Apple Rejecting Applications Based on 'Limited Utility'

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]

    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]? (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
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    archesdevil

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    #2
    "Pull my finger"? Are you 12?
     
  3. macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #3
    i agree bad precedent

    let the consumers decide what apps should be used as long as it fits the sdk requirements
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
  5. Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 603

    notjustjay

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Canada, eh?
    #6
    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...
     
  7. macrumors G3

    puckhead193

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    NY
  8. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #8
    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
     
  9. macrumors 601

    macduke

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Central U.S.
    #9
    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. macrumors 6502a

    IDANNY

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Location:
    Las vegas
  11. macrumors 604

    LimeiBook86

    Joined:
    May 4, 2002
    Location:
    Hanging around in NJ with his cutie. :)
    #11
    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:
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    daze

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    #12
    Never understood how "pulling a finger" equates to a fart noise. Can anyone enlighten me?
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    daze

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    #13
    This will always be a problem when there is judgement involved. It will always remain subjective. Period.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #15
    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
     
  16. macrumors 604

    LimeiBook86

    Joined:
    May 4, 2002
    Location:
    Hanging around in NJ with his cutie. :)
    #16
    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? :(
     
  17. macrumors member

    theloon

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    #17
    Apple don't start being an arse!

    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:
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    #18
    *there


    Seriously people. Go to middle school.
     
  19. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #19
  20. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    #20
    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?
     
  21. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    #21
    maybe apple is just now starting to crack down on new useless apps? :confused:
     
  22. macrumors 68020

    Ntombi

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Bostonian exiled in SoCal
    #22
    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.
     
  23. Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    #24
    The app store has standards???

    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.
     
  25. macrumors regular

    RonCarr

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Location:
    Tennessee
    #25
    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:
     

Share This Page