Apple Extends Non-Disclosure to App Store Rejection Letters

[JayBee]

It's their product, they developed it, put money into it and are deciding who they let into "their" store. There are countless other phones with other apps that these developers can develop if they don't agree with Apple. Android just came out and from what I hear they have no restrictions, should be a developers dream.

Very true - and if they want to burn it to the ground and dance around it listening to the "whooshing" sound of all those killer apps that used to be iPhone-only appearing on Android and becoming unmaintained on the AppStore, then that's their right too.

I just don't think that's very smart, and I'm saying so.

 

[skellener]

Can developers pull their apps? I know it wouldn't be very wise financially, but it would be an amazing show of solidarity if all the devs out their yanked their apps off the iPhone app store.

Too much of AT&T has been rubbing off on Apple. Can you imagine if this type of draconian policies were in place on the Mac?

Apple needs to shape up. Their whole mis-management of this app store has been appalling as well as the way they are treating developers. What happened to cooperation? What's with all the secrecy? This whole walled garden thing is lame.

 

[Adjei]

There are two simple arguments here:

1. Apple is being EVIL
2. Developers are being WHINY

Neither of these cut to the core:

Apple is being STUPID

Regardless of whether Apple is allowed to reject any apps it damn well pleases, or whether developers have the right to bitch and moan about their app being rejected, the net result is that developers are now unsure as to what the rules are for making a profit with their application.

Until Apple fixes this, they're going to lose developers by the week - who's going to take the risk of developing an app over three months time only to find out *at the very end* that it gets rejected? Especially now that Apple's trying to take away even the Kremlinology option.

No, Apple's shooting itself in the foot here, and yes, they're perfectly within their rights to do that.

I like Apple though - I don't want to see them shoot themselves in the foot then loose the 100m to the guy on crutches.

Why haven't the "stupid" Apple being losing developers by the week already, I mean the rules were clear from the start but yet they complain now when their apps start getting rejected. It's like people who go out and buy a product and then complain about the product, meanwhile they still use it. Why is the App store so successful, why aren't all these so called open platforms having this much attention, I mean the App store had 100 million downloads in 2 months!

 

[RnSK]

I don't think...

I disagree.

If you look back at the rejections we know about, each one of them was a PR disaster, and with the exception of the fart app, each one of them was rejected for valid reasons that could be found right in the agreement.

...you've read the aforementioned agreement

Let me...re-phrase this for you:

Most of them were rejected due to specific terms of the agreement that were not in ANY WAY a violation of any terms of the agreement

The specific section/clause of said agreement is so...bizzare...that (and I kid you not) every single app that is on the app store now could have not been there for the exact same reason.

Also, please don't confuse terms...the appstore rejection process does not...necessarily..have anything to do with the agreement you as a developer sign...due to the aforementioned bizzare twist/clause.

Wrap yer heads around that one...or

"Welcome to our world."

 

[Phil A.]

Why haven't the "stupid" Apple being losing developers by the week already, I mean the rules were clear from the start but yet they complain now when their apps start getting rejected. It's like people who go out and buy a product and then complain about the product, meanwhile they still use it. Why is the App store so successful, why aren't all these so called open platforms having this much attention, I mean the App store had 100 million downloads in 2 months!

No-one knows if they're losing developers or not.
The measure of the success of the App store isn't how many downloads they had in the first two months (and it's interesting that they omitted to say how many of those downloads were for free apps), it's how many they continue to have every month: It started off very quickly because of the novelty factor and the ease with which apps can be found and downloaded.
However, without a continual flow of good quality apps, the app store runs the risk of withering on the vine

 

[madmaxmedia]

You people up in arms sound like a bunch of ridiculous spoiled children who have no idea about the real world.

Your statement can apply to anything, except context actually matters.

This thread is called ' Apple Extends Non-Disclosure to App Store Rejection Letters', not 'Lets Solve World Hunger Here' or 'What Troubles You Most in the World Today'.

 

[madmaxmedia]

I don't believe that Apple is trying to prevent competition by rejecting apps that duplicate existing app functionality. It makes no sense, since the apps Apple provides come with the device anyway.

I think Apple is doing this to try to 'protect' the user experience. They don't want people loading their iPhone with 5 different music player apps, some of which may have their own library collections, etc. I think that's the reasoning behind the PodCaster rejection.

(I think they're still going about it totally wrong though, I thought PodCaster was a great idea for an app.)

 

[RnSK]

Thank you

Your statement can apply to anything, except context actually matters.

This thread is called ' Apple Extends Non-Disclosure to App Store Rejection Letters', not 'Lets Solve World Hunger Here' or 'What Troubles You Most in the World Today'.

For this humorous re-alignment of the topic at hand.

 

[RnSK]

What if...

I don't believe that Apple is trying to prevent competition by rejecting apps that duplicate existing app functionality. It makes no sense, since the apps Apple provides come with the device anyway.

I think Apple is doing this to try to 'protect' the user experience. They don't want people loading their iPhone with 5 different music player apps, some of which may have their own library collections, etc. I think that's the reasoning behind the PodCaster rejection.

