I highly doubt that apple had no plans whatsoever to allow third party apps when they were developing the iphone. They needed to get the product out as quick as possible so they most likely decided to hold off on the feature for a future release. Since apple decided to reject the podcasting app, why aren't they adding functionality to update our podcasts through wifi only at the very least? No one is saying they should accept every application, but this is getting rediculous. If apple wants the quality of applications to rise they need to seriously rethink how they are doing things. No developer is going to waste valuable time to only to have their app rejected for these BS reasons. Apple needs to stop thinking about themselves for a few moments here.
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
I highly doubt that apple had no plans whatsoever to allow third party apps when they were developing the iphone. They needed to get the product out as quick as possible so they most likely decided to hold off on the feature for a future release. Since apple decided to reject the podcasting app, why aren't they adding functionality to update our podcasts through wifi only at the very least? No one is saying they should accept every application, but this is getting rediculous. If apple wants the quality of applications to rise they need to seriously rethink how they are doing things. No developer is going to waste valuable time to only to have their app rejected for these BS reasons. Apple needs to stop thinking about themselves for a few moments here.
Sorry, but isn't one of the top apps "Pandora"?
As for reproducing functionality, can someone please tell me how I can do this on my Touch?! What? I can't.... oh.
I have been using this Podcaster web app since I got my Touch in February, but when I get up in the morning to go to work, the buffer only last so long.
This has been in my top 3 most anticipated/wanted apps since the app store was announced, and I even emailed the developer asking him to create it.
I have already emailed apple to let them know my thoughts of their rejection.
Duh!
Common sense dictates that one would not write an application that duplicates or competes with Apple products. They are inviting app developers into their playground to play or sell balloons, not build a new community recreation facility and sell concert tickets.
Common sense dictates that one would not write an application that duplicates or competes with Apple products. They are inviting app developers into their playground to play or sell balloons, not build a new community recreation facility and sell concert tickets.
you know, ESPN has an web app that allows you to stream their podcasts. I don't see how that's not duplicating functionality. So it must not be the bandwidth issue.
Common sense dictates that one would not write an application that duplicates or competes with Apple products. They are inviting app developers into their playground to play or sell balloons, not build a new community recreation facility and sell concert tickets.
Common sense dictates that one would not write an application that duplicates or competes with Microsoft products. They are inviting app developers into their playground to play or sell balloons, not build a new community recreation facility and sell concert tickets.
Your argument comes from the rear of a male bovine animal.
I would use podcaster simply for the reason that iTunes' podcasting sucks. Im continually having podcasts reset every month or so which causes the original list of podcasts to re-appear. I have podcasts disappear from the list entirely, some duplicate themselves.
It may be a fault of the podcasters themselves screwing up their own settings, but for whatever reason, the best feature of podcaster would be not having to use the Mac to get them.
I never listen to podcasts ON My mac, so whats the point in having a duplicate copy on there?
It may be a fault of the podcasters themselves screwing up their own settings, but for whatever reason, the best feature of podcaster would be not having to use the Mac to get them.
I never listen to podcasts ON My mac, so whats the point in having a duplicate copy on there?
Common sense dictates that one would not write an application that duplicates or competes with Apple products. They are inviting app developers into their playground to play or sell balloons, not build a new community recreation facility and sell concert tickets.
There's a Weather widget that comes with the iPhone ... and a whole CATEGORY of Weather widgets that can be purchased in the App Store. Are you trying to say that every application developer needs to be a market analyst who can determine ahead of time which applications Apple considers to be off-limits? (Well, not that most market analysts could actually manage that job, but in an ideal world...)
Look, Apple can do one of two things: they can have a healthy application ecosystem, or they can suppress applications that step on their turf. Not both. They've got this whole verticality approach that is getting in the way of a robust and exciting platform. If they decide they'd rather have a pretty black box where they get to decide every use, they're going to have problems when more robust platforms become available.
Developers, Developers, Developers
I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestions being given. It takes a lot of time and money to develop apps. Why would any developer go through the risk if there is chance they could be rejected for some unknown subjective reason.
I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestions being given. It takes a lot of time and money to develop apps. Why would any developer go through the risk if there is chance they could be rejected for some unknown subjective reason.
