Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)
Page 2. Seriously
Page 2. Seriously
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's App Store Rejection Policies Raise Concerns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
apple sucks...
they certainly have some nerve GOUGING developers for the $99 program and not reimbursing them once they've rejected their app for stupid reasons.
who the hell wants to develop for their devices under these threats?
please explain your gouging statement. i wasnt aware there was a standard anywhere for appstore enrollment prices?
I'm going to toss this complaint into a sea of similar complaints if only that it'll make me feel better.
Apple, you're wrong. The Podcast program doesn't infringe in iTunes as it exists on the iPhone since downloading podcasts on the phone isn't possible.
Apple, you're also being a dick since this is a feature I'd use on the iPhone. And if Apple can't provide it, I'll pay someone who does. Even if limiting downloading podcasts over WiFi it would be very helpful for me. I've got my music and calendars on my laptop at work (not paying for MobileMe). I like to listen to some short daily podcasts on my walk down to the train for work. Since I can only sync the phone to one computer I can't download the podcasts on my PC and put them on my phone in the morning. So, I bring my laptop home. I could easily leave it at work and do everything else on my phone except this.
Apple, don't be so stupid.
Apple, you're wrong. The Podcast program doesn't infringe in iTunes as it exists on the iPhone since downloading podcasts on the phone isn't possible.
Apple, you're also being a dick since this is a feature I'd use on the iPhone. And if Apple can't provide it, I'll pay someone who does. Even if limiting downloading podcasts over WiFi it would be very helpful for me. I've got my music and calendars on my laptop at work (not paying for MobileMe). I like to listen to some short daily podcasts on my walk down to the train for work. Since I can only sync the phone to one computer I can't download the podcasts on my PC and put them on my phone in the morning. So, I bring my laptop home. I could easily leave it at work and do everything else on my phone except this.
Apple, don't be so stupid.
you mean like it should be for podcast (i don't ever want apple to filter my content, it's not their place to do so)
Short sighted...
I think this decision is short sighted by Apple. Approving this app would not prevent Apple from implementing similar functionality nor does it compete with Apple in any financial way.
I agree that the worst aspect of this is that the developers invested their time and money and then were rejected. I feel that if Apple is not clear and upfront about the basis for rejection, then Apple should accept the application.
This kind of policing by apple only serves to promote the idea of jailbraking one's phone to access non-approved applications.
Rudi
I think this decision is short sighted by Apple. Approving this app would not prevent Apple from implementing similar functionality nor does it compete with Apple in any financial way.
I agree that the worst aspect of this is that the developers invested their time and money and then were rejected. I feel that if Apple is not clear and upfront about the basis for rejection, then Apple should accept the application.
This kind of policing by apple only serves to promote the idea of jailbraking one's phone to access non-approved applications.
Rudi
Yes, we don't know the whole story, but NEITHER DOES THE DEVELOPER. Or any other developer.
That's the problem.
Btw, who cares how long he spent on the app. The point is that Apple is being inconsistent which makes things very difficult for any developer.
why in the hell would they suddenly open it up after going this far to make the appstore?
it's gouging if they don't accept your app for secretive reasons and don't reimburse you...
actually i think the word STEALING is more suitable...
Is there not many other apps that duplicate functionality, or many of the same unique applications? But when an app encroaches on Apple's territory, they can slam the door shut with hardly an excuse?
But most recently there's a new calendar app in the store, doesn't the phone already have that function? And this new calendar is not free, but costs $10. Wouldn't you call that greedy charging for something the iPhone has built-in, let alone an iTunes function that's not mobile?
I think charging for the Cal app is totally fine, it gives consumers an option. I have a feeling that an app which fights with iTunes and rejected is more to do with Apple losing traffic in iTunes where they make money.
I guess I'll stop telling people it can do anything thanks to the app store, but now limited to want Apple says you can do.
But most recently there's a new calendar app in the store, doesn't the phone already have that function? And this new calendar is not free, but costs $10. Wouldn't you call that greedy charging for something the iPhone has built-in, let alone an iTunes function that's not mobile?
