Apple's App Store Rejection Policies Raise Concerns

[SuperMacMan]

Regarding Podcast Lists

In regards to podcasts lists, it has been built entirely from scratch by users of the originals webapp version (http://www.podcaster.fm) since January 2008. It is not the list of 'casts from Apple.

It is also a self-healing one, if someone searches for a podcast and it's not there, you can add the RSS feed and hey presto, it automatically adds to the database.
Oh, and it crawls the popular podcasts every hour, less popular once a day to once a week.

It even has featured, top 20, etc lists as well.

---

On another note, I though all 20+ pages of discussion here, plus ars technica, tuaw, virtually everywhere that has anything to do with the iPhone has this story... Surely Apple has seen at least one of them and thought to accept this app? Seems not...

 

[newb16]

Its how it works for every other smartphone platform, and indeed, desktop o/s.

No. Microsoft does not (yet?) decide wheter to approve or not your windows app, you can distribute it as you want, even in compileable sources. Apple does. But as long as millions of iphone owners can't care less about rejected apps, it's ok to Apple to do this.

 

[t0mat0]

I haven't read the full thread, but it does bear saying that once Apple gets push notification, it would be trivial to dothis for podcasts and add the feature for free to iPhones etc. If they had let the app through then brought out the feature for free there would have been the same developer shouting an hollering about having his app overwhelmed and unfair competition etc.

Surely any developer with an iota of foresight could see that the push notification app would be ideally suited to show updates of podcasts and then allow download and sync of them?
Then everyone gets the benefit, not just those having to shell out 10 bucks just for the privilege.
Doesn't mean that Apple should delay in taking up the advice about improving the app process.

 

[Darkroom]

"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.

humm not so sure... i'm assuming that apple would have given this info by email instead...

also, there's like 2 or 3 apps called "flash light" i think.

 

[Veri]

That's the last thing that Apple would want to do, because under a typical NDA, it means that Apple can't then develop that idea on their own.

Indeed. An NDA proposal of this sort becomes unworkable when one considers that Apple could genuinely have been designing, developing, or even merely discussing a very similar app to one submitted. How is Apple going to defend itself without inviting a method to extract a hundred and one secrets from Cup'o'teano?

Which means that any pre-approval process likely acceptable to Apple would be in full knowledge that Apple might decide, "Oh, great idea there, buddy, let me just implement that as well." And, if Apple was feeling extra-nefarious, "...so I think I'll just reject that application!" - though more likely it could rely on employing the most iPhone-intimate developers combined with IE-style prebundling to get the market lead.

This brings me back to my original theme that the App Store is set up to strongly favour a huge volume of low-risk toy apps.

 

[The Tall One]

No good

Apple can't be doing that. They need to step up their game and recognize that their customers were directed to "Think Differently" in the 90s and they expect Apple to do the same. Being anti-competitive doesn't suit them.

 

[t0mat0]

Has anyone bar the developer actually seen the full Apple reply? It seems Apple might be being selectively (mid)quoted, and a lot of the stories are just going on comment off the back of the quote given on the developers blog.
Yes, Apple has some learning to do. Doesn't mean there isn't a lot of promise for apps.

 

[Mazda 3s]

Why should it matter to Apple?

I have a question. Why should it matter whether the program competes with an existing or upcoming Apple feature/component?

If Podcaster is a pay app, and Apple releases its mobile podcasting app for free with similar functionality later for free, the third-party "problem" effectively erases itself. No one would buy the Podcaster application anymore if they find the Apple application sufficient.

So they both win. The third-party gets some $$$ in the short run until Apple release its solution. Apple then effectively crushes the third-party in the end with its own solution since most people wouldn't feel the need to pay for the functionality.

The third-party then tucks his tail between his legs and develops another app...

Either way, Apple effed up IMHO.

 

[Stella]

Originally Posted by Stella View Post
Its how it works for every other smartphone platform, and indeed, desktop o/s.

No. Microsoft does not (yet?) decide wheter to approve or not your windows app, you can distribute it as you want, even in compileable sources. Apple does. But as long as millions of iphone owners can't care less about rejected apps, it's ok to Apple to do this.

You've misunderstood my original post, read the entire post for its real context.

I'm glad that I'm not told my Nokia about the type of applications and content I'm allowed on my phone. I can think for myself. If I want, I can have back ground applications running, and yes, I'm aware that they will suck up extra battery life - but I'm aware of that and don't complain about it. In fact, I'd find it extremely limiting to have a single-tasking phone... instead of multi-tasking.

There are some excellent applications out there for Symbian and other smartphone platforms. This type of innovation could well be lacking from the iPhone in the future , due to excess control.

 

[reflex]

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

Which isn't always legal either (at least not in Belgium), depending on the circumstances.

E.g., a baker can't refuse to sell bread to someone if he's the only baker around.

