and every app.

for instance, i dont believe "i am rich" should have been pulled either

Carbonic
Sep 4, 2008, 02:44 AM
*there


Seriously people. Go to middle school.

Oops, I've made a mistake. Condemn me smart ass.

Oh, and you're one to talk.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6135968&postcount=42

And some of you are really anal over a program that is made for a few laughs.

triplefinger
Sep 4, 2008, 02:49 AM
come-on when is a fart not funny?

PUT IT UP!!!

elppa
Sep 4, 2008, 02:52 AM
Should Crazy Eye be removed then?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=284827332&mt=8

I think the line is less clear than you think

arn

David Pogue likes that one, no chance of it being removed now!

Bye Bye Baby
Sep 4, 2008, 02:53 AM
Should Crazy Eye be removed then?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=284827332&mt=8

or More Cowbell?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=285559215&mt=8

I think the line is less clear than you think

arn

I think Apple made a mistake in pulling the App. It is not on the grounds of relevancy that the App is inappropriate, but that it is vulgar. (Offensive may be too subjective.)

Really, bodily noises? Apple is a serious company that doesn't want its technology promoting vulgarity.

I just wish Apple had of made the call how they saw it. Now everyone will be making comparisons to other Apps that are equally 'worthless'.

bobbleheadbob
Sep 4, 2008, 03:22 AM
Someone has to make the decision about what's on the app store and what isn't. I think :apple: made a "sound" decision here.

Stekeltje
Sep 4, 2008, 03:28 AM
I have to agree with Apple. I think that there are beter apps that deserve a place in the App Store. There are a lot of unusefull apps out there and finaly Apple starts to rejecting some of them! :cool:

barefootman
Sep 4, 2008, 03:32 AM
Why are you people even discussing this? The App got rejected; end of story.

It's between the developer and :apple:. Let him fight his own fight.

Al

OS X Dude
Sep 4, 2008, 03:44 AM
those vid annotations were classic! :D

Mastidon
Sep 4, 2008, 03:49 AM
Why are you people even discussing this? The App got rejected; end of story.

It's between the developer and :apple:. Let him fight his own fight.

Al

The point here is that if this guy gets rejected, who is next? Who says what is popular enough to sell? There is no other distribution method short of jailbreaking.

I laughed my ass of at his video. And I am sure it would have the same effect on most guys out for a beer at night. Is it an award winner? Not even close. Would I buy it for $0.99? Doubtful. If it was free, would I download it and keep it on my phone? Absolutely. Apple made a bad call.

alFR
Sep 4, 2008, 03:51 AM
My "issue" with this isn't that they rejected a farting application. If that's a defined criteria, that's fine. My problem is rejecting an app due to "limited utility".

arn

Well, I'm sure I remember that they said originally that one reason for the approval process was for quality control. I suppose one could argue over whether that would purely be technical (i.e. bugginess) or for conformance to the SDK guidelines/HIG etc. or would include the utility of the app. For my money theyve failed either way: there are a lot of buggy, ugly, useless apps on the store. One hopes that they'll die of natural causes (i.e. no-one buying them) soon.

The only reason this rejection letter is the least bit surprising to me is that it means apple is actually doing some degree of screening of Apps submitted to the store. But to block that app when they've let through so many others with "limited utility" or in fact no utility. Not to mention their apparent lack of screening for blatant copyright infringements in Apps. I'm not a huge fan of strict app screening, but because the App store allows users to make one-click impulse purchases without knowing the actual content of Apps, I think Apple owes it to customers to a certain amount of quality control. But since the current offerings belie any real attempts at quality control so far, it's a fairly lame explanation to give for not accepting this app.
On a side note, the apps that seem to me to be most worth removing from the store are the dozens of repackaged public domain books for sale. They seem rather obviously aimed at tricking the ignorant into paying for things that they could have for free to make money for some lazy sod who doesn't want to actually create anything useful. But maybe that's just me griping.

Yes. I can't for the life of me understand why hundreds of separate apps containing one book each are better than one book-reading app that stores a library inside it, but there we go. Hopefully these apps will die eventually as well.

Again, I think it shouldn't be Apple that decides on what content we want to put on our iPod or iPhone.

That's not the real problem: the real issue is that the app store is currently pretty much impossible to browse because there's so much crap on there, it's difficult to find the things that are good. As already remarked, the reviews aren't any use either, nor is going by what is most popular as people have already downloaded an app (thus adding to its ranking) by the time they realise it's useless. Hopefully as more reviews come up online this problem will be solved eventually.

ogee
Sep 4, 2008, 04:13 AM
*there


Seriously people. Go to middle school.

Remember please that not everyone here has English as their 1st (or even 2nd) language.

imageforce
Sep 4, 2008, 04:17 AM
i want it and i`d pay 79cents for it...

this is awesome! :)

Neuro
Sep 4, 2008, 04:34 AM
Ridiculous decision!

It looks a nicely made app. As long as silly / fun (some people like fun) stuff is kept in a special category, what's the problem??

Ade-iMac-177
Sep 4, 2008, 04:55 AM
The problem with this app is it's juvenile nature. Apple didn't want to say to the guy that "you're some babyish twat, ******* off and make a sensible app". I doubt it has anything to do really with limited usage and more of the unsophisticated nature of the product that apple doesn't want to have with their phone.

Is kind of a shame though - i quite liked it - very well implemented and i loved the page curl when going back to the choice screen. :(

Yixian
Sep 4, 2008, 05:02 AM
maybe apple is just now starting to crack down on new useless apps? :confused:

Exactly. Why does this need to be on the app store? It's trash, but if you're of the warped view that it's not trash, get it ad hoc. No need to waste Apple's bandwidth and add more and more useless apps to wade through on the store.

thimmus
Sep 4, 2008, 05:04 AM
Completely pointless, not to mention incredibly childish.

I for one would install this app without delay.

mixel
Sep 4, 2008, 05:10 AM
looks to me that they aren't worried about limited appeal, they're worried about the exact opposite.

They know damn well a large a) a large portion of the userbase would find it funny and download it. b) it looks actually well done for what it is.. c) Joke and novelty apps do crazily well.

It'd probably climb the store (remember how many kids have ipods and iphones) and probably embarass Apple with media attention and people bitching that the app store is just full of farting and lightsabre apps.

They shouldn't reject on those grounds, it makes no sense if they've let the bouncing 3D cow in etc to turn around and say no to an app that's actually well done. However lame it is.

The fact I wouldn't download it doesn't mean a hell of a lot of other people wouldn't.

DavidLeblond
Sep 4, 2008, 05:12 AM
IMHO Apple should increase the number of people that can get the app adhoc and allow people to sell their app on their own terms. Getting an app or even an app update into the app store is like pulling teeth! And then you don't even get paid for all the downloads, only those for the regions that you'd get $250+ for... for me, thats half of my sales. Basically Apple is holding onto $500+ in my case.

brucebrendon
Sep 4, 2008, 05:39 AM
well, maybe if was a cheap disposable app say 49p'ish, but def if was a free app!

Andy-V
Sep 4, 2008, 06:12 AM
It is no less useful then a very large amount of approved applications.

g4cubed
Sep 4, 2008, 06:15 AM
I believe that Apple had little to no standards when they opened the app store to get it filled with apps asap. Now that they have a fair amount of apps they're starting to get picky about what they want in there.

EricHvk
Sep 4, 2008, 06:16 AM
and ibeer or ipint or beer? wtf? three useless apps that people like apple get their head out of their high clouded a** and post the app.

ictiosapiens
Sep 4, 2008, 06:16 AM
I think people are reading way too much into this... I can almost picture a generic app screener(probably a girl) in a massive room full of operators/screeners on computers who thought the app was of bad taste and made a bad decision that will probably be reverted as soon as it reaches her manager... lol (All speculation of course, but at least here in the UK, staff on the lower levels do things like this ALL the time, normally to my displeasure)

Regarding quality control, I agree that there needs to be a better review system to make it easier to separate the crap from the useful. Regarding apple worried about their quality, well, both apple developed apps(remote and the pocker game) have received great reviews, so there's no issue there. I'm sure customers realize that the crap is not coming from apple, but from independent developers...

whooleytoo
Sep 4, 2008, 06:24 AM
I'm fully with Apple on this one. They don't want an App Store crammed with rubbish which could create a bad impression with customers, and I as a customer don't want to have to wade through it to find the quality apps.

Is there a (brick, or online) store in the world that doesn't select what products it offers (bar maybe bargain basement pound/euro stores)?

griz
Sep 4, 2008, 06:34 AM
If left unmanaged, the app store could easily become overrun with useless apps,

Then Apple needs to refine the app store so that the user has more control of what they see. Should the internet be controlled because it contains too much useless crap? Entire businesses sprang up to filter through that crap. Why should Apple be any different. Sure it is juvenile, but it shouldn't be prevented from being distributed. On the flip side, I can see it as being similar to a physical store choosing the product it distributes. However, in this case, it limits consumer choice since there is no other App store.

staypuffinpc
Sep 4, 2008, 06:46 AM
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the obvious. Apple should have said, "this stinks!" :D:p;):eek:

BornAgainMac
Sep 4, 2008, 06:48 AM
I see a lot of crappy apps. It makes it harder to find the good ones. And sometimes there are too many of the same thing. Hopefully future versions of the App Store will have tools to help filter out the bad apps at the user level. Some really good apps are not always in the top 50.

Maybe the worst ones can be put in a separate category or perhaps have a way to make a user defined category to put apps you never want to see displayed in of the other categories.

