Apple's App Store Rejection Policies Raise Concerns

[Rybold]

Originally Posted by jbernie

Not a lawyer, did have some commentary earlier (post #203). By signing the agreement with Apple, you agree to abide by their rules, so in theory you would have no way to object to said rules.

Thank you for the response.

[bensyverson]

As a developer, it saddens me to see this happen... Good work down the tubes... On the other hand, it is extreeemely predictable. A "podcast downloader" is essentially a free music downloading utility, as long as you know the right "podcasts" to subscribe to. And you're asking the top music reseller in the US to sign off?

The biggest question in my mind is why this developer imagined the app would ever make it onto the AppStore. Certain things are pretty obvious non-starters. It's the same reason no one would invest a lot of time coding a really nice Terminal app. If you absolutely have to make apps that'll make Apple angry, then there is a small but substantial market in the jailbreak community.

Dave Winer and a bunch of others are crying foul, saying it doesn't make sense to code for the platform if you don't know whether you'll be approved or not. Which is sort of like deciding not to play guitar because you're not guaranteed a distribution deal. Honestly, if you compare the few random apps that have been denied to the huge flood of apps which have been approved (including controversial apps like Netshare), there doesn't seem to be a lot to get alarmed about.

But if the nature of the platform bugs you that much, then just don't code for it. I don't get the outrage. Where's the outrage over Nintendo's approval process for the Wii or DS? It's not like Apple ever advertised the AppStore to developers as a radically open free-for-all. You should celebrate the fact that they released an SDK at all!

That said, I haven't submitted an app yet, so maybe I should hold my tongue.

[samab]

Originally Posted by marksman

The comparison is valid. The intelligent and experienced developers are not going to be bowed by this. It is part of doing business and if scares off some potential naive competitors all the more money for them. Those with experience and season or even just those with real ability and confidence won't hesitate for a second to try and get their piece of the app store pie.

Actually, the opposite is going to happen.

The more intelligent and experience you are --- the more you know that this is a business. You have to borrow money from the bank. You are giving up opportunities to make money from other platforms. What about the venture capitalists who started the iFund --- they have to start wondering whether some of their VC bets would be arbitrarily shut down by Apple's decisions.

Nobody ever talks about spending $20 million to create a massive epic console game anymore. Everybody is making cheap wii mini-games.

Business will try to make the easy money first.

[exigentsky]

Yes, Apple is not being fair here and no all the fanboy excuses just don't cut it. They're prohibiting any competition. What if Microsoft rejected the installation of all programs similar to its own? Sorry, Britannica and bye bye Firefox. Just as concerning, developers are still under a gag order and cannot share ideas about iPhone development. Such abuses of power are absurd and if Apple continues to behave this way, they will lose me as a customer. I haven't switched from Microsoft to meet a smaller but more arrogant and controlling bully.

[Rybold]

Originally Posted by jbernie

Of course, Apple did initially approve "I am rich", maybe because they could get $300 per sale, and they have also approved although I believe they are free applications which makes the screen bright white to make your iPhone a torch. hmmmm.....

They should have non-profit Apps, as a way to donate to non-profit groups. "The Red Cross Fund" icon for a $20 donation, or a "Feed the Children" icon for a $20 donation would be a good idea that would not be seen as "ridiculous" as the "I am rich" App was.
(sure, it's not for everyone, but it would be a great way to raise money for the major non-profits)

[samab]

Originally Posted by bensyverson

The biggest question in my mind is why this developer imagined the app would ever make it onto the AppStore. Certain things are pretty obvious non-starters. It's the same reason no one would invest a lot of time coding a really nice Terminal app. If you absolutely have to make apps that'll make Apple angry, then there is a small but substantial market in the jailbreak community.

Dave Winer and a bunch of others are crying foul, saying it doesn't make sense to code for the platform if you don't know whether you'll be approved or not. Which is sort of like deciding not to play guitar because you're not guaranteed a distribution deal.

They look at the SDK license --- and they didn't break any clauses in the SDK license.

Adobe is sitting on flash, Sun is sitting on java and a few other companies are sitting on navigation apps --- all sitting in limbo.

Are you saying that Adobe, Sun and company shouldn't even try to make these apps because Apple is goiing to reject their business model anyway.

It's not about crying foul or not --- it's about certain business certainties. They can't go to the bank to borrow money. They can't go to the venture capitalists to get funding.

