Apple's App Store Rejection Policies Raise Concerns

[DreamPod]

Everyone is treating Apple like a bad guy here. But we don't know the whole story. Here's one possibility: this app duplicates what iTunes does, but with a HUGE security hole; it lets you access podcasts that have not been vetted through the iTunes podcast submission process (it lets you put in any URL you want to get podcasts from). This means you could use this app to download podcasts Apple doesn't approve of onto your device, such as ones of sexual nature, or even just pure music. Think about it, since a podcast is just a straight MP3, this app now allows people to distribute pirated MP3's online to iPhones. If it were just streaming I don't think Apple would care, but it also allows download to your iPhone.

And also, you guys are all treating this as if some guy spent months of hard work that is now down the tubes, but really he only spent two weeks of his spare time on it!

This app was free right?

He was gonna charge $5 for it.

 

[Andy-V]

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.

Two completely different things.

If a book is good, it gets published, because it will make the publisher money. If it's a useless and awfully written book, it will not be published.

Apple has rejected this application for no good reason than to protect themselves. Even then, their excuse is hardly valid, as the application doesn't mirror iTunes functionality. If anything, it offers a better alternative, and it's wrong for apple to just block people for doing things better than them, or differently.

And if there is "Some other reason", then they should bloody well tell the developer.

Nobody should be defending apple on this move.

 

[Veri]

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.

Unless it's impossible to publish your book by other means, e.g. by choosing from dozens of other publishers or uploading to your own web site, I cannot understand why this comparison is relevant.

This means you could use this app to download podcasts Apple doesn't approve of onto your device, such as ones of sexual nature, or even just pure music

What is wrong with podcasts of a sexual nature or pure music? Specifically, just because one person might not want them, why can't anyone else have them?

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

It does sound completely useless to me so I'm not sure why someone would go through the effort of making it.

At first I thought it was for making podcasts, which I don't think the iPhone can already do, but just subscribing? The iPhone does that just fine on its own.

Although I can easily see people arguing and saying that they think they did better than Apple themselves. Thus the reason we have non-Safari browsers available for Mac (not that I use them.)

 

[Stella]

Everyone is treating Apple like a bad guy here. But we don't know the whole story. Here's one possibility: this app duplicates what iTunes does, but with a HUGE security hole; it lets you access podcasts that have not been vetted through the iTunes podcast submission process (it lets you put in any URL you want to get podcasts from). This means you could use this app to download podcasts Apple doesn't approve of onto your device, such as ones of sexual nature, or even just pure music. Think about it, since a podcast is just a straight MP3, this app now allows people to distribute pirated MP3's online to iPhones. If it were just streaming I don't think Apple would care, but it also allows download to your iPhone.

And also, you guys are all treating this as if some guy spent months of hard work that is now down the tubes, but really he only spent two weeks of his spare time on it!

You can put any podcast you want on the iPod ( or, indeed iPhone ) via iTunes . In iTunes you can add an URL to get any unlisted podcast, and download as you would any 'official' podcast.

Apple should let the user to take the responsibility for their own device. The user doesn't need a nanny.

 

[BongoBanger]

As an iPhone 3G user, I'd much rather have developers creating functionality that doesn't already exist.

Sure. That's why we're all driving the Ford Model T.

Oh wait.

 

[Padraig]

Everyone is treating Apple like a bad guy here. But we don't know the whole story. Here's one possibility: this app duplicates what iTunes does, but with a HUGE security hole; it lets you access podcasts that have not been vetted through the iTunes podcast submission process (it lets you put in any URL you want to get podcasts from). This means you could use this app to download podcasts Apple doesn't approve of onto your device, such as ones of sexual nature, or even just pure music. Think about it, since a podcast is just a straight MP3, this app now allows people to distribute pirated MP3's online to iPhones. If it were just streaming I don't think Apple would care, but it also allows download to your iPhone.

This had me laughing. I'm picturing Steve as some Maud Flanders type of character saving us from the twin evils of obscene content and 'pure music'.

Honestly, If people can't find fault with what Apple is doing here then your right to ever criticize MS is revoked.

 

[kolax]

He was gonna charge $5 for it.

Well that to me stands out completely. I think the issue might be the fact that he was wanting to charge $5, which is quite expensive for such a simple application.

If it was free, then I don't think Apple would have an issue with it. Someone duplicates an iTunes feature and then slaps on a fee for it? Especially at $5?!

I think this one was right not to get let into the app store. I'd have a completely different tone had the application been free and been rejected.

 

[emjaymert]

question

Is there a way to get an app without using the App store????

