Nor should we, but it also not the job of Apple to exclude an app that is not harmful to the phone, user or network. The iPhone is a closed platform if Apple wants to control the apps.
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's App Store Rejection Policies Raise Concerns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nor should we, but it also not the job of Apple to exclude an app that is not harmful to the phone, user or network. The iPhone is a closed platform if Apple wants to control the apps.
Evaluating the risk associated with a product name is not a "5 second" job; you cannot propose a single method and claim incompetence on the part of any developer who doesn't follow it. Try spending one second instead thinking about each of...
(1) Authority: Despite the opinion of Wikipedia, the results of a Google search are usually not legally binding. Consider TESS.
(2) Market: Even if you have a similar name to a product fulfilling a similar purpose, is there any danger that the products will be confused or are platform differences sufficient to avoid this? OS-9.
(3) Scope: If you use an identical name to a existing brand from another area, what if you later move into that existing brand's area? Apple Records.
(4) Language: A Vauxhall Nova is all very well until you reach a South American market, where no va.
(5) Culture: When a kid wanted an Umbro (UK sportswear manufacturer) shoe to follow in the footsteps of his football hero, he read nothing into buying an "Umbro Zyklon", yet a group of adults interpreted otherwise. Meanwhile, thousands still buy Electrolux Cyclone vacuum cleaners.
Maybe the developer thought awhile about (2) in light of "the other Podcaster" and came to the same conclusion Apple did.
Anyway, being a good developer does not imply an interest in or understanding of business concerns. You don't fire the prof for forgetting to tie his shoelaces.
So you're not using any non-apple apps on your iPhone? If you are delete them now. Apple wouldn't have done the app store just to be a novelty. They quickly realized that a) there's money in it and b) smart phones are only as good as the applications that run on them. Why would someone buy a smart phone just to use the phone? In fact there are tons of phones that are a much better at being a phone than the iPhone.
Lets also ignore that Jobs himself has stated that the iPhone is the best platform for mobile gaming. I guess Apple had planned on writing all the games on their own? You're the one kidding yourself by ignoring how important 3rd party apps are to any platform.
Haha...I have a bridge to sell you. You know ATT will give you a laptop connect card that works over the 3g network? Will that kill the bandwidth too? Never mind the fact that it's easy enough to make an app only work when the iPhone is in wifi mode. Try again.
SDK Caveat
It was made rather clear, and complained about, early on in examination of the SDK that iTunes specific features, like Music and such, would not be accessible by developers. Should come as no surprise, then, that if you write an app anyway that, while sidestepping the technical limitation that may or may not still be present (I don't know, I'm not a developer), still duplicates a basic functionality of iTunes (the actual desktop App that powers these devices), it would be rejected.
Here's an article from March of this year that may provide some small insight, as well as comments.
http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/08/03/19/music.vs.iphone.sdk/
Bottom line, as so many have already said, is this. If you want to develop apps that people will really enjoy and use (despite what people claim they would use), be original. A new take on the same things that are already available, even if you do it better, will be a waste of time.
It was made rather clear, and complained about, early on in examination of the SDK that iTunes specific features, like Music and such, would not be accessible by developers. Should come as no surprise, then, that if you write an app anyway that, while sidestepping the technical limitation that may or may not still be present (I don't know, I'm not a developer), still duplicates a basic functionality of iTunes (the actual desktop App that powers these devices), it would be rejected.
Here's an article from March of this year that may provide some small insight, as well as comments.
http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/08/03/19/music.vs.iphone.sdk/
Bottom line, as so many have already said, is this. If you want to develop apps that people will really enjoy and use (despite what people claim they would use), be original. A new take on the same things that are already available, even if you do it better, will be a waste of time.
It seems like some of you defend Apple as a full-time job. Even if they did not do something illegal, it is still an abuse of power that is not favorable to the developers or users.
Copy a link to this article and paste it in Apple's developer feedback form.
http://developer.apple.com/contact/
Maybe they'll fix the problem.
http://developer.apple.com/contact/
Maybe they'll fix the problem.
Its not. From a legal perspective, this is an open & shut case. At the very best, it is a future feature that Apple plans to incorporate themselves, but barring proof that it was stolen (and/or an NDA violation), then this is IP of the independent invention flavor.
