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 is making up BS excuses, I don't think they want to see quality apps come out of all of this. Shocking too because they could be getting a good amount of money out of all of this.
Yeah. I just put on hold an iPhone development project until there is some more clarity from Apple on what is really acceptable. Luckily, I've only put about $8K of time into it so far. I'll now be focusing on a game.
This rejection, and the "pull my finger" one worry me most because the reasons given for rejection seem disingenuous: This the case of this app, it clearly goes beyond duplicating existing functionality. In the case of that stupid "pull my finger" app, it's true the app has no real utility. But of course there are many, many apps of the same type already available.
We can (and many have!) speculate on the real reasons for Apple's rejection of these apps. But why the hell doesn't Apple just say what the real reasons are? It's very disconcerting to have to try to guess at these things. Developers are in the position of betting many thousands of dollars on a guess of whether or not some Apple flunky will reject their app after they've completed creating it.
Apple needs to publish a clear and consistent set of guidelines and also provide pre-approval for every app.
Maybe they're too worried that "Podcast" will become disassociated with the brand.
So why do we have an App Store then? Based on your logic Apple should not approve any application created by a 3rd party as they may, sometime in the future, maybe next week, maybe in 50 years release an application or application update that will duplicate the functionality. Of course Apple will all produce the perfect application and it will always make their own applications work sooo much better than anyone else could.
What a load of rubbish. The application provides true functionality (unlike "i am rich") and useful functionality. I have listened to maybe 2 podcasts in my life, so to me an application like this is not worth 1c but to people who listen to lots of podcasts something like this could be seen as much more valuable than $5 given they can do much more on the go, no need to be at home/work with access to iTunes.
Also, when did $5 become so damn expensive for a phone that will cost you in the order of $2000 all up over your 2 year contract on AT&T. $5 barely gets you one Meal at McDonalds. Do you expect all independent developers to basically give away their work? If they work on an App for a month and nothing else then you would expect them to need to recoup a few thousand $$ for their time/effort.
Apple would be well advised to give thought to a non approved section of the App Store where reasonable applications like this (not "I am rich") are available for purchase at the owners risk.
From the Apple $99 agreement, emphasis mine:
6.2 Selection by Apple for Distribution
You understand and agree that Apple may, in its sole discretion:
(a) determine that Your Application does not meet all or any part of the Documentation or Program Requirements then in effect;
(b) reject Your Application for distribution for any reason, even if Your Application meets the Documentation and Program Requirements; or
(c) select and digitally sign Your Application for distribution via the App Store.
Apple shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, losses (including without limitation lost business opportunities or lost profits) or other liabilities You may incur as a result of Your Application development, use of this Apple Software, or participation in the Program, including without limitation the fact that Your Application may not be selected for distribution via the App Store...
This decision also makes me angry. I'm frequently in the field for weeks at a time where I can't access iTunes. The ability to access updated podcasts in these situations is extremely helpful.
I think this is totally lame. I realize that from their beginning, a lot of Apple's success has been built on micro-management and tightly held cards (especially by a few particular individuals).
But this kind of practice when it comes to 3rd party applications, is really overboard and Apple's reasoning is pathetic for eliminating this podcast app. Obviously the majority of applications have parallel apps to choose from that do essentially the same thing...just maybe in a slightly different way...or...umm...better way. Apple's always "looking out for the customer"
-1 Apple
But this kind of practice when it comes to 3rd party applications, is really overboard and Apple's reasoning is pathetic for eliminating this podcast app. Obviously the majority of applications have parallel apps to choose from that do essentially the same thing...just maybe in a slightly different way...or...umm...better way. Apple's always "looking out for the customer"
-1 Apple
$5 is cheap. WAY cheap for mobile software. And this functionality does not exist on the device.
Now THAT'S clarity.
I'm not sure if you are joking or not. In case you aren't:
No, there's no clarity in that. It's a blanket statement that provides developers with no clues on what types of apps will or won't be accepted. I don't dispute Apple's right to allow what they want in to their store. But they need to give developers as much clarity as possible on acceptable apps.
Um - that's the whole point of ALL software development. And Greedy? $5 is a pittance. I don't get where anyone can say $5 is hefty for an app! It doesn't matter if Apple should have released anything ages ago - the whole point of developers existing is to write software that meets people's needs. Period.
Should Entourage not exist because Apple has already seen fit to give us Mail, AddressBook, and iCal? How about Now Contact? or Thunderbird?
Should Firefox not be allowed because we have Safari?
We are working on a full featured PIM for the iPhone (http://www.pocketinformant.com/products_info.php?p_id=pocketinformant_iphone). We have tens of thousands of people signed up waiting for it. Apple has a calendar built in now - but it is pretty bad for many people. Should Apple not allow us to develop because some day in the future - say 5 years from now their calendar will be better?
I wonder if a court wouldn't void that part of the terms since it leans way too much in Apple's direction. Any lawyers on the board?
Common sense dictates that one would not write an application that duplicates or competes with Apple products. They are inviting app developers into their playground to play or sell balloons, not build a new community recreation facility and sell concert tickets.
At least in my case at WWDC I made very clear to several high level Apple folks we were going to be doing just that and they found no issue with that. But now I'm concerned...very.
Open it already! Argh, this kills me, why does apple develop an awesome piece of hardware, then make it available only on one provider. Put a 'modified version of os x' though you can't access most of it's functionality and have to use apps they want you to use (let down pay for the firmware update for touch users). And the risks of making an app will most probably deter most gnu-type developers from making as much apps as we would expect.
Basicaly this platform is living on hype. I wouldn't be surprised, or I at least hope they put some major changes to the platform at macworld. It's getting ridiculous, why pay pay for a premium because the hardware has an apple on it if you need to hack it to get some use out of it.
Basicaly this platform is living on hype. I wouldn't be surprised, or I at least hope they put some major changes to the platform at macworld. It's getting ridiculous, why pay pay for a premium because the hardware has an apple on it if you need to hack it to get some use out of it.
now this is a big deal. i don't want to spend time creating an app, for it just to be rejected. hopefully they'll come up with a system that deals with this issue
What the hell are you talking about? A developer spends his time/money and resources making an application and he's not supposed to be "into demoing his exciting program"? Why don't you go write something for the iPhone rather than trashing the developers who are trying to give all of us more functionality.
You're about the 10th person to take Apple's reason for rejection at face value.
Stop being rubes people
OK, chief. I was responding to someone else who was glad that developers would now be focusing on other functionality.
The difference is MS controlled 95% of the OS market at the time, giving them an effective monopoly. Perhaps this makes no difference ethically, but legally it sure does.
The Podcast thing is a whole different story. It really is a **** move by Apple. With the pile of bad and useless apps, this is the one app I have been WAITING for and is a pretty glaring omission. Even arguments about bandwith don't make sense to me. The main podcasts I listen to are NPR shows & SModcast. ALL of these can be listened to by going to the respective website and clicking on the MP3 file. Which essentially buffers the entire mp3 file on my iPhone, meaning the identical amount of data is transferred over the network.
To this point I have thought that the apps Apple rejected all had reasonable cause to be booted, but for the Podcast app they are crossing the line and denying function the the user our of some weird need for control. Just add podcasts to Mobile iTunes already or let Podcast do it for us!
Apple's secrecy can really get in the way sometimes... and I think they are losing customers because of it.
I suppose Apple has gone a long way in breaking the mold. For example, rejecting apps for no good reason while having almost nothing of actual value in their barely functional app store goes to show that beggars can be choosers. Way to **** over the only people that actually put their money where their mouths are, Stevie boy. Can't wait to see the encore.
