Apple's App Store Rejection Policies Raise Concerns

[Lionheart]

App Store Needs Competition

While I understand Apple's position, this strikes at the very heart of the battle. They want to control the platform, but the masses want freedom to develop and deploy useful applications that utilize this incredible technology.

Censorship based on competition is a good thing for Apple, if they can get away with it. Thankfully, there are those who are investing massive amounts of time and talent to make sure they don't. Free market capitalism is a good thing.

I hope this developer released this app on Cydia. The App store needs the competition. Ultimately we will all have better programs at better prices and the full capabilities of the device can be explored and developed.

 

[kolax]

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?

Useful, yes. People aren't forced to buy it no. But for something that is free to do on iTunes, the developer is just being very very greedy in wanting $5 for this.

And if it did make it through to the app store, can you imagine the outrage when people have to spend $5 on an application that Apple should have released ages ago?

There is no excuse for Apple not having included this ability in the iPhone, but I think Apple made the right decision to prevent someone very greedy from jumping into the app store and taking advantage of the absence of the Podcast ability and charging a hefty $5 for it.

I'm not defending Apple, but they have to be careful what they let in, because if he is charging $5 for this, and Apple release an exact copy in the future for free, that developer is going to be hard done, and possible accusations and the usual "Apple copied, so I'm going to sue" crap.

 

[Hattig]

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!

Yet more excuses.

It's not up to Apple to vet what users do with software on the iPhone. Apple doesn't vet for security holes in software either, they don't have the time, and in addition, you don't even know what a security hole is.

And as someone pointed out, this is 3 months of work. Not 2 weeks. I don't think you have a clue about software development, you see the pointless demonstrations in the keynotes where they take 5 minutes to write an application, when it's just a wrapper around built-in functionality, and think that you can write complex, featureful applications in a couple of weeks. That's not how it works in the real world.

 

[markgamber]

Ya'll can rationalize this for Apple any way you want. The bottom line is more and more developers who came from other platforms to get in on a brand new market will go right back to where they came from every time something like this happens. Some gave up on Apple when they pulled NetShare for fairly lame reasons. More will give up on Apple because it's evident Apple doesn't appreciate any kind of competition. Maybe you don't care about something that allegedly dupes an iTunes feature so where does this leave real apps, such as VLC, Orb, Slingplayer, TomTom and so on when Apple's partner has it's own TV and Turn-By-Turn apps? And again, it's funny how the "little guy" who's entire existence is based on "freedom" turns out to be just another 800 pound gorilla who offers considerably less freedom than any other platform available. Last time I wrote an app for Blackberry or Windows Mobile, there was no approval process that you could fail for any reason, or no real reason at all. There was no convoluted store where the apps were lumped in with 150 pages of garbage. No, last time I wrote an app for those platforms, they were totally free, anything goes, purely capitalistic and the apps sank or swam based on what the USERS wanted, not what was imposed on them by the manufacturers of those platforms. So keep up the rationalization and asinine excuses defending Apple and you can have all the tip calculators you want while anyone with an imagination and real programming skill go back to the Blackberry and Windows Mobile from which they came. I can tell you it's no skin off my nose, especially since the common theme in the app store is how incredibly cheap the users are.

 

[tyr2]

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.

Whilst releasing an app on the App Store is free you do need to join the iPhone Developers Program ($99) to publish otherwise you can't sign your apps for distribution, neither can you test them on a real phone. So access to the store could hardly be considered free.

 

[Stella]

And if it did make it through to the app store, can you imagine the outrage when people have to spend $5 on an application that Apple should have released ages ago?

There is no excuse for Apple not having included this ability in the iPhone, but I think Apple made the right decision to prevent someone very greedy from jumping into the app store and taking advantage of the absence of the Podcast ability and charging a hefty $5 for it.

LOL - a hefty $5!!! Aren't we being over dramatic?

If a developer writes an application that does what an Apple provided software does, but better, then why not? Should Barebones not sell BBEdit because Apple provided TextEdit?!!

Let the user decide.

 

[DaveTheGrey]

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.

you know that you don't have to buy the apps in the app store, do you?