I appreciate that Apple reserves the right to disallow you from entering an App in the Store, but when they're letting about a thousand applications in that turn your screen bright white to use it as a torch (american translation: flashlight) how can they worry about duplication of functionality... I know in this case they feel it's their own functionality.
I was watching a YouTube video of the guy who made the 'fart noise' application for the iPhone that was rejected because the App Store felt it didn't have a wide enough appeal. Now show me one person who doesn't sometimes think a fart noise is quite amusing. His app was nicely made with a great interface.
To agree with a few of the previous posters, if you follow the developer rules then it should be up to the public to decide if the app is of use.
I'm still a little worked up... I'll be on the rifle range.
-(mr)wil
I was watching a YouTube video of the guy who made the 'fart noise' application for the iPhone that was rejected because the App Store felt it didn't have a wide enough appeal. Now show me one person who doesn't sometimes think a fart noise is quite amusing. His app was nicely made with a great interface.
To agree with a few of the previous posters, if you follow the developer rules then it should be up to the public to decide if the app is of use.
I'm still a little worked up... I'll be on the rifle range.
-(mr)wil
It doesn't matter, whether we have the whole story or not. What does matter is that Apple be forthcoming about what is and isn't acceptable for development on the iPhone. It's called honesty and transparency, something that isn't present in this case.
By the way it is clearly stated in the SDK agreement, the following:
"If an Application requires or will have access to the cellular network, then additionally such Application:
- .....
- Must not in Apple's reasonable judgement excessively use or unduly burden network capacity or bandwidth.
- ...."
That means that the Podcaster dev knew that building an application requiring to much bandwidth (and again this is certainly the case of Podcaster) would rise issues with Apple. So......
"If an Application requires or will have access to the cellular network, then additionally such Application:
- .....
- Must not in Apple's reasonable judgement excessively use or unduly burden network capacity or bandwidth.
- ...."
That means that the Podcaster dev knew that building an application requiring to much bandwidth (and again this is certainly the case of Podcaster) would rise issues with Apple. So......
Too much whining
As many previous comments have mentioned, there's no way we know the whole story so its worthless to be so upset and feel so abused by Apple with the amount of information we have.
Additionally, this program didn't take thousands of man hours to develop, people waste a couple of weeks on projects all the time, its not a crime.
I for one am totally for Apple screening apps. The whole reason I love apple\mac is that I don't have to waste tons of my time with faulty programs\hardware that don't run to specification.
I do agree that Apple should allow develops to pass their ideas through to Apple pre-development so that the concept can be pre-approved. This way the app would only need to be redesigned rather than scrapped entirely.
To claim a substantial portion of developers are gonna use this as a reason to boycott iPhone development is ridiculous, however. App store is making money twice as fast as iTunes, developers know this, and most will take advantage of the huge opportunity.
As many previous comments have mentioned, there's no way we know the whole story so its worthless to be so upset and feel so abused by Apple with the amount of information we have.
Additionally, this program didn't take thousands of man hours to develop, people waste a couple of weeks on projects all the time, its not a crime.
I for one am totally for Apple screening apps. The whole reason I love apple\mac is that I don't have to waste tons of my time with faulty programs\hardware that don't run to specification.
I do agree that Apple should allow develops to pass their ideas through to Apple pre-development so that the concept can be pre-approved. This way the app would only need to be redesigned rather than scrapped entirely.
To claim a substantial portion of developers are gonna use this as a reason to boycott iPhone development is ridiculous, however. App store is making money twice as fast as iTunes, developers know this, and most will take advantage of the huge opportunity.
I could almost (and it's a weak almost) understand Apple's decision if they would allow us to sync the iPhone with 2 computers. As of right now you can only sync media (not contacts or emails) to only one computer. You can sync to another computer but it will wipe what is on the iPhone and replace it with that computer.
So the podcast function really sucks if you are at home and then want get a podcast at work. You can do it but it's a pain.
So the podcast function really sucks if you are at home and then want get a podcast at work. You can do it but it's a pain.
It's like if I were a songwriter, I won't know whether or not it will be a successful song until after I write it. Why would a songwriter spend the time and effort creating something without knowing if it will be listened to? They do it for the hope of other people listening to it.
