Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Rejecting Applications Based on 'Limited Utility'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
im all for useless apps being cut out. HOWEVER, when its subjective criteria being used, thats when i have an issue
have the line be black and white. period
"taking care of this problem"? Unlikely.
While I agree that it would be nice to trim some of the **** from the store, I think you're giving apple wayyy too much credit in treating this letter as "taking care of this problem." I'd say it's much more accurately described as: a drop in the bucket; a disingenuous rationale for removal; too little, too late; a shoddy pretense of actual standards; and/or capricious and arbitrary. Most of all I think we can safely call it a mildly interesting bit of trivia that, in the broader picture of things, is rather insignificant.
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. ... Go Apple for taking care of this problem.
While I agree that it would be nice to trim some of the **** from the store, I think you're giving apple wayyy too much credit in treating this letter as "taking care of this problem." I'd say it's much more accurately described as: a drop in the bucket; a disingenuous rationale for removal; too little, too late; a shoddy pretense of actual standards; and/or capricious and arbitrary. Most of all I think we can safely call it a mildly interesting bit of trivia that, in the broader picture of things, is rather insignificant.
I'm fine with them keeping this out of the store, and as pointed out in other posts, there is already plenty of crap in the app store. It's not as though apple is saying it can't be distributed, they suggested he use an ad hoc method of distribution available to developers. Perhaps that should be explored.
This app is funny!
The individual app reviewer must have been farted on as a kid. It's scarred him forever. I really hate that had to happen to poor young Victor. He can probably still smell it when he thinks about that horrible day.
Has anyone thought about helping Victor with some fart immersion therapy to help him get over his phobia? Good God people this is obviously a man being tormented by his past. This is a SENSITIVE matter and should be handled very delicately!
The individual app reviewer must have been farted on as a kid. It's scarred him forever. I really hate that had to happen to poor young Victor. He can probably still smell it when he thinks about that horrible day.
Has anyone thought about helping Victor with some fart immersion therapy to help him get over his phobia? Good God people this is obviously a man being tormented by his past. This is a SENSITIVE matter and should be handled very delicately!
Bad Precedent!!!
THIS WORLD NEEDS MORE FART JOKES!!!
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
THIS WORLD NEEDS MORE FART JOKES!!!
Then make an insanely great app and ask people to pay for it.
Would people pay $100 for NetShare? That's nearly $10000 sitting there then. If Apple incresed ad-hoc to 1000 then you could really test the theory of '1000 fans'
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php
Maybe there is a better way to layout the appstore that makes browsing through hundreds of apps way easier. Looking at video games on a wall is easy. Maybe have developers make cool "packaging" and apple could display it in a more compact way then it is now.
This app has a lot of functionality--it may not be something you want to do, but it does it well. As "gimmick" apps go, this one packs a lot of features!
Apple needs some feedback on this poor judgement. Help users find the apps they want, yes. Have some standards, sure. But don't reject something that has been done well and that some people will actually want.
I hope it gets reinstated, and I hope this attention raises it to the top 10
(I'm not jumping on Apple too hard for making one bad call out of the thousands they face with the App Store. But I am sure it was the wrong call.)
Apple needs some feedback on this poor judgement. Help users find the apps they want, yes. Have some standards, sure. But don't reject something that has been done well and that some people will actually want.
I hope it gets reinstated, and I hope this attention raises it to the top 10
(I'm not jumping on Apple too hard for making one bad call out of the thousands they face with the App Store. But I am sure it was the wrong call.)
This was totally a good call on Apple's part.
They don't want to be associated with the pimply little *****s using their iPhones to gross out old codgers in restaurants. Do you really think they'd stand by while teenage boys turn such a cool device into "that dreadful, flatulating phone"?
They don't want to be associated with the pimply little *****s using their iPhones to gross out old codgers in restaurants. Do you really think they'd stand by while teenage boys turn such a cool device into "that dreadful, flatulating phone"?
The last thing I want is the iphone to turn into something like windows (tons of crappy apps), but they cant just reject it because they dont like it. While I wouldnt use this app, it looks better and more stable then a lot of other apps I have tried.
Yes, that's the problem. Since the app store went up, of necessity, the standards have changed. Do you realize there are now 667 apps in the games category alone? There is too much crap, and the bar has to be raised.
That said, I think they made the wrong call on this one.
BTW, after "I am Rich" was pulled, I submitted "I am Poor", which was an "I am Rich" clone, but for $0.99. The idea being, fool your friends, tell them you were one of the 8 that bought it, etc. Rather an obvious idea, I thought. Of course, Apple rejected "I am Poor" (after 12 days in review!). OK, fine, I have no problem with that.
I agree.
You simply cannot have an app rejected due to a persons subjective feeling that it's simply not useful (i.e. limited utility), if this was the case, this person should reapply to the app store as someone else might review it next time and have a different decision (just reviewing this thread shows how different people's opinions are on the value of this particular app!). App store rejection should only be based on objective rules clearly laid out; of course apple have the right to add new rules if they wish, but the important bit is they must not be open to interpretation, they must be clear and easy to understand by all so that a single persons opinion does not factor into the decision. It's the only fair way to run the store...
I really hope their wording of "limited utility" was just a poor choice of phrase, otherwise this is a very dark day for the app store...
This is the most useless and annoying app ever. I can't believe I spent the time to watch the video and post a comment.
With that talent come up with something more useful!
With that talent come up with something more useful!
How can judging the utility of an app be anything but subjective? What about an app for keeping track of how many days it's been since your accordion was tuned? Or an app that helps you identify different types of accordions? Limited utility, or not?
Again, I think it shouldn't be Apple that decides on what content we want to put on our iPod or iPhone.
easy have it written in the sdk what the app must not violate and everything else should be allowed. dont make judgement calls on each and every app.
for instance, i dont believe "i am rich" should have been pulled either