Manatee
Sep 4, 2008, 06:48 AM
There are many other apps already in the App Store with similar utility (or lack of) and similarly humorous intent. Let the consumers decide the merit of this application.

robbieduncan
Sep 4, 2008, 06:50 AM
Whilst this app sounds moronic and infantile I have a problem with Apple refusing to sell it. They charge developers $99 with the implicit promise that if they write an app that is within the rules (only uses public SDK calls, no porn, no illegal apps, not turn-by-turn guidance) they will sell it. In this case the app does not appear to have broken any of the rules I was aware of when I paid my $99 so the developer could reasonably expect to sell it and try and recoup some of the money they have already paid to Apple. They should either post the app or refund the developer their $99.

bug67
Sep 4, 2008, 06:51 AM
I neeeeeeeed this!!!!

I do not need Apple to tell me what I want or not.

davidgrimm
Sep 4, 2008, 06:57 AM
I would download this FREE OR NEARLY FREE application. I suggest that Apple redeploy all the bozos reviewing and rejecting these apps and focus on making their products actually work...

bigmc6000
Sep 4, 2008, 06:59 AM
How about they just have a category for this kind of stuff - make a link to it on the left hand side and maybe a little banner type deal at the bottom of the page. That would probably solve the problem of loading up the App Store with this stuff and the stuff that's truly funny/fun will make it's way into the top 10.

g3signal
Sep 4, 2008, 07:02 AM
I'd buy it. Apple really needs to stop with the ridiculous restrictions on an application that is harmless.

TheOrioles33
Sep 4, 2008, 07:05 AM
"Pull my finger"? Are you 12?

I'm pushing 40 and I want it! Whats wrong with being 12 Jack (a$$)?

z062007
Sep 4, 2008, 07:09 AM
i think the pull my finger app is great. its a hell of a lot better trying to use a whoopee cushion. i think i can help abercrombie & fitch or hollister know where there bad smell comes from with this app. ;)

cmegalodon
Sep 4, 2008, 07:13 AM
What ever happened to the fair market? Apple should put it up and allow the consumers to decide.

I'd buy it for 99 cents. It would be fun during long, boring meetings - or in elevators.

I know kids with iPod Touch that bought the milk app which is close to useless.

Stella
Sep 4, 2008, 07:14 AM
Sets a bad precedence.

Let the user decide what is good or bad and rate appropriately.

Another good reason for why my sig is closer to the truth than people think.

ppc_michael
Sep 4, 2008, 07:20 AM
I'm surprised there hasn't been a mention of SimStapler yet! It has even LESS functionality. (though it does keep score...)

jhartung
Sep 4, 2008, 07:28 AM
I guess this means I should stop working on my turn-the-pen-to-see-the-naked-lady app, huh?

DaBrain
Sep 4, 2008, 07:32 AM
Someone has to make the decision about what's on the app store and what isn't. I think :apple: made a "sound" decision here.

Your correct and that "someone" should be the BUYER! People are capable of making up their own minds and do not need some one that exhibits their moral authority of what they deem is unacceptable, funny, useful or whatever!

Perhaps the App store could have a joke section and a disclaimer buy or smell at your own risk.

This is so ridiculous! How a large company and some users can get so worked up over a Fart!

This decision just stinks IMHO!--))) :rolleyes::D:p;):eek::apple:

zombitronic
Sep 4, 2008, 07:32 AM
GOOD!! There's way too much crap on the App Store right now. And for the record, Koi Pond has many customizable settings and beautiful animation, making it far from limited. The developer put some hard work into Koi Pond. I don't know if AS MUCH work was put into Pull My Finger.

Shasterball
Sep 4, 2008, 07:32 AM
If, thinking bathroom humor is not funny makes me one, then yes.

So people should be denied a product because others think it is silly? Very bad precedent. How many interesting products have evolved from things people once thought were useless?

Sweetbike40
Sep 4, 2008, 07:35 AM
Koi Pond and Pull My Finger can't be compared. Koi Pond is popular because it's visually a beautiful app with pleasing sounds. The graphics in Pull My Finger are silly/corny and when the finger is being pulled, it sounds like fart noises. I think it's good that Apple is starting to become selective is what they allow on the app store.

Edit: The more i think about it, i'm sure a lot of kids would appreciate this app. Maybe Apple should have a "Kids" category.

Shasterball
Sep 4, 2008, 07:37 AM
...I can almost picture a generic app screener(probably a girl)...

oooff. Why would it have to be a girl?

t0mat0
Sep 4, 2008, 07:40 AM
It is limited utility, just whether it should be "pulled" is another matter...
I think Apple might get a rap for oding it, but having a nice App Store and contents is their perogative. Do people need 12 different light applications? I think they may have been more lenient at the start to get the numbers up, and then will be a bit more strict about silly apps coming through. Is there any written information as to what the minimum requirements for an app are?

robbieduncan
Sep 4, 2008, 07:45 AM
It is limited utility, just whether it should be "pulled" is another matter...
I think Apple might get a rap for oding it, but having a nice App Store and contents is their perogative. Do people need 12 different light applications? I think they may have been more lenient at the start to get the numbers up, and then will be a bit more strict about silly apps coming through. Is there any written information as to what the minimum requirements for an app are?

You can read the SDK Agreement here (http://developer.apple.com/iphone/index.action). You may need to create a free developer account (and therefore agree to the NDA) to read it...

Edit to add: you want to read section 3.3. It's quite long and detailed...

BrentT
Sep 4, 2008, 07:45 AM
I guess this means I should stop working on my turn-the-pen-to-see-the-naked-lady app, huh?

The real reason for denying Pull My Finger is its perceived rudeness. The naked lady idea is a great one but I doubt it would be sold right now. Apps have to consider the sensibilities of many countries. The developer agreement says they have the right to refuse any application for any reason. That is annoying aspect of the App Store but I can understand Apple's reasoning, even if I don't agree with it.

ppc_michael
Sep 4, 2008, 08:00 AM
Apps have to consider the sensibilities of many countries.

"In some countries it's considered a compliment!"

Mastidon
Sep 4, 2008, 08:03 AM
I'm surprised there hasn't been a mention of SimStapler yet! It has even LESS functionality. (though it does keep score...)

SPLENDID!

Always great for a mindless escape.

dicklacara
Sep 4, 2008, 08:12 AM
Never understood how "pulling a finger" equates to a fart noise. Can anyone enlighten me?

It's based on an old after dinner prank that a grandpa would play on one of his grandkids.

He'd stick his finger out and say: "If you want to hear the elephant roar, pull its trunk."

Bill Cosby used the routine on one of the shows in his top-rated TV series.

Over the years it got abbreviated to: "Pull my finger."

This app kinda' reminds me of the campfire scene in Mel Brooks' Blazing movie Saddles... all the cowhands were gathered 'round the campfire chowin' down on beans...

One might ask: "How come you know so much about farts, and so little about programming?"

Kwill
Sep 4, 2008, 08:29 AM
I have to side with Apple on this one. Not only is this app not worth downloading, the interface that brings up another page of icons confuses it with the regular iPhone desktop.

bytethese
Sep 4, 2008, 08:30 AM
I think Apple made a mistake in pulling the App. It is not on the grounds of relevancy that the App is inappropriate, but that it is vulgar. (Offensive may be too subjective.)

Really, bodily noises? Apple is a serious company that doesn't want its technology promoting vulgarity.

I just wish Apple had of made the call how they saw it. Now everyone will be making comparisons to other Apps that are equally 'worthless'.

What's vulgar about a naturally occurring thing? Do you not fart? Or does that gas perhaps stay in your head? :) People fart, burp, sneeze, cough, etc. So if I wrote an app that when you rubbed various noses and the iPhone makes a sneezing noise, that would be vulgar too?

dicklacara
Sep 4, 2008, 08:35 AM
The developer should rename the app and resubmit it....

The name "Pull My App" would seem appropriate. :D

DipDog3
Sep 4, 2008, 08:36 AM
APPLE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT!

They are the gate keepers and controls all of the keys.

The convenience and simplicity of the App Store comes at the price of FREEDOM!

bytethese
Sep 4, 2008, 08:42 AM
I think Apple's decision is dumb. It's not offensive, doesn't do anything malicious , etc. If the application works within Apple's guidelines and specifications, can't we as the consumer think it sucks by not purchasing it? I had thought Apple was there to QC these apps to make sure they play well with not only their device but with other apps, not to be the "moral majority" speaker for the Apple community as a whole.

Pointless app sure, would I download it? Most likely. :)

brn2ski00
Sep 4, 2008, 08:50 AM
Right and good point. Koi Pond is completely useless, but what I think Apple was trying to convey when they shot down Pull My Finger, was the fact that an application like this does little to entertain, let alone pose of value.

Idk, maybe the dev just wanted to get their feet wet and try out iPhone development without spending too much time on a "real" app. :confused:

swingerofbirch
Sep 4, 2008, 08:50 AM
If it were free, I would download it.

I have seen a lot more useless apps than this.

Plus what about all the crappy music on iTunes. There's probably songs on iTunes that have only been downloaded once or maybe never.

poolish
Sep 4, 2008, 09:01 AM
good. i hate those crap apps that dont do anything useful. nice.

mncmoore
Sep 4, 2008, 09:08 AM
i want this. that is so awesome. i would try to keep sending it to them.

tgildred
Sep 4, 2008, 09:10 AM
My "issue" with this isn't that they rejected a farting application. If that's a defined criteria, that's fine. My problem is rejecting an app due to "limited utility".

arn

I think they're just trying to be nice. Like, "It's not you, it's me." Just kidding.

Maybe they should have a "Limited Utility" section of the apps store.

