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 Rejects 'Breaking' App Due to One Small Mention of Android in a Screenshot
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't have a problem with Apple rejecting apps that mention competitors, or just cuz. It's their ecosystem. If you don't like it, then GTFO 
Try again. The use of "Android" isn't legally impermissible and Apple could have chosen to allow it had they wanted to. Nothing about this rejection suggests that it was lawyer-driven.
----------
I don't have a problem with Apple rejecting apps that mention competitors, or just cuz. It's their ecosystem. If you don't like it, then GTFO
Of course, and there is good reason for Apple to reject a screen shot that touts something being available for Android. There is no story here; the developer can resubmit without the offending screenshot, or it can cry to the media, or both.
Many of the policies that you mention were bad (i.e. some of the shenanigans with iOS 8 widgets). But complaining about rejection due to 'Android' being present in a screenshot isn't a noble cause. It's petty.
not hard, but painful.
if you have localized screenshots, you'll be changing many screenshots in different languages.
also you'll have to wait another 8 days to get your app reviewed.
Apple, as gatekeeper, can accept or reject anything they want. Has nothing to with legality or even common sense.
A passing mention in a news screenshot is a lot different than promoting a platform intentionally. Android is, after all, the biggest mobile platform in the world right now. I'm a big Apple fan but I can't deny them that. By Apple rejecting something like this they only give more exposure and credibility to Android when they talk about being open and all the other B.S. that entails.
I tried to post an ad with Google Adwords once that had "Mac" in the text (my product was compatible with Mac OS X).
Google rejected the ad and told me I needed a letter signed by Apple's legal team giving me permission to use the word in my ad.
I found a legal document on Apple's website giving anyone making Mac compatible products permission to use "Mac" in their ads but Google was having none of if, they insisted on a letter or fax sent to me, not just a webpage.
I'm pretty sure Apple would have rejected the app if it had "Toyota" or any other trademark from a large company.
It's clearly illegal under trademark law to use trademarks in your marketing without permission and since Apple is earning 30% of app revenue they can be sued by Google for allowing Android in an app description.
----------
Rejected apps stay assigned to the reviewer who rejected you. If you submit updated screenshots while the reviewer is still working your app will be apprived within hours, or else the next day.
Google rejected the ad and told me I needed a letter signed by Apple's legal team giving me permission to use the word in my ad.
I found a legal document on Apple's website giving anyone making Mac compatible products permission to use "Mac" in their ads but Google was having none of if, they insisted on a letter or fax sent to me, not just a webpage.
I'm pretty sure Apple would have rejected the app if it had "Toyota" or any other trademark from a large company.
It's clearly illegal under trademark law to use trademarks in your marketing without permission and since Apple is earning 30% of app revenue they can be sued by Google for allowing Android in an app description.
----------
No.
Rejected apps stay assigned to the reviewer who rejected you. If you submit updated screenshots while the reviewer is still working your app will be apprived within hours, or else the next day.
So much wrong here. The prohibition is against mentioning competing platforms. Toyota is not a competing platform. The screenshot also shows mentions of Thermo, Haze, and Robocat. Also Apple would not be sued for an app developer violating another company's trademarks or copyrights.
Not sure where you got your info but you should give it back.
Just kidding. No srsly, give it back.So do we know that it was in fact rejected simply because of that? Was there something official from Apple that specifically identifies that as the sole/main reason? And, if there is (which we can hopefully see for ourselves), do we know that something like this isn't simply the case of an overzealous (in one way or another) individual reviewer and not really anything beyond that? Just curious.
Do developers not pay attention or do this on purpose to make "headlines" on MR and such?
Seriously, check your app and screenshots thoroughly.
Seriously, check your app and screenshots thoroughly.
Apple has to apply its rules 100% consistently across all apps; otherwise they are making themselves vulnerable to legal action.
----------
No, it is not illegal to use other people's trademarks in your marketing without permission. You just have to clearly state who the owner of the trademark is.
----------
No, it is not illegal to use other people's trademarks in your marketing without permission. You just have to clearly state who the owner of the trademark is.
incorrect, had my app rejected, resubmitted and it took another 5 days. whether it was the same reviewer, i dont know, but i do know for a fact it took another 5 days.
Apple: if you do not like my rules in my own house, may you please leave my house.
Is this honestly news to the developer? I mean there's a reason Android Central isn't on the App Store or any other dedicated Android new app (no android central forum app either but there's always the original Tapatalk). Apple has always been strict about this for years so not sure why the developer seem surprised (Pebble watch is a recent one).
I've never understood the rule. Do they think that if people don't mention competition, people won't know competing products exist? Or do they think that once they see the word "Android" in a screenshot, they'll instantly drop their iPhone for an S6? What is it that makes this rule something they think they need?