No NDA and CLEAR guidelines. How hard can it be? For 
it seem to be a big problem. And with apple not going public with their problems leading to the poor fact that Apple don't care about their developers.
Apple seem too immature to start the "app store" and "iPhone developent" projects. With that being said the whole SDK and building tools are revolutionary but if a revolution does not have a strong foundation, it will all be the same as if 'without'.
I mean... I guess MS and Google will be out with their respective alternatives soon and with a bigger market share and clear guidelines so you don't end up being "rejected" I am sure most people would go for the bigger and safe deal.
I recall a company that said: "Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, etc" I am sure they care about their developers.
On a side note I see 100's of useless apps and apps that does the same, just with a diffrent look. And then when you hear about the rejection stories it just makes no sense. Again to add up to the immature part.
it seem to be a big problem. And with apple not going public with their problems leading to the poor fact that Apple don't care about their developers.Apple seem too immature to start the "app store" and "iPhone developent" projects. With that being said the whole SDK and building tools are revolutionary but if a revolution does not have a strong foundation, it will all be the same as if 'without'.
I mean... I guess MS and Google will be out with their respective alternatives soon and with a bigger market share and clear guidelines so you don't end up being "rejected" I am sure most people would go for the bigger and safe deal.
I recall a company that said: "Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, etc" I am sure they care about their developers.
On a side note I see 100's of useless apps and apps that does the same, just with a diffrent look. And then when you hear about the rejection stories it just makes no sense. Again to add up to the immature part.
So... the developer can turn on downloads only for Wi-Fi and Apple will accept the app?
It appears the answer is no, so your logic is wrong.
arn
On other platforms, your guaranteed that your 'song' ( software ) will get a chance to be 'listened' ( used ) to. iPhone is different, your 'song' may be refused by Apple for a number of unknown reasons before its given a chance
.
These analogies are really silly... but here goes.
It's actually like you're a songwriter, and you can choose to write a song in two different types of song notation.
If you choose standard A , they have to look over your song before you can try to get people to listen to it or buy it, and could arbitrarily say no and eliminate any chance of anyone hearing it.
If you choose standard G, you can just try to sell it and see if it people like it.
Point is if you write a song, it can be judged on it's merit by the public. This app wasn't allowed to be judged based on merit by the public.
arn
The Weather widget is not a central focus of Apple marketing like distributing PODcasts to listen/view on an iPOD.
True, Apple should update its exclusionary rules - no argument there. But it is obvious that some products will not be allowed. For example: QuickTime movie player, music store, third-party app downloader.
According to Jobs and company, Apple is already working on the next iPod/iPhone and the one after that. It stands to reason, new features are in development. Apple may choose to reject an application that duplicates future functionality. Including future undisclosed functionality in the app developer rules is a bit dicey. It's a case where exclusions require periodic updating. Preauthorization is a good concept in theory. But if Apple rejects a concept and later includes the feature, think how many developers would cry foul.
Let's take GPS turn-by-run map software as another example. The iPhone chews through battery life like locusts in a Souplantation. Though it is technically feasible to get such an app to run (some have), use of other features would be severely hampered by additional battery drain. At this time, such apps can be rejected because they "interact" with other apps and degrade user experience. Is Apple working on its own mapping software? Maybe. Regardless, Apple needs to address battery life and possibly add custom chips to process real-time mapping effectively. Hence, the feature will likely be a no show at least until the next iPhone model.
If people want to pay for it, let 'em pay for it. It's just like on the Mac: OS X comes with a calendar app (iCal), but there are paid apps that duplicate iCal's functionality--and people buy them.
Podcaster fills a niche: why should I have to wait until I get back to my computer to subscribe to a podcast? Why can't I do it on the go? This doesn't duplicate iTunes functionality; iTunes doesn't run on the iPhone.
There's nothing wrong with Apple screening apps. The problem is that Apple is so vague in regards to what's okay and what's not. I'm with Speirs: Apple should create a pre-approval process so that people can get a thumbs-up before they invest time and resources into an app.
And Apple does not screen Mac apps. Not at all. In that regard, the Mac software market is wide open.