I don't know. It's a new service, they're likely adjusting and refining the rules as conditions change and the quality/quantity of submitted apps changes. I'm torn; on one hand, I won't miss any pull my finger apps and certainly wouldn't want to have to sift through endless mounds of garbage to find what I want. On the other hand, you don't want to see Apple bringing the hammer down arbitrarily just because they don't like something. Also, I don't how they screen these applications. I imagine it's a different team of people on any given day, so there may be some judgment calls that one person/people would make that another might not (I'm not a developer, so I haven't read any documentation on the subject, so correct me if I'm wrong). Or perhaps the utility criteria is a new requirement based on a flood of "throw-away" applications. If there's an appeal process where you could make a case for your application, perhaps based on previous approvals, I'd feel better about it.

MMPC
Sep 4, 2008, 09:12 AM
A poll would be interesting here - as I'm guessing nobody is compiling the "pro" vs. "con" answers regarding Apple's decision. Can a moderator start one?

For me, I have to agree with those who say it's an unfortunate decision on Apple's part. As others have said, that's a very subjective thing. My question is, isn't there plenty of room on the App Store for even what some would say are the most "useless" applications? Tiny violin anyone? As long as it's not obviously offensive (i.e., porn), I'm guessing that what many of us would consider an application of "limited utility," someone else would consider a gem of an app. Let the people decide.

I also agree with what someone else said - Apple could institute a policy stating that apps which are don't meet a certain number of downloads within a certain time frame get removed.

tgildred
Sep 4, 2008, 09:12 AM
If it were free, I would download it.

I have seen a lot more useless apps than this.

Plus what about all the crappy music on iTunes. There's probably songs on iTunes that have only been downloaded once or maybe never.

Yes, will someone please tell Britney Spears* that her music is of limited utility?

*Sorry, I couldn't think of a more relevant pop music example of the top of my head.

Stargaze
Sep 4, 2008, 09:13 AM
Glad to see they are starting to hold their Developers accountable for making decent apps...


However they need to reveiw what is currently available and hold them accountable to the same rules and regulations they are throwing at the new apps...


I dont understand the purpose of many apps on the store currently... like the WHOO! button, or the more cowbell i believe they have the same amoutn of "utility" as this "pull my finger" app would have and would hold the same amount of value to me (free) as its a Gag Joke, its like we need the 'San Fransisco' Store section filled with useless gag props and jokes...

stevepeck
Sep 4, 2008, 09:16 AM
I don't blame Apple, we have waited forever for a cool device like iphone3G and you want us to put crap on it like this.
People are proud of Apple hardware and love to show it off, but would you show your iphone off with this piece of rubbish.

ictiosapiens
Sep 4, 2008, 09:17 AM
oooff. Why would it have to be a girl?

Well, I've yet to find the first one that finds farts, farting and bowel movement related humor funny...
But you are right, I'm sorry, she might be out there...

ppdix
Sep 4, 2008, 09:26 AM
Come on. No video and camera applications... No copy and paste... No flash... Useful stuff. Enough 1982 games and flickr upload apps... Give us something really useful.:mad:

robbieduncan
Sep 4, 2008, 09:33 AM
Come on. No video and camera applications... No copy and paste... No flash... Useful stuff. Enough 1982 games and flickr upload apps... Give us something really useful.:mad:

None of those things can be done with the current SDK. People keep asking but the answer remains the same: it's not possible.

BornAgainMac
Sep 4, 2008, 09:39 AM
How about they just have a category for this kind of stuff - make a link to it on the left hand side and maybe a little banner type deal at the bottom of the page. That would probably solve the problem of loading up the App Store with this stuff and the stuff that's truly funny/fun will make it's way into the top 10.

A wasteland category would be nice. If it sells really good then Apple can move it to a real category. And another category for Apps that are trolling and mocking Apple or the iPhone. The trolling category.

shuka
Sep 4, 2008, 09:46 AM
please, let us have it

NinjaHERO
Sep 4, 2008, 10:03 AM
Okay, I can agree with both sides of this argument. Is the app useless? Yes. Would I ever get it? No. But just like the Cowbell app this fits the same criteria and I am sad to admit I have that one.

I think its good that Apple is screening out limited function apps, but I think there should be a different outcome. Instead of rejecting apps based on limited use, how about they just tell the developer that it will have to be free. So you can have a silly app like Pull My Finger but you are not allowed to charge for it. Therefore the developer can at least show the world their hard work and none of us will accidentally give money for something that probably isn't worth a lot. Just my two cents, plus tax.

By the way, can we please separate the App store into Free and Paid. Not just the top 50, I want each category to have the option. Since there are so many apps now, I would like a more focused way to search through them.

robbyx
Sep 4, 2008, 10:14 AM
Ah, the new Apple...paranoid, controlling, and in love with censorship. I still think Apple makes the best products, so I continue to buy them. But I find the company and its corporate ideology pretty revolting at this point.

w00tini
Sep 4, 2008, 10:23 AM
ah, i kinda expected apple would take the high road on apps like this. i don't agree, i believe in the market dictating what is and isn't good for itself in an economic vacuum like the app store.

/pulls your finger

bacharss
Sep 4, 2008, 10:40 AM
This app looks a lot better than some of the crap on the app store. For instance, ezone.com's Crazy Metal Head, which is just a metal skull that costs 99 cents and lets you use your finger to move the jaw up and down. Apple either needs to implement these standards across the board or not at all. They can't have it both ways. Half the apps in the store are crap anyway.

I agree there is lots of what I consider crap so it's clear that Apple review of apps is not fair. I can imagine in another 6 months there will be thousands of apps which will make it a real pain to find good ones.

deannnnn
Sep 4, 2008, 10:47 AM
The AppStore IS already overrun with useless apps! ...The developer clearly put a lot of work into that, and I don't think it's fair of Apple to sensor that.

I would never buy it... but I'm sure there's a ton of people that would.

Nukey
Sep 4, 2008, 10:48 AM
It looks way better than the "hold the button down for as long as you can" app.

pmzpocket
Sep 4, 2008, 10:50 AM
First we complain about the **** apps in the store then when Apple decides to do something about by cutting out the useless apps people complain, probably the same ones. And to the ones who say they would PAY for it... that is BS. If that app made it to the store and had a price you would bitch about it. Grow up. The store was not made for grade school prank apps. Go Apple for taking care of this problem. :apple:

Yes continue to praise censorship, great idea. :rolleyes:

Its very important for everyone, and I mean everyone, to take a step back here and realize that in a situation such as this there is no "please-all" answer that everyone is looking for.

This is the way it has to be: Regardless of what you personally believe the app store is for, the truth is that the app store exists for developers to release apps for iPhone and iPod touch. This app ( and others ) can be as useless as the day is long..........in your opinion.

Apple censoring app releases based on their opinion of its usefulness is wrong, and non one should be supporting, and certainly not praising such activity.

Maybe if the organization of the App store in iTunes (both desktop and mobile) wasn't terrible, there wouldn't be any problem with useless apps getting in teh way of useful apps?

Arn was absolutely right to bring this to our attention, as it is a bad bad bad precedent.

phgreer
Sep 4, 2008, 10:50 AM
I think this is plenty useful. Good for a lot of laughs at parties. I really would like this app. In fact I have a whole screen devoted to silly apps just for showing people but are nothing but toys like Cowbell, phone saber, iPint and Rotarydialer. Come on Apple, let it in!

I really like the one with the with the girl and it let's out a more dainty fart.

:D

hazmat
Sep 4, 2008, 11:00 AM
I want it! I was laughing already when watching the video, imagine if I had the actual app! I agree that Apple has no right to reject this, when far more useless apps are up there.

If you were going to offer it for free, any chance you could give it out ad-hoc?

snowmoon
Sep 4, 2008, 11:04 AM
Apple has ever right to deny access to the iTunes App Store.... BUT it is insulting because they have rigged the system so that it's App store or bust. This is what I've been afraid of from day 1 of the announcement. You are either doubly blessed to a) receive a dev cert and b) make it onto the store or you waste a lot of time spinning your wheels for nothing.

Ad-hoc is a joke and was probably an afterthought when Apple realized that devs would need testing before releasing to the public.

After being a pioneer for DRM free music* it's a disgrace to watch Steve sharecropping the iPhone/iPod Touch platform.

* at least in terms of major music labels.

hannaest
Sep 4, 2008, 11:05 AM
I can understand Apple's decision. If left unmanaged, the app store could easily become overrun with useless apps, and cluttered to the point where finding useful apps becomes tedious. This could affect overall sales, as well as punish the developers who's apps were created with significant amounts of time and resources.

Besides, I think a clear distinction can be made between apps like koi pond and others of "limited utility" like pull-my-finger, whoopee-cushion, and the infamous I Am Rich.

I totally agree with this users comments. There should be a "limited utility" section for the very simple usage apps. And Koi Pond should also be in that section.

robbieduncan
Sep 4, 2008, 11:07 AM
If you were going to offer it for free, any chance you could give it out ad-hoc?

I can't see why the developer would offer it for free now: so many people seem to want it it's a sure-fire money spinner.

The problem with ad-hoc distribution is that it is limited to 100 devices.

junker
Sep 4, 2008, 11:07 AM
I personally don't care for the app, but some like it. I don't see why it shouldn't be available for fun. Who cares if it's a little crude Apple? Such is life...a little crude. Why not have a little fun with it.

On the other hand - as much as I hate censorship and authority in general, I'd like to remind those who are complaining about the censorship issue, that Apple's itunes and app store are theirs to do with as they wish... and you probably agreed to a EULA somewhere that gave them the power to do with it as they see fit.

Now you make something and it gets rejected, well, stuff happens - yopu (as a dev) submitted/agreed to the process. If you don't like rejection, get counseling don't try and start a rebellion over a contract you agreed to.

