Apple's App Store Rejection Policies Raise Concerns

[kcmac]

Until the app store allows you to try apps first before buying something, I don't care what apple allows or doesn't allow. I am tired of paying for something, finding out it is total crap and adding money to some lazy developers pockets.

The rating system is completely bogus without the shareware route because a dev and his buddies can sit around all afternoon hammering out 5 star reviews instead of fixing or coming out with great stuff.

Sorry, for every dev out there that it is really good and maybe gets hurt by this early apple app store policy, there are dozens of awful devs prospering from these same early apple app store policies.

Someday things will work themselves out. For now, the whining and conspiracy talk and "this sounds like Microsoft" talk is just....(possible censor by MacRumors)

 

[Hattig]

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.

Way to read the thread man. This is three months of work, not two weeks, why do you persist in saying it's two weeks? I don't know if it is three months full time, but when you are working for yourself you put in a lot of hours, so 12 weeks * 60 hours a week is over 700 hours of effort. Maybe a lot of that was learning the SDK. Maybe a lot of that was dealing with the non-existent documentation and tutorials because of the SDK NDA. But it is still a lot of work to end up with nothing because some trumped up person in the AppStore subjectively thinks it duplicates existing functionality, when you can see at a glace that it doesn't.

And why do you assume this software is faulty?

 

[Stella]

Try before you buy is something that Apple could implement today using DRM. The DRM would expire the application after x number of days.

The developer wouldn't have to do anything.

I'm surprised Apple don't do this already.

Running the risk of the DRM being broken is a great possibility, but its a challenge that Apple have overcome before.

Until the app store allows you to try apps first before buying something, I don't care what apple allows or doesn't allow. I am tired of paying for something, finding out it is total crap and adding money to some lazy developers pockets.

The rating system is completely bogus without the shareware route because a dev and his buddies can sit around all afternoon hammering out 5 star reviews instead of fixing or coming out with great stuff.

Sorry, for every dev out there that it is really good and maybe gets hurt by this early apple app store policy, there are dozens of awful devs prospering from these same early apple app store policies.

Someday things will work themselves out. For now, the whining and conspiracy talk and "this sounds like Microsoft" talk is just....(possible censor by MacRumors)

 

[Veri]

As many previous comments have mentioned, there's no way we know the whole story

This reasoning is specious: the whole story is never available. Assuming you believe the developer's verbatim quote from Apple, are you happy that this was used as a reason for rejection?

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.

Can I have a dollar? It's only a dollar. People lose a dollar all the time.

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.

If you believe that this is the state of Apple quality, and you believe that a single distribution channel is the way to achieve it, do you support the notion of Apple using the same distribution model for its desktop and laptop platforms?

App store is making money twice as fast as iTunes, developers know this, and most will take advantage of the huge opportunity.

The goldrush argument? Apple's already given itself exclusive right to shovel sales.

Anyway, to quote an enthusiastic App Store downloader/buyer, "100,000,000 downloads, over 90% of which were utter...". The whole setup that makes it far more likely one is going to buy stuff on a whim, especially when able to get 20 things for under $20. Its profitability comes in that case from volume over quality.

 

[triplefinger]

apple wrong: market right

Apple,
Let the market decide.

Per usual if someone makes a really great app, absorb it. (logic, final cut pro)

These terms, as others have stated, will only serve to stop innovation. Resulting a consumer with not as many choices and poorer choices at that.

 

[hayesk]

I would take it to mean Apple is working on this. If they allowed it, and then came out with their own podcasting app, then everyone would complain that Apple copied it from this developer.

That said, the developer offers very good suggestions.

 

[Rocketman]

One way to resolve this would be for Apple to add a liquidated damages clause to the TOS so if an app meets all the published standards but is rejected for arbitrary or new reasons like this one, the developer gets a bounty, say $100,000.

This does two things. It compensates "crash test dummies" acting in good faith. It incents Apple to find smooth ways to deal with the problem, like the suggestions in the seed post.

There are ways to build an ecosystem, and there is enough activity the few outliers who really get screwed hard are in the noise, but that noise just got loud, front, and center.

I bet the examples of apps having cross-over functionality to other Apple apps is large. This one just got singled out, and who is to say their UI isn't better, more mission centric or just simpler than Apples "existing capability in iTunes"?

How many browsers do you have installed on your computer for example?

Rocketman

 

[squeller]

Part of the problem is that Apple is so vague in regards to what's okay and what's not.

And I highly doubt they'll change that, as they benefit from it.

The reason "it duplicates functionality" is so wrong it almost hurts physically. And then there are users who are like "blabla, you most likely don't know the whole story"... sure, they just want to protect mankind and make up BS reasons in their rejection letters.

 

[paj]

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......

How is this relevant? Apple states the reason for rejection as "duplication of iTunes functionality". If that was not the true reason for rejection, then it validates the concerns of the original post.

 

[Abstract]

^^^It won't burden capacity if you can only use it via Wifi!!

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

Thank goodness you're here.

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.

The rules that developers must follow are stated in their guidelines. These guidelines will mention all the things Apple doesn't allow due to indecency, introduction of security holes, etc.

