Apple Extends Non-Disclosure to App Store Rejection Letters

[whooleytoo]

What would happen if a rejected developer broke the NDA? My guess is absolutely nothing.

Many developers have already done so! If you search on many forums - including Apple's own discussions.apple.com - you'll find plenty of discussions which break the NDA.

Hell, if you search, the entire SDK documentation is hosted online by a few sites, which haven't yet been shut down, bizarrely.

Unless, of course, the NDA was never intended primarily to protect confidential information..

The NDA is a "just in case" clause which can be used as/when it suits Apple. For most infractions, they won't invoke it.

 

[fat phil]

No I get that Apple initially screwed up in terms of filtering crap apps & games that rip-off copyright, I applauded this first step; the initial push if u will. I'm all for the quality checks, and I hope Apple is gearing towards that with the rejection letters (done properly of course). It's clear that there are like 100 Sudoku apps in the apps store, and that does get a bit overwhelming trying to flip through them all. Maybe they just need to organize the main categories w/ sub categories; like in music & videos? I dunno maybe I missed something =p

Policy on what constitutes acceptable, in terms of legality, is a slightly different topic. So is quality assurance, with regards to regulating a "flood" of the same thing over and over.

As a developer of paid apps, I'd avoid doing something that already exists anyway unless I feel I can substantially improve upon it. That's not the case for everyone though, especially when it's perceived they can make a quick buck. Mind you, many of those apps are free, and just the result of someone getting to grips with the SDK and the submission process - they're often doing it for fun. I'm not sure where the line is .. it's blurry on many levels, and probably the majority of end users probably would refrain from expressing an opinion and are happy for Apple to moderate.

But then, the old saying goes, you don't know what you never had. I just read a "rumour" that GTA on DS has a drug-dealing mini-game in it. How do you suppose any publisher would hand that? Tentatively, I should think, considering the associated potential income.

Of course, Apple remind us that they make no money from the App Store - just enough to pay for running the service, so you have to speculate until it actually happens (and if Rockstar would break an NDA to tell the world it did!).

At the end of the day though, this has developed into a discussion on censorship without rules, irrespective of the main story, which is about developers not being allowed to talk about rejection details (note, not that they've been rejected).

 

[fat phil]

The NDA is a "just in case" clause which can be used as/when it suits Apple. For most infractions, they won't invoke it.

Indeed, and it just helps compound the problem all the more. Confounded moneymongerers!

It is interesting that Apple have an NDA in place at all. We've signed similar NDAs with middleware companies in the past, but those are things like Renderware (now defunct, thanks EA) where the premium is hundreds of thousands of pounds and the competition is fierce.

The iPhone SDK is freely downloadable - you don't even need to pay your $99 unless you want to build on a device & distribute.

So to me, it's baffling, and completely isolates the process of improvement and innovation that a large development community can foster (and the iPhone dev community is seriously huge for all that - or rather, it must be: I don't know, cause we're not allowed to say hello!).

 

[BlackMax]

I do agree that doubling built-in functionality is not particularly important to anyone. However the apps in question have added extra features and even if they did not, they should be allowed. If they function better than Apple's own they might have a market, otherwise no-one would bother ponying up anyway.

Exactly! Excluding rejections for malevolent or poorly written applications, this should be a marketplace decision not an Apple decision. If I want to use a different email client or web browser than the one Apple provides built-in, who cares?

These types of decisions on Apples part will just discourage developers from developing cool new apps (for fear of being arbitrarily rejected and wasting valuable time and resources) and hurt consumers because innovation is being stifled.

It would be helpful it Apple would come out and be very clear on what will be accepted and what will not be accepted and then apply those standards consistently across all of the applications submitted to the App Store.

 

[whooleytoo]

So to me, it's baffling, and completely isolates the process of improvement and innovation that a large development community can foster (and the iPhone dev community is seriously huge for all that - or rather, it must be: I don't know, cause we're not allowed to say hello!).

It's odd, isn't it. It's the first time in a long time that I've had to develop without any "peer forums" for advice - and I try to help others out as often as I can.

I've already discovered a few quirks and developed a few tips, but can't really share them. I offered Toucharcade.com to write a iPhone development starter tutorial when the NDA expires, but who knows when that may be.

Confusing times, being an iPhone developer. (Am I allowed to say that?)