Otherwise redevelop the app or develop in Open source.

What mountain out of a molehill we have here.

oticon6
Sep 4, 2008, 11:11 AM
I think the solution is simple... category trees with very strict guidelines.

There's no need to censor stuff like this, despite how useless it may be.

dansky
Sep 4, 2008, 11:11 AM
I think the app "Pull my Finger" is great. It's so funny, it should be part of our ring tone applications.

harrier
Sep 4, 2008, 11:13 AM
Does Apple vet itunes songs for being of limited utility?

Wrong solution for the wrong problem. Apple is attempting to solve a self-imposed problem of centralized control of the inevitable onslaught of applications.

Like any other store however, shelf-space is a consideration with unpopular items replaced with the more profitable. Maybe Apple should give any application passing malware and other non-subjective tests, time on the shelf before rejection. After 90 days, if it's a dud, pull it. This way everyone has a shot. Who knows maybe the finger pulling app could have been a best-seller!!

If it's too much to handle, relinquish centralized control and allow us to acquire applications from any source.

hazmat
Sep 4, 2008, 11:15 AM
And besides, how is this more of more limited interest than Wooo Button, iBeer, Crazy Laser, Crazy Lighter, and that one to see how long you can keep your finger on the screen? Is the PMRC in charge of app approval?

hazmat
Sep 4, 2008, 11:17 AM
I can't see why the developer would offer it for free now: so many people seem to want it it's a sure-fire money spinner.

The problem with ad-hoc distribution is that it is limited to 100 devices.

I know, but at least some people could get it. Better than nothing I suppose.

spacetycho
Sep 4, 2008, 11:20 AM
this is pretty messed up.

first, there are more useless apps out there than we can deal with, some that charge, some for free. yes, i even have a couple.

one of them is slasher, a free app that's a knife that when you stab it makes the 'psycho' sound. while it is amusing to me, it is fairly violent to mock stabing someone, even virtualy. how does this make it and your's not?

second, the censorship issue is strange to me because, and stop me if i'm wrong, apple SELLS songs and movies on itunes uncensored with things like '****s' and farts. so why would they sensor an app?

i would do you best to get this out there somehow. good luck and keep us posted.

apple is starting to worry me.

justice is deserved.

JT Kirk
Sep 4, 2008, 11:27 AM
Eric: I agree with you wholehearedly, but you're too late. If I see any more permutations of the Magic 8-Ball in the App Store I'll .... well...I'll probably have correctly predicted the future!

I think it's going to be a long time before the iPhone gathers any credible image amongst the business community, and for the distribution of more utilitarian, productive applications if the store is polluted with all of this crap which seems to multiply by the day.

I used to check in daily to see what new applications were added but with all of this sort of 12 year old foolishness I wonder if I'll live to see the day! How about an HSBC internet banking iPhone client? Hope springs eternal. Enough cheesy games...you've spent at least $199 plus tax (or at least your Mommy of Daddy have), don't you want more?

I can understand Apple's decision. If left unmanaged, the app store could easily become overrun with useless apps, and cluttered to the point where finding useful apps becomes tedious. This could affect overall sales, as well as punish the developers who's apps were created with significant amounts of time and resources.

Besides, I think a clear distinction can be made between apps like koi pond and others of "limited utility" like pull-my-finger, whoopee-cushion, and the infamous I Am Rich.

sintaks
Sep 4, 2008, 11:30 AM
I'd totally buy that.

What the hell, meng? I can understand them censoring for quality control, but who are they to say their customers won't like it?

They already have a clause that says you app will get pulled if X people don't buy it in a month (or is it X dollars? I dunno). Why should they also speculatively reject apps?

Fight the good fight, my man.

localoid
Sep 4, 2008, 11:34 AM
Just be thankful that Smell-O-Vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-o-vision) never caught on...

manhattanboy
Sep 4, 2008, 11:36 AM
I'm with Apple on this one. Perhaps one compromise would be to put it out to the community -- remove apps that consistently get rated poorly, a self-pruning as it were. Of course, to do that, you'd need a fair way of reviewing apps...

maybe they should just create a junk app tab and keep these apps

36183
Sep 4, 2008, 11:37 AM
if they are going to do this, they should also remove dizzee rascal form the music store for limited comprehension.

hazmat
Sep 4, 2008, 11:37 AM
one of them is slasher, a free app that's a knife that when you stab it makes the 'psycho' sound. while it is amusing to me, it is fairly violent to mock stabing someone, even virtualy. how does this make it and your's not?


Slasher was pulled from the store quite a while ago because of its content.

marold280
Sep 4, 2008, 11:40 AM
I WANT IT !!! that is absolutely excellent :D

netslacker
Sep 4, 2008, 11:43 AM
Put it up on the store, I say. There's a ton of way-worse apps than that one (which appears to be very well done, btw) and this one clearly falls under the "Entertainment" category.

For those suggesting that it was good that Apple deny it because it is "vulgar" suggests then that Apple should remove all the "vulgar" music in it's music store too (good luck w/ that one).

Furthermore, if Apple is denying based on "limited utility" then what are the guidelines for meeting acceptable utility? Some of the most "limited utility" apps on my phone are the most used - by my 4 y/o - who loves apps like bubbles, Moo, PhoneSaber etc that do pretty much NOTHING but with one huge exception - THEY ENTERTAIN! How is this any different?

happydude
Sep 4, 2008, 12:07 PM
First we complain about the **** apps in the store then when Apple decides to do something about by cutting out the useless apps people complain, probably the same ones. And to the ones who say they would PAY for it... that is BS. If that app made it to the store and had a price you would bitch about it. Grow up. The store was not made for grade school prank apps. Go Apple for taking care of this problem. :apple:

there needs to be some accountability for apps that are "useless" but I don't think it should be Apple's decision. Why not let all apps go up, useless or not, and if the app does not meet a certain threshold of downloads in a predetermined amount of time, the app is removed. apple could justify this by saying apps not selling don't need to be taking up space compared to those that are. this would let the market decide which apps are useful and which aren't.

B. Hunter
Sep 4, 2008, 12:10 PM
Nobody can deny the fact there is useless garbage scattered throughout the App Store. Its time to step up development folks. Let's see more real applications.
I don't blame Apple for saying no to the finger. How many clown face lame type apps do we need?

Trajectory
Sep 4, 2008, 12:26 PM
I agree that there is way too much junk in the app store. It needs a major culling, otherwise no one will take it seriously. We need more useful, real apps.

mjtomlin
Sep 4, 2008, 12:28 PM
I think this is a case of Apple starting to crack down on these types of useless applications. Maybe they've started to catch up on the approval process and have a little more time dedicated to filtering the utility and usefulness? There does seem to be a lot of complaints lately about all the crap on the app store. Apple's got itself stuck in the middle, regardless of what they do, there will people who think they are evil and those that'll think they did the right thing.

The fact of the matter is, if someone doesn't get the usefulness or entertainment value of a fart noise without the follow-up smell, then this application will indeed have limited utility. Obviously, the people running the show don't get it. Personally, if I made a device such as the iPhone, I wouldn't want someone to give it the ability to fart. LOL

As for the remarks about Koi Pond, I love that app! It's so relaxing.

robfay
Sep 4, 2008, 12:28 PM
It's interesting to me that Apple would not allow a mindless fart joke, yet make available a Whoopie Cushion dashboard widget (http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/justforfun/whoopeecushionwidget.html) on their site. Aren't they pretty much the same?

It would be even more interesting if I could leave my iPhone under someone with this app so that it would function like a whoopie cushion :)

andrewj
Sep 4, 2008, 12:31 PM
This app is awesome, and yes I do enjoy bathroom humor. It's a shame that the app was rejected. Could you add me to your ad hoc distribution list?

Shasterball
Sep 4, 2008, 12:33 PM
Well, I've yet to find the first one that finds farts, farting and bowel movement related humor funny...
But you are right, I'm sorry, she might be out there...

My girlfriend farts in front of me all the time and dies laughing. Not that it's a good thing... Who would have thought a girl as small as she is could produce so much gas....

JML42691
Sep 4, 2008, 12:34 PM
As much as I am happy that Apple is taking this step to apps in the app store to improve the overall quality of the store for usefulness, I am disappointed that Apple would deny this app to the store, while letting half of the other crap into it. If they were going to allow other apps that are virtually useless, and serve less of a meaning than this app does, then why deny this app?

Greencardman
Sep 4, 2008, 12:36 PM
This is a stupid way to go about it. Apple could have created a new category for "limited utility" apps, or done a better job with their review system, like allowing up and down votes on reviews. Its really really stupid of them to do this. Sure, some people might not find them useful, but some people like a bit of mindless fun. Tucking them away in a corner of the App Store would be a much better solution than giving developers the finger.

digerata
Sep 4, 2008, 12:39 PM
This absolutely goes to far. For the people that say, "I can understand...," you need to go take day #1 of an economics 101 class. Hello, people! We live in a free market society. Let's KEEP it a free market. (That's free as in speech, not free as in beer.)

Let the consumers decide which apps rise to the top and which languish in "1-stardom."

**** you, Apple.

kheovnien
Sep 4, 2008, 12:40 PM
sigh....i really want Pull My Finger. did u see how many people's fingers u can pull? it's amazing! come on, apple, where's your focus? obviously in your head and not your heart. :(

kingtj
Sep 4, 2008, 12:45 PM
As long as Apple doesn't actively take steps to prevent people from developing and distributing alternate installer tools and jailbreaking iPhones - it's a legitimate position for them to take. Apple can say "Where else in the free marketplace do you have retail stores that are FORCED to put your product on their shelves? They get to pick and choose what they'd like to stock. Same with ours."