I think charging for the Cal app is totally fine, it gives consumers an option. I have a feeling that an app which fights with iTunes and rejected is more to do with Apple losing traffic in iTunes where they make money.
I guess I'll stop telling people it can do anything thanks to the app store, but now limited to want Apple says you can do.
Yeah, you know what? I have no sympathy. Might have been a cool free app, but not for $5.
Look at Diggnation On The Go. It streams the Diggnation podcast to your phone, and Apple had no problem with it. Probably because it's free and only for on podcast, but still ...
$5 for something that the iTunes app should do on the iPhone? Lame. I bet Apple is either working on implementing it or they just didn't want people wasting $5 on something so lame.
Look at Diggnation On The Go. It streams the Diggnation podcast to your phone, and Apple had no problem with it. Probably because it's free and only for on podcast, but still ...
$5 for something that the iTunes app should do on the iPhone? Lame. I bet Apple is either working on implementing it or they just didn't want people wasting $5 on something so lame.
As a new iMAC owner after years of PC use as well as an iPhone user, I could not agree more with the statement I quote. I have felt the greed of Apple, and their desire to control and monitor its customers, much more than I ever felt that from Microsoft.
After experiencing a couple of support issues when calling Apple, I am surprised to see how good Microsoft support really is.
Yet, I like my iPhone and my iMac more than I like my Vista Notebook and my Windows Mobile 6 phone. However those that jailbreak anything that Apple wants them not too, have my support and respect.
So now Apple gets to determine the price and value of 3rd party apps? That's fine as long as they also start paying me for my development time.
This whole situation shows me how irked Apple is at being forced to open the iPhone platform. They were hoping from the get go to retain full control and be the only provider of apps outside of games.
I think Apple should pay attention to the fact that they have a very loyal customer base on the whole, including myself. This has probably been one of the companies main strengths, with the accessibility of programming resources and other materials making it a great platform to really get stuck into.
I think its sad that Apple is being so petty as to hamper the distribution of products that might have a limited degree of overlap in their functions with their own programmes. I recall that they also shut down one enthusiasts website for bringing out early info on their products, which in my opinion was grossly disproportionate.
Apple's growth of recent years has been as much about its friendly and accessible image as well as its excellent products. It would be wise to curtail the more small-minded activities of its legal team lest the company finds itself labelled as yet another corporate bully.
I think its sad that Apple is being so petty as to hamper the distribution of products that might have a limited degree of overlap in their functions with their own programmes. I recall that they also shut down one enthusiasts website for bringing out early info on their products, which in my opinion was grossly disproportionate.
Apple's growth of recent years has been as much about its friendly and accessible image as well as its excellent products. It would be wise to curtail the more small-minded activities of its legal team lest the company finds itself labelled as yet another corporate bully.
why in the hell would they suddenly open it up after going this far to make the appstore?
I'm not suggesting they get rid of the appstore, after all it's a great idea. I just think that Apple should open up the iPhone to allow users to install apps from other places because it would be a very good thing for iPhone users.
It doesn't matter if they charged or not. This has set a very bad precedence. Additionally, it still does not address the real problem which is that Apple is not making this clear to developers what really is ok and not ok. Honestly, how do you expect real developers for making something truly "innovative" and unique when they have no clue if it will be accepted or not. Why waste the time and effort?
This is *very* bad.
why in the hell would they suddenly open it up after going this far to make the appstore?
The AppStore is just like iTunes... in the sense as iTunes tself is a great central location for you to purchase movies, tv shows & music for your iPod, the App Store makes a great central location to purchase applications for the iPhone & Touch. In itself the App Store helps make the platforms stronger, but if they aren't careful and over police the whole thing then they can kill the goose that laid the golden egg so to speak. It is in Apples interest to promote the purchase of applications as they earn money from the sales.
What is next, Apple banning all music/movies/tv shows with naughty words?
Of course the main difference between the iTunes store and the App store on iTunes is that iTunes doesn't force you to buy all your music from Apple, but the App Store does.
