Good! It's nice to be able to understand guidelines, Apple has done great with these.
Completely agree, we don't need anymore fart apps!
Completely agree, we don't need anymore fart 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 Review Guidelines Offer Remarkably Candid View of App Store Philosophy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Seriously? You really think Apple won't be able to distinguish between fart apps and video player apps in terms of importance even though you were able to distinguish between them in your message?
This is exactly the sort of knuckleheaded conclusion that comes from not realising that the rules exist as a whole, and that other rules specifically call for innovation.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Apple may understand product differentiation and a different tone for a fart, is a completely different situation than a different UI for a note taking app.
"That sets an incredibly poor precedent. What happens when that becomes "We don't need another note-taking app, there's already a dozen", even when the new app offers a different interface that users may prefer?"
"That sets an incredibly poor precedent. What happens when that becomes "We don't need another note-taking app, there's already a dozen", even when the new app offers a different interface that users may prefer?"
Except if you're Sports Illustrated, FHM or Playboy.
Problem is the rules aren't even close to being applied equally..
I am thoroughly amazed that he is still employed in that position.
He both ignores the rules and has a clear conflict of interest as he published a handful of his apps after his employment by Apple. Then he trashes developers who leave to develop for other platforms (because he is clearly the pinnacle of programming grace with his "fart" apps). Not to mention he has a strong and public adoration for escorts and porn stars (which runs completely counter to Jobs' "no porn platform" statements about iOS).
Just really bizarre that that's who they choose to head the thing.
This statement is really ironic, since that whole "patent for remotely shutting down jail-broken devices" was anything but. It was quite clear that it was meant for shutting down when used by someone who was not the owner. If you don't believe that, please tell me, how does trying to figure out who is using the phone tell Apple anything about whether a device is jailbroken or not? The best part is that Apple already has the ability to lock out jailbroken devices, and this patent, if it was used to detect jailbreaks, only does it in a more complicated and harder way.
This, like most of the Apple "issues" are just media generated linkbait (like the abovementioned patent). Not to say all issues are media generated, and the App Store policies was a prime example of a real issue. Its a good thing Apple is addressing it.
Glad that Apple is putting this out. Very professional of them. I'm sick of these developers with the attitude of "I'm gonna go cry to mommy" every time Apple rejects their apps. This crap of publicly trashing Apple rather than fixing the problem of the app in question is getting quite tired and these developers need to grow up and stop acting like brats. And true, we don't need yet another fart or piss app, those apps are stupid anyway.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Extremely direct but good to see them put it in plain English. I agree with some points.
Extremely direct but good to see them put it in plain English. I agree with some points.
No, it doesn't!
They launched the product and THEY have the right to decide what they think is their best marketing approach.
YOU have the right not to agree and go with another product/company.
That's how simple it is, anything else doesn't matter,
unless you are running Apple
Love it- Not written by lawyers
The rules are clear and reasonable. Their company, their rules. For the trolls and whiners, you are welcome to bring your business to someone else
This is great, if only more companies will follow.
The rules are clear and reasonable. Their company, their rules. For the trolls and whiners, you are welcome to bring your business to someone else
This is great, if only more companies will follow.
How about the most Gratuitous Use of the Word Rape in a post? What an offensive little fool.
I have to borrow that for the next time I meet with corporate marketing types that think they can "design and develop" advertising campaigns.
"We have serious creatives who don't want their quality work to be surrounded by amateur hour."
AWESOME!
I said it sets a poor precedent, one which can then be applied ad nauseam to other categories (hence the "what happens when..."). You somehow conflate that into "they will". Setting a precedent like that does not automatically mean they will, it simply gives them the option. And with someone overseeing it who has a clear conflict of interest as he published apps after his employment, reservations towards that type of approach are fully reasonable.
And when two rules conflict, who decides which takes precedence? The guy running the show who himself is an iFart app developer?
Maybe you didn't read the actual notes from the full outline:
What defines many? How similar do the apps have to be whereby one is considered a duplicate? etc. etc. etc.
Extremely arbitrary in that regard.
Then it's not "just another X app" then, is it?
The problem is with having a dozen different note-taking apps which are indistinguishable in their yellow-lined-paper-and-virtual-keyboard interface, all charging different amounts and claiming superiority. At that point, the only purpose for submitting a new one is to claim a slice of the note-taking app market, not to improve the customer's experience in any way. If there are multiple note-taking apps available, they should be different as you indicate ... not identical as Apple is rejecting apps for being.
If there's 37 otherwise identical note-taking apps, your "different interface" offering will get lost in the shuffle leaving you with little market share and most customers unable to find it. Pare that list of 37 down to 1-3, and now your "new and improved" submission has a chance of succeeding.
Well, do you really want more than 10 choices for apps that do exactly the same thing?
Say you needed a video player app. You search, you get 10 pages of results. Which one do you buy? How often are you willing to waste your 99 cents trying out different apps until you find the one you really like?
More than likely, you're going to examine the ratings, and pick the top-rated ones to try first -- narrowing your choice down to the top 2 or 3 picks anyway.
Note that this restriction says nothing about new innovations (at least how I read it). You don't need yet another app that simply plays videos. But if someone comes up with something new (say, I dunno, a video player app that automatically generates 3-D video) I'm sure that wouldn't be lumped in with the rest.