This absolutely goes to far. For the people that say, "I can understand...," you need to go take day #1 of an economics 101 class. Hello, people! We live in a free market society. Let's KEEP it a free market. (That's free as in speech, not free as in beer.)

Let the consumers decide which apps rise to the top and which languish in "1-stardom."

**** you, Apple.

mkoval11
Sep 4, 2008, 12:48 PM
I love Apple as much as the rest of the Mac fans on this website but Apple is playing a dangerous game. It may sound silly, even ridiculous to let this be the catalyst for this fight. I feel that Apple is stepping in the way of the very spirit and entrepreneurial efforts that make the company what it is. They sell music on iTunes that’s absolutely vile. I mean the kind of stuff that can start a race riot so even if this was offensive, which it’s not, sell the stupid app. It is a stupid app but so what. Its funny, to some. Some of the apps I've seen and downloaded are garbage. They cost a lot of money and don’t even work.

Apple needs to let the ecco-system thrive. Its solely in your best interest…

iSee
Sep 4, 2008, 12:48 PM
Woah, is this for real???

That's really, really bad.

I mean, I've got no interest in this particular stupid app, but for all I know many people will find it endlessly amusing. How does Apple decide which stupid apps have limited "utility" (I assume Apple meant to say "appeal" since there are many, many, apps in the store with zero utility)???

Anything involving judgement calls like this are going to be a real problem for Apple. I surprised they were dumb enough to go down this road. Every time "Victor" or one of his colleges rejects a controversial app it's going to blow up in their face.

Hmm... I've got an idea right now: The Steve Jobs Kissing Booth. SJ will be sitting in a booth, and when you touch his lips, he puckers up and gives you a good smooch (you're supposed to actually kiss the screen, but I don't think the touch API can tell that). Think that will get through?

---

I'm fine with Apple setting any standard they want for their store. The problem is that their's no other place to publish apps.

They just need a new section in the store called "Limited Utility/Appeal."

Kilamite
Sep 4, 2008, 12:49 PM
Haha, brilliant!

Seriously, what if you had a wee kid? That would give them a lot of amusement. Hell, I find that amusing!

Adolfojimenez20
Sep 4, 2008, 12:50 PM
Id download it for free

iSee
Sep 4, 2008, 12:52 PM
As long as Apple doesn't actively take steps to prevent people from developing and distributing alternate installer tools and jailbreaking iPhones - it's a legitimate position for them to take. Apple can say "Where else in the free marketplace do you have retail stores that are FORCED to put your product on their shelves? They get to pick and choose what they'd like to stock. Same with ours."

Uh, what? Did you ever wonder why it's called jailbreaking?

bytethese
Sep 4, 2008, 12:54 PM
Well, I've yet to find the first one that finds farts, farting and bowel movement related humor funny...
But you are right, I'm sorry, she might be out there...

Sorry, I'm already marrying her. :)

mcdj
Sep 4, 2008, 12:56 PM
As mentioned, and well known, there is no shortage of junk apps on the App Store, with no more or less limited utility than Pull My Finger. That said, it's Apple's house, and Apple's toys. They can close the house at will, and pack up their toys. They can draw a line anywhere they like. Their seeming indifference to the trainwreck that is the App Store review system is a glaring example of this fact.

the--reflex
Sep 4, 2008, 01:03 PM
Why don't you combine this app with iLightr for an explosive combo!!!

SWEET!!

anthonyb
Sep 4, 2008, 01:06 PM
Im leaving a comment. This should be in the app store. Apple should not be declining applications based on what they feel would be a successful app or not.

robert222
Sep 4, 2008, 01:06 PM
What an embarrassment! What a waste of time and developer talent! We need Apple to perform this quality control to weed out this sort of brain-dead crap! Thank you Apple :apple:

dejo
Sep 4, 2008, 01:09 PM
We live in a free market society.
Um, no we don't. Not really.

And even if we did, wouldn't a free market society give Apple the freedom to choose whatever products they wanted to sell? So, if you're advocating forcing Apple to provide products they don't want to, that's kinda the anti-thesis of a free market.

Parky
Sep 4, 2008, 01:14 PM
I'd like to have this.

I've seen a bunch of useless crap on their, and something like this can't get on their? Oh please Apple.

You could do with a Grammar checker.

It is 'there' not 'their'.

Parky
Sep 4, 2008, 01:15 PM
Im leaving a comment. This should be in the app store. Apple should not be declining applications based on what they feel would be a successful app or not.

When it is your store you can make the decision, until then.....

Trajectory
Sep 4, 2008, 01:19 PM
Hello, people! We live in a free market society.

We do? What alternate reality do you live in?

navigates
Sep 4, 2008, 01:21 PM
Are you crazy! Useless app. At least apple is now taking approvals seriously after the iamrich crap app :rolleyes:

Kilamite
Sep 4, 2008, 01:22 PM
We do? What alternate reality do you live in?

One where farts are a major part of it I'd assume..

digerata
Sep 4, 2008, 01:35 PM
Um, no we don't. Not really.

That is wrong. Unless you are basing your definition of free market as an absolute where no government can intervene at all, in which case, you would be in disagreement with most economists out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market


And even if we did, wouldn't a free market society give Apple the freedom to choose whatever products they wanted to sell? So, if you're advocating forcing Apple to provide products they don't want to, that's kinda the anti-thesis of a free market.


That would be true. Except it isn't Apple that is selling products on the App Store. Independent businesses and individuals are. Apple is only facilitating the transaction. Now it is, indeed, their platform that all of this is happening on. So obviously, they are allowed to introduce controls that maintain a desirable experience for the end users.

But those controls should not be to restrict products based on some arbitrary, undefinable whim. Doing so is, to use your words, the antithesis of a free market. Those controls should only provide the tools for end-users to easily find products that suit their needs and their own view of what is worthwhile.

To use the argument of others on this topic, lots of music is offered for sale on the iTunes Store. Yet, there is no one filtering out "tasteless artists and songs." It would be against all parties interests to do that as it is in the App Store's case.

Again, let the consumers decide which apps are worthwhile. Any other way is fascist and evil.

digerata
Sep 4, 2008, 01:47 PM
One where farts are a major part of it I'd assume..

The average person farts a half liter of gas per day or, in other words, over 10,000 liters in their lifetime.

dreadloquito
Sep 4, 2008, 01:53 PM
This absolutely goes to far. For the people that say, "I can understand...," you need to go take day #1 of an economics 101 class. Hello, people! We live in a free market society. Let's KEEP it a free market. (That's free as in speech, not free as in beer.)

Let the consumers decide which apps rise to the top and which languish in "1-stardom."

**** you, Apple.

What definition of free market are you using exactly? To begin with— We don't live in a free market, we just like to throw the phrase around when it suits our needs. Secondly, since when does a free market entail forcing companies to sell and distribute anything that's submitted to them? The whole "free" part of things happens to apply to retailers making their own choices about what and what not to sell.

Also, could everyone take a deep breath and tone down the rhetoric about "censorship"? The app store is not a public forum, and the right to "free speech" and "freedom of expression" simply does not apply to this situation. Just as privately owned blogs and forums have the right to censor whatever they like, so does the App Store. The idea that, by rejecting an app that they did not wish to sell, Apple was oppressing our rights or somehow engaging in ideological censorship is completely absurd. Yes, it was an arbitrary decision. Plenty of other apps should never have gotten onto the store. Ultimately, though, it's Apple's store and what makes it on and what doesn't is their choice. Maybe you don't like it, but that's simply the way things stand.

While I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of the closed distribution method of Apps for the iPhone, making a huge fuss over one rejected app is completely missing the bigger picture. If you want to discuss censorship, look at the model as a whole, not some lame farting app. Because honestly, "the man" and the corporate powers that be have no grand scheme to rid the world of digitized bodily functions. One might assume they would focus on bigger things...

Aldaris
Sep 4, 2008, 01:55 PM
It's sad- really. There are some really useless apps in the app-Store this at least would be a good gag or time waster- I know my nephew would get a kick out of it.

If it were 0.99 or less I'd pick it up.

LastLine
Sep 4, 2008, 01:58 PM
Should Crazy Eye be removed then?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=284827332&mt=8

or More Cowbell?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=285559215&mt=8

I think the line is less clear than you think

arn
This is just it, there's some utter crap on the appstore really, some of it is probably people experimenting with the SDK and seeing what can be done with it. More still is people just hoping for a quick buck.

In either case the appstore shouldn't have a lot of what is in it already, there's some gems there but there's also some coal in amongst them.

lazyrighteye
Sep 4, 2008, 02:02 PM
Ooooh. Unfortunate that Apple is taking this stance and/or implementing this tactic. I see their angle, but think there a better way to handle such things.
Opens the approval process up to a lot of ambiguity.
Needs to be more black/white. Less gray.

I don't really know the distribution rights of those apps not approved by Apple... but if Apple does deny an app, there really should be a safe, trusted and simple way for that app to be made available to as many people that want to buy/download said app.

I have no answers. Just questions.

dreadloquito
Sep 4, 2008, 02:03 PM
Again, let the consumers decide which apps are worthwhile. Any other way is fascist and evil.

Fascist and evil? I somehow feel you might be overstating your point. If you want to fight against evil and fascism, I assure you there are far too many very real examples of it in the world. Blowing something as inconsequential as this out of proportion and assigning it such "menacing" importance tells me we could all use a reality check. There are bigger fish to fry, save the righteous outrage for the real problems in the world, all it does in this case is give some of us headaches.

IguanaTrump
Sep 4, 2008, 02:21 PM
Hmmm... What if the guys at Microsoft got as fascist as Apple is being?

