Sidebar Sidebar
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'

Hypocritical

It's interesting to me that Apple would not allow a mindless fart joke, yet make available a Whoopie Cushion dashboard widget on their site. Aren't they pretty much the same?

It would be even more interesting if I could leave my iPhone under someone with this app so that it would function like a whoopie cushion :)
 
This app is awesome, and yes I do enjoy bathroom humor. It's a shame that the app was rejected. Could you add me to your ad hoc distribution list?
 
ictiosapiens said:
Well, I've yet to find the first one that finds farts, farting and bowel movement related humor funny...
But you are right, I'm sorry, she might be out there...
Click to expand...

My girlfriend farts in front of me all the time and dies laughing. Not that it's a good thing... Who would have thought a girl as small as she is could produce so much gas....
 
As much as I am happy that Apple is taking this step to apps in the app store to improve the overall quality of the store for usefulness, I am disappointed that Apple would deny this app to the store, while letting half of the other crap into it. If they were going to allow other apps that are virtually useless, and serve less of a meaning than this app does, then why deny this app?
 
This is a stupid way to go about it. Apple could have created a new category for "limited utility" apps, or done a better job with their review system, like allowing up and down votes on reviews. Its really really stupid of them to do this. Sure, some people might not find them useful, but some people like a bit of mindless fun. Tucking them away in a corner of the App Store would be a much better solution than giving developers the finger.
 
This absolutely goes to far. For the people that say, "I can understand...," you need to go take day #1 of an economics 101 class. Hello, people! We live in a free market society. Let's KEEP it a free market. (That's free as in speech, not free as in beer.)

Let the consumers decide which apps rise to the top and which languish in "1-stardom."

**** you, Apple.
 
Best app that never made it...

sigh....i really want Pull My Finger. did u see how many people's fingers u can pull? it's amazing! come on, apple, where's your focus? obviously in your head and not your heart. :(
 
Except ....

As long as Apple doesn't actively take steps to prevent people from developing and distributing alternate installer tools and jailbreaking iPhones - it's a legitimate position for them to take. Apple can say "Where else in the free marketplace do you have retail stores that are FORCED to put your product on their shelves? They get to pick and choose what they'd like to stock. Same with ours."



digerata said:
This absolutely goes to far. For the people that say, "I can understand...," you need to go take day #1 of an economics 101 class. Hello, people! We live in a free market society. Let's KEEP it a free market. (That's free as in speech, not free as in beer.)

Let the consumers decide which apps rise to the top and which languish in "1-stardom."

**** you, Apple.
Click to expand...
 
Censorship

I love Apple as much as the rest of the Mac fans on this website but Apple is playing a dangerous game. It may sound silly, even ridiculous to let this be the catalyst for this fight. I feel that Apple is stepping in the way of the very spirit and entrepreneurial efforts that make the company what it is. They sell music on iTunes that’s absolutely vile. I mean the kind of stuff that can start a race riot so even if this was offensive, which it’s not, sell the stupid app. It is a stupid app but so what. Its funny, to some. Some of the apps I've seen and downloaded are garbage. They cost a lot of money and don’t even work.

Apple needs to let the ecco-system thrive. Its solely in your best interest…
 
Woah, is this for real???

That's really, really bad.

I mean, I've got no interest in this particular stupid app, but for all I know many people will find it endlessly amusing. How does Apple decide which stupid apps have limited "utility" (I assume Apple meant to say "appeal" since there are many, many, apps in the store with zero utility)???

Anything involving judgement calls like this are going to be a real problem for Apple. I surprised they were dumb enough to go down this road. Every time "Victor" or one of his colleges rejects a controversial app it's going to blow up in their face.

Hmm... I've got an idea right now: The Steve Jobs Kissing Booth. SJ will be sitting in a booth, and when you touch his lips, he puckers up and gives you a good smooch (you're supposed to actually kiss the screen, but I don't think the touch API can tell that). Think that will get through?

---

I'm fine with Apple setting any standard they want for their store. The problem is that their's no other place to publish apps.

They just need a new section in the store called "Limited Utility/Appeal."
 
Haha, brilliant!

Seriously, what if you had a wee kid? That would give them a lot of amusement. Hell, I find that amusing!
 
kingtj said:
As long as Apple doesn't actively take steps to prevent people from developing and distributing alternate installer tools and jailbreaking iPhones - it's a legitimate position for them to take. Apple can say "Where else in the free marketplace do you have retail stores that are FORCED to put your product on their shelves? They get to pick and choose what they'd like to stock. Same with ours."
Click to expand...

Uh, what? Did you ever wonder why it's called jailbreaking?
 
As mentioned, and well known, there is no shortage of junk apps on the App Store, with no more or less limited utility than Pull My Finger. That said, it's Apple's house, and Apple's toys. They can close the house at will, and pack up their toys. They can draw a line anywhere they like. Their seeming indifference to the trainwreck that is the App Store review system is a glaring example of this fact.
 
Im leaving a comment. This should be in the app store. Apple should not be declining applications based on what they feel would be a successful app or not.
 
Good!

What an embarrassment! What a waste of time and developer talent! We need Apple to perform this quality control to weed out this sort of brain-dead crap! Thank you Apple :apple:
 
digerata said:
We live in a free market society.
Click to expand...
Um, no we don't. Not really.

And even if we did, wouldn't a free market society give Apple the freedom to choose whatever products they wanted to sell? So, if you're advocating forcing Apple to provide products they don't want to, that's kinda the anti-thesis of a free market.
 
anthonyb said:
Im leaving a comment. This should be in the app store. Apple should not be declining applications based on what they feel would be a successful app or not.
Click to expand...

When it is your store you can make the decision, until then.....
 
Are you crazy! Useless app. At least apple is now taking approvals seriously after the iamrich crap app :rolleyes:
 
dejo said:
Um, no we don't. Not really.
Click to expand...

That is wrong. Unless you are basing your definition of free market as an absolute where no government can intervene at all, in which case, you would be in disagreement with most economists out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

And even if we did, wouldn't a free market society give Apple the freedom to choose whatever products they wanted to sell? So, if you're advocating forcing Apple to provide products they don't want to, that's kinda the anti-thesis of a free market.
Click to expand...

That would be true. Except it isn't Apple that is selling products on the App Store. Independent businesses and individuals are. Apple is only facilitating the transaction. Now it is, indeed, their platform that all of this is happening on. So obviously, they are allowed to introduce controls that maintain a desirable experience for the end users.

But those controls should not be to restrict products based on some arbitrary, undefinable whim. Doing so is, to use your words, the antithesis of a free market. Those controls should only provide the tools for end-users to easily find products that suit their needs and their own view of what is worthwhile.

To use the argument of others on this topic, lots of music is offered for sale on the iTunes Store. Yet, there is no one filtering out "tasteless artists and songs." It would be against all parties interests to do that as it is in the App Store's case.

Again, let the consumers decide which apps are worthwhile. Any other way is fascist and evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back