If the laws are followed, you'd think that there should be no reason to reject an app at all. People spend their time to develop these apps while ensuring that they follow Apple's rules. If Apple has more rules than stated in their guidelines, then that's hardly fair. For an app developer, time is money, and Apple unfairly cost these people months of salary.

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.

Agreed 100%.

 

[megfilmworks]

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.

I couldn't agree more.
What makes developers so special that they need a risk adverse marketplace?
Grow up. 5,000 aps excepted and a few rejected.
Sounds like the best business odds in the world.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Did anybody really not see this coming.

 

[benpatient]

Developer Fraser Speirs is amongst the developers outraged by this policy and offers suggestions on how Apple should address this. Some of the suggestions include clear exclusion rules, an App Store evangelist, and the ability for developers to get pre-authorization for application ideas.

or how about *gasp* just let people decide if they want an app or not. If it doesn't break any laws, i think anyone who paid the developer fee should be allowed to share their apps.

 

[lincolnchee]

Yucks !!

Initially, I intend to sign up the $99 iPhone developer programme but after reading this article, I give up the idea totally! My rationale is very simple - after spending weeks of hard work and being obedient on all the rules and regulations, my application might eventually be rejected. It is definitely scaring me away. Look at this post, an obedient developer's application which consumers beg to have!!!

In the angle of the consumers, Apple could be doing a great favor (they better do) as in the result of this, I am protected from all virus/malware/adware/trojan etc.

 

[megfilmworks]

One way to resolve this would be for Apple to add a liquidated damages clause to the TOS so if an app meets all the published standards but is rejected for arbitrary or new reasons like this one, the developer gets a bounty, say $100,000.

Can I stop laughing now?
I think all US citizens should get $100,000 a year for
just waking up in the morning.

 

[Cyclone Chris]

If these develops are following Apple's rules to a T, then it won't be a problem for a lawyer to go after apple and sue them for the time they input into an app.

 

[benpatient]

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......

wow. the kool aid is pink today!

genius...the youtube app on the iphone uses several times the bandwidth of some podcast app.

 

[voidptr]

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.

...

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.

If bandwidth on the cell network is a problem, they should have said that when they rejected it. There are APIs available to determine if you're connected via WiFi or GSM, and it'd be pretty trivial to only make that part work on WiFi.

But that isn't what Apple did.

 

[obivoid]

Not so smart ...

This policy will backfire on Apple sooner or later. They NEED a lot of useful high quality apps on the iPhone, to keep pace with competitors with regard to features.

For example, check out the specs for Nokias N96. Heck, you can even watch and record TV with that thing. And Apple will not allow users to download a few podcasts (for whatever reason) ? How ridiculous is that ?

 

[iSee]

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?

Edit: Oops, sorry jackc, I misread your post and got the opposite meaning from it

You're about the 10th person to take Apple's reason for rejection at face value.

Stop being rubes people Edit: and by people, I mean the ones who are taking Apple's rejection at face value, not jackc

The app has several features that are not available in Apple's apps. Most notably, the ability to download podcasts on its own. That's a big omission for a mobile device with internet connectivity.

A user's vision of the internet: Data--what, when, where, how, and why I want it.

Apple's vision of the internet: Data--what, when, where, how, and why Apple wants it.

Look, of course Apple is going to do what's best for Apple. That's what good companies do. But we've got to convince them that serving our vision of the internet is going to be better for them than making these petty, short-sighted, protectionist decisions.

 

[RamSlack]

Um, some of you are forgetting one of the basic issues here. The AppStore belongs to Apple. They SHOULD have a right to limit applications that would be in conflict with their sales strategy.

If you had a business and allowed other people to sell items through you business, wouldn't you want to retain the right to refuse to sell someone else's stuff because it went against any one of your ethical values whether it be because of religious, political, or social reasons? Or what if the other stuff was from a competitor? Would you want the right to refuse to sell your competitor's stuff? If I refuse to sell an item, should I be required to give a reason? No.

And no, I didn't read through ALL of the posts relating to this thread. If this was stated earlier, it should be stated again.

 

[arn]

Um, some of you are forgetting one of the basic issues here. The AppStore belongs to Apple. They SHOULD have a right to limit applications that would be in conflict with their sales strategy.

No one is arguing that Apple doesn't have the right to limit applications.

Read this: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/6227565/

arn

 

[hh83917]

Seriously, these things should be addressed with clearer rules. I think apple should set up a counsel where developers can check if their ideas will be accepted before wasting their time writing it. Also, seriously how did something like "I am Rich" and those fraudulent apps get into and App Store and something like NetShare, something customers really want, disappeared from the App Store with no explanation from Apple.

 

[prodosIIgs]

if you read and understand the terms of service, license agreement, blah blah blah... BEFORE you begin development, then you won't run into these kind of problems.

 

[arn]

if you read and understand the terms of service, license agreement, blah blah blah... BEFORE you begin development, then you won't run into these kind of problems.

<sigh>

The point is it's not listed in the terms of service or license agreement.

arn