Apple's App Store Review Guidelines Offer Remarkably Candid View of App Store Philosophy

[kntgsp]

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

While your canned "tow the line" response will undoubtedly earn you endless fellation from the users who flocked here in the last few years, it completely misses the point.

iOS would be irrelevant in the current market without developers, regardless of whether it was the initial spur that sent the smartphone market moving in the current direction. Steve Balmer may be a raving madman, but his "developers" rant rings true. If the response to innovation is to stifle it because "we already have 5 picture viewing apps", it will send developers to other platforms. That is not something Apple wants.

Any platform, regardless how high the walls of its "walled garden", will incur an influx of "iFart", "Miley Cyrus ringtonezomg", etc. developers. As long as the arbitrary "have too many" rule is applied to trash apps, no one will care. The second they start applying it en masse to more useful apps, it has a good chance of shifting some development to other platforms. The problem is both one of the rules being too arbitrary, and simultaneously that defining what makes an app "too similar" would incur thousands of pages of documentation. So the result is that the developers and consumers simply have to trust Apple to be a benevolent dictatorship.

It is not a dig at Apple as a computer company or a platform. Your precious foundation upon which your entire social standing is apparently based has not been wounded. It is simply a comment about how they treat development with regards to a specific subset of their company, namely iOS.

 

[ctdonath]

And when two rules conflict, who decides which takes precedence? The guy running the show who himself is an iFart app developer? 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.

Apple decides. That's the point. If anyone understands the problem of proliferating duplication, it's the guy who wrote the first iFart.

Remember: Apple has an incentive to make such decisions in a manner favoring overall customer satisfaction. This isn't a list of legalistic restrictions created for slavish devotion to legalistic restrictions, this is a set of guidelines intended to keep Apple's customers happy. The document even uses the great Supreme Court line "I know it when I see it".

While I am generally sympathetic to the "don't tell me what I can/can't do" crowd, I'm not seeing the complaints coupled with much in the way of GOOD counter-examples. No, we don't need 300 more iFarts. No, we don't need 37 more lined-paper notepad apps, esp. when we want a new an innovative interface for note-taking to stand out. I'd like to see a new web browser, but only because the single website button I most need my iPad for doesn't work in Safari. If the "restrictive and arbitrary" guidelines were removed, what would the benefit be? really?

 

[Zunjine]

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 don't understand why there need be any 'adult' material on the App Store. You can, if you wish, view and consume 'adult' content on the internet, on blu ray, in books and magazines and via any number of shops and outlets. It's not as if you need to buy an App to get access. The iPhone is HTML5 complient and the internet is entirely free of Apple's censorship. Should you wish to look at nudity or read porn on the tiny iPhone screen you can do so.

So, look at it from Apple's point of view. The increased sales of iOS devices that might result from an x-rated section on the App store are likely to be minimal since this market is so well served as described above. The reduced sales from parents being shocked to find little Jimmy has bought 'Knockers-a-bouncin'' and the negative publicity that might bring about are likely to be far greater. You can understand their point. If the App store were the only place on earth to buy 'adult' content then I'd agree it was an issue but since it is far from that I don't see the problem.

 

[Popeye206]

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.

Yikes! People read way too much into what was said! The ONLY thing Apple said was that people don't use parental controls and wish they did. But, because of the reality that they don't, they are watching for purchasing patterns typical of kids in order to help limit damage to customers and themselves. I'm sure they get lots of calls from parents saying "my son bought 20 games and I didn't authorize this so I want a refund".

So, what I think they would do is monitor for particular purchase patterns of a kid gone wild, and probably ask for verification at some point before allowing them to continue. Something simple like enter your CV number from the back of your card before completing the purchase. Guess what... the kid is stopped and has to go ask Mom or Dad to buy any more. Simple and reasonable. Similar to what the banks do if they see a potential fraud pattern to your account.

They are not making any moral judgments or decisions for you.