 

[hakime]

I think that there is a lot exaggeration and misunderstanding related to the fact that Podcaster was rejected from the App Store and as said a lot of emotional reactions are resulting from it. Speaking of an anti-competitive practice from Apple is not only highly exaggerated but it does make little sense.

Even Gruber went emotional on this one....

But i think that many have missed the real issue that surround Podcaster and the lack of informations for its rejection from the App Store does not help. What does Podcaster? Think about it...

The way i understanding it is that by means of its features set, Podcaster duplicates the podcast features of iTunes (the computer based iTunes not the iPhone app). Every iPhone/iPod user has iTunes, so Podcaster introduces a division between the iTunes downloaded podcasts and the Podcaster downloaded podcasts. That’s not of course an issue by itself (besides that the duplication can be confusing for some users), but it does it by putting a huge burden on the network. That’s all the issue…

Si i guess that Podcaster was rejected because of the excessive bandwidth required for downloading tons of podcasts. Podcasts can be quite heavy (a lot of them are videos), a lot of them weight 100 MB, most of them more than 10 MB, by comparison even Apple’s App Store app won’t download apps bigger than 10 MB over the air.

Yes you can surely download the podcasts over wifi, but most users will download over 3G networks and downloading files as big as 20, 50, 100 MB over 3G is quite problematic (today), that’s quite easy to understand.

So the reason why Podcaster was rejected is purely technical to me, i can’t imagine millions of users downloading tons of podcasts and hence tons of data without making problems to the network. Remember the AT&T’s 3G network is not only used by iPhones users…. Surely Apple should be more transparent but i guess the developer should try to contact them again (if we believe that this dev is saying all the truth about what Apple said to him) to get further explanations.

But again, i would think that Apple judged that the very high bandwidth requirement introduced by Podcaster is a show killer and it does not justify the application because you can anyway get podcasts with iTunes but without introducing huge burden over the network, something that it already does not need.

Podcaster is a critical explanation as all its working experience is based on the access to the network, so Apple should be very careful not to have its phone running bandwidth mounters. Some people say that Apple would not reject a calculator application (and indeed it does not although other calculator app are available from third party developers and they do duplicate Apple's app, think about it...) but that's different, this kind of app runs on your phone and that's it. Podcaster runs on your phone with the need of the network so that makes it a difficult app to deal with in the position of Apple.

Maybe the Podcaster’s developer could talk to Apple and decide with them what file size they consider to be reasonable and the size limit of a podcast over which Podcaster can’t download.

 

[Lionheart]

Give me a break. If it's too expensive, people won't buy it. I just put down $30 at the Apple Store for a stupid dock to plug my 3G. There are tons of thin molded plastic cases to protect the plastic back of my phone that cost $40. THAT is greedy.

Apple has a corner on the market in the greed dept. But we buy anyway, because we think their products are worth the price (they can keep their $40 plastic cases though).

Let the free market take care of the price.

Useful, yes. People aren't forced to buy it no. But for something that is free to do on iTunes, the developer is just being very very greedy in wanting $5 for this.

 

[arn]

I'm not defending Apple, but they have to be careful what they let in, because if he is charging $5 for this, and Apple release an exact copy in the future for free, that developer is going to be hard done, and possible accusations and the usual "Apple copied, so I'm going to sue" crap.

I think you and a lot of people are missing the point.

Apple did not reject this app due to the price. I find it hard to believe you truly believe that is so. But let's assume for a second that Apple did reject it based on price. If that were true (which it certainly isn't), then the developer would just have to drop the price and resubmit -- which is clearly not the case.

The point here isn't if you think Apple has a hidden reason (too much bandwidth, charged too much)... but that Apple isn't forthright with the decision making process.

Apple rejected this app based on "duplicate functionality". You can't argue that point. That is their stated reason. Even if they did reject it due to a "hidden reason", that's just as bad.

Devs just want Apple to give a set of rules... _any rules_. Just say what they are. And stick to them.

arn

 

[Hattig]

Useful, yes. People aren't forced to buy it no. But for something that is free to do on iTunes, the developer is just being very very greedy in wanting $5 for this.

