Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's App Store Rejection Policies Raise Concerns

econoline06 said:
This is why Apple has a team of lawyers to figure these things out. I hear lots of Apple bashing without much substance behind it.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with "legality." Apple is most definitely within their rights to do so. What we're talking about whether or not this is good for consumers as well as developers *and* in the long run Apple.

Because of Apple's ambiguity with what is "ok" and "not ok," it makes it *extremely* difficult to "think different" in developing 3rd party apps. Now, there's too much risk in time and money. Why bother when you don't know if it will be accepted or not? Nothing is clear cut.

This is what the problem is.

"Way back when, if software distribution for the Mac had been handled via a Mac App Store with a don’t-duplicate-Apple-products policy, Photoshop might have been refused distribution on the grounds that it was too similar to MacPaint."
http://tinyurl.com/5o6zpj
 
econoline06 said:
This is why Apple has a team of lawyers to figure these things out. I hear lots of Apple bashing without much substance behind it.
Click to expand...

I can see by the date of your registration you are new to this room.

Posting without substance seems more the norm here than the exception.
 
w00master said:
Why bother when you don't know if it will be accepted or not? Nothing is clear cut.
]
Click to expand...

Exactly! With your logic, nobody would have a job. According to you why bother applying for a job, going through several interviews, being led to believe that the company in question likes you but then you don't know if you will be accepted or not?

My point is you have to be prepared for the worst and these developers are complete idiots if they aren't. It's bad enough that hardly 1% even reads the terms and conditions before creating apps.
 
HLdan said:
Exactly! With your logic, nobody would have a job. According to you why bother applying for a job, going through several interviews, being led to believe that the company in question likes you but then you don't know if you will be accepted or not?

My point is you have to be prepared for the worst and these developers are complete idiots if they aren't. It's bad enough that hardly 1% even reads the terms and conditions before creating apps.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

People, if you dont like apples rules, dont play apples game.

simple
 
danbirchall said:
As an iPhone 3G user, I'd much rather have developers creating functionality that doesn't already exist.
Click to expand...

but the one reference in the article didn't replicate function. as of now, we can't download podcasts wirelessly, we have to be connected to a computer and transfer them over. this would bridge the gap and allow us to download and listen to a podcast on the fly without being on a computer. why would this get rejected?!
 
happydude said:
but the one reference in the article didn't replicate function. as of now, we can't download podcasts wirelessly, we have to be connected to a computer and transfer them over. this would bridge the gap and allow us to download and listen to a podcast on the fly without being on a computer. why would this get rejected?!
Click to expand...

its not so much as a different functionality as it is a different delivery of that functionality. Podcasts can be put on with itunes. Putting them on wirelessly is still putting them there. In that sense i see why apple chose that defense.
 
With all that I've read here, it would seem that the developer in this situation would have available some kind of way to appeal the decision for a fairer review.

From the standpoint of a user, I'd like to have some confidence that the iPhone apps are stable, functionally good, and meet the UI guidelines. Otherwise the iTunes store could turn into what I remember download sites of the late 80s were like; tons of stuff, most of which was worthless.
 
By the way Apple has to be vague to a degree on this because they can't actually know if a program is a violation until it actually exists.

Expecting them to run-through millions of what-if scenarios with potential developers is not going to happen. They are not going to rubber-stamp or disapprove on concept alone. They have to see the actual program to determine if it fits in with them.

If developers don't like it, I suspect they can fly a kite. Plenty others will find that more than reasonable risk to take.

Just imagine:

Developer: "Apple what if I do this this and this will that be okay"

Apple : "As long as it does not do this. it should be okay but we can't be sure without actually seeing the final product."

Developer: "Okay what if i changed this and that would that be okay"

With some kind of pre-approval process some of you seem to think Apple should provide you are asking them to essentially APPROVE applications in advance that should not be approved.

So what if the developer gets approval based on 5 things, but does mention two other things they added in which ends up getting them disapproved during final submission?

I still think any developer who didn't think this particular app might be stepping on toes and might not be accepted should look for a different line of work. I think most developers would have at least gone in understanding that it had the potential to be an issue with apple.

