Another AppStore App REJECTED By Apple!

[SuperMacMan]

Apple has rejected yet another App from it's much-hyped App Store, this time an app that actually does something useful.
The App, titled Podcaster, allows you to stream or even download directly to your device new Podcasts for listening on the go with your iPhone or iPod Touch. This App is useful when you are away from your computer and unable to get to iTunes to download new podcasts and sync them with your iPhone/iPod Touch. It has been in a private beta (using the Ad-Hoc method) for a while, before it was submitted to Apple on August 18th. It's nearly a month later, and finally there is a response. It's been rejected. The reason from Apple: It duplicates what iTunes does. Yet, Pandora Radio wasn't rejected, and it does a very similar thing!
What seems strange, however, is that the name of the Apple Representative was the same as the one who rejected the controversial "Pull My Finger" Application.
If you feel the same way as the developer on this, and you wish to support the developer, please digg the link below: http://digg.com/gadgets/Apple_Rejects_Podcast_App_duplicates_itunes_functionality
You can visit the developers blog here: http://almerica.blogspot.com or see the beta version at http://code.google.com/p/nativepodcaster
Also, please vote in the poll if you believe this App should be allowed.

SuperMacMan

[opticalserenity]

It's their store, they don't have to sell items they don't want. I'm so tired of seeing these threads. As a developer and business owner, I understand that if I sell in the app store, or wish to, the STORE OWNER has the right to reject my product.

So....don't develop if you are not willing to take that risk.

[Justinerator]

It's their store, they don't have to sell items they don't want. I'm so tired of seeing these threads. As a developer and business owner, I understand that if I sell in the app store, or wish to, the STORE OWNER has the right to reject my product.

So....don't develop if you are not willing to take that risk.

Couldn't have said it better myself. ;)

[marksman]

It does duplicate what iTunes does.

Pandora does not duplicate what iTunes does.

[SuperMacMan]

It does duplicate what iTunes does.

Pandora does not duplicate what iTunes does.

Yes, but iTunes is DESKTOP, not MOBILE. This App allows you to subscribe/listen to/download Podcasts ON THE GO, WITHOUT having to use your computer to download/sync iPhone/iPod Touch with iTunes.
This is useful if you are away on holiday, have your iPhone but not MacBook/Lappie/whatever.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I said this in the original post?

SuperMacMan

[WillJS]

I don't know if this is what your app does or anything, as I didn't read any links due to the apparent whining, but have you considered that that don't want someone to download/stream an entire podcast over a cell network?

[kntgsp]

(Mod note: Threads merged)

Hadn't seen this anywhere posted yet, so thought folks might find it interesting.

The latest casualty in Apple's App Store blacklisting is Podcaster. A native app built according to exact SDK specifications, it goes beyond its creator's web-bound streaming-only Podcaster.fm by letting you download and manage podcasts in a nice straightforward interface. Insidious, right? Apple thought so.

According to Podcaster's blog, Apple at least explained why it booted Podcaster from the App Store: "Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes."

The funny thing to David Chartier at Ars—who broke the news—is that so many other approved apps duplicate Apple-made functions, like the calculator and the stopwatch.

The funny thing to me is that podcasting was a grassroots thing that Apple coopted only after it had blown up on the internet. This has nothing to do with playing back copyright-protected music—it's just a manager for freely distributed internet content. What next, Apple bans other people from building software to access third-party web pages via the iPhone? Oh wait... that's pretty much already happened.

If you still want to check out the Podcaster app, you can sign up here, and the developer will e-mail you back with instructions. They say it will be distributed ad hoc—so no jailbreak required—for a donation of $9.99, but if it gets popular, we don't know how the ad-hoc distribution system would hold up. (I thought there was a limit of 100 for that, but maybe I'm wrong.)


Thoughts?


http://gizmodo.com/5049325/app-store-blacklist-podcaster-too-itunesy

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/09/12/apple-denies-iphone-podcast-app-for-duplicating-itunes

[DreamPod]

I have a question: what keeps this from turning into an MP3 music-sharing service? All a podcast is, is an MP3. Maybe Apple decided that it duplicates the functionality of iTunes, without some sort of securty measure (that iTunes has) keeping "Podcasts" from being pure music?

I bet if the app was redesigned to not download the podcast, and just stream it, Apple would allow it.

[Eric.]