I don't think this at all, and in addition I don't think that cost should be a reason for Apple to reject unless it is silly like the I Am Rich application. $4.99 is very reasonable for such functionality, it's loose change. How is working on something for three months and then charging for that time "greedy"?

And if it did make it through to the app store, can you imagine the outrage when people have to spend $5 on an application that Apple should have released ages ago?

I'd rather Apple spent more time on vetting their own in-house software quality than implementing yet more functionality. Fact is, iPhones don't do this at the moment, and this application allows you to do it. Therefore it's useful, desirable, and probably worth the $4.99 pocket change that it costs.

There is no excuse for Apple not having included this ability in the iPhone, but I think Apple made the right decision to prevent someone very greedy from jumping into the app store and taking advantage of the absence of the Podcast ability and charging a hefty $5 for it.

Again, how is implementing missing functionality in a device and charging for it (and your time spent programming it) "greedy"? Do you think that Apple aren't charging for the tens or hundreds of millions spent developing the iPhone software themselves?

I'm not defending Apple, but they have to be careful what they let in, because if he is charging $5 for this, and Apple release an exact copy in the future for free, that developer is going to be hard done, and possible accusations and the usual "Apple copied, so I'm going to sue" crap.

If Apple released that functionality in future, then at least the developer had the chance to get some money back from their application beforehand, and there are lots of people who might still prefer how he implemented it. Competition is good, and Apple is not encouraging it with their policies, NDAs and other anti-developer practices.

 

[marksman]

Arn I think your story is off. There is nothing vague about the rejection. It is crystal clear. They don't want to introduce applications that duplicate functionality they already provide. Can not say I blame them really. it is certainly not vague though. As for the developer claiming they don't know until they are done or not... I don't know about that.... I think when reading the specs of the program it was pretty clear it was potentially stepping on toes. If the developer did not realize that they need a new line of work.

 

[jackc]

There is no excuse for Apple not having included this ability in the iPhone, but I think Apple made the right decision to prevent someone very greedy from jumping into the app store and taking advantage of the absence of the Podcast ability and charging a hefty $5 for it.

Someone "taking advantage of the absence" of a feature and providing it to people who want to voluntarily pay for it? Yes, how very greedy.

Participate in the market economy much?

 

[DaveTheGrey]

LOL - a hefty $5!!! Aren't we being over dramatic?

If a developer writes an application that does what an Apple provided software does, but better, then why not? Should Barebones not sell BBEdit because Apple provided TextEdit?!!

Let the user decide.

absolutely! that is what I was thinking

 

[bazzie]

Come on Apple!
Pay the dev and fix this podcast in itunes..

 

[marksman]

Some of you are living on planet lala if you think Apple should not have the right to protect their piece of software development turf for the iPhone. Perhaps we forget that 3rd party applications were not even part of the design of the original iPhone.

I see no problem at ALL with Apple staking out the things they want to focus on and limiting access for others to do that. it is entirely reasonable since they do a lot of software development and it is their device. Perhaps there are aspects of the device they feel are of core importance and do not want to be left up to others.

Regardless it is entirely reasonable and entirely their right. People who think Apple has some kind of responsibility to accept any and all submissions are simply delusional. That is neither a reasonable nor practical business solution.

 

[Hattig]

... waffle about network bandwidth ...

As I understood it, the developer had already implemented restricting downloads to WiFi only, so this isn't the reason.

The reason is "duplicating existing functionality", but it clearly doesn't.

And if it doesn't seamlessly integrate with iTunes, that's Apple's fault for keeping their music management functions hidden. If Podcaster could drop the Podcast into iPod on the iPhone so that it was synced back, would it still be rejected? I think it would.

Fact is, I don't use Podcasts because they're too much hassle in the iTunes software, which I only run to rip new CDs these days. In addition, iTunes doesn't download new podcasts even when I tell it to, it's like it unsubscribes me because I only run the iTunes software every month or two. Therefore I think that iTunes' podcast functionality is crippled from the times I've tried to use it. I've had it downloading multiple copies of the same podcast for example. It's just too much hassle. This software on the other hand would let me use podcasts from the device that I actually use to listen to music (except it got stolen, and I'm now not buying another iPod because of Apple's policies).