I don't think we should have to pander to the lowest common developer when setting out the general guidelines. I think it is reasonable to expect developers will use some judgment and common sense and assess risk in a reasonable manner.
 
jackc said:
OK, you are very wise and mature. You don't think companies need to worry about attracting good employees? Did you learn that in college?
Click to expand...

You missed his point. The fact that companies fire employees for any reason has no real impact on their ability hire or attract quality new employees.

The comparison is valid. The intelligent and experienced developers are not going to be bowed by this. It is part of doing business and if scares off some potential naive competitors all the more money for them. Those with experience and season or even just those with real ability and confidence won't hesitate for a second to try and get their piece of the app store pie.

I think some people need to be scared off from making apps from the app store. This particular one is not necessarily an example of that, but still let developer beware. The world is not a nice and friendly place.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danbirchall
As an iPhone 3G user, I'd much rather have developers creating functionality that doesn't already exist.


If you are going to use that logic then we'd all be on MacPaint instead of PhotoShop as someone originally pointed out.

Competition is a GOOD thing. It gives end users the "Choice" to make their own mind up.

Apple may be within their guidelines as far as pulling it but it really raises the question...

Will developers start to develop for Android, MS or T-Mobile (all with app stores coming soon) where they are not restricted.

On this one I'm guessing with MS and T-Mobile but Google has made it clear that they will not parse out what is to their objection.

Apple had better get with the game or "quoting another forum user" their going to make the same mistake they made 25 years ago with the Mac.

My opinion for what it's worth.
 
marksman said:
By the way Apple has to be vague to a degree on this because they can't actually know if a program is a violation until it actually exists.

Expecting them to run-through millions of what-if scenarios with potential developers is not going to happen. They are not going to rubber-stamp or disapprove on concept alone. They have to see the actual program to determine if it fits in with them.

If developers don't like it, I suspect they can fly a kite. Plenty others will find that more than reasonable risk to take.

Just imagine:

Developer: "Apple what if I do this this and this will that be okay"

Apple : "As long as it does not do this. it should be okay but we can't be sure without actually seeing the final product."

Developer: "Okay what if i changed this and that would that be okay"

With some kind of pre-approval process some of you seem to think Apple should provide you are asking them to essentially APPROVE applications in advance that should not be approved.

So what if the developer gets approval based on 5 things, but does mention two other things they added in which ends up getting them disapproved during final submission?

I still think any developer who didn't think this particular app might be stepping on toes and might not be accepted should look for a different line of work. I think most developers would have at least gone in understanding that it had the potential to be an issue with apple.

I don't think we should have to pander to the lowest common developer when setting out the general guidelines. I think it is reasonable to expect developers will use some judgment and common sense and assess risk in a reasonable manner.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly.

Apple would retain the right to not publish the app.

A preapproval process would simply allow developers acting in good faith to not waste time on an app doomed to be rejected -- NOT open a loophole for for developers to trick apple.

And please, don't try to speak for developers; you clearly know nothing about us. Also, I don't see how a developer could have reasonably anticipated that this app would be rejected on the grounds it duplicates existing functionality. It obviously does more than that. For example, I see calculators and note programs in the app store that overlap the functionality of existing apps.
 
The App Store (and the SDK and the entire platform) is a new phenomenon and has been taking off really fast, with some mistakes made.

Apple can fix the mistakes. But if they don't, I very much agree that this could potentially be a HUGE problem. Not just for developers and users, who already suffer from instances like Podcaster. But a huge problem for the platform as well, and that means a huge problem for Apple. Not a legal problem, but a failure to grow the platform to its full potential.

No, Apple won't go under and nor will the iPhone and App Store fail. But they will fall FAR short of their potential (meaning lost sales eventually) if Apple doesn't address this with VERY clear up-front policies, followed fairly and consistently. Good developers will be lost, and some great apps will never happen. Even ones that WOULD have been accepted, but it wasn't worth the risk to find out.

It's not so much that Apple's reasons for rejecting apps are bad ones (though I feel they HAVE sometimes been bad ones), it's that the reasons come into play out of nowhere AFTER the fact.

I know I'd like to release an iPhone app (game) or two, and I'll be much more cautious about it until these issues are resolved as they should be. Now, games are probably pretty safe. But "probably" isn't what a developer wants to hear when investing time and money and creative ideas!