I have a question: what keeps this from turning into an MP3 music-sharing service? All a podcast is, is an MP3. Maybe Apple decided that it duplicates the functionality of iTunes, without some sort of securty measure (that iTunes has) keeping "Podcasts" from being pure music?

I bet if the app was redesigned to not download the podcast, and just stream it, Apple would allow it.

Good point, although if it only downloaded them from one site that really does just have podcasts it shouldn't be an issue.



I won't lose any sleep over this. I've never downloaded a podcast.

[TimothyB]

Wait a minute, isn't there a new Calendar app in the store recently? If I recall, doesn't the iPhone already have a calendar?

[Dr. Cabrera]

"Too iTunesy "

someone should smack the original author that coined that phrase

[Ntombi]

I won't lose any sleep over this. I've never downloaded a podcast.
:eek: I can't imagine that. I have over a thousand!

[Nermal]

It's their store, they don't have to sell items they don't want.

While I agree that Apple shouldn't have to sell products that it doesn't like, I do not agree that Apple can then essentially ban the product from running on any device. Unless you jailbreak or similar, there is no way to get this app whether you want it or not.

[Excellerator]

Don't forget, Simplify allows you to stream podcasts too. So I am not sure why they allow that.

[kntgsp]

I don't know if this is what your app does or anything, as I didn't read any links due to the apparent whining, but have you considered that that don't want someone to download/stream an entire podcast over a cell network?

Last I checked iPhones had wifi.

God forbid someone downloads their latest podcast while at a hotspot. Oh the humanity.

[kntgsp]

Wait a minute, isn't there a new Calendar app in the store recently? If I recall, doesn't the iPhone already have a calendar?

There have been multiple calculator apps as well. The problem is that Apple continuously moves the goal posts.

Either explicitly say certain types of applications won't be passed, or **** and let us do what we want with our phones.

This app "legislating" will only push more people to jailbreak. If Apple is going to force control over what apps you can put on your phone, it should be limited to checking to make sure it isn't malicious.

If Apple wants to play censor, then let us put apps on our phone outside of the app store. Otherwise people will just jailbreak and put apps on their phone for free.

[angels lust]

I'm sure Apple bars hundreds of apps that don't suit their agenda. I'm sure it was something more than just "duplicates what iTunes already does" as there are dozens of Apps in the store that duplicate one another.

It's too bad, I can see how this App would be useful albiet I don't listen to podcasts myself.

[B. Hunter]

There have been multiple calculator apps as well. The problem is that Apple continuously moves the goal posts.

Either explicitly say certain types of applications won't be passed, or **** and let us do what we want with our phones.

This app "legislating" will only push more people to jailbreak. If Apple is going to force control over what apps you can put on your phone, it should be limited to checking to make sure it isn't malicious.

If Apple wants to play censor, then let us put apps on our phone outside of the app store. Otherwise people will just jailbreak and put apps on their phone for free.

Why would anyone jailbreak to download crap? Some apps don't belong in the App Store. End of story.

[fergusean]

People keep saying that Apple's policies keep changing and they allow app A but not app B, which is similar to app A, etc, etc, etc.

And so, I would like to point out that these applications are approved by individuals. People with thoughts. Not by "Apple", but by Apple's employees. One employee may approve an app, while another would reject it. It all comes down to luck of the draw - whether you get the nice guy or the mean guy.

[kntgsp]

Why would anyone jailbreak to download crap? Some apps don't belong in the App Store. End of story.

Koi Pond is crap, why is it in the App Store?

[kntgsp]

People keep saying that Apple's policies keep changing and they allow app A but not app B, which is similar to app A, etc, etc, etc.

And so, I would like to point out that these applications are approved by individuals. People with thoughts. Not by "Apple", but by Apple's employees. One employee may approve an app, while another would reject it. It all comes down to luck of the draw - whether you get the nice guy or the mean guy.

That's the inherent problem with their system.

It's too subjective. There should be a clear line drawn in the sand. Then there wouldn't be any issues.

The solution is ridiculously simple, yet they continue to play the "we know what's better for the consumer".

How can you gauge whether or not an app will be popular before it's even released. If it sits idle in the App Store for months on end with 5 downloads, then yea, go ahead and scrap it. But the App store is loaded with so much buggy crap for every one good app, that this selective censorship is ridiculous.

It's clearly not working if all these other broken apps are sitting around on itunes for weeks on end. This control freak nonsense has to have its limits.