(I think they're still going about it totally wrong though, I thought PodCaster was a great idea for an app.)

Your app doesn't play music that Apple's does?

Yes, this is possible

 

[SpaceMagic]

How very fascist. Not only will Apple not let some developers develop for their platform, they will also hush any negative press around it.

I say, if you get rejected, shout it from the roof tops. Even louder than before.

 

[JayBee]

Why haven't the "stupid" Apple being losing developers by the week already, I mean the rules were clear from the start but yet they complain now when their apps start getting rejected.

Yeah, I know, I'm feeding the trolls...

Okay, here we go:

1. Apple has been losing developers weekly since Podcaster was rejected. I know some of those developers. They're not whiny - they're panicked that their investment of time in their app over the last 2 months is going to go up in smoke because...

2. The rules were NOT clear from the start. The "duplicates existing functionality" explanation only exists in the agreement in a way that could apply to any application arbitrarily. The fact that other apps which much more flagrantly "duplicate existing functionality" have been allowed into the store suggests that this isn't a rule that should overtly concern developers.

Since Podcaster, developers are getting twitchy. I don't blame them. Either Apple is right, which means the SDK agreement is much harder to interpret than anyone thought, or Apple is wrong, in which case they're just being arbitrary in their decisions.

Either way, developers are leaving now that Apple has caused confusion.

It's like people who go out and buy a product and then complain about the product, meanwhile they still use it. Why is the App store so successful, why aren't all these so called open platforms having this much attention, I mean the App store had 100 million downloads in 2 months!

You're conflating developers and users. The developers that got in are making a killing, and users are happy with the apps they have. I *love* my iPhone, and I'm sure the developer of Koi Pond is pretty happy too.

Developers who are *now* working on the next big app are having second thoughts, and may go elsewhere if Apple keeps on mistreating them. Apple is under no obligation to make developers happy, as you seem determined to make everyone say. However, if Apple makes all its developers unhappy, then there are no more killer apps on the phone.

Imagine Apple reserved the right to reject Microsoft Office from being deployed on Mac OS X. Do you honestly think Microsoft would waste development dollars on building the next version, hoping that Apple let it be sold? Now imagine Microsoft were working on Word for iPhone. Do you honestly think they're going to continue doing that, now that Apple might reject it because they want to push Pages for iPhone?

 

[alana22]

Seriously?

Wow, this is astonishingly lame. I almost feel embarrassed to be using an Apple product right now. Grow up Apple - but don't get too big for your britches.

 

[iMosaic]

I'm thinking some developers didn't read their NDA. Grow up people. Buy Apple product, don't buy Apple product. How lame are you.

 

[iSee]

What I mean is, Apple says it's a rule, so it's a rule. There's no debate over that.

Yes, we can debate whether it SHOULD be a rule (I say no, btw) but the fact is, Apple said it's their rule, so it's a rule!

I'm debating what the rule means and whether or not "Podcaster" (did I mention what a stupid name this is ) violated it. I argue no, Podcaster did not violate any published rules.

Now, Apple is still within their claimed rights to reject the app because they explicity retained the right to reject an app for any reason, not just the terms stated in the agreement. (Maybe a lawyer could challenge the validity of that somehow, but not me).

I personally am fine with Apple rejecting apps from their store for any reason they want (Koi porn anyone?), but the rules need to be clear (or a preapproval process created) and/or there need to be alternative publishing channels (e.g. mobilekoipornstore.com)

 

[ChrisA]

Yeah, this is rather insane. Our two choices seem to be a complete black box and a free for all. Can't we have something in the middle?

You mean a "free for all", like the Mac OS X platform?

The mac is a total "free for all". Apple has no say what developers can sell and there are unlimited places where you can buy Mac applications. Why would you want something in the middle.

 

[ktappe]

Stated reason was wrong too

Uhm, that's the rule, right there: "Duplicates current iPhone function." You said it yourself. Of course it broke that rule. There's no debate there.

I absolutely debate that. There is currently no way on the (non-jailbroken) iPhone to do what Podcaster did. I recently travelled to Europe and took just my iPhone, not my MacBook. So while there it became a royal pain, and sometimes downright impossible, to listen to my podcasts. Had I had Podcaster, I could have done what I wanted and was unable to do. There absolutely IS NOT a function (currently) in the iPhone to automatically download podcasts. You need iTunes, and that's not always possible.

So I strongly debate both Apple and you on the claim of duplicate functionality. And that's a primary concern of mine with this whole issue--many of us have debated Apple's legal rights, but the fact that their basis for rejecting was logically wrong means they have no moral leg to stand on either.

 

[RnSK]

I'm certain that you...

I'm thinking some developers didn't read their NDA. Grow up people. Buy Apple product, don't buy Apple product. How lame are you.

...have not.

Again...let me make this as clear as I can, without breaching said NDA:

Apps ARE NOT GETTING REJECTED for "violating the terms of the NDA"...necessarily/specifically. What YOU *think* is in the NDA, or what you "glean" *may* be in the NDA as someone who has not read or signed it, may not necessarily BE in the NDA.