This is all new, and I can accept that it may need to evolve. Let's hope it evolves in the RIGHT direction.
 
I'm in the process of writing a very serious application for the iPhone now, which I expect to take me the next few months to create. Not only do I have to worry about someone beating me to market, I now have to have some sort of ESP with regard to their approval decisions. It's very risky. If this application gets rejected, I'm out.

Maybe Apple should make their policy so that if you do not sell X units of an application per month you revert to a "support" mode where you can provide a link from your own site directly to iTunes for sales, and support your existing customers, but you do not show up in iTunes??? Let the market make these decisions!!!!! If you get popular, then you show up. If nobody buys it, nobody sees it on iTunes.

Between this, and the NDA preventing publication of books and developer talk related to the SDK, it's very frustrating.

I feel the lack of sophistication and quality of many applications is directly proportional to the unreasonable restriction on publication of quality educational materials, and the obstruction of communication within the developer community.
 
This is why it's great ...

... that the jailbreak community is still thriving. It is a little harder to make money in that scenario, but at least people can code any app they want.
 
CodeYoda said:
Between this, and the NDA preventing publication of books and developer talk related to the SDK, it's very frustrating.

I feel the lack of sophistication and quality of many applications is directly proportional to the unreasonable restriction on publication of quality educational materials, and the obstruction of communication within the developer community.
Click to expand...

That aspect seems likely to be a patent issue, and thus temporary. If Apple lifts NDA then the info becomes "public" for patent law purposes, and they have a real problem if they do that before the patent process is done.
 
Apple certainly would be well advised to expand that section 6(b) and at least provide a generic/basic list of applications that would not be approved regardless of creator. i.e. web browser, music player, etc.

They could also provide some guidance as to what things they look for in reviewing the applications to determine what is approved. ie data traffic required to make app work, maybe require a minimum refresh time of say 15 mins as opposed to every minute based on need to conserve battery life.

You don't need a 500 page book for the explanation but so form of guidance would certainly clear up some of the mystery shall we say.
 
marksman said:
The intelligent and experienced developers are not going to be bowed by this. It is part of doing business and if scares off some potential naive competitors all the more money for them. Those with experience and season or even just those with real ability and confidence won't hesitate for a second to try and get their piece of the app store pie.
Click to expand...

You mean experienced developers like Fraser Speirs whose reaction to this is "I will never write another iPhone application for the App Store as currently constituted".
 
tjcampbell said:
This guy needs to suck it up and move on.

Authors and screenwriters toil over books and film scripts for years never knowing if they'll even get an agent to read it let alone give the project the green light.

They can't just ring up Random House and say "If I write a book about xxxxx will you publish it?"

It's just not the way the world works.

You put in the time and hope it gets a go. If it doesn't, you move on to the next project.
Click to expand...

iPhone app developers pay for the privilege of being able to make applications which are (legally) installable on phones, we're given a bunch of agreements about what you can and cannot do and access and it's reasonable to assume that if you write an application and it plays by the published rules, apple will put it on the store and if you can sell it, great for you, if you can't, that's the way the world works. There's nothing I've read which says applications can be denied for anything but unacceptable content or working around the restrictions on access to the device hardware.

I think what they've done to this iphone developer is wrong.
 
I miss Apple when they were "Apple computers". Maybe they are just getting too big and because of this they are forgetting all the reasons why people liked them. Now they seem like another "Dell".
 
soapsuds said:
I'm not sure which is more appalling here, Apple's decision, or the large number of posts by Apple apologists justifying it.
Click to expand...
Appalling?, Apologists? Your posts come off sounding like a drama queen.
It doesn't take an apologist to read a contract and decide if they want to abide by it or not.
 
rols said:
iPhone app developers pay for the privilege of being able to make applications which are (legally) installable on phones, we're given a bunch of agreements about what you can and cannot do and access and it's reasonable to assume that if you write an application and it plays by the published rules, apple will put it on the store and if you can sell it, great for you, if you can't, that's the way the world works. There's nothing I've read which says applications can be denied for anything but unacceptable content or working around the restrictions on access to the device hardware.

I think what they've done to this iphone developer is wrong.
Click to expand...

did you miss that whole part about apple reserving the right to refuse any app?




its the same thing as a store reserving the right to refuse service to anyone.
 
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