[maxrobertson]

It's a disgrace.

[johnmcboston]

Originally Posted by maxrobertson

It's a disgrace.

Definitely. No one could ever do podcasts better than Apple, could they....

[bensyverson]

Originally Posted by samab

Are you saying that Adobe, Sun and company shouldn't even try to make these apps because Apple is goiing to reject their business model anyway.

It's not about crying foul or not --- it's about certain business certainties. They can't go to the bank to borrow money. They can't go to the venture capitalists to get funding.

Adobe and Sun are not "sitting on" Flash and Java for iPhone. They're just unable to deploy them, because Apple doesn't want them on the platform. Java and Flash can't be deployed as apps on the AppStore, because the whole idea is that you'd want to use them as plugins within mobile Safari, which is flatly forbidden.

So yes, if I were Adobe or Sun, I would not bother pouring any development resources into the iPhone.

For the average developer, the situation is much different. You don't need venture capital to make a silly little game or a simple utility. But as we've seen, that silly game or simple utility can rack up a ton of sales. On the off-chance that you have an idea for the iPhone that's so ambitious that you need funding, there's the iFund, which is set up specifically for iPhone projects. So...

I still don't understand the outrage.

[SiliconAddict]

*coughs*GoogleAppStoreNoRestrictions*coughs*

Oh and might I add that you can also load any app you want on the OS.

Now is only a matter of waiting to see what Tmobile\HTC\Google has cooked up. No doubt it will be less restrictive, and controversial then Apple's App Store.

[Tosser]

Originally Posted by NT1440

did you miss that whole part about apple reserving the right to refuse any app?




its the same thing as a store reserving the right to refuse service to anyone.

Yet a store can't refuse service to someone on the grounds of race, skin colour, age or the like.

And frankly, the reason they gave wasn't of course akin to discrimination, but it certainly wasn't a valid reason either – if it were a valid reason, many other apps should have been refused, but they're not. How come?

What sticks out here, is that Apple obviously used a "reason" that's not true at all, when going by what's in the iTS as it is, so the developers can't learn from this, other than the fact that Apple isn't playing straight.
Whether or not they have legal ground to refuse in the manner they did isn't really the crux of this discussion, although someone would like it to be. This is about ethics, and no matter if they're within their legal rights to do as they please, doesn't mean we should all think it's all fine and dandy.

[exigentsky]

Originally Posted by Tosser

Yet a store can't refuse service to someone on the grounds of race, skin colour, age or the like.

And frankly, the reason they gave wasn't of course akin to discrimination, but it certainly wasn't a valid reason either – if it were a valid reason, many other apps should have been refused, but they're not. How come?

What sticks out here, is that Apple obviously used a "reason" that's not true at all, when going by what's in the iTS as it is, so the developers can't learn from this, other than the fact that Apple isn't playing straight.
Whether or not they have legal ground to refuse in the manner they did isn't really the crux of this discussion, although someone would like it to be. This is about ethics, and no matter if they're within their legal rights to do as they please, doesn't mean we should all think it's all fine and dandy.

Simply put, Apple's move favors Apple's coffers but is completely anticompetitive and hurts the users.

[Tosser]

Originally Posted by exigentsky

Simply put, Apple's move favors Apple's coffers but is completely anticompetitive and hurts the users.

I agree.

[eluyten]

"Podcaster" is an excellent application from Kudlian software to publish
podcast feeds.
http://www.kudlian.net/products/podcaster/
The developper should at least have checked this before naming his application.
To avoid confusion this is reason enough to reject the App Store application.

[bilbo--baggins]

There are 2 issues here:

Apple really must adopt the suggested "pre-authorisation" and provide clear guidelines about what is allowed, otherwise they're going to loose a lot of talented developers - which would be a huge shame.

There is also the issue of using it's position as platform developer to protect it's own apps from competition - which is unfair on both developers and users. I find it a real limitation not being able to download Podcasts while I'm away from my computer, and it's frustrating that Apple are blocking developers from solving this problem. To block them AFTER they have put all the time, effort and money into developing a solution is a disgrace.

[Lictor]

Originally Posted by HLdan

Exactly! With your logic, nobody would have a job. According to you why bother applying for a job, going through several interviews, being led to believe that the company in question likes you but then you don't know if you will be accepted or not?