""Hello Windows Developer,

We've reviewed your application "Safari". We have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad Windows user community, and will not be allowed to be published for Windows.

It may be very appropriate to share with friends, family, and other iKool-Aid® drinkers,and we recommend you stick to distribution on platforms of lesser market share. Details on distributing this application among a smaller group of people using OSX 10.5 or higher or, of Steve's choosing.

Regards,

Bytemy Wang
Worldwide Developer Relations

Oh, the Irony!"

digerata
Sep 4, 2008, 02:30 PM
What definition of free market are you using exactly? To begin with— We don't live in a free market, we just like to throw the phrase around when it suits our needs.

Like I said before, if we define an absolute free market with no government intervention, then you are right. But that is not general consensus among economists.


Secondly, since when does a free market entail forcing companies to sell and distribute anything that's submitted to them? The whole "free" part of things happens to apply to retailers making their own choices about what and what not to sell.


Apple is only a facilitator in the App Store. They are *not* selling products. Other businesses and individuals are. That is a major distinction that many are not realizing. To use Apple's own words, they are creating a "marketplace."


Also, could everyone take a deep breath and tone down the rhetoric about "censorship"? The app store is not a public forum, and the right to "free speech" and "freedom of expression" simply does not apply to this situation. Just as privately owned blogs and forums have the right to censor whatever they like, so does the App Store. The idea that, by rejecting an app that they did not wish to sell, Apple was oppressing our rights or somehow engaging in ideological censorship is completely absurd. Yes, it was an arbitrary decision. Plenty of other apps should never have gotten onto the store. Ultimately, though, it's Apple's store and what makes it on and what doesn't is their choice. Maybe you don't like it, but that's simply the way things stand.


You argument of privately owned blogs and forums does not hold true. The App Store is not a forum. It is a marketplace. Trade is commencing.

A successful marketplace would not have arbitrary and undefinable controls filtering products. Apple, as is their right, can choose to maintain this practice and the App Store may be a success simply because of the amazing iPhone platform. I've never argued against that. However, it stifles developer innovation and creativity. Some would call "I am Rich" art. (http://www.kottke.org/08/08/the-1000-iphone-app) While that could be debated, since when is it human nature to let one person or group decide?

What ever people have said about Microsoft, one thing can be learned from them. 3rd party developers are lifeblood, don't enforce unnecessary restrictions on them.

We are likely only arguing the difference between a successful App Store and a wildly, out of this world, successful App Store.

I am a consumer and a developer of the iPhone. I would never waste my time with a fart application. But with these application removals, my attitude about developing apps for the iPhone changed from enthusiastic developer competition to cautious required business move. I'm still developing apps for the store, the difference is, now I just feel like I have to rather than want to.

studlybw
Sep 4, 2008, 02:33 PM
To take a page out of Steve Jobs own book, he bought into the technology of a mouse when many others said it would be useless. How did that turn out for him? Maybe you'll want to take a look at that piece of plastic sitting next to your keyboard to get a better idea.

Put it up Apple and let the people decide if it's worth buying.

(I didn't have the time to read through all of the other posts so this might have been mentioned already but it deserves to be mentioned again)

RonCarr
Sep 4, 2008, 02:35 PM
Yes continue to praise censorship, great idea. :rolleyes:


Its not praising censorship when one gets tired of going onto the app store just to find stupid apps that don't do anything other than make a sound. Apple is trying to push their device into the business market, now how the hell do you expect businesses to like the idea of having iPhones when there are stupid apps like this? If i owned a business I would not want my employees walking around all day farting and telling jokes and this app is just that. Now I consider myself a very democratic thinker, however, the app store was not designed for this magnitude of apps and for now the useless apps are just taking up space and making a mess. Once they straighten out the sorting process maybe then there will be room for apps such as this one. Until then I hold my positions on the subject thank you very much.

digerata
Sep 4, 2008, 02:40 PM
Fascist and evil? I somehow feel you might be overstating your point.

Agreed. I rescind my fascist and evil remark. :) How about elitist and disheartening instead?

digerata
Sep 4, 2008, 02:45 PM
Now I consider myself a very democratic thinker, however, the app store was not designed for this magnitude of apps and for now the useless apps are just taking up space and making a mess. Once they straighten out the sorting process maybe then there will be room for apps such as this one. Until then I hold my positions on the subject thank you very much.

That's exactly my point. :) Build a better App Store. Put the control into the consumers hands. The rating system is there. Let us use it!

Further, it really wouldn't be that crazy for Apple to say, "Hey, your app is rated at 1 star. It has been consistently rated at 1 star for the past month. It has now been removed."

Rizzo72
Sep 4, 2008, 02:46 PM
I'm a MAC loyalist. I've been using macs since the 80's. I can remember when Apple was a struggling company trying to make a foot print for it self. Now that its been headed strait up the digital food chain why do they keep acting like a snobby stuck up winey child.

Let the guy sell his application. Apple's getting there part so who cares? Give the guy a break.

Thanks.

dreadloquito
Sep 4, 2008, 02:48 PM
Agreed. I rescind my fascist and evil remark. :) How about elitist and disheartening instead?

Fair enough. Would you agree that the broader issue here is the closed nature of iPhone App distribution itself? Not just the rejection of one app?

whosyourtator
Sep 4, 2008, 02:54 PM
Apple was previously rejecting these types of Apps as "obscene". Once they realized by that standard that iTunes Music store was highly obscene, they changed the excuse. Its simple. Steve Jobs has gas and doesn't like people making fun of it.

See this thread for info on how two more apps were denied previously.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=540336&highlight=fart+sounds

Trajectory
Sep 4, 2008, 03:00 PM
That's exactly my point. Build a better App Store. Put the control into the consumers hands. The rating system is there. Let us use it!

Yes, the App Store needs improvement and more useful apps. But the rating system is also being abused. Apple should only allow those who purchased or downloaded the app to write a review.

macman2003
Sep 4, 2008, 03:03 PM
I would definitely buy it for about $1.99

They are walking on shaky ground when they pull a seemingly well designed, and humorous app like this. The rate at which 12 year olds have cell phones these days is ridiculous! It may be bad business sense on their part to not have apps liked by 12 year olds.

again worth about $2

digerata
Sep 4, 2008, 03:22 PM
Fair enough. Would you agree that the broader issue here is the closed nature of iPhone App distribution itself? Not just the rejection of one app?

Yes and no. I think that the closed distribution model could work if the approval process was more open. After all, if your purpose is just, and your app is approved for the app store, there being only one place to distribute my app does not bother me.

I originally felt that the closed model was a necessary trade for other benefits. After all, we have never seen the potential for something this amazing and whether it could be pulled off in an open manner by a certain other company is up for debate.

I think the closed distribution model could work if Apple let's consumers decide on the merits of applications. The fact that the rating system is being abused can certainly be fixed.

And not to hijack this thread with a semi-off-topic... My company has been waiting for months to get approved as a corporate developer for the iPhone. We haven't had a yes or no answer, only several emails with "still reviewing our application." All the while, our app is sitting around waiting to see the light of day. Wtf?

rebo
Sep 4, 2008, 03:28 PM
So here is my problem with Apple rejecting applications for reasons that are not not clearly documented.

To make this app, it could well of taken a 2 man team 3 working weeks for all conception, coding, graphics, sound recording,design, testing, debugging, etc. For a developer on $70k a year, thats $8,000 in costs. After which to be told your investment has gone down the drain...

It's not like you can sell your app elsewhere, your effort is simply wasted.

Regardless whether 'pull-my-finger' is a decent app or not, surely developers must be given clear and consistent rules which their apps must follow.

b-gee
Sep 4, 2008, 03:32 PM
I want it!

tsice19
Sep 4, 2008, 03:32 PM
Well I can think of a bunch of other apps that are useless that are in the app store... to name a few:

-Hold Button

-Koi Pond

-Free Bird


Or how about LOLCats? :D

rstansby
Sep 4, 2008, 03:33 PM
Ad-hoc distribution is limited to 100 people.

arn

I was almost thinking that the developer would be allowed to sell the app through this ad-hoc method. Even if that is allowed the 100 person limit ruins it. I don't Apple is being fair at all. This guy wrote a real program serves a purpose for some users. People buy toys that just make fart sounds, so there is obviously a market. The developer paid to be able to develop and sell apps for the iPhone. Sure many of us, including me, would never buy this app, but he has a right to sell it. As for crowding the store with lame apps, there will always be different categories and search functions to help you find what you are looking for.

IgnatiusTheKing
Sep 4, 2008, 03:47 PM
I don't think I can live without the Pull My Finger app...

Farewell cruel world!

whooleytoo
Sep 4, 2008, 03:49 PM
I don't think I can live without the Pull My Finger app...

Farewell cruel world!

Are you pulling my leg?

:p

Bubba Satori
Sep 4, 2008, 03:52 PM
Control the hardware.
Control the operating system.
Control the software.
Control the......

http://www.calebbooker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/big_brother_theater.jpg

Hawkeye411
Sep 4, 2008, 03:55 PM
Looks like a well developed app. It should be available in the app store!!

GreyHare
Sep 4, 2008, 03:57 PM
Should Crazy Eye be removed then?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=284827332&mt=8

or More Cowbell?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=285559215&mt=8

More Cowbell is awesome because you can use it while playing something on the iPod function in the background, thus doing your own cowbell skit. This works really well when you have the iPhone or iPod plugged into a stereo.