The terms of which were not clearly disclosed up front.
If I were that Developer, I'd already have hired a lawyer and directed him to sue Apple for my now-wasted development expenses, because they changed the Playing Field during the game.
-hh
Have to say i don't have enough info either way to say a)Apple Evil stop spending money or b)Apple didn't respond very well and needs to pick up it's act.
I wonder if the the badly stated issue of "dupilcation" is just that the program duplicates the function for the user but doesn't replace it. It doesn't draw a clear line of where the user finds that function the user may find the podcast they want in itunes they may find it podcaster.
If the application drew a clear line and said once i'm running all your podcasts belong to me, or the other way it grabbed new podcasts while out and about then passed them iTunes on the phone. Then there would be no duplication.
Then we are squarely in camp b
I wonder if the the badly stated issue of "dupilcation" is just that the program duplicates the function for the user but doesn't replace it. It doesn't draw a clear line of where the user finds that function the user may find the podcast they want in itunes they may find it podcaster.
If the application drew a clear line and said once i'm running all your podcasts belong to me, or the other way it grabbed new podcasts while out and about then passed them iTunes on the phone. Then there would be no duplication.
Then we are squarely in camp b
Right, and the rest of you bitch about Apple as a full time job.
The sad part is the complaining ones only want to come here to create an argument with other people rather than going straight to the source (Apple Inc) and telling THEM how you feel. It doesn't do any good here especially when the complainers don't have a solution.
It's a real shame that Adobe didn't think like this when they started Photoshop. After all there were image manipulation programs around at the time. Just think how unoriginal it was for them to do that, and what do we end up with: a piece of junk like Photoshop that no Mac user uses. What a 'waste of time'?
Many people seem to be missing the point here:
If a product 'duplicates' the functionality of something that Apple provides nobody will buy it anyway. If people are buying it then it doesn't duplicate, having some functions that some users need that users are prepared to pay for.
Let the market decide which one is better; don't stifle competition.
Funny, there was nothing in my post that said I had an iPhone. Also there was nothing in my post that said Apple's apps are the only one's you should be using. I said the app is a novelty because before it came along no one was having productivity issues with the iPhone, most people were getting along just fine.
Some people here think their life would end if they couldn't buy something from the app store. Furthermore I'll bet at least 95% of this forum knew nothing about that Podcast app before the article went out. Nobody is missing out on anything.
Um, AT&T "charges" you a fee to use that card and I'm sure it's not the same price as what you'd pay for the iPhone. You can't compare that anyway since most people will keep their iPhone running 24/7 to download podcasts, you're not likely to keep your lappy running 24/7.
I agree, Apple's tactics on this matter leave a lot to be desired and they need to work on communication with the developers but if you guys hate Apple so much don't feed them with your hard earned cash, there are other multimedia products on the market.
If you like Apple's products you have to take the good with the bad or don't buy from them at all.
Most of you waste so much energy hating a corporation but then you will still buy from them. That's hypocritical.
I say put it in the app store regardless of what it does ( as long as it doesnt hurt anything ie network or cause security issues) and let the users decide if they want it! plain and simple!
I don't think apple should be allowed to restrict items they don't think are worthy! Apple is selling to a larger crowd now, if they want to keep people happy they will need to loosen there grip, until then ... there is another community that supports doing whatever you like with your phone ...
I don't think apple should be allowed to restrict items they don't think are worthy! Apple is selling to a larger crowd now, if they want to keep people happy they will need to loosen there grip, until then ... there is another community that supports doing whatever you like with your phone ...
There is no such limitation in the SDK. The limitation is that the SDK does not let you access some part of the iPhone, such as the Agenda or the iTune library. Other than that, the SDK lets you play music if you wish to...
For instance, you're aware that Deezer seems to have been approved for the AppStore, right? If you don't know Deezer, it is a European equivalent to Pandora or Last.fm, except that you can also manage playlists with specific titles and replay them as you wish. Deezer is perfectly legal too.
Deezer is a bandwidth hog - let people use it in your company, and you will see what happens to your bandwidth! It's also an alternative to iTune. It also lets you listen to music without directly paying it, and as such breaks the iTune model.
Yet, it is coming to the AppStore. Why Deezer and not Podcaster? The only difference is that Deezer is a from a business, Podcaster was from a single developer. It also seem that when you're a big enough business, you can get pre-approved.