 

[Major Reeves]

"We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps."

Fart apps should have never been allowed in first place.

 

[troller]

We ooooonly want the best for our customers blahblah.....
********!!! They do exactly what they did until now....collecting data and controling all ****!

 

[mdude85]

"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."

I don't know, it seems like most times a developer goes to the press about an amazing app that was rejected for no reason, the app ends up being allowed. Apple's policy of retaliation for bad press is kinda ridiculous.

 

[calb]

Glad to finally see these published for us all to see!

 

[MrSkoTA]

It is good that they posted this, but I find their intro comment about Parental Controls to be maddening. "Hey we have Parental Controls, but no one uses them, so we have to neuter everything in case a kid might download something naughty!!" THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

Give me a break. Everyone suffers because negligent parents don't use the control tools provided.

It's Apple's decision to be like this, and we can take it or leave it -- I just think it's a crappy decision.

Just because your lack of morals justifies the presence of the apps that you crave doesn't mean that Apple Should morally allow those types of apps at your behest and sacrifice their own.

"Everyone suffers"? Come on... Are you that emotionally tied to your special bits that you can't give them a break and use your iPhone for a non-porn etc etc device?

Your last sentence doesn't make your statement any better either. Jump the fence... go to Android. Vote with your wallet. Think with the head on your shoulders.

 

[Imhotep397]

This is pretty refreshing actually. I'm so tired of Web Forums, web communities, OS companies etc. not taking some kind of stand and just letting the inmates run the Asylum so to speak. Every other company I've seen tends to use the old "...We have to protect first amendment rights" non-sense for everything even outside of first amendment issues. My position has always been that there are so many options in terms of software/hardware options that it should afford any company that wants to take a stand on filtering out content that freedom. Personally I hope this spreads to some other companies.

My only beef with Apple is the fact that not that long ago they had a ban on software that displayed "Erotic" imagery and Apple filtered all of that out for a short period of time while leaving a Playboy application available at the App store. I'm trying to figure out whether Apple is really looking out for the kids or only doing so if there's not a big corporation involved?

 

[kntgsp]

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.

You're missing the point.

What defines "too similar"?

The note taking app can have the same keyboard but if it offers different colors for the virtual paper it's ok? The note taking app can have the same virtual paper color but has to have the menu layout at the bottom and offer a different virtual keyboard?

Defining these guidelines for every different type of application would take an inordinate amount of man hours and miss lots of things which would then be a cause to edit the rules again. It is essentially an impossible task.

So you either do largely away with the guidelines or turn it into a benevolent dictatorship. Apple has chosen the latter. And the argument can be made that that's fine as long as it remains benevolent.

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?

Hence why developers need to put in trial versions or Apple needs to adopt a refund policy like Android.

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.

Why not? What if I prefer VLC player's interface layout to another app that also plays back the same video formats? That should be my choice as a consumer to decide which application suits me best.

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.

How is a director of app store reviews developing and selling apps during his employment not a conflict of interest? Particularly the type of app he mentions there are enough of (regardless of how mundane the app).

Who decides how many different brands of toilet paper your local grocery store carries?

I'm going to allow you 10 minutes to read that aloud to yourself and see if you can spot the difference.

 

[rdupuy]

Fart apps should have never been allowed in first place.

And do you also agree with Apple's decision to ban apps with information on the Dalai Lama in China?

One approach is to ban apps that offend your sensibilities...another is to not ban them, but simply don't buy them.

Nobody is suggesting you should be forced to buy one, use one, or even see one. I do suggest they should be allowed to exist for those that want them.

I say that, with zero appreciation for fart apps, believe me.

Since this is not an argument about what we, ourselves must use, this is only an argument about whether we should control what other people might buy and want, and whether we should be in the business of controlling other people and restricting their choices, based on our own sensibilities.... I guess I can't see any reason to block the next fart app. Let the fart app lovers have their fart apps.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Look, it's quite simple.