 

[tyr2]

Arn I think your story is off. There is nothing vague about the rejection. It is crystal clear. They don't want to introduce applications that duplicate functionality they already provide.

It's not the clarity of the rejection that's the problem it's the fact that this is a reason for rejection is not mentioned anywhere in the various agreements you have to sign up to. To spend so much time developing an application only to have it rejected on grounds you didn't even know existed is unfair to the developers.

If Apple want to restrict applications for these various reasons then they need to be clear now so that developers are aware of them before they start work on their applications.

 

[arn]

I see no problem at ALL with Apple staking out the things they want to focus on and limiting access for others to do that. it is entirely reasonable since they do a lot of software development and it is their device. Perhaps there are aspects of the device they feel are of core importance and do not want to be left up to others.

Missing the point.

I don't care if Apple rejects applications for any arbitrary reason. They just need to tell developers what those reasons are before they put in 3 months work.

arn

 

[Veri]

the developer is just being very very greedy in wanting $5 for this.

In a market economy, explain how "greedy" can be applied to someone selling a luxury item to adults. Incorporate in your answer a justification for charging $60 for this cable.

Apple should be very careful not to have its phone running bandwidth mounters

So there is a term that stops people writing apps that make routinely large downloads (for some hand-wavy defnition of "large" that is nevertheless within contracted monthly limits), and Apple used that term as a reason to reject the app?

I don't care if Apple rejects applications for any arbitrary reason. They just need to tell developers what those reasons are before they put in 3 months work.

Won't pre-approval, while better than post-rejection, limit the extent to which an app can evolve related functionality? It stifles the spirit of experimentation.

 

[zoetropeuk]

It also clearly states in the SDK docs that any application using excessive bandwidth could be rejected. Clearly downloading massive video podcasts will use excessive bandwidth.

If the developer was too lazy to read the documentation properly than to bad.

Personally I watch/listen to a lot of podcasts and subscribe to most of them. I just don't see the point in downloading them directly over 3G/Edge when I'm syncing to the Mac every few days anyway.

I have to agree with Apple that on the whole this application is pointless.

Matt

 

[arn]

It also clearly states in the SDK docs that any application using excessive bandwidth could be rejected. Clearly downloading massive video podcasts will use excessive bandwidth.

That is not the reason Apple rejected this app. If it were, the dev could simply limit downloads to Wi-Fi only and resubmit.

arn

 

[markgamber]

Besides, define "excessive". Could be 2 bytes if they're just looking for excuses. Apple: Computing for Communists.

 

[jackc]

Some of you are living on planet lala if you think Apple should not have the right to protect their piece of software development turf for the iPhone. Perhaps we forget that 3rd party applications were not even part of the design of the original iPhone.

Actually I agree with you, it's their platform. But consumer complaints might influence their decisions.

I just think it's ridiculous to complain that developers are either greedy for wanting to sell their work, or stupid because they're wasting time on duplicating functionality.

 

[Hattig]

Personally I watch/listen to a lot of podcasts and subscribe to most of them. I just don't see the point in downloading them directly over 3G/Edge when I'm syncing to the Mac every few days anyway.

I have to agree with Apple that on the whole this application is pointless.

Matt

Hypothetical Situation: I'm at work, I have a version of iTunes at home that keeps my Podcast subscriptions alive instead of randomly cancelling them, but I haven't synced my iPod in a while because I don't need to, or I find out about a new cool Podcast whilst at work.

I therefore want to use the iPod to subscribe to the Podcast, rather than emailing the link to my personal email account, going home, and then subscribing, and going through all that hoopla. Podcaster will let me do that, and download some podcasts over work's WiFi, and go home listening to it that day, or even do work in the office listening to it.

That's true additional functionality. Maybe the developer should add the above in their description when they resubmit the application.

Ideally the application would integrate with the iPod application to add the subscription and downloaded podcasts, and then the iPod application could sync with iTunes to add the podcast subscription and podcasts to the computer. Please, Apple, let developers add these cool features to your platform, otherwise you will fall behind eventually.