You can seriously say that with a straight face after looking at the TOP 20 from the App Store? I mean, on the French AppStore, one of the best selling application is an interactive screensaver with fish - how it is innovative? Another is a mooo-box - innovative, right? A Texas Hold'em. A soccer game. A car racing game. That's real innovation there, stuff never seen elsewhere...
Oh, and the fifth best selling application is ... AllRadio. An application that lets you listen to online radios. So, free music again. And a bandwidth hog again. Yet, this one got validated. Talk about double standards...
Right. The first iPhone sold very well, and the 3G barely increased the sales...
People have been waiting for the features of the 3G for a year, and the sales are booming precisely because the 3G got them what they were waiting for : 3G, GPS and applications.
As for myself, I do not have an iPhone yet. Why? Because I'm waiting for specific applications to appear on the AppStore. Specifically a real GPS from TomTom or another real player on the market. And also a real professionnal Agenda.
Because, like many potential users, I already own a SmartPhone (WM6). And like all of them, I expect to be able to do the same things with the iPhone I did with my old SmartPhone : manage my Agenda, use the GPS for real, install games, install third party applications... The applications I use the most are not even from Microsoft, they are third party : Agenda Fusion, TomTom, Tube...
I don't know about AT&T, but the one sold by Orange in France is cheaper than the iPhone. The monthly fee is higher, but that is to be expected since it's targetted mostly at businesses.
Now, you're sounding paranoid. You can't keep the iPhone running 24/24 downloading podcasts, the battery won't last more than a few hours pumping at full throttle on a 3G network.
That's because corporations can be made to change. Whole markets can be made to change...
Look at Internet penetration for instance. Europe was lagging behind the USA years ago. Now, we are leading. Same for mobile networks - 3G is still a novelty in the USA, while in Europe it is the exception when you fall back to Edge. Why did the situation change? Because the consummers forced the corporation to change. They force them to cut their prices, they forced them to innovate (here comes FTTH)...
Likewise, Apple can be forced to change. Because Apple is exploring a new market and they want to succeed. And if Apple wants to "kill" RIM and Microsoft, they don't have much of a choice...
This is absurd logic. It suggests that there is no point for Apple users to make their feelings known. Apple have regularly made changes based on feedback from users.
Sorry but this is strawman. I don't see how objecting to one aspect of Apple's business practices translates as 'hating'. Let's try this: (1) you never use Google or Yahoo because of their collusion with the Chinese Government, (2) you do use Google or Yahoo because you think this collusion is OK, or [my choice] (3) you do use Google or Yahoo but you think people should voice their displeasure with this state of affairs. I'd like to know which you'd decide of (1) or (2) since by your own admission (3) is unacceptable. Let's see who's hypocritical now.
Apple and your restrictive NDA's
Musn't suck too hard or you wouldn't be a registered developer--assuming your signature is factual.
Qft. It's Apple's store, they can choose whatever apps they like. You might not like it, but its their store.
As for the fools comparing this to Microsoft and claiming it to be illegal - of course it isn't illegal - Apple can sell whatever they like on their own store.
yeah me too, apple go ahead, you need to control things more, what are people thinking questioning your world leadership in software, uuuuhhhh
I haven't got around to developing an actual application yet...I just use some of the developer tools to do general maintenance of my computer
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6238922#post6238922 <-- My thread on this.
Personally, I don't think Apple should have rejected this app. Why are all 200,000 tip calculators allowed on the store, yet a new, unique, definitely NOT a duplicate functionality, denied?
For those of you saying that this does duplicate functionality, I bet you $10 that you cannot download podcasts to your iPhone WITHOUT syncing it to your computer, OR going to each site and streaming it. Nope. Can't do it. So definitely NOT duplicate functionality.
Also, for those saying bandwidth issues: 1) YouTube can be used over 3G/EDGE/WiFi, does Apple care about bandwidth on that app? NO! 2) Pandora, Last.FM, etc have the potential to pull massive amounts of data. Approved? YEP! And they BOTH have the capability to listen to music (Just search for a song on YouTube - GUARANTEED to be there!), which totally defeats the iTunes Store. So, why are these apps still up in the App Store/On the iPhone? HUH!? Can't explain that... I thought so.