If you develop an app and submit it to Apple, you're asking them to be a business partner. Apple is a serious business, so they want to put forth quality content that enhances their own, including fun pointless apps. If your app is quality and better than most, it's in. If not, there's a chance it won't. No conspiracy, just simple common business sense.

The market speaks. Training wheels are off and amateur hour is over.

 

[Prynce]

know what I want? Apple curating my options. That bit about running to the press sounds like how college security deals with rape reports. "We'll handle this internally."

They never said you couldn't run to the press, they just said they wouldn't like it. Which I believe is code for "don't be an immature cray baby or else you won't get anywhere fast with us."

 

[tigress666]

Hrm, I took the we need no more fart apps to mean, "We aren't going to approve anymore apps that are useless/silly if there already is a few" not we aren't going to approve any apps if there already is another app for it.

I don't really like their philosiphy that cause some parents refuse to actually parent they'll make everyone else suffer and parent for the parent.

If the parents don't use parental controls, that's the parents own problem. I dislike the idea that I should be limited (I don't have kids nor plan to have them) just cause some parent can't be bothered to pay attention to what their kids are doing.

But the "protect the children!" is an attitude in general that tends to piss me off whenever I encounter it (and I mean the idea that things should be censored and everyone suffer cause the worry that some parent won't actually do their job or is too lazy and wants the government/school/business to do it for them).

 

[Prynce]

- "We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps."

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?

This is the kind of stuff that happens when you can't install your own applications. It's Apple's idea that "You do have choices. You can choose from our preselected options A, B, and C" that becomes the problem. And attitudes like that (even if I agree with the uselessness of fart apps) will drive developers away in droves once they see their colleague's useful applications get rejected on those same grounds.

"We're not accepting any more video player apps, we already have 10". Yea ok Steve, watch as innovation within your app market stagnates.

They are only saying they don't want more of the same thing, doesn't mean they won't accept an app with a unique approach to the same thing.

 

[Brometheus]

- "We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps."

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?

This is the kind of stuff that happens when you can't install your own applications. It's Apple's idea that "You do have choices. You can choose from our preselected options A, B, and C" that becomes the problem. And attitudes like that (even if I agree with the uselessness of fart apps) will drive developers away in droves once they see their colleague's useful applications get rejected on those same grounds.

"We're not accepting any more video player apps, we already have 10". Yea ok Steve, watch as innovation within your app market stagnates.

I think that the key word is "duplicate". Who needs dozens of essentially identical apps? This helps to force developers to think of new types of apps.

 

[kntgsp]

Hrm, I took the we need no more fart apps to mean, "We aren't going to approve anymore apps that are useless/silly if there already is a few" not we aren't going to approve any apps if there already is another app for it.

"Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them."

Verbatim from the new guidelines.

 

[MrSmith]

...Yea ok Steve, watch as innovation within your app market stagnates.

Innovation is not the same as flooding the market with utter crap just so armchair programmers can make a few bucks. If I want worthless, mindless crap I can always go to the Internet.

 

[Zunjine]

You're missing the point.

What defines "too similar"?

The note taking app can have the same keyboard but if it offers different colors for the virtual paper it's ok? The note taking app can have the same virtual paper color but has to have the menu layout at the bottom and offer a different virtual keyboard?

Defining these guidelines for every different type of application would take an inordinate amount of man hours and miss lots of things which would then be a cause to edit the rules again. It is essentially an impossible task.

So you either do largely away with the guidelines or turn it into a benevolent dictatorship. Apple has chosen the latter. And the argument can be made that that's fine as long as it remains benevolent.



Hence why developers need to put in trial versions or Apple needs to adopt a refund policy like Android.


Why not? What if I prefer VLC player's interface layout to another app that also plays back the same video formats? That should be my choice as a consumer to decide which application suits me best.