 

[guzhogi]

While I don't appreciate how much Apple is trying to close off the system and make it a black box, I don't think a free-for-all approach will be any better. There will be so much junk to sift through to find something good. Not to mention malicious app possibilities.

I agree. I find people kinda want somewhere in the middle, but only really understand the extremes. All or nothing, black or white. No gray. And I'm sure many the people complaining about how closed Apple is are the same who will complain that they have malware now if we did a free-for-all system. I'm the kind of person who wants it to be open, free exchange of ideas, but have at least someone look over the apps to make sure they're not malware and play nicely w/ everything. Only problem w/ that is, not everyone agrees what malware & playing nicely means.

 

[oddgit]

Apples we are a closed dev platform for the iPhone OS will hurt them in the long run, as they kill apps that do stuff that their own apps could/should do people will stop developing. Could you imagine if Apple made developers jump through the same hoops to develop for OS X? Nobody would bother, Adobes apps would all be gone because in most cases they do what Apple's apps do but far better. As Apple grows they are going to face more and more of the issues that the grown up companies face, so far they haven't handled their growing pains like a reasonable person.
And also....
I dont know where yall think all of these mysterious malware apps come from, at least for Symbian S60 3rd edition, i think there was one discovered in july 08 and that was the first for the current generation of the os. Its even harder to get infected, things cant just be installed on phones unless you leave your bluetooth open(not an issue on iPhone because of its gimpy bluethooth) and even then you have to specifically install the app, and all apps for the Symbian platform that access your network warn you, and ask for permission to use your network access. So there isnt some hidden underworld of evil software that is out to kill your phone or run up your bill. Just like, with a lot of desktop software, if you install software from shady sources you may get burned.
Open development and distribution for Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Samsung and a few others has been going on for quite some time, and you never hear about viruses or malicious software infesting peoples phones, and the online market places all run pretty smooth.

 

[beez1717]

here's the thing

What it comes down to is this: the NDA is apple's way of trying to keep apps OFF THE PHONE. They didn't want them there in the first place, which is why they did webapps in the begining, but seeing as apple was going to get eaten alive by not making an app store, they created it but now they are trying to make it so that only next to useless apps are getting onto the iphone, except for a few dimonds in the rough, which were the apps that apple were going to have you pay for anyway in their own update sort of way. Im assuming that the NDA is probably keeping the fact that several companies paid Apple a HUGE LUMP OF MONEY to let their apps be on the store: companies like EA and Lucas arts for examplle; these companies can bounce back from paying up like this.

So you have 3 types of applications in the store: next to useless applications, people making the apps that apple wanted on the phone eventually anyway, which you would have gotten for free: see tap tap revenge (it's free anyway) and sedoku for example. and those apps which the producer had to pay through the nose to get into the appstore: see SPORE, THE FORCE UNLEASHED, and probably the two VNC clients.

everyone else is getting cut from the program and apple isn't telling anyone why beyond a bogus reason because they really didn't want ANY 3rd party apps on the phone.

what i'd love to see is a bait and switch situation: the download link in the app store redirected to some jailbraking applicaiton or something, or that violated the NDA so hard that apple couldn't do anything about it without breaking their whole system.

f**k you apple and your NDA. if you didn't want apps on your phone in the first place you should not have screwed people so hard in the process.

oh and apple is also letting on crap applications to make a pretty penny. how bad is that?

 

[jjesusfreak01]

While I don't appreciate how much Apple is trying to close off the system and make it a black box, I don't think a free-for-all approach will be any better. There will be so much junk to sift through to find something good. Not to mention malicious app possibilities.

Junk...apparently you have never browsed the on device app store. I cant find anything worth using amongst the overpriced undelivering games and flashlight apps.

 

[firewood]

It is interesting that Apple have an NDA in place at all.

I doubt the NDA is really about the little guy. But if you read up on Apple history, they almost won a billion dollar lawsuit over code stolen from them (the settlement was still pretty juicy). The NDA is to give Apple extra ammunition for another billion dollar lawsuit in case any significant competitor tries lifting their code or APIs again.

.

 

[deviansp]

"Shielding from the press is not the purpose from an NDA... the purpose of an NDA is to protect sensitive information from competitors."