 

[knightlie]

Its Microsoft's Operating System. They can choose whatever price they want to sell it at (and vary it by customer), and also dictate what what other products it has to be bundled with.

Ahh, ye olde monopoly argument. This is nothing like Microsoft's position. The iPhone is a controlled development environment, and Apple can choose whatever apps they like. They can decide to close the App Store tomorrow because it's theirs, in the same way they can decide what to put on it, because it's theirs. Developers who ignore the terms and conditions of the SDK are going to fall foul of it.

 

[marksman]

In regards to podcasts lists, it has been built entirely from scratch by users of the originals webapp version (http://www.podcaster.fm) since January 2008. It is not the list of 'casts from Apple.

It is also a self-healing one, if someone searches for a podcast and it's not there, you can add the RSS feed and hey presto, it automatically adds to the database.
Oh, and it crawls the popular podcasts every hour, less popular once a day to once a week.

It even has featured, top 20, etc lists as well.

---

On another note, I though all 20+ pages of discussion here, plus ars technica, tuaw, virtually everywhere that has anything to do with the iPhone has this story... Surely Apple has seen at least one of them and thought to accept this app? Seems not...

Not terribly relevant what stuff it does... As something it did did not fit in with what apple wanted. That is kind of the point. People are arguing that because it does x,y,z on top of a,b,c it should be accepted. Apple is saying because it does a,b,c it is being rejected. So the fact it does x,y,z is wholly irrelevant and would be in any pre-ordaining process to approve applications.

We have no evidence this particualar developer folllowed up with Apple for official clarification. Given the laziness displayed in other aspects of what they did it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY they requested follow-up and then waited sufficient time to receive it.

So it is entirely possible with appropriate follow-up that Apple might be able to provide additional insight and tell this developer if they changed/removed a,b,c then they could re-submit the app.

Instead the developer likely posted the rejection within minutes of receiving it setting off a massive knee jerk reaction here and elsewhere.

 

[GQB]

As one of the staunch defenders of Apple's right to control their nascent platform and 'ecosystem', going so far as to chastise those who want to make their pet needs the top of Apple's priorities, I have to admit that this crosses the line. There's a pretty clear line between protecting the platform, and being afraid of competition. Apple's crossed it.

Not that I'm going to bail (bail to what?... Wince? Android Babel? don't think so.)
But as a stockholder, I think this is a really bad position for Apple to be taking, and I hope they come to their senses on this.

 

[HLdan]

Has anyone bar the developer actually seen the full Apple reply? It seems Apple might be being selectively (mid)quoted, and a lot of the stories are just going on comment off the back of the quote given on the developers blog.
Yes, Apple has some learning to do. Doesn't mean there isn't a lot of promise for apps.

Exactly, nobody knows if the full reply rejection letter was revealed except for the developer that is trying to set Apple on fire for this. The developer could very well be disgruntled and only quoted a portion of that letter.
This very forum is sooo famous for selectively quoting certain lines of someone's post in order to misconstrue what the poster was saying. I'm not calling foul to Apple until the whole matter gets settled.

I'm glad that I'm not told my Nokia about the type of applications and content I'm allowed on my phone. I can think for myself.

You have no idea what Nokia restricts on their phones. Don't kid yourself into thinking it's a completely open platform. Some of the cell phone companies already cripple the bluetooth functionality in order to prevent people from tethering on the cheaper data plans.
Apple and it's products have become household names so anything they do becomes news.
You can take a Windows user, Mac user and a person that knows nothing about technology and all 3 of them will know the iPod or iPhone.
Those same 3 people may not have ever seen or heard of the Nokia smart phone. If Nokia made news like the iPhone you would know the crap the company is pulling on it's developers.

 

[flipperanubi]

Corollary...

a

 

[BongoBanger]

You have no idea what Nokia restricts on their phones.

Actually we do. The S60 SDK is available to everyone and it's very clear what Nokia's phones support. It's up to the buyer to choose what they install.

Don't kid yourself into thinking it's a completely open platform. Some of the cell phone companies already cripple the bluetooth functionality in order to prevent people from tethering on the cheaper data plans.

Nokia, however, do not.

 

[Stella]

Incorrect - Cell phone providers will / may cripple bluetooth functionality, thats up to them, but NOKIA does not. Nokia != cell phone provider. Nokia manufactures the phone and allows providers to customize them in various ways, such as disabling Bluetooth, WIFI, adding their own content, only allowing signed application installations. You can buy their phones out of contract, fully functional, unlocked.

Nokia / Symbian and other platforms do not take a heavy handed approach to its third party developers as Apple and thus is vastly more open. They do ream applications / content that aren't allowed on their platforms, as per Apple. As the above poster correctly points out, the S60 development kit is available to anyone, and any limitations can be seen.