Personally, I think this is the right attitude and right way to do things for Apple. Crappy or poorly designed apps make their devices look bad and amateurish. Asking for consistency, relevancy and quality is not too much to ask from developers. And if you're a developer and mad because your app does not meet the guidelines, then I'd be more concerned as to why and what I can do to make it meet the guidelines if I want to sell apps to the millions of Apple users.
In the long run, fly-by-night developers will be gone. The novelty of "fart apps" will be gone and the serious developers will make money and deliver good quality apps. The same thing happened in the late 80's and early 90's as EVERYONE seemed to jump on the PC software bandwagon. I have boxes of software that was junk and the company went under whereas most of the good ones survived and thrived.
I think Google will have to do the same soon, or they will loose the average consumer as they want what Apple is mandating quality, consistency and relevance.
In the long run, fly-by-night developers will be gone. The novelty of "fart apps" will be gone and the serious developers will make money and deliver good quality apps. The same thing happened in the late 80's and early 90's as EVERYONE seemed to jump on the PC software bandwagon. I have boxes of software that was junk and the company went under whereas most of the good ones survived and thrived.
I think Google will have to do the same soon, or they will loose the average consumer as they want what Apple is mandating quality, consistency and relevance.
Too US Centric?
It's good to see the guidelines in black and white. The real problem is that they take a very narrow US Centric (I nearly wrote Puritanical) view of what is acceptable or not. I am keen that they keep out the plain vanilla dross as well as the gratuitously offensive or demeaning dross but it is not right that everything has to be based on what is suitable for the 11 year old daughter of an Amish Minister. Surely it is not beyond the wit of Apple to design parental controls that you have to opt out of and just put the adult or merely less puerile stuff in a separate bit of the app store that needs a second level of security where you need to prove your age before you can buy.
It's good to see the guidelines in black and white. The real problem is that they take a very narrow US Centric (I nearly wrote Puritanical) view of what is acceptable or not. I am keen that they keep out the plain vanilla dross as well as the gratuitously offensive or demeaning dross but it is not right that everything has to be based on what is suitable for the 11 year old daughter of an Amish Minister. Surely it is not beyond the wit of Apple to design parental controls that you have to opt out of and just put the adult or merely less puerile stuff in a separate bit of the app store that needs a second level of security where you need to prove your age before you can buy.
I agree with you. The good apps of similar function will survive and the bad ones will die a natural death. Customers want quality.
Also, I don't think Apple was saying they are going to limit any category of applications with their "Fart app" reference. They were just making a point that they want more useful and relevant apps and the gag-apps have limited lifespans. I'm sure if you came up with the killer "Fart App" and met all the guidelines, Apple would accept it. The real "stinkers" will be gone!
"If your app is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."
That's a stupid argument... that board is paid by whom... Apple... therefore, what kind of decisions are they going to take?
I'm sure from time to time they will object to Apple's decisions... but most of the time, they will confirm Apple's decisions as they are paid by Apple and work for Apple.
That board is pretty much like this figure banks have, a bank consumer defender, paid by the bank... ergo... useless to appeal
It is obvious that complaining to press is stupid in many cases, but in some others, making public opinion aware of some tactics which are very wrong and unethical will force a company to change
So the press is still necessary regardless how many review boards there are as long as they are not independent
You do realize that Apple is not one person who rules all, right? Apps are reviewed by different people, who can make mistakes. It a developer believes that happened they can appeal and the Review Board might decide differently.
filtering out bad apps is a technical challenge
It's ashame that Apple doesn't approach the issue of filtering down apps as a technical challenge.
I find the quality of Google's search results to be outstanding. Google achieved the ability to bring back relevant results, without having to go through the entire internet, and 'remove' websites.
Apple just never sees this as a technical challenge, and is sure they have to set up this human based, manual process to eliminate the next fart app.
Good GRIEF apple, if someone didn't search for a FART APP, why would they see a FART APP.
And if they ARE SEARCHING FOR FART APPS, SHOW THEM ALL YOU GOT.
It's like they are brain dead over there at Apple - at least in certain ways, they are just archaic and unable to change at all. They are hellbent on proving manual censorship and control is still the way to go, and that technology just can't work to solve the problem.
It's ashame that Apple doesn't approach the issue of filtering down apps as a technical challenge.
I find the quality of Google's search results to be outstanding. Google achieved the ability to bring back relevant results, without having to go through the entire internet, and 'remove' websites.
Apple just never sees this as a technical challenge, and is sure they have to set up this human based, manual process to eliminate the next fart app.
Good GRIEF apple, if someone didn't search for a FART APP, why would they see a FART APP.
And if they ARE SEARCHING FOR FART APPS, SHOW THEM ALL YOU GOT.
It's like they are brain dead over there at Apple - at least in certain ways, they are just archaic and unable to change at all. They are hellbent on proving manual censorship and control is still the way to go, and that technology just can't work to solve the problem.
You really are trying to get a lot of mileage out of a purely theoretical conflict of interest and a violation of Apple's policies that Apple claims does not exist.
Who decides how many different brands of toilet paper your local grocery store carries?