There's a big difference between monopolising and preventing harm.
How'd you feel if Starbucks refused to sell coffee without sugar in it? (wouldn't be suprised if the Sugar Lobby hadn't already thought of that one lol)
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 Extends Non-Disclosure to App Store Rejection Letters
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's a big difference between monopolising and preventing harm.
How'd you feel if Starbucks refused to sell coffee without sugar in it? (wouldn't be suprised if the Sugar Lobby hadn't already thought of that one lol)
I think this duplicating issue is total BS. Why should apple care if user wants to install as many apps as they possibly can even if they do exactly the same thing as built in apps? 30 % of the sales goes to Apple's pocket so they should be happy about it.
First when the app screening process was introduced it was all about malware. Now its all about Apple being Stalinist control freak. Regarding malware third party Series 60 software has been sold for ages in huge numbers all over the world and there is no malware. OS X is open platform and the is no malware either... But hey I guess the reason for the screening was about iPhone platform control after all.
Anyway, from pro user perspective Apple has been on slippery slope for a while. Now Apple is more about iPhones and iPods then its about computers. It seems that Apple can concentrate only one are of business at time. The reason for this is probably its very vertical management structure. For a pro user oriented company manufacturing specific HW / SW solutions that might be right way to go but for general consumer electronics / entertainment company that policy is just absurd.
First when the app screening process was introduced it was all about malware. Now its all about Apple being Stalinist control freak. Regarding malware third party Series 60 software has been sold for ages in huge numbers all over the world and there is no malware. OS X is open platform and the is no malware either... But hey I guess the reason for the screening was about iPhone platform control after all.
Anyway, from pro user perspective Apple has been on slippery slope for a while. Now Apple is more about iPhones and iPods then its about computers. It seems that Apple can concentrate only one are of business at time. The reason for this is probably its very vertical management structure. For a pro user oriented company manufacturing specific HW / SW solutions that might be right way to go but for general consumer electronics / entertainment company that policy is just absurd.
There has been malware on S60, but nonetheless you make a good point, as there have literally only been a few isolated cases.
In Apple's defense, they need to guard themselves (their brand and image) from bad software ... but that argument falls over when you look at some of the crap that is on App Store. They aren't QA'ing ... they're controlling.
Don't expect their policy to change anytime soon. Or anytime for that matter... Makes something of a mockery of the 1984 campaign.
I say!
Apple is doing the right thing here! I have downloaded over 8 sudoku programs and at least 4 MahJongg(1).
Had Apple decided to do this before they could've told me what would be the version I should have learnt to like and I wouldn't be distracted with all the features others have.
It's always good when a company protects you like this. Lest you be confused by having the impossible decision of using a different mail program which you would have to voluntarily search, click, download and pay for. God knows how easy it is to do all that and then being unable to tell between Apple's built-in, generically-named, impossible to delete mail program and someone else's differently-featured one.
(1) Not Lying: http://flickr.com/photos/eduo/2876763628/
Apple is doing the right thing here! I have downloaded over 8 sudoku programs and at least 4 MahJongg(1).
Had Apple decided to do this before they could've told me what would be the version I should have learnt to like and I wouldn't be distracted with all the features others have.
It's always good when a company protects you like this. Lest you be confused by having the impossible decision of using a different mail program which you would have to voluntarily search, click, download and pay for. God knows how easy it is to do all that and then being unable to tell between Apple's built-in, generically-named, impossible to delete mail program and someone else's differently-featured one.
(1) Not Lying: http://flickr.com/photos/eduo/2876763628/
I meant the apps that are sold. I believe the malware has been transmitted with mail attachments in S60.
Generally, but not exclusively. Serious malware authors are a clever lot, as good at deception as they are at finding software vulnerabilities.
I can think of at least one S60 game (was it Mosquito?) that wound up infected with an S60 worm (a dialler, if I remember rightly).
S60 script viruses have taken advantage of MMS and bluetooth vulnerabilities. People just don't realise the risks and many forms of malware (and delivery) that are out there.
Going off topic a little, but it's a good focus point simply because most Windows users claim Apples have fewer viruses by virtue of being less popular... it's more popular than ever, but there's still only the odd ripple of virus alerts. So will iPhone's popularity test Apple's security and give proof of concept to the sandbox policy? Time will tell...
(S60 antivirus database.. http://www.netqin.com/english/viruslis_s60.jsp )
I can understand
I can understand that Apple wants to keep spyware and other harmful apps out of the iphone, in fact, I appreciate that. But it is woefully inappropriate for Apple to reject apps because of "redundant use", and just plain old sad that they are issuing NDAs in response to their anti competitiveness. Man... what happened to Apple? I would hope that those developers who's apps are rejected on the basis that they may be redundant publish their rejection letters anonymously. Whoever is deciding that Apple's market is children needs to be shown the true nature of his or her stupidity.
