Apple Extends Non-Disclosure to App Store Rejection Letters

[yetanotherdave]

Wow, seriously messed up decision.
Apple, you seem to be forgetting, you have to be NCIE to your developers, because without them you are nothing.

 

[w00master]

What needs addressing?

The podcaster app broke the SDK rules.

And apple and the dev can still address it if they need to, between themselves, not between apple, the dev and the bloggers that don't have all the facts in front of them yet still will knee jerk to "apple is evil" in 2 seconds flat.

OMG!!! Podcaster app broke the SDK rules!!! OMG!!!!

So what? I don't give a d*mn.

Please, get off your high horse, imho the public *should* know about these things. The NDA here is complete and total rubbish.

Btw, those 100 calculator apps in the app store, don't they violate the SDK?

 

[CWallace]

I wonder what purpose it serves Apple to put the letters under the NDA as well, other than to shield them from the press.

Considering all the press they are getting about doing it, I am guessing this wasn't undertaken as a plan to try and stifle the debate.

It is clear that T-Mobile is already worried that folks like Daniel Eran Dilger who believe that the #1 app for Android will be a trojan that will use your phone to spam SMS text messages and e-mails are going to be proven right.

I had a Windows Smartphone at work and, well, it wasn't. I was able to get them to buy me a 3G iPhone (so now I have two - one for work and one for personal) in no small part because the App Store means it is far less likely to become a zombie then a SmartPhone or, especially, an Android-based phone.

Considering all the stick this community gives Microsoft for making Windows security-neutral and a malware jungle, I admit I am surprised of the support being thrown towards Google for doing the same thing with Android, opening it up to the same end result down the road.

 

[aristobrat]

But how does an NDA on an email work? You can't read the warning without reading the email, there's no "opt out" option. It's not an NDA.

That statement isn't worth the email it's printed on!

If the email is simply a reminder of a point already covered in the NDA that the developer agreed to when s/he started developing, then it is.

Readers should note that Apple's developer correspondence may have already been covered by the original NDA, but Apple is now making it clear

 

[CBJammin103]

On one hand I really hate the unprofessional image created by complaints about app store rejection on the blogosphere. This is a professional situation, and rejection - as with all other aspects of it - should be handled professionally.

On the other hand, it seems a bit over the top for Apple to prevent discussion on why an app was rejected. Still, the developer, who is the entity that actually needs to know the reasons for rejection, is still in full knowledge. It's not like the app itself is hampered by this "NDA."

 

[Cander]

Alienate your 3rd party developers. Smart decision Apple.

Maybe Steve Ballmer is a big sweaty tool, but at least he was right when he was shouting DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!

 

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

So this 1GB limit is for Android users or are the carriers capping it for iPhone users as well. If they are I can see an uprising from iPhone users concerning people that purchased an "Unlimited" data plan and signed a contract.

 

[Enigmafan420]

A little over the top?

Apple needs to get a grip-they have a great device in the iPhone 3G-their reaction to apps development seems to imply fear rather than confidence.

No one likes bad press-the best thing to do is minimize it-let some of these apps in-or at least have the courage to let the public view why they weren't.

 

[Stella]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

So this 1GB limit is for Android users or are the carriers capping it for iPhone users as well. If they are I can see an uprising from iPhone users concerning people that purchased an "Unlimited" data plan and signed a contract.

I believe its a carrier decision. Nothing to do with Android.

It is clear that T-Mobile is already worried that folks like Daniel Eran Dilger who believe that the #1 app for Android will be a trojan that will use your phone to spam SMS text messages and e-mails are going to be proven right.

Who is Daniel Eran Dilger? He sounds overly paranoid!

 

[NickFalk]

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.

That would be true if Apple actually did any quality control on the apps that do go through. Unfortunately the plethora of flash-light apps and other crap demonstrates that this is clearly not the case. This news coming out the very same day Google's Android goes live is designed to hurt Apple.

And, personally, I just have problem in seeing Apple's logic. If it's greed - them wanting to secure some sweet-spots for themselves, yes then it's obviously understandable. However, as they control the app-store anyway they could just give their own apps a more prominent product-placement. Not the most ethical solution, but at least less restrictive.

If reserving the market for themselves is not the point, then it's even harder to see what they're thinking. 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.

Really Apple, this is the kind of stuff that makes me less likely to sign up and get an iPhone. It's still a marvelous piece of technology but others are starting to pick up slack.

 

[GoCubsGo]

In an attempt to prevent themselves from further bad press about the egregious methods to which they have declined applications, they're ultimately creating more bad press for themselves. I do believe this bad press will die down a bit sooner than the rejection letters consistently being handed out to developers who wish to offer an app that Apple believes is in direct competition with their own application. This move is completely weak and considering Google's open-device approach; I don't think Apple is in a position to really be doing this.

It is understood that T-Mobile's new device is rather ugly in to some dysfunctional, but if you give it the appropriate amount of time someone will take a great phone and stick that nice open software on it and you'll have competition that Apple will never be able to top due to their propensity for such secrecy.

Apple has always taken me as the whiny little bitch on the playground. All they're doing here is solidifying my claims.

 

[aristobrat]

I believe its a carrier decision. Nothing to do with Android.