Exactly! If competitors can get information directly from the newspaper it would certainly be easier than hiring spies. If I was a developer that had his rejection letter posted all over the web, about how I was dumb enough to write a program that duplicates a built in iphone/touch function and rejected for it, well I wouldn't want that to get out. I think Apple wants to protect its developers from fallout as much as themselves and that shouldn't immediately be seen as draconian

 

[firewood]

These types of decisions on Apples part will just discourage developers from developing cool new apps (for fear of being arbitrarily rejected and wasting valuable time and resources) and hurt consumers because innovation is being stifled.

Apple has done this type of thing before. It's a trade-off that has worked in their favor in the past (going back to the Lisa). In the short term they PO some developers and discourage some very useful apps. In the longer term, the less imaginative developers quit, and most of the newer apps for Apple's platforms end up being more innovative and less like ugly me-too ports.

.

 

[NAG]

Apparently there is some question as to whether this was just a boiler plate signature or if it is Apple's new method for addressing app rejection letters.

I can see either case being true. I mean, just look at the EULA drama we had with google recently.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Yet again, another person who either hasn't read the thread or is ignoring the problem.

THE. TERMS. OF. THE. IPHONE. DEV. CONTRACT. ARE. NOT CLEAR.

DEVELOPERS. DO. NOT. KNOW. WHAT. IS. ALLOWED. AND. WHAT. ISN'T.

THIS. NDA. MUDDIES. THE. WATERS. EVEN. MORE.

Can I make that any clearer?

I learned long ago that it's impossible to reason with fanboys. Their allegiance is based on faith not logic.

The real question here is who should have control over what the consumer buys and installs? Should it be the Corporations selling the hardware or should it be the consumer that's buying it? I'm AMAZED at how many have told me over several different threads (from the Psystar issue to the hardware clone dongle that followed to this App store business) that they want Apple to decide FOR THEM what they can and cannot buy or install with their money. They believe the owner of the hardware controls their every move. They believe the consumer has no rights. They probably also voted for George Bush.

 

[firewood]

No I get that Apple initially screwed up in terms of filtering crap apps...

I doubt that it's a screw up. If you have a huge store, the first thing to do is to fill it up fast... customers hate big empty stores. Then, after the store is filled up (several thousand apps) and customers are rolling in, you start getting picky and optimizing the shelf space to maximize total customer appeal. But you can do this only after the store is filled with enough product to crowd in the customers.

Most big supermarket chains have vendors fighting and offering incentives to prove that their product is the best use of 6" of shelf space.

 

[whooleytoo]

Apple has done this type of thing before. It's a trade-off that has worked in their favor in the past (going back to the Lisa). In the short term they PO some developers and discourage some very useful apps. In the longer term, the less imaginative developers quit, and most of the newer apps for Apple's platforms end up being more innovative and less like ugly me-too ports..

The Lisa? And look what a success that was.

Apple have never exerted this degree of control over application developers on the Mac; the only conflicts I can recall were apps designed to work around Fairplay, and (much earlier) apps with "Mac..." names, which Apple felt were confused with official apps from Apple/Claris such as MacWrite, MacDraw and MacPaint.

 

[whooleytoo]

The real question here is who should have control over what the consumer buys and installs? Should it be the Corporations selling the hardware or should it be the consumer that's buying it?

Even speaking as a developer, I actually don't mind the fact that Apple is controlling what goes on the App Store. If the App Store is seen as a place to buy quality, innovative software, that will help my app sell ( - when it's finished!)

My concern is with the lack of clarity. You can't spend months at work on an iPhone app on the basis of a "maybe".

 

[firewood]

The real question here is who should have control over what the consumer buys and installs? Should it be the Corporations selling the hardware or should it be the consumer that's buying it? I'm AMAZED at how many have told me over several different threads (from the Psystar issue to the hardware clone dongle that followed to this App store business) that they want Apple to decide FOR THEM what they can and cannot buy or install with their money...

Consumers have the right and ability to install anything. They can jailbreak their iPhone, write their own OS, or buy another smartphone (I still use a Palm Treo for some apps). But Apple doesn't have to support that through their SDK, OS updates, or storefront.

.

 

[firewood]

My concern is with the lack of clarity. You can't spend months at work on an iPhone app on the basis of a "maybe".

I agree here. A prompt response regarding whether some early development concept is acceptable or not for distribution via the App store is needed (speaking as someone still waiting for a reply from developer support). Not this finish the app first and then wait two weeks gamble.

