Apple Rejecting Applications Based on 'Limited Utility'

[wallis.09]

Righ'...

Ok, the way i see it is that if apple ajudicate it to be of limited utility then the app doesn't meet their standards. If it was free, i'd probably actually go for it. just for the banter.

If apple are trying to remove junk apps or applications perhaps they should do a filter search/filter by user, like cydia? That way gamers can have games, book-lovers have their ebooks... they could even have little check-boxes for what you were trying to search for! It could even be differeent every time - the options could be in the 'settings' app.

the apps would still be there but there'd be less of them. i think that'd be sensible.

 

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5C1 Safari/525.20)

I don't understand why Apple would reject an App based on what they are calling "limited utility." I mean who really cares if the App has limited use and is basically just a novelty. I think that if it doesn't infringe on any copy rights and doesn't break any of the license agreement rules it should be places on the App store.

This may be more of a situation of the developer not wanting to charge anything for the App so Apple figured why have a "limited utility" in the store if we aren't going to make any money on it. Koi pond got through but they charge $0.99 for the App.

 

[BullMooseFilms]

Daddy wants!!!

 

[chosen01]

Apple please publish this app.

I want this app! Let the users make the call. I have a whoopie cushion in my widgets, what is the difference?

 

[nottooshabby]

It seems if you are going to approve lighter apps and phone saber apps you got to approve just about everything. Don't get me wrong I have both, and think they are funny but if you let those in it seems that opens the door for pretty much anything that's not offensive.

 

[mozmac]

The Facebook app directory quickly became useless because there was no quality control. A flood of pointless applications made it impossible to find useful ones and, for me as a developer, made it impossible to get discovered in the app directory.

I praise Apple for showing some class. They didn't leave him high and dry, but gave him another option for ding smaller distribution. Yes, it would be nice to have a way to manual mass distribute an iPhone app, but that would sacrifice quality control...which is what we all love about the iPhone...which is another discussion.

 

[ddarko]

Apple has ALWAYS been a company that exercised extraordinary control over the software that runs on their hardware.

The iPhone is not a democracy. Apple has the right to decide what will be supported/run on it and what won't.

In this case 'Limited Utility' is clearly a euphemism for poor taste.

Wrong.

Apple sets the technical framework and guidelines within which developers work. It has NEVER decided which applications are "good", "bad", "useful", "worthwhile" as long as the apps followed the guidelines and didn't cause problems, i.e. virus programs. That is until now.

It blows my mind how many adults here are so willing let a company dictate what they're allowed to enjoy. Or worse, how many posters think that because in THEIR judgment, the app is useless or in "poor taste", it's okay that EVERYONE is denied the chance to opportunity to make their own judgments. I think AT&T should begin monitoring all phone calls and cut off those calls that are too trivial and useless. Why not, it's their network, they can do what they want with it.

The only discernable guiding principle appears to be "it's right if Apple does it" and justifications are cited to support whatever action Apple takes, no matter how absurd and laughable those excuses are. Apple has to conserve server space? Apple is concerned with making sure there aren't too many applications on the store? I LOVE the developers who support deleting another developer's app b/c THEIR apps are too hard to find. Talk about self-serving, short-sighted, selfish and missing the point. If an app is too hard to find, isn't that an indication that Apple should revamp the current search mechanism and layout for the store rather than start deleting apps? I guess video game developers should start working with legislators to ban Grand Theft Auto 4 because it would make it easier for everyone else to sell more games. And I think there are far too many movies or songs on the Store. Apple should immediate delete all movies and song made before 2008.

There would be bloody murder screamed here if Microsoft tried anything remotely close to this on a Windows-based device.

 

[michael989]

Many years ago, I was involved in a somewhat parallel situation. I was a file inspector for AOL's HyperCard forum, back in the days when Apple's HyperCard was extremely popular. We got some excellent stacks (programs) uploaded by talented developers, but users had trouble finding them among all the tons of crap that got uploaded too.

It made HyperCard look bad to some folks, which was a shame because many developers worked hard to create good stacks, the most famous example being the best-selling game Myst.

I can understand that Apple doesn't want a lot of junk in their App Store. It would make it harder to find the good stuff, and it would start to give iPhone Apps a bad name.

As far as guidelines are concerned, ultimately you can't define what's junk and what isn't by some rules; it's a judgement call.

 

[ddarko]

You want a method to prune the Store of useless apps? Impose a sales threshold. If an app doesn't sell X copies in Y days, it gets removed from the Store. There's a way to remove clutter from the Store that directly reflects the interest the buying public has in an app but does not involve judgments about content.

Somehow, I doubt all the developers who are so in favor of streamlining the Store by removing "junk" apps like Pull My Finger would be in favor of this rule. It's always easy to support rules that affect a competitor but leaves yourself untouched.