Many (many!) people are under the false impression that case-this-or-that is defined, and if you step over the "line" it is your own fault.

Use your head; were this the case, would folks spend umpteen dollars and a scad of hours doing somethig they would clearly lose money on?

Repeatedly?

Hrm.

Now, a large amount of this End-User confusion is being caused not by "whiny developers" but the NDA itself, and them not being able to explain parts of it to YOU, because you are not a signatory...and in another bizarre twist, even if you WERE, I still could not do so?

Are you...getting it...yet?

So while you may think this-or-that situation applies to a "violation" of the NDA...it may not necessarily.

At all.

Actually, *I* know the specifics, but again, because of this NDA that many of you non-signatory parties seem to think you know, I cannot use specific language to make it more...clear to you.

Sadly, you will have to (again) read between the lines and I will have to hope what you've read there is what I intended.

Again...

Are...you...getting...it...yet?

 

[RnSK]

Aha! He said...

I'm debating what the rule means and whether or not "Podcaster" (did I mention what a stupid name this is ) violated it. I argue no, Podcaster did not violate any published rules.

Now, Apple is still within their claimed rights to reject the app because they explicity retained the right to reject an app for any reason, not just the terms stated in the agreement. (Maybe a lawyer could challenge the validity of that somehow, but not me).

I personally am fine with Apple rejecting apps from their store for any reason they want (Koi porn anyone?), but the rules need to be clear (or a preapproval process created) and/or there need to be alternative publishing channels (e.g. mobilekoipornstore.com)

Ok...um...something you said above is very, very key to this whole debacle, but due to ME signing the NDA I can't specify what it is.

The more intelligent here will likely be able to pick up what it is tho.

 

[iMosaic]

...have not.

Again...let me make this as clear as I can, without breaching said NDA:

Apps ARE NOT GETTING REJECTED for "violating the terms of the NDA"...necessarily/specifically. What YOU *think* is in the NDA, or what you "glean" *may* be in the NDA as someone who has not read or signed it, may not necessarily BE in the NDA.

Many (many!) people are under the false impression that case-this-or-that is defined, and if you step over the "line" it is your own fault.

Use your head; were this the case, would folks spend umpteen dollars and a scad of hours doing somethig they would clearly lose money on?


Again...

Are...you...getting...it...yet?

Wow, serious issues here. I was referring to the public whining of rejection which I could say is in the NDA, but I am not allowed to say. Med time for you.

 

[chris200x9]

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.

....I already am.....after my macbook dies I'll be 100% gnu/linux

 

[RnSK]

Any reason they want is a reason, you know...

I personally am fine with Apple rejecting apps from their store for any reason they want (Koi porn anyone?), but the rules need to be clear (or a preapproval process created) and/or there need to be alternative publishing channels (e.g. mobilekoipornstore.com)

..and if "everyone is fine" with that reason, then I don't think anyone that is should complain about tip calcs, to-do lists, sudoku and/or flashlights, because really, if you want to develop something for the iPhone and have some chance of turning a buck on it, that seems to be the way to go, ne?

 

[RnSK]

And I could say...

Wow, serious issues here. I was referring to the public whining of rejection which I could say is in the NDA, but I am not allowed to say. Med time for you.

...that anything is or is not in the NDA, assuming I could say such a thing...public whining notwithstanding.

But since I have read the aforementioned Doomhammer, I really can't say either way.

Any wonder why it may, or may not be "med time"?

It certainly might add a bit more clarity to the overall situation...or...perhaps maybe not?

 

[Rybold]

Maybe a modified version of Android will run on iPhone's and allow us to make our phones open-source. No need for Apple updates since it won't be an Apple OS. -just an idea

 

[RnSK]

I can't say for sure...

Maybe a modified version of Android will run on iPhone's and allow us to make our phones open-source. No need for Apple updates since it won't be an Apple OS. -just an idea

...but i'm pretty sure the above suggestion is impossible due to the current iPhone development environment

But that's a great idea. Maybe some Bad People With No Morals that Hate Apple and Want to Hurt Them will pick it up

Of course if they were to do such a thing, Apple makes it...challenging...for you as an end-user to actually take advantage of this opportunity

Go Team Venture!!

 

[nxent]

holy cow, there a bunch of whiners out there.
i really don't care if apple rejects a bunch of a lame applications. true, maybe they should make their acceptance criteria a bit more clear, but compared to a year ago, folks have always known apple wouldn't allow crap 3rd party apps on the i-phones. people seem to forget steve jobs menioned there'd be a review process for which 3rd party apps would be allowed vs. which ones wouldn't (obviously for security/ stability purposes)... and when i first heard about the notion of 3rd party apps, i had the impression only certain developers would be allowed to write programs. i'm recalling the 'i am rich' application and the number of people b***ing about how that app got into the apple store. for one, i dont' feel like sifting through sh** to find a decent app. second, how much of a profit is apple getting off these 3rd party apps? (30%, no?- hence it being in apple's interest to allow more programs) so, developers: stop whining and write decent apps