 

[DreamPod]

This had me laughing. I'm picturing Steve as some Maud Flanders type of character saving us from the twin evils of obscene content and 'pure music'.

Honestly, If people can't find fault with what Apple is doing here then your right to ever criticize MS is revoked.

I was just bringing up Apples rules for listing podcasts on the iTunes store - they don't allow podcasts of a sexual nature. And of course Apple would be against distributing pirated music that way, a podcast that is "pure music" is just an MP3. Apple most likely has contracts with their music providers stating that they won't allow things like that to happen; music providers are very paranoid about digital distribution (and for good reason).

 

[Bonte]

Perhaps they are working on their own podcast app or more likely service providers just don't want to deal with the bandwidth used by something like this.

Indeed. Maybe it was downloading podcasts over the G3 network, that in combination with the iTunes functionality would justify the rejection, imho. A webapp could have about the same functionality without pre-downloading the podcast.

That said, developers need a way to get approval from Apple before they start to code.

 

[Abstract]

Why should Apple reject an app because it duplicates functionality? The app in the article also does things that iTunes does not. Isn't this the same (actually worse) than the way that Microsoft pushed IE to the detriment of Netscape and other browsers (and the users)?

Yes.

In fact, I don't really understand the difference between Apple including Safari on all Macs, and STILL pushing Safari to people unsolicitedly, and Microsoft's past "crime" of pushing IE on all Windows users.


And who cares if it did offer functionality that you already had (in part). It doesn't, but who cares if it did. You buy these apps if you want them. That's it. There are lots of word processors too. I can choose one that works better for me.

If nobody wants it, nobody will buy it. The market can decide for itself whether this app is necessary.

You know, Apple don't always make good decisions, its about time that people realized this and stop acting like sheep.

Hey look, this user comes with a brain. Whoo hoo!

This could be a valid explanation

It doesn't seem like a valid explanation, but rather, an explanation of some sort.

If someone chooses to use his or her monthly internet quota entirely on Google Maps, FaceBook, Youtube, or yes......downloading podcasts, that person has a right to.

I love how bad telcos offer a certain amount of internet to every user (i.e. "unlimited", as long as it's not over 5 GB), but are concerned about you using it, even if you have never used anything close to 5 GB.

That said, developers need a way to get approval from Apple before they start to code.

No, developers have a set of guidelines that their apps must follow, and if this guy followed them and didn't break any of Apple's rules, it shouldn't be rejected.


Do any of you know what freedom is?

 

[behrmon]

Apple has rejected this application for no good reason than to protect themselves.

I can't think of a much better reason.

This is Apple's show after all isn't it?

 

[jackc]

As an iPhone 3G user, I'd much rather have developers creating functionality that doesn't already exist.

I don't think we need Apple to make sure developers aren't wasting their time. Do you need to be prevented from doing something that is already done?

 

[JoshHawn]

Wtf?

what the heck!?!

how is it duplicating functionality if it's "on the device"?? you can't currently get podcasts "on the device"!!!

perhaps this means they are planning on adding that functionality to the iTunes store App.... and while they are at it, make it so you can download music on 3G too

why is it i can download a 10MB app but not a 3MB song?? c'mon!

 

[tasset]

Even though I don't like Apple passing judgement on Apps instead of the market deciding, I really think there is more at work here than just Apple not wanting competition with iTunes. Namely AT&T. Look, we can't even download music over the air thru the iTunes app! I would guess that's because AT&T crying about bandwidth or wanting a cut of the sales. Don't the other carriers and even AT&T's other phones charge $3-$4 per song/ringtone?
Didn't AT&T throw a hissy fit about Netshare? I'm telling you all that the networks in the USA are the problem!

 

[JoshHawn]

and another thing to note....

They should have ended this strict contract thing after 2.0 was released

and if apple wants the healthiest ecosystem of mobile apps, they should have these options out there and let the consumer decide if they want to have it on their device

 

[tyr2]

If it was free, then I don't think Apple would have an issue with it. Someone duplicates an iTunes feature and then slaps on a fee for it? Especially at $5?!

I don't see how the cost that a developer wants to retail their application at should have any bearing on whether it should be approved by Apple or not. If it's worth $5 then people will buy it, if not then they won't.

 

[Stella]

Even though I don't like Apple passing judgement on Apps instead of the market deciding, I really think there is more at work here than just Apple not wanting competition with iTunes. Namely AT&T. Look, we can't even download music over the air thru the iTunes app! I would guess that's because AT&T crying about bandwidth or wanting a cut of the sales. Don't the other carriers and even AT&T's other phones charge $3-$4 per song/ringtone?
Didn't AT&T throw a hissy fit about Netshare? I'm telling you all that the networks in the USA are the problem!