How is a director of app store reviews developing and selling apps during his employment not a conflict of interest? Particularly the type of app he mentions there are enough of (regardless of how mundane the app).



I'm going to allow you 10 minutes to read that aloud to yourself and see if you can spot the difference.

This is all reading far too much in to these guidelines. And remember - they are GUIDELINES. Not rules or laws. They're there to help devs get a clearer understanding of the kind of apps that are likely to be looked upon favourably. As a developer you would have to justify why your app deserves to be accepted - that's fine if you're a developer with a real differentiator but not so great if you're just a chancer who threw a me-too app together in his spare time and hopes to make a quick buck.

Apple has no interest in filtering out good quality apps that offer something new and of value on the App Store. Just think about this logically and you'll see that quality developers and Apple have the same needs and wants here. Furthermore, the majority of consumers want to be guided. We don't want to have to vet and test everything and read 100 reviews. That's why we buy brands that we trust and go to shops who's staff advise us on our choices. These guidelines are 100% reasonable and, if you don't agree with them, you're free to buy elsewhere. This is the essence of choice. Three cheers for the market!

 

[kntgsp]

Innovation is not the same as flooding the market with utter crap just so armchair programmers can make a few bucks. If I want worthless, mindless crap I can always go to the Internet.

Developers who produce garbage apps will stagnate and die out if no one wants them. Don't want the app, don't install it.

What's that oft-repeated expression here from all the zealots? Oh yea, vote with your wallet.

 

[Major Reeves]

And do you also agree with Apple's decision to ban apps with information on the Dalai Lama in China?

One approach is to ban apps that offend your sensibilities...another is to not ban them, but simply don't buy them.

Nobody is suggesting you should be forced to buy one, use one, or even see one. I do suggest they should be allowed to exist for those that want them.

I say that, with zero appreciation for fart apps, believe me.

Since this is not an argument about what we, ourselves must use, this is only an argument about whether we should control what other people might buy and want, and whether we should be in the business of controlling other people and restricting their choices, based on our own sensibilities.... I guess I can't see any reason to block the next fart app. Let the fart app lovers have their fart apps.

Well let's keep politics out of this. Of course none forces me to get the fart app, but, keep in mind there's also nothing to force me, or someone else, from not kicking your, or someone else, ass into oblivion.

And ho wait, isn't religion all lies and deception?

 

[desigarms]

Seems pretty reasonable to me. If you want the wild west, go get a droid.

Oddly enough, this is sounding a lot like the Mac vs PC debate. You want to be able to pirate programs, go get a PC. You want really good consistent UI with a great user experience get a Mac.

Apple's use of 'Preserve the User experience' gets really, really old! And all the Apple fanboys are buying into it. They use this excuse again and again. Whatever. The only reason Apple is relaxing the rules AND being more transparent with their review process is because Android's competition is forcing them to.

 

[richbass79]

My only concern is that they approve the VLC app as i would really benefit from this

 

[kntgsp]

This is all reading far too much in to these guidelines. And remember - they are GUIDELINES. Not rules or laws. They're there to help devs get a clearer understanding of the kind of apps that are likely to be looked upon favourably. As a developer you would have to justify why your app deserves to be accepted - that's fine if you're a developer with a real differentiator but not so great if you're just a chancer who threw a me-too app together in his spare time and hopes to make a quick buck.

Apple has no interest in filtering out good quality apps that offer something new and of value on the App Store. Just think about this logically and you'll see that quality developers and Apple have the same needs and wants here. Furthermore, the majority of consumers want to be guided. We don't want to have to vet and test everything and read 100 reviews. That's why we buy brands that we trust and go to shops who's staff advise us on our choices. These guidelines are 100% reasonable and, if you don't agree with them, you're free to buy elsewhere. This is the essence of choice. Three cheers for the market!

This is the type of well reasoned response I was hoping for.

Here's a related question for you:

What happens if Apple decides to take the same approach with their computers?