 

[fat phil]

What it comes down to is this: the NDA is apple's way of trying to keep apps OFF THE PHONE. They didn't want them there in the first place, which is why they did webapps in the begining, but seeing as apple was going to get eaten alive by not making an app store, they created it but now they are trying to make it so that only next to useless apps are getting onto the iphone, except for a few dimonds in the rough, which were the apps that apple were going to have you pay for anyway in their own update sort of way. Im assuming that the NDA is probably keeping the fact that several companies paid Apple a HUGE LUMP OF MONEY to let their apps be on the store: companies like EA and Lucas arts for examplle; these companies can bounce back from paying up like this.

So you have 3 types of applications in the store: next to useless applications, people making the apps that apple wanted on the phone eventually anyway, which you would have gotten for free: see tap tap revenge (it's free anyway) and sedoku for example. and those apps which the producer had to pay through the nose to get into the appstore: see SPORE, THE FORCE UNLEASHED, and probably the two VNC clients.

everyone else is getting cut from the program and apple isn't telling anyone why beyond a bogus reason because they really didn't want ANY 3rd party apps on the phone.

what i'd love to see is a bait and switch situation: the download link in the app store redirected to some jailbraking applicaiton or something, or that violated the NDA so hard that apple couldn't do anything about it without breaking their whole system.

f**k you apple and your NDA. if you didn't want apps on your phone in the first place you should not have screwed people so hard in the process.

oh and apple is also letting on crap applications to make a pretty penny. how bad is that?

I couldn't read that without squinting for some reason. You like conspiracies by chance?

 

[fat phil]

Even speaking as a developer, I actually don't mind the fact that Apple is controlling what goes on the App Store. If the App Store is seen as a place to buy quality, innovative software, that will help my app sell ( - when it's finished!)

My concern is with the lack of clarity. You can't spend months at work on an iPhone app on the basis of a "maybe".

Couldn't put it any better.

I agree here. A prompt response regarding whether some early development concept is acceptable or not for distribution via the App store is needed (speaking as someone still waiting for a reply from developer support). Not this finish the app first and then wait two weeks gamble.

When you get a reply from dev support, ask for a contact number - I have UK and US contacts now. They're extremely helpful; I'd never knock Apple employees. You may get the information you need, but they're only allowed to say so much themselves as support aren't part of the clearing system. (which probably takes place underground in a chocolate factory).

 

[kironin]

The G1 is certainly not totally open. On some phones, like BlackBerries and Palm Treos, people simply can install applications right on the phone without asking anyone. For Android phones, all applications must be installed through an application store run by Google. Still, the process is simply meant to prevent malicious applications, he said.

“Our ground rules are very simple,” he said. “The application developer has to verify they are who they are. They have to certify the application does what it does. And they have to inform the user what the application does.”

Wasn't that the promise Apple made originally ? That the approval "process is simply meant to prevent malicious applications" ?

I guess this is another case of power corrupting...

given an inch,

 

[deviansp]

wow

All this hate on Apple. Must be a lot of pc users in this forum.

 

[whooleytoo]

All this hate on Apple. Must be a lot of pc users in this forum.

Of course! They're the only ones not under NDA!

(boom boom!)

 

[deviansp]

Strange, but...

Of course! They're the only ones not under NDA!

(boom boom!)

Yeah you're right!

Seriously though, I have had to sign NDA's for various reasons in my job and it covers all past, present and future correspondence regarding the subject of the NDA. Just because the developer didn't like the email he got (for obvious reasons) doesn't mean that he has the right to post it online. Talking to a few developers, their best guess is that Apple does not care if you want to compete against another 3rd party developer (hence all the "flashlight" apps) or even against some built in apps like the calculator. When an app starts to do something that is already done by iTunes and would probably make similar system calls/requests for information, it could cause a problem with iTunes. Mind you the developer who said that was guessing but he thought it might be possible. I think it could be a case of Apple protecting its own creations. If developers write their own podcast apps I guess they could go deeper and then where would it stop? Write their own music players or iphone os?

I also wonder if there is truly no way of submitting a request to developer support about what you want to write beforehand to prevent later rejection. (Sorry if this is common knowledge, I haven't got a copy of the sdk or any developer rules)