Don't kid yourself, Apple are *significantly* more controlling than the majority of others. Apple are very different. Others take a very much hands off approach and let the market decide what applications are deemed useful and how they are going to be distributed. There are no real threats of viruses, either ( there have been a few, but these viruses have done very very little harm to the user base as a whole ). Apple are scare mongering regarding this.

You have no idea what Nokia restricts on their phones.Don't kid yourself into thinking it's a completely open platform. Some of the cell phone companies already cripple the bluetooth functionality in order to prevent people from tethering on the cheaper data plans.
Apple and it's products have become household names so anything they do becomes news.
You can take a Windows user, Mac user and a person that knows nothing about technology and all 3 of them will know the iPod or iPhone.
Those same 3 people may not have ever seen or heard of the Nokia smart phone. If Nokia made news like the iPhone you would know the crap the company is pulling on it's developers.

 

[Baffles]

First off, even if this did download over 3G, it shouldn't burden the network at all. It only does because AT&T is too greedy to boost capacity to handle the users. Let the users take care of their own bandwidth caps, rejecting an app because of possible issues isn't a valid reason.

Also, duplication of future technology is ****. It's not here right now, so they have no right to reject it. Ideas get duplicated and beaten to market all the time. And those of you saying if Apple didn't reject the app then added this functionality that they would be blamed for copying... I would blame them for copying and unfair market practices for rejecting an app then adding the functionality later. By doing this, they could reject any app because it 'duplicates future functionality' then silently add the features themselves. It is totally unfair, and the developer should be compensated.

 

[riversky]

Bottom line with Apple is if you are doing something they are doing you are out of luck.

Apple is a closed (mostly) ecosystem so they don't like anyone stepping on their toes, so to speak.

 

[-hh]

Ahh, ye olde monopoly argument. This is nothing like Microsoft's position.

Not today. If in a year or two the iPhone has 90% of the Smartphone market, well, "Lets Talk".

Its clear that Apple is using their power in the marketplace to influence other businesses. What's missing is that they're a monopoly in that market segment.

And its not a violation of SDK terms when there's room for interpretation. Here, there's enough ambiguity to bring the Queen Mary into port.

-hh

 

[pinktank]

the lack of this functionality is the only reason Im not buying one, I would get it as a podcast player

 

[RebelScum]

~Developer Fraser Speirs is amongst the developers outraged by this policy and offers suggestions on how Apple should address this. Some of the suggestions include clear exclusion rules, an App Store evangelist, and the ability for developers to get pre-authorization for application ideas.~

How about this:

I want OTA podcasts.

iTunes doesn't offer OTA podcasts.

Beyond that...APPLE...STOP TELLING ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN NOT INSTALL ON MY iPHONE!!!!

Anyone who's as pissed off as I am over Apple's control mechanism should read this: http://www.rgbfilter.com/?p=200

The way I see it: I bought it and I should be able to install whatever the hell I WANT on it. I can't think of a single WinMo device that would gimp functionality like this. It's unreal.

 

[RebelScum]

This thought just occurred to me:

Why is it Podcaster is not allowed to exist, but revision3 has an app for both DiggNation AND Epic Fu?? (ignoring for a moment that Epic Fu hasn;t worked in weeks :\)

Both of those apps allow me to DL ANY of their content OTA. DiggNation weighs around 400 MB, too.

How is it fair for those podcast apps to exist but for others to be sanctioned?

 

[Lictor]

As for the fools comparing this to Microsoft and claiming it to be illegal - of course it isn't illegal - Apple can sell whatever they like on their own store.

Yes, just like Microsoft can ship whatever application it wishes to with its own OS.... Errr... Oooops... Microsoft is paying huge fines in Europe because it just did that... And Microsoft had to pack a special release of Windows without these applications too...
Being Apple and owning a store does not allow a company to break laws. The laws in the US are not the laws in Europe - Europe is very strict about monopolistic situations, much stricter than the US.

If Microsoft was found guilty for shipping MediaPlayer and Internet Explorer with Windows, you can bet Apple can be found guilty for 1) making its store the only way to deliver applications 2) refusing applications because they could enter in competition with their own. It's a very clear refusal to play by the rules and to abuse their dominant situation.
You can be sure that the day Amazon or a similar player tries to enter the field and gets denied access to the AppStore because they compete with iTune, they will have ground to attack Apple...

 

[Lictor]

Not today. If in a year or two the iPhone has 90% of the Smartphone market, well, "Lets Talk".

It depends on what market you consider... The iPhone is not the only target of the AppStore, the iPod Touch also is. There, you have your monopoly: the portable audio player, and application delivery to that platform.
You might be surprised at how Europe can match products to a category.... For instance, if the iPhone had had a video capacity, it could have been matched (and taxed) with video cameras...