AT&T are not the only operator that offers the iPhone. If AT&T are that concerned then they should ask Apple to filter out certain applications from the u.s store.

 

[Hattig]

Bummer this is the only thing i miss from the iphone, be able to download podcast on my iphone instead in itunes then sync is worth a lot of money to me!

Apple don't be stupid!!

This application clearly adds additional functionality over the built-in Podcast support on the iPhone (which is limited to playing what you sync from your computer).

In addition the Zune has all this Podcast stuff built in.

And I see no reason to limit applications because they clash with whatever Apple has implemented. This immediately strikes me as anti-competitive behaviour (because Apple run the App Store, there are no other App Stores allowed, and Apple have the say on what is allowed or not) and Apple will rapidly find itself on the end of an anti-competitive lawsuit when a bunch of rejected developers get together after investing significant time to writing these applications.

As long as this Podcaster application (a) only downloads over WiFi connections so as to not overload the carrier's network (and I believe this is implemented for this application), and (b) Syncs the Podcasts with the music library on the iPhone (might be a lot harder because Apple hide this away a lot, again an artificial barrier to entry. Clearly the iPhone needs a shared library for music library access with library management functions being made available for third party developers to implement added value functions like this Podcaster application).

Apple's management sucks. Apple's policies suck. It's only Apple's software that keeps me with them, otherwise they're as bad as, or worse than, Microsoft. And recently the software has been released too early (management decision I imagine).

 

[kolax]

I don't see how the cost that a developer wants to retail their application at should have any bearing on whether it should be approved by Apple or not. If it's worth $5 then people will buy it, if not then they won't.

Because it is duplicating an iTunes feature, and charging people for it. If it wasn't anything to do with Podcasts and he was charging $5, then yeah, it's fine. But I really don't agree with someone taking a feature from iTunes and putting it onto the iPhone/iPod Touch and expecting people to pay for it.

 

[SuperMacMan]

Hi all,

I am a project member of this controversial application by the name of Podcaster. I have helped the developer fix a lot of bugs, incorporate new functionality, and a lot more. I know for a fact this app was NOT whipped up in 2 weeks. It's been worked on for a solid 3 months now. Since mid July.

This developer has paid Apple the $99 developer subscription, worked endlessly on the app for 3 months, waited a whole month (it was worked on while in review) for it to be accepted, and now it is denied.

This developer has a family to care for, he was hoping this App, by charging $4.99 for it, would take a bit of pressure off his hungry family. But no. He has ended up LOSING out big time on this. Not only did he lose $99, but he also lost 3 months of what could have been quality family time, just for an app.

And it wasn't going to be a flop of an app, either. He recieved about 50 emails a DAY asking when podcaster would be available/could they beta test.

Please, I ask that you take these points into consideration before posting.

Also, I posted a thread in the AppStore category (Apple rejects yet another AppStore app), with some more serials on Podcaster in my original post. Please search for it/check it out. Thanks guys.

SuperMacMan

 

[Hattig]

Perhaps they are working on their own podcast app or more likely service providers just don't want to deal with the bandwidth used by something like this.

That's no excuse, in any form.

Developer pays $99 to get access to the application store.
Developer spends lots of time (== $$$) developing a useful value-added application that includes functionality that the iPhone does not have.
Developer gets rejected because it might compete with Apple's possible future software plans?

No, it makes no sense. It's making up an excuse for Apple, when there is actually no excuse available.

 

[kolax]

Developer pays $99 to get access to the application store.

It's free to release applications to the app store. The $99 is not for access to the store. It is for access to another end of the programming chain that Apple offers, with support etc available as part of the package.

 

[Hattig]

Because it is duplicating an iTunes feature, and charging people for it. If it wasn't anything to do with Podcasts and he was charging $5, then yeah, it's fine. But I really don't agree with someone taking a feature from iTunes and putting it onto the iPhone/iPod Touch and expecting people to pay for it.

It's not like people would be forced to pay for it, is it? Have you even BOTHERED to watch the video to see how useful the application is, compared to what is implemented on the iPhone?

Stop making excuses for Apple's terrible, unfair, and anti-competitive policies.

I've actually just decided from this that I will not be buying a new iPod or new MacBook that I was planning. I've been thinking that Apple has been scooting on the edge of turning into Microsoft-1999 in terms of business policies, and this just seals the deal. This is not the direction I want Apple to be turning, and I, as a consumer, have this little bit of power to protest, and I will make use of it.