You really don't get the point.
When I go to a job interview, I go to several of them. If one employer does not want to hire me - or if I don't want to work with a specific employer - it's no big deal, since there are hundreds of potential employers to pick from.
Moreover, a job interview only takes a couple of hours of my life. Again, no big deal.
Developing softwares takes months of one's life. And with the monopoly of Apple on software distribution, you only get one chance at being "hired".

Currently, developing for the iPhone is like seeking a job in Soviet Union: you only have one single employer on the market.

My point is you have to be prepared for the worst and these developers are complete idiots if they aren't. It's bad enough that hardly 1% even reads the terms and conditions before creating apps.

You should pray that developers stay complete idiots then. Because if they start to do proper risk assesment, they will just switch to another mobile platform with less risks involved, such as Windows Mobile, Google Android, Symbian...

Moreover, good developers already have a job. And they can keep working in risk free areas. For instance, staying in the J2EE, Ruby or .NET universe is almost risk free - if I lose my current employer, I have hundreds others on the market.
And if you want real applications on the AppStore, you will need good developers. You're asking them to move from a comfortable situation (widespread technologies, plenty of jobs) to a locked in situation with technologies that have no practical uses outside of Apple (Objective-C, iPhone SDK) and with a single potential employer...

Indeed, I think you're right. iPhone developers are really complete idiots with no sense of business... Otherwise, they would have fled to another area of expertise...

[ballyhoos]

Nothing will change until most developers make a stand regarding this against Apple. For years Apple look the other way on most things that pick faults in their decisions/products, but only do anything when there is an serious outcry. They know dam well what they're doing.
eg iphone price drop within the first 6 months.

It would seem that Apple are protecting their own interests rather than creating "innovation", which is a little sickening considering it's something they promote in all of their own products. No wonder they are getting a little backlash for this as it's rightly deserved. People are getting a little tired of it and their share price shows this.

[Lictor]

Originally Posted by NT1440

its the same thing as a store reserving the right to refuse service to anyone.

You of course realize that this "right" is illegal in a good part of the world? Ungrounded refusal to service a customer can cause a shop owner to have his license revoked in several parts of the world.

Likewise, the USA have very lax anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, but that's not the case elsewhere. If a European developer or company was faced with a refusal from Apple based one silly arguments such as "we don't like competition", they would have the ground to bring the case to European justice.
An Europe is the market here, not the USA... We have 3G for real, not just in a few areas in a few cities. We have more mobiles per inhabitant than the USA. The other huge market is Asia, but the iPhone does not stand a chance there since it is missing essential features such as RFID support, a decent camera, visiophony or a decent television capacity.
If Apple becomes the new target, after Microsoft, of the European anti-trust attacks, this will be very bad for them...

[kresh]

I can see what Apple decided to reject this application. It is so easy to abuse. How long would it be before music, packaged as a podcast, would be all over the net for download directly to your iPhone/iPod Touch?

This was the very first thing I thought of when I heard about the program. It is piracy waiting to happen.

[Lictor]

Originally Posted by kresh

I can see what Apple decided to reject this application. It is so easy to abuse. How long would it be before music, packaged as a podcast, would be all over the net for download directly to your iPhone/iPod Touch?

So? What's new? You can already do that through iTune podcast module - the only difference is that you have to be home to sync your pirated or porn material...
You can also do that through mobile Safari - you're aware that you can download plenty of pirated material right from the web, right?
Likewise, you can also see pirated material right through Apple own's Youtube module.
Actually, the whole MacOS X platform can be used to download, share and use pirated material. Should Apple discontinue its own OS?

That's total nonsense. The iPhone is already perfectly able to use and download pirated material, it was since the iPhone 1.0 and way before the AppStore or any third party application was developed...

Besides, if you want to apply the logic that a single illicit use is enough to ban the whole thing, I do hope you apply it wherever it can be and not just software... I hope you are a militant for banning cars, guns, knives...

[FloatingBones]

Originally Posted by tjcampbell

This guy needs to suck it up and move on.

Authors and screenwriters toil over books and film scripts for years never knowing if they'll even get an agent to read it let alone give the project the green light.

They can't just ring up Random House and say "If I write a book about xxxxx will you publish it?"

It's just not the way the world works.

You put in the time and hope it gets a go. If it doesn't, you move on to the next project.

Actually, this is exactly the way that the book publishing industry works today: you go to lulu.com and buy their self-publishing package. The green light is automatic. You set the price; they'll sell it on their website: print-on-demand books and PDF downloads. Amazon also sells a similar package.