I'll stop going on about it now
yes because the next logical step from banning a redundant app is obviously banning music and video.
ppl like you deal to much with baseless speculation.
You mean, like Microsoft should have the right to ban Safari or Firefox from running on Windows? Or iTune for that matter?
Apple is in a very gray area there, Microsoft has been targetted repetitively with anti-trust laws in Europe for far less serious locking of its own platform.
Yes, but now they are. And 3rd party applications are a huge part of the success of the 3G. You can't close Pandora's box once it's opened...
That would not be a problem is Apple live in a world with no competition at all. But it's not the case. Microsoft has already planned its AppStore with WM7, and the platform is a *lot* more open than the iPhone. Likewise, Google Android will be a very open platform. None of these require you to learn a language that feels like going back to the 90s - when you know Java, C# or Ruby, learning Objective-C feels like stepping back in time. Worse, none of these require you to learn a brand new platform with no books, no discussion forums, no mailing list and no training courses just because of a stupid NDA.
Currently, the *only* thing driving the developper community to the iPhone is that they can benefit from the buzz and earn money out of it. Because, right now, there is nothing with as much market impact as the AppStore. This will change in a few months. Then, the developpers will just flock to the platform where they can work as freely as possible, with as little risk as possible and with the best potential for revenue.
Apple, with all its NDA and paranoia, it a high risk opportunity. When a less risky alternative becomes available, the developper community will just switch, and you will be left with just hundreds of tip calculators...
That's insane, since when $5 became a lot of money??? $5 is just pocket change! $5 is what I earn in 20 minutes worth of work. Can I write this kind of application in 20 minutes or even 1 hour? Nope. So, it's worth $5...
People really don't get that writing decent software takes time. It also takes professionals. Sure, writing applications for the iPhone is cool. But "cool" doesn't pay the rent. And there are plenty of other cool things around that do pay well.
So, if you want something else that yet another tip calculator or yet another flashlight, you will need real developpers. The kind that have experience in real paying jobs and that expect to earn as much money, if not more, when they move to the iPhone.
If you're shocked at $5, wait till the real players come to the iPhone... Do you think TomTom will sell its software for anything less than $100 if Apples ever let them publish it on AppStore?
Well, it should, but it doesn't. What do you prefer? A free non-existant application or one that actually work right now for the mere amount of a tip at a restaurant?
Should it matter?
Even if Apple is going to develop that functionality, why should that matter? The only way that I can fathom that this might matter is if this would break the application data sand-boxing. As a 3g owner, I would like to believe that this new "mobile platform" will allow for developers to work on applications that customers might find useful. It appears that Apple is willing to let developers compete with each other but not with their (Apple's) own software. That would be akin to Apple not allowing Office on a Mac because they already have iWork. Obviously this will not happen with Mac because it would threaten the future of the platform.
Even if Apple is going to develop that functionality, why should that matter? The only way that I can fathom that this might matter is if this would break the application data sand-boxing. As a 3g owner, I would like to believe that this new "mobile platform" will allow for developers to work on applications that customers might find useful. It appears that Apple is willing to let developers compete with each other but not with their (Apple's) own software. That would be akin to Apple not allowing Office on a Mac because they already have iWork. Obviously this will not happen with Mac because it would threaten the future of the platform.
Guess you havent read any of my other posts? The way in watch Apple is playing their pro consumer card in saying you don't want that application even though we wont let anyone look it is counter productive. Are they scared that people might find someone elses application better than Apple's own offerings?
It is in may ways good that the review applications before they are released but it is really in everyones best interest for them to decide what the consumer does or does not need? Just because a product already exists does not mean that other products cannot exist within the same market place. Some people dont need all the bells and whistles, some prefer a different interface etc.
Playing traffic cop is a risky job, yes we appreciate Apple stopping apps that are a security risk from getting onto the devices but we don't want Apple telling us that we can't have different versions etc.
This is why Apple has a team of lawyers to figure these things out. I hear lots of Apple bashing without much substance behind it.