At this point, T-Mobile's only capping the new Android device. Oh wait, it's their only 3G smartphone in the US.

 

[krimsen]

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.

Like, more junk than on the App Store?

 

[arn]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

So this 1GB limit is for Android users or are the carriers capping it for iPhone users as well. If they are I can see an uprising from iPhone users concerning people that purchased an "Unlimited" data plan and signed a contract.

It's a T-Mobile Android thing. AT&T's iPhone plan remains unlimited.

arn

 

[riversky]

I agree that his is very stupid. So now Apple can reject you and you can't share with other developers the reason your app was rejected????? WTF! That is a very important piece of information for the developer community so that someone doesn't waste resources developing something would get rejected under the same reasoning.

I must say Apple has the best OS and mobile OS but Microsoft has it right by supporting developers fully. That is the only way to develop a broad base and keep people working hard on your platform.

It may work for the closed OS/Hardware model so Apple can keep the OS and hardware state of the art, but doesn't work for third party developers.

If you work for Apple DO NOT READ last paragraph. I don't want to seed an idea!

Imagine if they had the same terms for the Mac OS and only distributed through the App store. We wouldn't have FireFox, MS Office, and hundreds of applications because they would duplicate Safari and iWork etc...

 

[aristobrat]

I agree that his is very stupid. So now Apple can reject you and you can't share with other developers the reason your app was rejected????? WTF! That is a very important piece of information for the developer community so that someone doesn't waste resources developing something would get rejected under the same reasoning.

Do you really think this is going to stop developers from talking privately amongst themselves?

I'm thinking all it's going to do is stop the public release of this information.

 

[feakbeak]

I understand Apple's business model is tied around closed-system models for computing and for music and they are continuing this trend with how they have implemented the iPhone app store. I don't mind it and I understand the benefits and drawbacks of such a system.

I do believe Apple is leveraging the power they have in the App Store system to prohibit competition. Not allowing the direct podcast distribution and management app isn't cool, imo. Not allowing apps that let you use your iPhone for data access on your laptop is stupid. We've bought the devices, we pay for the data service - placing these artificial limitations not because there is a security risk to the platform or due to any inappropriate content but simply because Apple is forcing their leverage to control the market sucks.

I'm not sure if there would be any grounds for anti-competitive lawsuits and I don't really care about it too much, I know businesses are out to make money and will manipulate anything they can in their favor. I'm not really a "stick it to the man" kind of guy. However, some of the decisions Apple has made are clearly not in the best interest of their customers, which is sad.

I love the irony found on these boards. For years people blasted MS for their anti-competitive practices and just because Apple was the underdog it was all cool. Apple is far worse about forcing their influence in the market. Steve Jobs plays hardball when it comes to business tactics. It's always been that way but as Apple has grown over the past decade, it's become more and more obvious.

 

[ChrisA]

Adroid is open source it can run on any hardware. How long until someone get Adroid to run on an unlocked iPhone? Not as an application but as a total replacement for Apple's firmware?

I write software, full time (plus) I've been at it for about 30 years now. The very LAST thing I'd want to do is spend time writing something only to have Apple reject it. Well it would not be so bad if you knew up front what the rules were but Apple won't tell you that. Now they won't even let others tell you that their app was rejected so we might be able to deduce the rules. Who in the world would risk months of their time working on something when they can't predict if it will be allowed in the store? The level of risk is to high.

Apple needs to publish the rules and stick to them. If they continue like this no one will risk any serious development time on the iPhone so we will only have a parade of little toy apps like flash light and simple games.

Adroid on the other hand looks like a much better platform. They argue that it will be a "big mess" if anyone can sell any application. But can't anyone sell any application on the Mac OS X platform. Macs aren't "a big mess" why should Adroid be different?

 

[NightGeometry]

The first rule of app-store rejection is don't talk about app store rejection.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[megatronbomb]

I've been growing increasingly disillusioned with Apple and this doesn't really help. I can't help but think if they're losing people like me, who've been customers for years and have convinced others to switch, that they're going to start losing less "intense" users.

 

[Yuppi]

That is really lame from Apple.. I don't understand why they have a NDA on the SDK anyway.

But I bet the Android Marketplace works just as well as the US-Finance system these days

 

[joost538]

I am appalled by Apple's behavior and hope it backfires something fierce. Anticompetitive, close-minded, scared and a bully. I am starting to regret my investments in the Apple platform.

 

[madmaxmedia]

WTF?!?!? Next thing you know, the NDA also applies to the NDA as well. There are 3 rules about App Store...


Podcaster Dude: So, I heard you are developing a new app for the App Store.
Developer: Yes, wait I mean no. Umm... <runs away>

 

[aristobrat]

But can't anyone sell any application on the Mac OS X platform. Macs aren't "a big mess" why should Adroid be different?

Imagine if you could only buy your Mac software from a single store and that single store contained every piece of software ever written for a Mac.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

????

How does that even work? There's an NDA covering the SDK which you have to agree to before developing an app, sure.

But how does an NDA on an email work? You can't read the warning without reading the email, there's no "opt out" option. It's not an NDA.

That statement isn't worth the email it's printed on!

Technically you can put a NDA on an email, by having the letter in PDF password protected. If you disagree with the email then don't use the password to read the letter. Simple.