The application is not very impressive by itself, but that's not the only way it can be used. Flatulence noises... seriously, if you want that, record or download some flatulence MP3s, make a playlist, and use the iPod function.

sunfast
Sep 4, 2008, 04:11 PM
The app I'm determined to make one day would probably count as being of "limited utility" and yet is a perfectly serious thing that would be professionally useful to a small niche. Would Apple treat if differently? Probably.

I think that app is brilliant though - clearly spent a lot of time working on it. Genuinely laugh out loud funny :)

imCaKeBoY
Sep 4, 2008, 04:13 PM
wow that sucks i would defenetly get that app just to annoy my girlfriend well count my vote that i would get it

MacTheSpoon
Sep 4, 2008, 04:24 PM
That's lame, they should have let him put his app on the app store.

arn
Sep 4, 2008, 04:24 PM
ars has a screenshot
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/09/04/rejected-iphone-dev-to-apple-pull-my-finger

sebgreen
Sep 4, 2008, 04:28 PM
I love that application!! i want it!

madmaxmedia
Sep 4, 2008, 04:29 PM
This app looks a lot better than some of the crap on the app store. For instance, ezone.com's Crazy Metal Head, which is just a metal skull that costs 99 cents and lets you use your finger to move the jaw up and down. Apple either needs to implement these standards across the board or not at all. They can't have it both ways. Half the apps in the store are crap anyway.

+10. He actually put a lot more thought into it than I would have imagined, with all the different people to choose from.

Besides, I would actually buy 'Pull My Finger' for a buck, it would crack up my kids.

whosyourtator
Sep 4, 2008, 04:38 PM
If you really want to send a message to apple. Then everyone go to this older poll thread and vote FOR farts on an iPhone.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=540336&highlight=fart+sounds

NightCastle
Sep 4, 2008, 04:45 PM
Control the hardware.
Control the operating system.
Control the software.
Control the......

http://www.calebbooker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/big_brother_theater.jpg

Hey isn't that from the Apple Ad?

echoout
Sep 4, 2008, 04:45 PM
That app is retarded. They need to not saturate their store with apps like this one, and ones that ARE on their store currently. Sucks to dig through all the crap to get to something useful.

gcmexico
Sep 4, 2008, 04:57 PM
by far the dumbest app I have ever seen!!!!!

yagrax
Sep 4, 2008, 05:08 PM
Regardless of what you think of this actual application, you need to realize the broader ramifications of Apple's decision.

Apple seems to be going against the grain by not allowing the free market to decide the fate of the product.

For Apple to be based in America, this seems to me anti-American. In our society individuals are free to sell just about anything they want. Yes, we do have certain limitations - no beer to minors nor porn either, etc. But the market as a whole decides whether a product is going to stay for sale very long by buying the product or the manufacturer loses money (in this case his $50 developer fee and the costs of getting into the AppStore realm and time spent developing an app, etc).


Apple is not the woman throwing the sledgehammer at the screen anymore. They are the man on the screen telling us, the people seated in the audience, what to do and what we can have.

A sad day Mr. Jobs.


As Clint would say in this situation...go ahead punk, pull my finger...



;-)

shadyInCA
Sep 4, 2008, 05:09 PM
Your app is total crap.

Apple doesn't want it in their store
I don't want it in their store

Get over it!!

QCassidy352
Sep 4, 2008, 05:28 PM
i agree bad precedent

let the consumers decide what apps should be used as long as it fits the sdk requirements

I don't agree. This isn't a free market, it's apple's market, and I think they have not only the right but the obligation to keep the utter crap out of the app store. It's already so crowded with garbage that it's hard to find the good apps. "Pull my finger?" Enough is enough.

he has a right to sell it.

Nope, he doesn't. Nobody has any "right" to sell anything on the app store. Apple is free to allow or not allow whatever they want for whatever reason they want (unless they banned an app because of the race or gender of the designer, or something like that).

Personally, I fully support apple filtering out the worst of the crap to keep the app store a place where you can find useful apps with relative ease. This isn't government censorship or any such nonsense - it's apple protecting its own products (the app store and the iphone/ipod touch).

Glideslope
Sep 4, 2008, 05:45 PM
Comparing this to Koi Pond as he does on his Tube video is bulls***.

Poorly written Comic Code.

I view Koi Pond the last 15 min of my lunch every day. Let me tell you, I relax quickly. What the heck are fart sounds going to do? Entertain a 4th grader? Enable a parent that would let a 4th grader be stimulated by this?

Good work Apple. Keep the Crap out.

mac 2005
Sep 4, 2008, 05:47 PM
First we complain about the **** apps in the store then when Apple decides to do something about by cutting out the useless apps people complain, probably the same ones. And to the ones who say they would PAY for it... that is BS. If that app made it to the store and had a price you would bitch about it. Grow up. The store was not made for grade school prank apps. Go Apple for taking care of this problem. :apple:

Agreed. There simply is a segment of people in society that will rush to defend any idea that is challenged by the "system."

Bottom line: Apple owns the application store; it can allow or forbid any application it wants for any reason.

arn
Sep 4, 2008, 05:53 PM
Agreed. There simply is a segment of people in society that will rush to defend any idea that is challenged by the "system."

Bottom line: Apple owns the application store; it can allow or forbid any application it wants for any reason.

I don't think people disagree with this. That's not the problem.

I have no problem if Apple decides it wants to specifically ban all fart-related apps. That's fine. Just say it if that's why.

But how many hours/days/weeks are you going to put into an app when it can be blocked for vague reasons only after you're done. "limited utility."

arn

webs1
Sep 4, 2008, 06:03 PM
How can judging the utility of an app be anything but subjective? What about an app for keeping track of how many days it's been since your accordion was tuned? Or an app that helps you identify different types of accordions? Limited utility, or not?

That's a flawed argument, since if you own an accordion, or have any need to identify one, you're simply not cool enough to own an iPhone :p

Frankie Yankovic FTW!

whosyourtator
Sep 4, 2008, 06:06 PM
I don't think people disagree with this. That's not the problem.

I have no problem if Apple decides it wants to specifically ban all fart-related apps. That's fine. Just say it if that's why.

But how many hours/days/weeks are you going to put into an app when it can be blocked for vague reasons only after you're done. "limited utility."

arn

Right on. I coded all night one night and spent $50 bucks for the royalty free fart sounds in "Flatulence", my fart machine app that was denied. I've never laughed so hard while coding an application in my life. Apple wiped the smile right off my face. Now "Flatulence" is only for my wife and I to laugh at, since it was denied from the App Store.

To all the prudes calling these apps crap, I had way too many people interested in this type of app. For every prude who bashes an app like this, I'd bet there are 10 more that would like to have it. Just read all the support for "Pull My Finger" on this thread.

People should have a choice. What if you went to a restaurant and the restaurant said you cannot have French Fries because they cause obesity? I'm sure you would not agree to this if you are a French Fry lover.

One more point. People that complain there are too many apps in the app store need learn to use the search feature. Its like saying that we need to remove all the pages on the internet because its too hard to find exactly what I am looking for. Its ridiculous. One mans trash is another mans treasure.

I didn't really have the gall to "raise a stink", but I am glad this developer did.

showson1
Sep 4, 2008, 06:16 PM
THANK YOU APPLE!

There is far too much crap in the app store, I personally am glad they are starting to limit this.
I'm not talking about free stuff, but pay stuff should definitely be monitored.

There's way too much stuff that people slapped together to try and make a quick buck.

About the "pull my finger", that actually sounds like a pretty funny app, I'm talking in generalities not about that specific application.

Iphone3GUser
Sep 4, 2008, 06:16 PM
I agree with apple very few sounds and cartoons thats all.
sorry dude!:rolleyes:

iceborer
Sep 4, 2008, 06:25 PM
I cannot tell you how much joy this app would bring me (and how much pain it will bring my wife). I hope Apple can get over itself long enough to put this app in the store and start my elevator-riding and finger-pulling vacation.

rhett7660
Sep 4, 2008, 06:36 PM
Your app is total crap.

Apple doesn't want it in their store
I don't want it in their store

Get over it!!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

(L)
Sep 4, 2008, 06:43 PM
I can understand Apple's decision. If left unmanaged, the app store could easily become overrun with useless apps, and cluttered to the point where finding useful apps becomes tedious. This could affect overall sales, as well as punish the developers who's apps were created with significant amounts of time and resources.

Besides, I think a clear distinction can be made between apps like koi pond and others of "limited utility" like pull-my-finger, whoopee-cushion, and the infamous I Am Rich.

Yes, and, it does cost money to host these apps as well, right? People talk about this as if it's all about Apple being a tyrant, but that's just not the case when space is limited. These really unambitious developers have a right to develop, but not a god-given right to force Apple to distribute.

(L)
Sep 4, 2008, 06:48 PM
People should have a choice. What if you went to a restaurant and the restaurant said you cannot have French Fries because they cause obesity? I'm sure you would not agree to this if you are a French Fry lover.

One more point. People that complain there are too many apps in the app store need learn to use the search feature. Its like saying that we need to remove all the pages on the internet because its too hard to find exactly what I am looking for. Its ridiculous. One mans trash is another mans treasure.


Your points are valid but fail to be convincing. Why shouldn't Apple too have a choice? It takes time, money, and effort to post an app, and although I can see some value in your flatulence app, it's not a matter of the search feature -- it's Apple's choice, and if your treasure is trash to them, they are not obliged to host it.