 

[samab]

I can understand that Apple doesn't want a lot of junk in their App Store. It would make it harder to find the good stuff, and it would start to give iPhone Apps a bad name.

As far as guidelines are concerned, ultimately you can't define what's junk and what isn't by some rules; it's a judgement call.

But Apple made sure that there were enough apps so that Jobs can boost that there are hundreds of apps in the iphone store and that over 60 million apps downloaded. It they had a stricter and clearer guideline in the beginning --- then Jobs would be talking about having dozens of apps in the iphone store and that over a few hundred thousand apps downloaded.

The problem is that silicon valley's success is based on long odds. What you think is junk --- may turn out to be the next Google.

I would assume that many have watched the youtube video where a baby laughs histerically looking at wii golf.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_mBLWpdwnI

A lot of parents would pay 99 cents to get the fart app on the iphone and make their baby laughs histerically.

 

[bobbleheadbob]

Bottom line: it's Apple's store, they get to decide what goes on it.

If they're smart (and they are), then when they are making that decision, they will consider what the marketplace wants. I think they've got a pretty good track record in that regard and have made another good call here.

 

[Macdick]

crazy poor guy

I am with apple this time useless app

 

[kolax]

Bottom line: it's Apple's store, they get to decide what goes on it.

If they're smart (and they are), then when they are making that decision, they will consider what the marketplace wants. I think they've got a pretty good track record in that regard and have made another good call here.

Yeah, but it is drawing the line between what they have already allowed and what they are declining. If they decline this when there is stuff like this already on the App Store, then you have to raise eyebrows.

 

[wonderbread57]

Limited utility is a nice objective legal term that gets used in official business documents, like the one that this developer released to the public.

Stop being so outraged and appreciate that Apple isn't interested in the Apps Store overflowing with garbage.

 

[Jelite]

What they need is an "apple approved store" and a "junk" store, everything gets through everyones a winner.

 

[max654000]

Koi Pond shows off iPhone's 3D capability, while this one shows off....fart sounds using the better iPhone speaker??

 

[Rybold]

What they need is an "apple approved store" and a "junk" store, everything gets through everyones a winner.

I agree with you, except I would have three categories, "Apps," "Games," and "WTF were they thinking?"
Okay, "Apps," "Games," and "junk" will work.

 

[samab]

Bottom line: it's Apple's store, they get to decide what goes on it.

If they're smart (and they are), then when they are making that decision, they will consider what the marketplace wants. I think they've got a pretty good track record in that regard and have made another good call here.

The marketplace of what????

The marketplace of developers want clear set rules so that developers can borrow money from a bank to hire employees to write apps. Who wants to spend money on iphone app development if there is all kinds of arbitary rules on how the apps can be sold?

 

[(L)]

The marketplace of developers want clear set rules so that developers can borrow money from a bank to hire employees to write apps. Who wants to spend money on iphone app development if there is all kinds of arbitary rules on how the apps can be sold?

People that can write apps that clearly aren't of "limited utility." In the first place, you don't need to break the bank to make something like Pull My Finger.

Next question.

 

[imagineer2000]

A concerned developer

I just submitted a free app to the App Store - a very simple application that allows Mega Millions lottery players to choose the numbers for the game. Will this get approved, or also get rejected for "limited utility"? Stay tuned...

 

[Firefly2002]

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 agree with this 100%. It would make the app store look extremely unprofessional indeed.

 

[Bubba Satori]

I'm glad see that Apple is finally declining Apps that are of "limited utility." A full video game is one thing, but an App where you just pull a finger is a complete waste of people's time.

How about an App that uses the speaker to read recordings of prepared legal statements for a whole variety of situations that you might find yourself in?

Why don't you let people decide ? It's not all about you.

 

[samab]

People that can write apps that clearly aren't of "limited utility." In the first place, you don't need to break the bank to make something like Pull My Finger.

Next question.

Just look at the wii console game market.

You have a few really smart developers who insist to belittle the wii hardware and insist to spend $20 million to develop a mega epic game for PS3. Or you can spend a couple of million dollars to develop "limited utility" mini games for the wii --- that will sell a thousand times more.

I would like to go to the bank to borrow money to start a new software division and sell what other elitists called "limited utility" garbage. You can be a poor elitist if you want. I want to be swimming in dollar bills as the king of useless mini apps.

 

[Trajectory]

Why don't you let people decide ?

That's usually where the problems begin.

 

[merlin]

Limited utility

Most of the stuff at the app store hasn't gotten to the point of limited utility. I think Apple is right. In fact they should be more selective in what goes into the store. When there is so much useless stuff to wade through it discourages one from searching around for the apps that really are useful.