I'm not sure why you think selling screenplays to a studio is comparable. Studios don't benefit from buying a screenplay unless they're going to use it for creating a movie: an investment of millions of dollars before they make any money on the screenplay. Apple has no such overhead to sell apps in the App Store. You can tell this because they welcome free apps; Apple must eat the expense of hosting and downloading these applications.

Finally, part of the objection is that there is no way to get a particular application approved or rejected up front -- you must first develop and submit your completed application to Apple before learning that Apple thinks that "it duplicates the functionality [of some Apple application]." Why couldn't they give thumbs-up or thumbs-down on a specification for a program?

[guet]

Originally Posted by kresh

I can see what Apple decided to reject this application. It is so easy to abuse. How long would it be before music, packaged as a podcast, would be all over the net for download directly to your iPhone/iPod Touch?

This was the very first thing I thought of when I heard about the program. It is piracy waiting to happen.

Spurious excuse for Apple behaviour #99... any more?

I'm appalled at the people apologising for Apple on this, and even moreso at the silly reasons dreamed up. Here's a newsflash for those of you going on about porn, sex, or music - it's all available on the internet for free right now on your iphone, there's no need for a special app and banning a podcasting app has nothing to do with moral rectitude.

It's unreasonable to demand payment up front and then reject apps based on vague criteria which are not revealed.

This hurts consumers short-term by restricting choice on the store, but more importantly long-term as developers avoid the platform.

The uncertainty surrounding their platform hurts Apple long term (if only they could see it), by putting off developers and making them an afterthought for development, as they are on the desktop.

Apple needs to sort out their attitude on this, as they did on the SDK when enough people complained. They have the right (I'd use the word ability myself) to refuse anything they like on their store, but too many refusals for bizarre or spurious reasons will chill development on the platform, and make many users reconsider their choice of phone/desktop OS as well.

If this is the future of Apple, I want no part of it.

[jbernie]

It will be interesting to see what Skype does, at least for the Touch device. I could see where the iPhone may cause issues as they would probably need to show that the application only works on Wifi and not on 3g which may or may not be easy to do, but should be possible. At least on the Touch you can only use Wifi so that should not be a barrier.

Checking out the Skype website, they already have clients for the following systems....

- Windows Mobile
- Sony PSP
- Nokia N800/810

No obvious mention of iPod or iPhone yet, or Android, but i am nto familiar with where Android is in the development phase.

[ballyhoos]

Originally Posted by guet

Spurious excuse for Apple behaviour #99... any more?

I'm appalled at the people apologising for Apple on this, and even moreso at the silly reasons dreamed up. Here's a newsflash for those of you going on about porn, sex, or music - it's all available on the internet for free right now on your iphone, there's no need for a special app and banning a podcasting app has nothing to do with moral rectitude.

It's unreasonable to demand payment up front and then reject apps based on vague criteria which are not revealed.

This hurts consumers short-term by restricting choice on the store, but more importantly long-term as developers avoid the platform.

The uncertainty surrounding their platform hurts Apple long term (if only they could see it), by putting off developers and making them an afterthought for development, as they are on the desktop.

Apple needs to sort out their attitude on this, as they did on the SDK when enough people complained. They have the right (I'd use the word ability myself) to refuse anything they like on their store, but too many refusals for bizarre or spurious reasons will chill development on the platform, and make many users reconsider their choice of phone/desktop OS as well.

If this is the future of Apple, I want no part of it.

A thought shared by many. Apple's methodology needs a rethink otherwise developers won't waste their time, rendering the app store unless.

Also

Originally Posted by FloatingBones

"it duplicates the functionality [of some Apple application]."

This could be rewritten as this... "it duplicates the functionality [Any past, present or future Apple Application]." Here lies the problem, who knows with Apples secrecy. Why would you create anything innovative, when apple can just say "No, because... [insert an anti competitive excuse here]".

[eastcoastsurfer]

Originally Posted by bensyverson

For the average developer, the situation is much different. You don't need venture capital to make a silly little game or a simple utility. But as we've seen, that silly game or simple utility can rack up a ton of sales. On the off-chance that you have an idea for the iPhone that's so ambitious that you need funding, there's the iFund, which is set up specifically for iPhone projects. So...

I still don't understand the outrage.

So you're saying the only apps you want to see on the iPhone are 'silly little games' and 'simple utilities'? What a complete waste of an innovative platform.