I can understand that Apple wants to keep spyware and other harmful apps out of the iphone, in fact, I appreciate that. But it is woefully inappropriate for Apple to reject apps because of "redundant use", and just plain old sad that they are issuing NDAs in response to their anti competitiveness. Man... what happened to Apple? I would hope that those developers who's apps are rejected on the basis that they may be redundant publish their rejection letters anonymously. Whoever is deciding that Apple's market is children needs to be shown the true nature of his or her stupidity.
I wish Apple would spin off computers into it's own company and put Woz in charge so we don't have deal with all this *rap. 
And correct me if Im wrong, but if EA knock back my game I can approach other publishers, or even self publish.
What are my options if Apple knocks me out of the App Store?
Bad analogy. Better analogy would be Starbucks says you can bring in your own products to Dr your coffee if Starbucks doesn't have it. So you bring in some fancy-dancy sugar and Starbucks says no - we've got sugar, you can't use that.
The ones being rejected for limited scope - I'll agree with the frustration on that one but the ones that are quite obviously extensions of Apples babies (Mail, Safari, iTunes) should have expected to be rejected.
As for the calculator - that's not one of Apple's babies so they really don't care. It probably took them less than 1 day to make the calculator for the iPhone anyway.
I'm not sure what's going on myself. Sort of feels like the same company (I've been using Macs since 1991), except now the internal policies are filtering into public view.
Too many lawyers perhaps?
Putting NDA restrictions on a rejection is pretty thin ground to defend. I ask interviewees (for jobs) sign an NDA to discourage them from talking about what they see during the interview process, and I can well imagine the response if I added a "and you may not talk about why you didn't get the job" clause to it. I'd be laughed at.
This is just going to change the KINDS of apps that get written
I find this kind of "NDA" on the rejection letters to be overly paranoid and silly, myself. On the other hand, I would not let this dissuade me from developing for the iPhone altogether (indeed, I have downloaded the SDK, and coming from a Windows background, am learning Mac/iPhone development), but I will say that this means I am less likely to develop anything that I think is competitive with Apple's apps (let's face it, that's the reason Podcaster was rejected) or anything that even might be considered by Apple to generate excessive bandwidth (at least that is clearly spelled out by Apple) for network carriers.
I think what we will see is just that iPhone apps will (1) either generally come from big software houses that have access to Apple and can sort of vet their proposed solutions with them before embarking on development or (2) be very niche applications or (3) be "crap apps" that are pretty light on utility but "fun" and "cool" (think free or $0.99 apps) and take advantage of iPhone's features like multi-touch and the accelerometer.
I come from the Palm OS-based Treo world, on the other hand, where I have invested literally hundreds of dollars in third-party applications like third-party email clients, (the built in mail app on the Treo is just inadequate for my needs), third-party instant messaging clients, finance software, and extensions to the phone functionality itself such as the ability to filter SMS and phone calls based on time of day and the incoming phone number. These make my Treo a highly customized, personalized device that meets my needs uniquely.
Sadly, as an Apple fanboy, I've had to watch the iPhone develop as the antithesis to this kind of solution. On the other hand -- as an Apple fanboy -- I realize that what most people want from a "smartphone" and what a geek like me wants from a "smartphone" are really two different things, and so I really think Apple is taking the correct approach in having this "lockdown", top-down mentality if what they want is the kind of market dominance in the smartphone world that they have in the digital music player market, where the iPod is clearly the king.
I think those of us griping about Apple's closed model are probably not a random sampling of iPhone users, you know?
I find this kind of "NDA" on the rejection letters to be overly paranoid and silly, myself. On the other hand, I would not let this dissuade me from developing for the iPhone altogether (indeed, I have downloaded the SDK, and coming from a Windows background, am learning Mac/iPhone development), but I will say that this means I am less likely to develop anything that I think is competitive with Apple's apps (let's face it, that's the reason Podcaster was rejected) or anything that even might be considered by Apple to generate excessive bandwidth (at least that is clearly spelled out by Apple) for network carriers.
I think what we will see is just that iPhone apps will (1) either generally come from big software houses that have access to Apple and can sort of vet their proposed solutions with them before embarking on development or (2) be very niche applications or (3) be "crap apps" that are pretty light on utility but "fun" and "cool" (think free or $0.99 apps) and take advantage of iPhone's features like multi-touch and the accelerometer.
I come from the Palm OS-based Treo world, on the other hand, where I have invested literally hundreds of dollars in third-party applications like third-party email clients, (the built in mail app on the Treo is just inadequate for my needs), third-party instant messaging clients, finance software, and extensions to the phone functionality itself such as the ability to filter SMS and phone calls based on time of day and the incoming phone number. These make my Treo a highly customized, personalized device that meets my needs uniquely.