[jmmo20]

I have a question: what keeps this from turning into an MP3 music-sharing service? All a podcast is, is an MP3. Maybe Apple decided that it duplicates the functionality of iTunes, without some sort of securty measure (that iTunes has) keeping "Podcasts" from being pure music?

I bet if the app was redesigned to not download the podcast, and just stream it, Apple would allow it.


What are you talking about?
Nothing stops me (apart from a bunch of lawyers that is) from publishing a podcast XML feed containing music mp3 and allow everyone to go to iTunes and subscribe to the feed. Yes, it won't appear in the iTunes store podcast directory: but you can bypass the store altogether and subscribe to a feed directly.

[SuperMacMan]

I don't know if this is what your app does or anything, as I didn't read any links due to the apparent whining, but have you considered that that don't want someone to download/stream an entire podcast over a cell network?

Last time I checked, the iPhone/iPod Touch had WiFi.
Oh the horror. Someone downloaded/streamed a 30MB file over a WiFi network. SHOCK HORROR!! And, consider Pandora Radio or Last.fm. They have the capacity to pull MANY MANY GBs over the cell network, are they rejected. Nope!
Also, this isn't my App, but I have taken an active role in getting it out there, publicised, and fixing bugs. Credit goes to Alex (www.almerica.blogspot.com)

Anyway, this App does not duplicate functionality of iTunes. iTunes is a desktop app, this is an iPhone app. Also, the downloads are brilliant for iPod Touch users - when there's no WiFi!

On another note, this story made the front page of www.macrumors.com! And the disuseion in there seems to be a heck of a lot more anti-Apple go-Podcaster, opposite to the mood in here. Very weird, considering it's exactly the same topic.

Personally, I don't like Apple's approach to the AppStore. I think all Apple should run a 3 hour test for is some viruses/malicious code/bug ridden software, then hit publish. Letthe users decide what apps they want. And if an App sits there for 6 months with just 5 downloads, THEN pull it. I have seen the requests for the beta version of Podcaster, and they come in in the hundreds each day. If the developer was to have this approved, and charge $9.99 for it, he'd make $1000 in a day! Consider the fact that the webapp version, which only does streaming, http://podcaster.fm, has over 3000 users a DAY, and over 10,000 accounts, I think this app would be bloody popular!!!

SuperMacMan.

[sharp65]

How does it duplicate what itunes does? Last time I check itunes doesn't allow you to wirelessly stream podcasts from it. I hate that people are leghumping apple over every decision they make.

[PowerFullMac]

I cant believe it, its ridiculous, let 50 of the same useless app in (anyone read the period app thread? :D) but one useful app gets kicked out!

[capnjiggins]

Wow...Apple, this is exactly the type of thing thats going to make users want to use other devices (Android mobile OS). As said before, there are plenty of calendar, weather and music apps. And you choose to reject a PODCAST app??? Something unique that many people would use? Nice job scaring away developers.

[Trip.Tucker]

Wow...Apple, this is exactly the type of thing thats going to make users want to use other devices (Android mobile OS). As said before, there are plenty of calendar, weather and music apps. And you choose to reject a PODCAST app??? Something unique that many people would use? Nice job scaring away developers.

No....no, it's not. Just you.

[ryanwarsaw]

It does duplicate what iTunes does.

Pandora does not duplicate what iTunes does.

It adds functionality that isn't currently on the phone. Try download a podcast if you aren't hooked to a mac without it.

[angels lust]

I don't understand why people are so defensive about it. I would never use this app but that doesn't mean I can't see the benefits of having it. Point is it adds something that you cannot currently do. I'm sure Apple has their reasons for blocking it but I know it's not because it "already duplicates" some other functionality. That's just a BS excuse for something else.

[capnjiggins]

No....no, it's not. Just you.

The response from the article on the front page says differently

[minik]

I say yes just because it gives users an alternative. However, I'm not go out and download the app.

[hellomoto4]

I spose its Apple's store so it's Apple's choice.

[JimmyJawn]

That's the inherent problem with their system.

It's too subjective. There should be a clear line drawn in the sand. Then there wouldn't be any issues.

The solution is ridiculously simple, yet they continue to play the "we know what's better for the consumer".

How can you gauge whether or not an app will be popular before it's even released. If it sits idle in the App Store for months on end with 5 downloads, then yea, go ahead and scrap it. But the App store is loaded with so much buggy crap for every one good app, that this selective censorship is ridiculous.

It's clearly not working if all these other broken apps are sitting around on itunes for weeks on end. This control freak nonsense has to have its limits.