Also, if anyone says that it probably would have only taken a week to make, no effort was put into it, whatever, I KNOW FOR A FACT that this developer has been up all night every night working on this app, and as much of the day he can work on it. He has given up family time for this app, in the hope that after he finished it, he would have an extra source of income, and wouldn't have to work as hard at his day job, therefore able to spend more time with his young, hungry family by selling this app for USD $4.99.
Finally, if anyone says that $4.99 is a rip-off, I'd seriously be wondering how the heck you afforded a USD $199/$299 iPhone 3G... or AUD $500 iPhone 3G......... I don't think $5 is much........
If anyone else has any objections, feel free to let me know. Happy to answer. I have a close contact with this developer.
SuperMacMan
Personally, I don't think Apple should have rejected this app. Why are all 200,000 tip calculators allowed on the store, yet a new, unique, definitely NOT a duplicate functionality, denied?
For those of you saying that this does duplicate functionality, I bet you $10 that you cannot download podcasts to your iPhone WITHOUT syncing it to your computer, OR going to each site and streaming it. Nope. Can't do it. So definitely NOT duplicate functionality.
Also, for those saying bandwidth issues: 1) YouTube can be used over 3G/EDGE/WiFi, does Apple care about bandwidth on that app? NO! 2) Pandora, Last.FM, etc have the potential to pull massive amounts of data. Approved? YEP! And they BOTH have the capability to listen to music (Just search for a song on YouTube - GUARANTEED to be there!), which totally defeats the iTunes Store. So, why are these apps still up in the App Store/On the iPhone? HUH!? Can't explain that... I thought so.
Also, if anyone says that it probably would have only taken a week to make, no effort was put into it, whatever, I KNOW FOR A FACT that this developer has been up all night every night working on this app, and as much of the day he can work on it. He has given up family time for this app, in the hope that after he finished it, he would have an extra source of income, and wouldn't have to work as hard at his day job, therefore able to spend more time with his young, hungry family by selling this app for USD $4.99.
Finally, if anyone says that $4.99 is a rip-off, I'd seriously be wondering how the heck you afforded a USD $199/$299 iPhone 3G... or AUD $500 iPhone 3G......... I don't think $5 is much........
If anyone else has any objections, feel free to let me know. Happy to answer. I have a close contact with this developer.
SuperMacMan
You're correct, of course, but it may come back to bite them. At the moment, the App Store is a unique way of getting apps to the market and for that reason is attracting a lot of attention from developers. In 12 months time, that situation will have changed with the Android store and the Windows Mobile store that's planned with WM7.Qft. It's Apple's store, they can choose whatever apps they like. You might not like it, but its their store.
As for the fools comparing this to Microsoft and claiming it to be illegal - of course it isn't illegal - Apple can sell whatever they like on their own store.
At that point, devs who want an easy route to market will have a choice of what platform they develop for, and will likely develop for the market that gives them the most opportunity (most businesses aren't fanatical about the platform they develop for, they go for the one with the best opportunities).
If there is the choice between 3 stores on 3 platforms all with similar user bases but one of the stores can arbitrarily choose to block applications then they're going to go to another one.
It may be Apple's store but it's no good to them if there's no-one wanting to sell in it...
IMO, the big winner here will be Android: Google have got the clout to make it work, and the App store will be completely open (As is the SDK - no artificial restrictions in place there). Add to that the fact that Android is Java based (many more people have experience and skills in Java than Objective C) and I can see Google stealing Apple's thunder.
Apple have created the market and shown what can be done but they run a very big risk of simply creating a market for someone else to steal...
Then why didn't the rejection letter just say that?
Then why didn't the rejection letter just say that?
Exactly.
This is the big can 'o worms that Apple is opening themselves up for.
That's the last thing that Apple would want to do, because under a typical NDA, it means that Apple can't then develop that idea on their own. As such, if you were to put this into place, you would then have a "Gold Rush" of so-called developers submitting product ideas ... and with no intent to actually develop them. They'll simply throw their Spaghetti at the wall and if anything sticks, await a buy-out offer from Apple.
Its Microsoft's Operating System. They can choose whatever price they want to sell it at (and vary it by customer), and also dictate what what other products it has to be bundled with.
That might save Apple from Anti-Trust.
-hh