Balooba
Sep 4, 2008, 06:52 PM
This is why I got an iPhone, To run apps made by members of the community. Sharpen up Apple!

na1577
Sep 4, 2008, 06:53 PM
Despite the fact that I think that it's an incredibly stupid and immature app, I don't see why it was rejected but similarly useless applications were approved, such as "I Am Rich," "Koi Pond," and the $0.99 "More Cowbell". Sadly, Apple seems to have a very inconsistent and weak screening process. I really can't believe that Apple has allowed so much ****** in the store.

thulsmans
Sep 4, 2008, 06:57 PM
I say create a new section in the app store for these "limited utility" applications. this will make the developers happy and the community happy without affecting overall sales in the app store. when searching for an application you can choose to include apps with limited utility or not

whosyourtator
Sep 4, 2008, 07:00 PM
Yes, and, it does cost money to host these apps as well, right? People talk about this as if it's all about Apple being a tyrant, but that's just not the case when space is limited. These really unambitious developers have a right to develop, but not a god-given right to force Apple to distribute.

To call people unambitious is simply wrong. Childish or juvenile might apply. Genius applies too. Read up on the history of whoopie cushion at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopie_cushion). People that tried to deny it lost out on a very profitable venture. The smartest business people are those that can turn something little into an empire.

whosyourtator
Sep 4, 2008, 07:08 PM
Your points are valid but fail to be convincing. Why shouldn't Apple too have a choice? It takes time, money, and effort to post an app, and although I can see some value in your flatulence app, it's not a matter of the search feature -- it's Apple's choice, and if your treasure is trash to them, they are not obliged to host it.

With my points, the approach where Apple allows the people to choose by publishing apps, then at least the people and Apple both have a say. Unpopular items will fall down into the catacombs of the App Store.

With your approach, only Apple has a choice. So, your points are valid too, but even less convincing.

razorianfly
Sep 4, 2008, 07:19 PM
I'm sorry, but if Apple lets through applications like 'I am Rich' and rejects novelty, fun applications like this,
Where will the App Store be in 5 years time? :rolleyes:

People like novelties - This is a novelty.

Go figure ...

R-Fly

junker
Sep 4, 2008, 08:21 PM
again I say: Mountain... meet molehill.

Avenger4269
Sep 4, 2008, 08:24 PM
Not saying apple shouldnt monitor apps. 100% should be monitored but how many programs are EXACTLY the same just from a different developer. You know what with quirks and issues, give us some joy with fart effects!!! LOL they never get old. I mean how many of us have the phone saber??? Since it was available, how many days to you turn it on?? LOL Imagine in a boring meeting with John Smith droning on about how profits are down, blah blah blah. Pull my finger is not only worth having, I would pay for it!!!! If they wont allow ever consider posting on a jailbroken website???

Riemann Zeta
Sep 4, 2008, 08:39 PM
I think the app store is already overrun with useless crap and "me-too" duplicates. On any platform, the ratio of truly useful, well-built applications to novelty items, pointless and poorly-executed programs is fairly low. So, if you want a truly developer-accessible platform, you have to know that there will be a lot of crap out there.

bobthecat23
Sep 4, 2008, 08:55 PM
good i hope they keep teh **** out lets get rid of all the horrible **** in the app store

swingerofbirch
Sep 4, 2008, 08:58 PM
Ah, the new Apple...paranoid, controlling, and in love with censorship. I still think Apple makes the best products, so I continue to buy them. But I find the company and its corporate ideology pretty revolting at this point.

Think Different is now:

Think Broad Appeal

or

Think Utilitarian

It is funny how Apple went after everyone having the "beige" boxes and now everyone has the "white" ear buds......I think a lot of us felt closer to Apple emotionally when it was still "our" brand, when it was for "the rest of us" rather than this IKEA, HM, popular stylish mass market culture glut brand.

As much as I wouldn't like a Zune, it still would be "different" to have one!

picnichouse
Sep 4, 2008, 09:09 PM
Apple's control over what's "OK" is a scary precedent. Let's nip it in the bud by debunking this "limited utility" claim - join this campaign pledging to buy "Pull My Finger" if Apple accepts it into the App Store: http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/apple-please-allow-pull-my-finger-into-the-app-store

http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/apple-please-allow-pull-my-finger-into-the-app-store/widgets/badge?format=jpg (http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/apple-please-allow-pull-my-finger-into-the-app-store)

macintoshrocker
Sep 4, 2008, 09:16 PM
Finally! Now maybe apple will start sticking some useful and quality apps on the store and go through all the crap they have approved already!

I don't care if the customer wants this sort of app even if its only a limited few its stupid and immature. The app store is the only time that I would approve of apple or any other company for that matter applying censorship of sorts to make sure rubbish doesn't hit the iPhone, Every day apple's approval process since launch has let through apps that are either poorly coded, Have badly designed GUI's, Have horrendously designed icons, Been given stupid names I could go on but people will get the picture with what i've put, This shows apple may start to be looking at its offerings and saying hang on someone is seriously been stupid here.

Yes i'm fussy and I know it and too anyone who thinks i'm wrong for being that way say but as a mac user and an apple customer I expect quality and apple should apply that same standard too the app store, So when people whine that there app hasn't been approved or that apple is throwing things off that they deem useless or poor then deal with it and face the fact that you produced crap and you need to do better.

Im sure that when T-Mobile launch there "app store" they will accept any old rubbish as thats just the way everyone else works but from apple I expect better and you as iPhone owner's should too if you don't expect it or want to put up with second rate stuff then do everyone else a favor and go get a windows mobile phone because I personally don't want people complaining that apple is wrong forcing them to be less strict meaning more rubbish gets approved.

I personally really hope the standards are going up they need too I only have about 5 apps that I am happy actually having on my iPhone because I didn't like there design or there coding, I realize people will say choice is a good thing and I agree but better coding and design is better for everyone and the entire platform. Look at windows crap coding leads to viruses and personally I don't want that crap affecting my phone.

kevdo
Sep 4, 2008, 09:48 PM
Count me in the group that wants this app. My kids would love it!
http://www.uselessproductivity.com/2008/09/04/pull-my-finger/

I love these weird apps. It's part of what makes the iPhone so much fun. If you agree, support the developers who make these weird apps.

winterspan
Sep 4, 2008, 09:48 PM
YES! Apple needs to drastically cut all the nonsense making it into the store. I'm sure it's hard to come up with a good system, and I don't know if you could trust user reviews and just remove an app that averages less than 2.5/5 stars or something.

aristotle
Sep 4, 2008, 09:51 PM
This app looks a lot better than some of the crap on the app store. For instance, ezone.com's Crazy Metal Head, which is just a metal skull that costs 99 cents and lets you use your finger to move the jaw up and down. Apple either needs to implement these standards across the board or not at all. They can't have it both ways. Half the apps in the store are crap anyway.
Thanks for pointing that one out. I went ahead and bought it for a dollar.
:D

teatime99
Sep 4, 2008, 09:59 PM
Okay I'm all for fun and crazy/weird apps, but you have a >$200 phone/ipod/internet/email device and you're going to download an application that makes fart noises? AND pay money for it? Children are starving in Africa. Malaria is killing millions of people in various countries. People are dying of cancer. And you're going to spend $1-$2 on fart noises? I'm not saying that you shouldn't buy apps, or an iPhone, but could you at least spend that 99 cents on something with more substance? Or, if you're going to buy a fart noise app, why not also donate 99 cents to a good cause, or save it up and spend it on your family? I mean, Koi Pond doesn't have much utility going for it either, but at least it's calming and can be argued that helps reduce stress.

spydr
Sep 4, 2008, 10:05 PM
Right now, the last thing I want my phone to do is some farting.

Wait till apple incorporates the breakthrough iSmell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISmell) technology to their handsets. Steve will invite this developer to demo 'Pull my finger' during his keynote. :D:D

Murphy'sLaw
Sep 4, 2008, 10:43 PM
I think the reason given by Apple for not approving this app is a bunch of crap. There are so many so called "limited utility" apps like dipswitch, how many lighting people are there to use this app? Even the content shouldn't be in question there is an app called "Jerk in a Box" that spews out some dumb insults, and a game titled "COCKBLOCK" that in the description says "COCKBLOCK" is like whackamole, but way cooler! Don't forget to COCKBLOCK a friend:)".

So what if there are those of us that want to play fart sounds on our iPhones while sitting in a boring meeting or lecture, if you don't like it, don't download it. I think :apple: is setting a dangerous precedent by rejecting well thought out and executed apps like this one appears to be.

miamialley
Sep 4, 2008, 10:55 PM
Just create a category for such apps, such as "outside the box." Let the people decide what they want and don't want. There's no need for Apple to play dictator.

Stella
Sep 4, 2008, 10:55 PM
I'm sorry, but if Apple lets through applications like 'I am Rich' and rejects novelty, fun applications like this,
Where will the App Store be in 5 years time? :rolleyes:

People like novelties - This is a novelty.

Go figure ...

R-Fly

Replace iPhone with OSX.

It doesn't sound so good does it?

If you agree that Apple should censor iPhone Apps, then you also agree that Apple should stop crap apps being made available for OSX?

If not? Why? They are both the same. The iPhone / Touch is just another platform, no different to OSX ( except its highly controlled bordering on Paranoia ).

Stella
Sep 4, 2008, 10:57 PM
Yes, and, it does cost money to host these apps as well, right? People talk about this as if it's all about Apple being a tyrant, but that's just not the case when space is limited. These really unambitious developers have a right to develop, but not a god-given right to force Apple to distribute.

And people pay apple $99 for the hosting..

Apple should stop this controlling BS and let iPhone apps be distributed like any other OS application.

Dizle
Sep 4, 2008, 11:16 PM
I want the app!! How cool is that an iphone can fart!

bboucher790
Sep 4, 2008, 11:53 PM
I think a main point is that the app is WELL designed. It's not just a picture of a finger where you pull it, it's many sounds / images. I don't know what Apple is thinking. If Apple doesn't want to host it, they should let devs pay for hosting.