Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
59,258
23,213


One developer emailed this video and rejection letter for their app called Pull My Finger. Especially concerning is that Apple did not reject it due to it being offensive, but instead rejected it due to "limited utility":
"Hello Developer,

We've reviewed your application Pull My Finger. We have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad iPhone and iPod touch user community, and will not be published to the App Store.

It may be very appropriate to share with friends and family, and we recommend you review the Ad Hoc method on the Distribution tab of the iPhone Developer Portal for details on distributing this application among a small group of people of your choosing.

Regards,

Victor Wang
Worldwide Developer Relations
Apple, Inc."
I think this sets a very bad precedent. How useful is Koi Pond [App Store]? (which remains the #1 app in the App Store). A video of the app being demonstrated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnm-P3Z0ozo

Article Link
 

archesdevil

macrumors 6502
Apr 2, 2008
312
0


One developer emailed this video and rejection letter for their app called Pull My Finger. Especially concerning is that Apple did not reject it due to it being offensive, but instead rejected it due to "limited utility":I think this sets a very bad precedent. How useful is Koi Pond [App Store]? (which remains the #1 app in the App Store). A video of the app being demonstrated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnm-P3Z0ozo

Article Link

"Pull my finger"? Are you 12?
 

EricNau

Moderator emeritus
Apr 27, 2005
10,719
243
San Francisco, CA
I can understand Apple's decision. If left unmanaged, the app store could easily become overrun with useless apps, and cluttered to the point where finding useful apps becomes tedious. This could affect overall sales, as well as punish the developers who's apps were created with significant amounts of time and resources.

Besides, I think a clear distinction can be made between apps like koi pond and others of "limited utility" like pull-my-finger, whoopee-cushion, and the infamous I Am Rich.
 

notjustjay

macrumors 603
Sep 19, 2003
6,055
164
Canada, eh?
I'm with Apple on this one. Perhaps one compromise would be to put it out to the community -- remove apps that consistently get rated poorly, a self-pruning as it were. Of course, to do that, you'd need a fair way of reviewing apps...
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
16,324
5,684
I can understand Apple's decision. If left unmanaged, the app store could easily become overrun with useless apps, and cluttered to the point where finding useful apps becomes tedious. This could affect overall sales, as well as punish the developers who's apps were created with significant amounts of time and resources.

Besides, I think a clear distinction can be made between apps like koi pond and others of "limited utility" like pull-my-finger, whoopee-cushion, and the infamous I Am Rich.

Should Crazy Eye be removed then?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=284827332&mt=8

or More Cowbell?
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=285559215&mt=8

I think the line is less clear than you think

arn
 

macduke

macrumors G5
Jun 27, 2007
12,358
17,720
Central U.S.
This app looks a lot better than some of the crap on the app store. For instance, ezone.com's Crazy Metal Head, which is just a metal skull that costs 99 cents and lets you use your finger to move the jaw up and down. Apple either needs to implement these standards across the board or not at all. They can't have it both ways. Half the apps in the store are crap anyway.
 

LimeiBook86

macrumors 604
May 4, 2002
7,998
26
Go Vegan
It's not like Apple has limited space on their servers or something. Apple should allow all the programs that follow the rules (and that aren't crash happy). If nobody wants it, that's not Apple's problem. It's a silly app, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed into the store.

Come on Apple, just allow the app, being so choosy is hurting the App Store. :rolleyes:
 

daze

macrumors 6502
Mar 11, 2006
400
1
San Jose, California
It's not like Apple has limited space on their servers or something. Apple should allow all the programs that follow the rules (and that aren't crash happy). If nobody wants it, that's not Apple's problem. It's a silly app, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed into the store.

Come on Apple, just allow the app, being so choosy is hurting the App Store. :rolleyes:

This will always be a problem when there is judgement involved. It will always remain subjective. Period.
 

Carbonic

macrumors regular
Mar 2, 2008
109
0
I'd like to have this.

I've seen a bunch of useless crap on their, and something like this can't get on their? Oh please Apple.
 

LimeiBook86

macrumors 604
May 4, 2002
7,998
26
Go Vegan
This will always be a problem when there is judgement involved. It will always remain subjective. Period.

Which is an unfortunate side of the way Apps are submitted and reviewed by Apple. I guess there's always ad-hoc... but then you can't save it can you? :(
 

theloon

macrumors member
Dec 19, 2007
99
15
Apple don't start being an arse!

It's simple either you let people publish applications, which pass all the basic decency and reliablilty criteria or you will get bypassed and they will end up on Installer...

You locked us all in with almost every other bit of your products, which we hack around anyway...

It is not for you (Apple) to make a determination as to the perceived "value" of application.

:eek:
 

hevaKmaI

macrumors 6502
May 15, 2006
260
123
I can understand Apple's decision. If left unmanaged, the app store could easily become overrun with useless apps, and cluttered to the point where finding useful apps becomes tedious. This could affect overall sales, as well as punish the developers who's apps were created with significant amounts of time and resources.

Besides, I think a clear distinction can be made between apps like koi pond and others of "limited utility" like pull-my-finger, whoopee-cushion, and the infamous I Am Rich.

I think you all are forgetting the "I Am Rich" application. $1000 and how much utility did it have? How could that one make it through and this one be held back?
 

Ntombi

macrumors 68040
Jul 1, 2008
3,678
1,469
Bostonian exiled in SoCal
I think that's a really bad decision by Apple. I would never get that app, but so what? I'm sure there are apps I'd love that other people would roll their eyes at. Who cares? As long as it's not extremely offensive (and yes I'm aware that's subjective too), let it in.
 

EricNau

Moderator emeritus
Apr 27, 2005
10,719
243
San Francisco, CA
I think you all are forgetting the "I Am Rich" application. $1000 and how much utility did it have? How could that one make it through and this one be held back?
A change in policy perhaps? After all, it was removed shortly after it was released. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the "I Am Rich" app that lead Apple to reconsider their policy.
 

dreadloquito

macrumors newbie
Aug 15, 2008
11
0
The app store has standards???

The only reason this rejection letter is the least bit surprising to me is that it means apple is actually doing some degree of screening of Apps submitted to the store. But to block that app when they've let through so many others with "limited utility" or in fact no utility. Not to mention their apparent lack of screening for blatant copyright infringements in Apps. I'm not a huge fan of strict app screening, but because the App store allows users to make one-click impulse purchases without knowing the actual content of Apps, I think Apple owes it to customers to a certain amount of quality control. But since the current offerings belie any real attempts at quality control so far, it's a fairly lame explanation to give for not accepting this app.
On a side note, the apps that seem to me to be most worth removing from the store are the dozens of repackaged public domain books for sale. They seem rather obviously aimed at tricking the ignorant into paying for things that they could have for free to make money for some lazy sod who doesn't want to actually create anything useful. But maybe that's just me griping.
 

RonCarr

macrumors regular
Sep 12, 2007
205
0
Pasadena, CA
First we complain about the **** apps in the store then when Apple decides to do something about by cutting out the useless apps people complain, probably the same ones. And to the ones who say they would PAY for it... that is BS. If that app made it to the store and had a price you would bitch about it. Grow up. The store was not made for grade school prank apps. Go Apple for taking care of this problem. :apple:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.