PDA

View Full Version : iDroid App Rejected By Apple. Well, Duh.


MacBytes
Nov 30, 2009, 08:28 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: iDroid App Rejected By Apple. Well, Duh. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20091130092813)
Description:: "Here's a tip for all you iPhone app developers out there. If you want to make sure your app doesn't join the long list of rejected iPhone apps out there, make sure it doesn't advertise a competing product, especially if that product runs the Android operating system. Swavv Apps (creators of Beer Pong) learned that lesson recently when they tried to get their iDroid app past the App Store censors."

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

tatonka
Nov 30, 2009, 08:52 AM
Well I guess they are getting more news coverage by Apple rejecting it .. so good for them.
Besides I think it is stupid to reject it in the first place .. it is not more useless then thousands of other apps .. it is not dangerous, fraudulent or anything ..

T.

RainbowOfBeans
Nov 30, 2009, 10:00 AM
I want to know more about this app, and apples "real" legal reasons for denying it!:mad:

VSMacOne
Nov 30, 2009, 10:14 AM
I want to know more about this app, and apples "real" legal reasons for denying it!:mad:

You're kidding, right?
They don't need a legal reason to reject it. It's basically an add for the competition. Why would Apple want to have that on the iPhone?

tbrinkma
Nov 30, 2009, 10:22 AM
I want to know more about this app, and apples "real" legal reasons for denying it!:mad:

My guess? They don't want any part of the trademark violation suit that would come along as a result of the app being released. Just a hunch.

(On another note, just the *idea* for that app is poor form. It's like going to Target and asking them to sell Target brand stuff.)

iVoid
Nov 30, 2009, 10:25 AM
You're kidding, right?
They don't need a legal reason to reject it. It's basically an add for the competition. Why would Apple want to have that on the iPhone?

The funny thing is, can't all these ad supported apps already have ads for Apple's competitors? Since the ads are downloaded from Admobi, there's nothing in the App itself.

I wonder if Apple also stipulates what can be advertised within an App?

simsandwhich
Nov 30, 2009, 01:43 PM
What a mixed up world we live in.

Microsoft can't ship IE and WMP in their own OS in Europe and Korea because it's "anticompetitive", and Apple repeatedly gets away with their totalitarian AppStore policies.

And Apple was a part of that anti trust suit against Microsoft. Gotta love the irony here. :apple:

tbrinkma
Nov 30, 2009, 02:32 PM
The funny thing is, can't all these ad supported apps already have ads for Apple's competitors? Since the ads are downloaded from Admobi, there's nothing in the App itself.

I wonder if Apple also stipulates what can be advertised within an App?

I don't suppose you can see the difference between an app that *has* an ad, and an app that *is* an ad?

pdjudd
Nov 30, 2009, 02:56 PM
What a mixed up world we live in.

Microsoft can't ship IE and WMP in their own OS in Europe and Korea because it's "anticompetitive", and Apple repeatedly gets away with their totalitarian AppStore policies.

And Apple was a part of that anti trust suit against Microsoft. Gotta love the irony here. :apple:

The difference is that Microsoft has a 90+% marketshare and are a convicted monopolist. Apple has none of these and is unlikely to ever have these.

thegoldenmackid
Nov 30, 2009, 03:00 PM
What was the app attempting to do exactly, besides mock the App Store?

rhett7660
Nov 30, 2009, 04:44 PM
I want to know more about this app, and apples "real" legal reasons for denying it!:mad:

Please show me where the legally can't first.

ucfgrad93
Nov 30, 2009, 04:55 PM
They don't need a legal reason to reject it. It's basically an ad for the competition. Why would Apple want to have that on the iPhone?

Agreed. This was nothing more than a publicity grab by the "developers" of iDroid.

techound1
Nov 30, 2009, 04:57 PM
The difference is that Microsoft has a 90+% marketshare and are a convicted monopolist. Apple has none of these and is unlikely to ever have these.

Oh, unlike the monopoly over hardware and software from the some source only? :p

cwt1nospam
Nov 30, 2009, 05:43 PM
Oh, unlike the monopoly over hardware and software from the some source only? :p
Completely unlike it. One source for one platform is called integration. Forcing hardware producers to pay you for each computer they sell regardless of whether or not it contains your OS is called anti-competitive, anti-free market, and illegal.

pdjudd
Dec 1, 2009, 08:13 AM
Oh, unlike the monopoly over hardware and software from the some source only? :p
Not only is that not illegal it is nowhere near the definition of what constitutes a legal definition of what a monopoly is. If Apple's integration of software and hardware is illegal (which it isn't) than the business models of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony (all of whom sell software and hardware integrated in their video game systems) would not be able to run their businesses.

There is nothing illegal with selling two related products together.

rstansby
Dec 1, 2009, 11:22 AM
My guess? They don't want any part of the trademark violation suit that would come along as a result of the app being released. Just a hunch.

(On another note, just the *idea* for that app is poor form. It's like going to Target and asking them to sell Target brand stuff.)

or putting ads for DirectTV on cable. (wait a second, they do that all the time.)

appleating
Dec 4, 2009, 01:06 AM
The Droid smartphone won't be seeing any publicity on the iPhone thanks to Apple's
rejection of the iDroid app from its App Store. The iDroid app was designed to run on the iPhone and iPod touch
, but did nothing more than advertise the Droid smartphone, according to TechCrunch.

iDroid displayed the red glowing eye used in Droid marketing along with marketing bullet points.

The rejection makes sense because direct marketing with an application is prohibited by Apple's terms of service for iPhone app developers, which makes it likely that the developers knew iDroid would be rejected and were hoping to spin that into publicity for themselves.

For now, it looks like iPhone developers wanting to directly promote products in their apps will have to find ways that are a little less blatant.

pdjudd
Dec 5, 2009, 06:43 PM
The Droid smartphone won't be seeing any publicity on the iPhone thanks to Apple's
rejection of the iDroid app from its App Store. The iDroid app was designed to run on the iPhone and iPod touch
, but did nothing more than advertise the Droid smartphone, according to TechCrunch.

iDroid displayed the red glowing eye used in Droid marketing along with marketing bullet points.

The rejection makes sense because direct marketing with an application is prohibited by Apple's terms of service for iPhone app developers, which makes it likely that the developers knew iDroid would be rejected and were hoping to spin that into publicity for themselves.

For now, it looks like iPhone developers wanting to directly promote products in their apps will have to find ways that are a little less blatant.



First, do you have the link to the article that you go this from - I donít doubt that there is one, but I dislike plagiarizing and the author deserves credit.

Second, the point of the terms were blatantly violated is important. The developer created something that he knew was going to be rejected. That should eliminate all sympathy that he asks for. He gets none. Of the few things that we know constitutes a rejection, that was one of them.

cjmillsnun
Dec 5, 2009, 06:49 PM
First, do you have the link to the article that you go this from - I don’t doubt that there is one, but I dislike plagiarizing and the author deserves credit.


Try the MacBytes link in the first post. It relates to a TechCrunch blog post that was referenced by the Washington post! :rolleyes: