The average person farts a half liter of gas per day or, in other words, over 10,000 liters in their lifetime.
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
The average person farts a half liter of gas per day or, in other words, over 10,000 liters in their lifetime.
Censorship? Free Speech? give me a break
What definition of free market are you using exactly? To begin with We don't live in a free market, we just like to throw the phrase around when it suits our needs. Secondly, since when does a free market entail forcing companies to sell and distribute anything that's submitted to them? The whole "free" part of things happens to apply to retailers making their own choices about what and what not to sell.
Also, could everyone take a deep breath and tone down the rhetoric about "censorship"? The app store is not a public forum, and the right to "free speech" and "freedom of expression" simply does not apply to this situation. Just as privately owned blogs and forums have the right to censor whatever they like, so does the App Store. The idea that, by rejecting an app that they did not wish to sell, Apple was oppressing our rights or somehow engaging in ideological censorship is completely absurd. Yes, it was an arbitrary decision. Plenty of other apps should never have gotten onto the store. Ultimately, though, it's Apple's store and what makes it on and what doesn't is their choice. Maybe you don't like it, but that's simply the way things stand.
While I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of the closed distribution method of Apps for the iPhone, making a huge fuss over one rejected app is completely missing the bigger picture. If you want to discuss censorship, look at the model as a whole, not some lame farting app. Because honestly, "the man" and the corporate powers that be have no grand scheme to rid the world of digitized bodily functions. One might assume they would focus on bigger things...
What definition of free market are you using exactly? To begin with We don't live in a free market, we just like to throw the phrase around when it suits our needs. Secondly, since when does a free market entail forcing companies to sell and distribute anything that's submitted to them? The whole "free" part of things happens to apply to retailers making their own choices about what and what not to sell.
Also, could everyone take a deep breath and tone down the rhetoric about "censorship"? The app store is not a public forum, and the right to "free speech" and "freedom of expression" simply does not apply to this situation. Just as privately owned blogs and forums have the right to censor whatever they like, so does the App Store. The idea that, by rejecting an app that they did not wish to sell, Apple was oppressing our rights or somehow engaging in ideological censorship is completely absurd. Yes, it was an arbitrary decision. Plenty of other apps should never have gotten onto the store. Ultimately, though, it's Apple's store and what makes it on and what doesn't is their choice. Maybe you don't like it, but that's simply the way things stand.
While I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of the closed distribution method of Apps for the iPhone, making a huge fuss over one rejected app is completely missing the bigger picture. If you want to discuss censorship, look at the model as a whole, not some lame farting app. Because honestly, "the man" and the corporate powers that be have no grand scheme to rid the world of digitized bodily functions. One might assume they would focus on bigger things...
This is just it, there's some utter crap on the appstore really, some of it is probably people experimenting with the SDK and seeing what can be done with it. More still is people just hoping for a quick buck.
In either case the appstore shouldn't have a lot of what is in it already, there's some gems there but there's also some coal in amongst them.
Ooooh. Unfortunate that Apple is taking this stance and/or implementing this tactic. I see their angle, but think there a better way to handle such things.
Opens the approval process up to a lot of ambiguity.
Needs to be more black/white. Less gray.
I don't really know the distribution rights of those apps not approved by Apple... but if Apple does deny an app, there really should be a safe, trusted and simple way for that app to be made available to as many people that want to buy/download said app.
I have no answers. Just questions.
Opens the approval process up to a lot of ambiguity.
Needs to be more black/white. Less gray.
I don't really know the distribution rights of those apps not approved by Apple... but if Apple does deny an app, there really should be a safe, trusted and simple way for that app to be made available to as many people that want to buy/download said app.
I have no answers. Just questions.
Wow... a bit overblown, maybe?
Fascist and evil? I somehow feel you might be overstating your point. If you want to fight against evil and fascism, I assure you there are far too many very real examples of it in the world. Blowing something as inconsequential as this out of proportion and assigning it such "menacing" importance tells me we could all use a reality check. There are bigger fish to fry, save the righteous outrage for the real problems in the world, all it does in this case is give some of us headaches.
Fascist and evil? I somehow feel you might be overstating your point. If you want to fight against evil and fascism, I assure you there are far too many very real examples of it in the world. Blowing something as inconsequential as this out of proportion and assigning it such "menacing" importance tells me we could all use a reality check. There are bigger fish to fry, save the righteous outrage for the real problems in the world, all it does in this case is give some of us headaches.
Hmmm... What if the guys at Microsoft got as fascist as Apple is being?
""Hello Windows Developer,
We've reviewed your application "Safari". We have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad Windows user community, and will not be allowed to be published for Windows.
It may be very appropriate to share with friends, family, and other iKool-Aid® drinkers,and we recommend you stick to distribution on platforms of lesser market share. Details on distributing this application among a smaller group of people using OSX 10.5 or higher or, of Steve's choosing.
Regards,
Bytemy Wang
Worldwide Developer Relations
Oh, the Irony!"
""Hello Windows Developer,
We've reviewed your application "Safari". We have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad Windows user community, and will not be allowed to be published for Windows.
It may be very appropriate to share with friends, family, and other iKool-Aid® drinkers,and we recommend you stick to distribution on platforms of lesser market share. Details on distributing this application among a smaller group of people using OSX 10.5 or higher or, of Steve's choosing.
Regards,
Bytemy Wang
Worldwide Developer Relations
Oh, the Irony!"
Like I said before, if we define an absolute free market with no government intervention, then you are right. But that is not general consensus among economists.
Apple is only a facilitator in the App Store. They are *not* selling products. Other businesses and individuals are. That is a major distinction that many are not realizing. To use Apple's own words, they are creating a "marketplace."
You argument of privately owned blogs and forums does not hold true. The App Store is not a forum. It is a marketplace. Trade is commencing.
A successful marketplace would not have arbitrary and undefinable controls filtering products. Apple, as is their right, can choose to maintain this practice and the App Store may be a success simply because of the amazing iPhone platform. I've never argued against that. However, it stifles developer innovation and creativity. Some would call "I am Rich" art. While that could be debated, since when is it human nature to let one person or group decide?
What ever people have said about Microsoft, one thing can be learned from them. 3rd party developers are lifeblood, don't enforce unnecessary restrictions on them.
We are likely only arguing the difference between a successful App Store and a wildly, out of this world, successful App Store.
I am a consumer and a developer of the iPhone. I would never waste my time with a fart application. But with these application removals, my attitude about developing apps for the iPhone changed from enthusiastic developer competition to cautious required business move. I'm still developing apps for the store, the difference is, now I just feel like I have to rather than want to.
Put it in the app store
To take a page out of Steve Jobs own book, he bought into the technology of a mouse when many others said it would be useless. How did that turn out for him? Maybe you'll want to take a look at that piece of plastic sitting next to your keyboard to get a better idea.
Put it up Apple and let the people decide if it's worth buying.
(I didn't have the time to read through all of the other posts so this might have been mentioned already but it deserves to be mentioned again)
To take a page out of Steve Jobs own book, he bought into the technology of a mouse when many others said it would be useless. How did that turn out for him? Maybe you'll want to take a look at that piece of plastic sitting next to your keyboard to get a better idea.
Put it up Apple and let the people decide if it's worth buying.
(I didn't have the time to read through all of the other posts so this might have been mentioned already but it deserves to be mentioned again)
Yes continue to praise censorship, great idea.
Its not praising censorship when one gets tired of going onto the app store just to find stupid apps that don't do anything other than make a sound. Apple is trying to push their device into the business market, now how the hell do you expect businesses to like the idea of having iPhones when there are stupid apps like this? If i owned a business I would not want my employees walking around all day farting and telling jokes and this app is just that. Now I consider myself a very democratic thinker, however, the app store was not designed for this magnitude of apps and for now the useless apps are just taking up space and making a mess. Once they straighten out the sorting process maybe then there will be room for apps such as this one. Until then I hold my positions on the subject thank you very much.
Agreed. I rescind my fascist and evil remark.
How about elitist and disheartening instead?That's exactly my point.
Build a better App Store. Put the control into the consumers hands. The rating system is there. Let us use it!Further, it really wouldn't be that crazy for Apple to say, "Hey, your app is rated at 1 star. It has been consistently rated at 1 star for the past month. It has now been removed."
Apple has changed
I'm a MAC loyalist. I've been using macs since the 80's. I can remember when Apple was a struggling company trying to make a foot print for it self. Now that its been headed strait up the digital food chain why do they keep acting like a snobby stuck up winey child.
Let the guy sell his application. Apple's getting there part so who cares? Give the guy a break.
Thanks.
I'm a MAC loyalist. I've been using macs since the 80's. I can remember when Apple was a struggling company trying to make a foot print for it self. Now that its been headed strait up the digital food chain why do they keep acting like a snobby stuck up winey child.
Let the guy sell his application. Apple's getting there part so who cares? Give the guy a break.
Thanks.
Ok
Fair enough. Would you agree that the broader issue here is the closed nature of iPhone App distribution itself? Not just the rejection of one app?
Agreed. I rescind my fascist and evil remark.
Fair enough. Would you agree that the broader issue here is the closed nature of iPhone App distribution itself? Not just the rejection of one app?
This is nothing new...
Apple was previously rejecting these types of Apps as "obscene". Once they realized by that standard that iTunes Music store was highly obscene, they changed the excuse. Its simple. Steve Jobs has gas and doesn't like people making fun of it.
See this thread for info on how two more apps were denied previously.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/540336/
Apple was previously rejecting these types of Apps as "obscene". Once they realized by that standard that iTunes Music store was highly obscene, they changed the excuse. Its simple. Steve Jobs has gas and doesn't like people making fun of it.
See this thread for info on how two more apps were denied previously.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/540336/
Yes, the App Store needs improvement and more useful apps. But the rating system is also being abused. Apple should only allow those who purchased or downloaded the app to write a review.
Bad Precedent
I would definitely buy it for about $1.99
They are walking on shaky ground when they pull a seemingly well designed, and humorous app like this. The rate at which 12 year olds have cell phones these days is ridiculous! It may be bad business sense on their part to not have apps liked by 12 year olds.
again worth about $2
I would definitely buy it for about $1.99
They are walking on shaky ground when they pull a seemingly well designed, and humorous app like this. The rate at which 12 year olds have cell phones these days is ridiculous! It may be bad business sense on their part to not have apps liked by 12 year olds.
again worth about $2
Yes and no. I think that the closed distribution model could work if the approval process was more open. After all, if your purpose is just, and your app is approved for the app store, there being only one place to distribute my app does not bother me.
I originally felt that the closed model was a necessary trade for other benefits. After all, we have never seen the potential for something this amazing and whether it could be pulled off in an open manner by a certain other company is up for debate.
I think the closed distribution model could work if Apple let's consumers decide on the merits of applications. The fact that the rating system is being abused can certainly be fixed.
And not to hijack this thread with a semi-off-topic... My company has been waiting for months to get approved as a corporate developer for the iPhone. We haven't had a yes or no answer, only several emails with "still reviewing our application." All the while, our app is sitting around waiting to see the light of day. Wtf?
So here is my problem with Apple rejecting applications for reasons that are not not clearly documented.
To make this app, it could well of taken a 2 man team 3 working weeks for all conception, coding, graphics, sound recording,design, testing, debugging, etc. For a developer on $70k a year, thats $8,000 in costs. After which to be told your investment has gone down the drain...
It's not like you can sell your app elsewhere, your effort is simply wasted.
Regardless whether 'pull-my-finger' is a decent app or not, surely developers must be given clear and consistent rules which their apps must follow.
To make this app, it could well of taken a 2 man team 3 working weeks for all conception, coding, graphics, sound recording,design, testing, debugging, etc. For a developer on $70k a year, thats $8,000 in costs. After which to be told your investment has gone down the drain...
It's not like you can sell your app elsewhere, your effort is simply wasted.
Regardless whether 'pull-my-finger' is a decent app or not, surely developers must be given clear and consistent rules which their apps must follow.
I was almost thinking that the developer would be allowed to sell the app through this ad-hoc method. Even if that is allowed the 100 person limit ruins it. I don't Apple is being fair at all. This guy wrote a real program serves a purpose for some users. People buy toys that just make fart sounds, so there is obviously a market. The developer paid to be able to develop and sell apps for the iPhone. Sure many of us, including me, would never buy this app, but he has a right to sell it. As for crowding the store with lame apps, there will always be different categories and search functions to help you find what you are looking for.