You hit the nail right on the head. Apple's current whimsical rejection standards lead to developers wasting time creating apps that are going to get rejected. This encourages people to release broken, featureless, and downright beta or alpha quality software just to see whether or not it will stand to the scrutiny of the App Store Gods. What's worse is that even then if it passes the initial inspection it might end up getting pulled at a later date for problems with AT&T or some other third party (Netshare, Tris, PhoneSaber).

This will end up causing developers to get fed up with creating App Store merch and a software drought for all the iPhone owners. Apple needs to get its act together and revamp the SDK agreement for clarity and also overhaul its rejection process so that less time gets wasted and more product hits iTunes.

[PowerFullMac]

I spose its Apple's store so it's Apple's choice.

Its for this reason people continue to jailbreak their iPhones/iPod touches.

[SuperMacMan]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=562342 Is the front page news story, submitted by myself, BTW. Arn didn't see this thread, obviously.

Personally, I don't think Apple should have rejected this app. Why are all 200,000 tip calculators allowed on the store, yet a new, unique, definitely NOT a duplicate functionality, denied?

For those of you saying that this does duplicate functionality, I bet you $10 that you cannot download podcasts to your iPhone WITHOUT syncing it to your computer, OR going to each site and streaming it. Nope. Can't do it. So definitely NOT duplicate functionality.

Also, for those saying bandwidth issues: 1) YouTube can be used over 3G/EDGE/WiFi, does Apple care about bandwidth on that app? NO! 2) Pandora, Last.FM, etc have the potential to pull massive amounts of data. Approved? YEP! And they BOTH have the capability to listen to music (Just search for a song on YouTube - GUARANTEED to be there!), which totally defeats the iTunes Store. So, why are these apps still up in the App Store/On the iPhone? HUH!? Can't explain that... I thought so.

Also, if anyone says that it probably would have only taken a week to make, no effort was put into it, whatever, I KNOW FOR A FACT that this developer has been up all night every night working on this app, and as much of the day he can work on it. He has given up family time for this app, in the hope that after he finished it, he would have an extra source of income, and wouldn't have to work as hard at his day job, therefore able to spend more time with his young, hungry family by selling this app for USD $4.99.

Finally, if anyone says that $4.99 is a rip-off, I'd seriously be wondering how the heck you afforded a USD $199/$299 iPhone 3G... or AUD $500 iPhone 3G......... I don't think $5 is much........

If anyone else has any objections, feel free to let me know. Happy to answer. I have a close contact with this developer.

[firteen888]

I think it's obvious why Apple rejected this App. they're probably working on a firmware update right now that will include a way to wirelessly update/subscribe to podcasts deirectly from the iphone/touch.

[minik]

Its for this reason people continue to jailbreak their iPhones/iPod touches.

Really? I don't think it's entirely true.

[PowerFullMac]

Really? I don't think it's entirely true.

It pretty much is.

I mean, the fact Apple rejects useful apps like this for no reason shows they have too much control and are abusing it, which is why people jailbreak their iPhones so they can get whatever damn apps they want, most of them free!

[SuperMacMan]

It doesn't look like situations for developers getting apps rejected are getting any better....
Apple have just made it so that the developer of Pocaster cannot issue ANY more provisioning files... Therefore rendering his app un-sellable for now, either by App Store or Ad-Hoc.
Therefore he's releasing it for Cydia in the next few days...



Oh, and this is what Apple is now putting on all rejection letters:

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE IS UNDER NON-DISCLOSURE

Sourced from http://www.macrumors.com/2008/09/23/apple-extends-non-disclosure-to-app-store-rejection-letters/
Seems all this campaigning to make Apple relax the restrictions actually made them tighter..... Oh dear.....
Seems like they're ENCOURAGING jailbreak..... Which has exactly what this App has been FORCED to come to....
Bad move Apple, bad move....

SuperMacMan

[MVApple]

It's their store, they don't have to sell items they don't want. I'm so tired of seeing these threads. As a developer and business owner, I understand that if I sell in the app store, or wish to, the STORE OWNER has the right to reject my product.

So....don't develop if you are not willing to take that risk.

No but you can go and try to sell it to another store can't you? What if a store told you that they would sell your product and then you spent time and money to make the product only to be rejected with "NO" chance of selling it anywhere else?

Doesn't sound fair now does it?

If Apple would disapprove apps BEFORE people spent time and money to make them then I would say, "No Problem", but that's not what is happening.