Sadly, as an Apple fanboy, I've had to watch the iPhone develop as the antithesis to this kind of solution. On the other hand -- as an Apple fanboy -- I realize that what most people want from a "smartphone" and what a geek like me wants from a "smartphone" are really two different things, and so I really think Apple is taking the correct approach in having this "lockdown", top-down mentality if what they want is the kind of market dominance in the smartphone world that they have in the digital music player market, where the iPod is clearly the king.
I think those of us griping about Apple's closed model are probably not a random sampling of iPhone users, you know?
Does anyone know if you can install apps on an iPhone/Touch without going through the App Store or Hacking?
I have a friend whose boss wants him to develop and iPhone app specifically for use within their company. It will have no or little value to the millions of other iPhone users. Is there anyway this can be done? Or do they have to go through the App store somehow and restrict the app to certain userids?
It seems like this could be possible in many situations where a company will want to tie things into the iPhone but not make the apps available via the App store to the masses.
I have a friend whose boss wants him to develop and iPhone app specifically for use within their company. It will have no or little value to the millions of other iPhone users. Is there anyway this can be done? Or do they have to go through the App store somehow and restrict the app to certain userids?
It seems like this could be possible in many situations where a company will want to tie things into the iPhone but not make the apps available via the App store to the masses.
That is the point. Apple should not be required to publish everything that is submitted to them. They should, however, provide another means to mass market the applications. Realistically, how many applications have been rejected? Two or three out of thousands? There are applications that provide VOIP, voice dialing, calendar, notes, etc, so they haven't rejected everything that could be considered duplication. I suspect that some of these developers spoke to Apple at some point while getting their applications approved.
How do we know that the only difference regarding duplication is developers that are not willing to wait through the lag that is required when communicating with Apple? We all know Apple is over-logged now, so you may have weeks to wait in communicating. Does anyone think this negative press really helps matters?
Your option is to contact them to find out what is necessary to get your application approved. They implied that MailWrangler would be accepted if it was further differentiated in their email. If every developer that was rejected by major publishers went straight to the press, no distributor would ever sign them.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/enterprise/
"With support for custom-designed enterprise applications, iPhone becomes a must-have mobile device for businesses. Using the iPhone SDK, an enterprise can easily create applications customized to its business needs and even take advantage of key iPhone technologies such as Multi-Touch, the accelerometer, fast wireless connectivity, and GPS. To deploy their in-house applications, companies can securely sync the applications via iTunes to authorized iPhones. Once installed, enterprise applications live side by side with all the other applications that come with every iPhone."
I stand much improved.
As a developer, the real issue isn't that Apple reject apps, it's that they don't have clear, absolute guidance on what those rejection policies are. I'd actually love to write a fully featured mail app, for instance, but would it be rejected? What if I'm the developer of a popular 3rd party mail app on the Mac .. would that change things? I think I'd consider it anti-competitive behaviour, to allow it on MacOS desktop but not mobile. Add to that the amount of time and money I'd have to risk in order to simply get to the point of discovering if my application is allowable or not. As it stands, I do believe it's completely anti-competitive, and very sad.
Maybe I should just make bad clones of old Atari games (which they allowed until Atari set their Legal to work).
Rules are supposed to be clearly displayed in as much thorough-ness as possible. Otherwise we'd have police arresting people for made-up offenses.
I think I get your point is that you've got this fully functioning program that is now only available to you and you can't sell it to anyone else. My point was that the only option you have if you're a dev and don't like how Apple is approaching this is to join the Android Market (crappy but that's really the only option it seems)
I would think their rules about mirroring a feature that Apple already has would be clear enough that you'd realize that you couldn't make any kind of mail app. Nor can you make something that mirrors anything from iTunes (that includes podcasts obviously - I mean they are called "pod" casts because Apple was the one to popularize it). I would also suspect that a yahoo map application might not be allowed. I do wonder however, is there really no way for a dev to contact apple and say "hey, here's my idea and this is what I wanted to do - would it be allowed"?
I suppose if you assume your app is going to be allowed and then it's not then you know what they say about making assumptions...
But, as I said earlier, I think those that got rejected for "limited scope" have a very legitimate argument. A flashlight is very limited scope but those run rampant...
You have a couple of choices: Firstly, you can use ad-hoc distribution where you generate a provisioning profile for each device. This is quite time consuming and is limited to 100 devices
Secondly, you can enter into an enterprise agreement with Apple which gives your company a dedicated area of the App Store where only allowed users can download the applications
Either way, the apps are subject to the limitations imposed by the SDK, if not those imposed by Apple
I would hope the limitations would not be as strict, especially if you are restricting the user base of your apps...
It's gonna be interesting if Apple doesn't loosen their grip on the Apps released in the App Store. For example, I don't see why they would have an issue with allowing the user to decide which email app they want to use, they don't restrict their Macs to which one we can use...competition is always good. Would Safari be the browser it is today if Firefox wasn't so widely used?