iDroid App Rejected By Apple. Well, Duh.

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Nov 30, 2009.

  1. MacBytes macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003


    Category: News and Press Releases
    Link: iDroid App Rejected By Apple. Well, Duh.
    Description:: "Here's a tip for all you iPhone app developers out there. If you want to make sure your app doesn't join the long list of rejected iPhone apps out there, make sure it doesn't advertise a competing product, especially if that product runs the Android operating system. Swavv Apps (creators of Beer Pong) learned that lesson recently when they tried to get their iDroid app past the App Store censors."

    Posted on
    Approved by Mudbug
  2. tatonka macrumors 6502


    Aug 25, 2009
    Well I guess they are getting more news coverage by Apple rejecting it .. so good for them.
    Besides I think it is stupid to reject it in the first place .. it is not more useless then thousands of other apps .. it is not dangerous, fraudulent or anything ..

  3. RainbowOfBeans macrumors member


    Jun 24, 2009
    Dansville, NY
    More Info??

    I want to know more about this app, and apples "real" legal reasons for denying it!:mad:
  4. VSMacOne macrumors 601


    Oct 18, 2008
    You're kidding, right?
    They don't need a legal reason to reject it. It's basically an add for the competition. Why would Apple want to have that on the iPhone?
  5. tbrinkma macrumors 68000

    Apr 24, 2006
    My guess? They don't want any part of the trademark violation suit that would come along as a result of the app being released. Just a hunch.

    (On another note, just the *idea* for that app is poor form. It's like going to Target and asking them to sell Target brand stuff.)
  6. iVoid macrumors 65816

    Jan 9, 2007
    The funny thing is, can't all these ad supported apps already have ads for Apple's competitors? Since the ads are downloaded from Admobi, there's nothing in the App itself.

    I wonder if Apple also stipulates what can be advertised within an App?
  7. simsandwhich macrumors member

    May 20, 2009
    What a mixed up world we live in.

    Microsoft can't ship IE and WMP in their own OS in Europe and Korea because it's "anticompetitive", and Apple repeatedly gets away with their totalitarian AppStore policies.

    And Apple was a part of that anti trust suit against Microsoft. Gotta love the irony here. :apple:
  8. tbrinkma macrumors 68000

    Apr 24, 2006
    I don't suppose you can see the difference between an app that *has* an ad, and an app that *is* an ad?
  9. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Jun 19, 2007
    Plymouth, MN
    The difference is that Microsoft has a 90+% marketshare and are a convicted monopolist. Apple has none of these and is unlikely to ever have these.
  10. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604


    Dec 29, 2006
    dallas, texas
    What was the app attempting to do exactly, besides mock the App Store?
  11. kate-willbury macrumors 6502a

    Feb 14, 2009
    um whats your point? just because apple is less successful it means they're allowed to do whatever they want?
  12. rhett7660 macrumors G4


    Jan 9, 2008
    Sunny, Southern California
    Please show me where the legally can't first.
  13. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6


    Aug 17, 2007
    Agreed. This was nothing more than a publicity grab by the "developers" of iDroid.
  14. techound1 macrumors 68000


    Mar 3, 2006
    Oh, unlike the monopoly over hardware and software from the some source only? :p
  15. cwt1nospam macrumors 6502a

    Oct 6, 2006
    Completely unlike it. One source for one platform is called integration. Forcing hardware producers to pay you for each computer they sell regardless of whether or not it contains your OS is called anti-competitive, anti-free market, and illegal.
  16. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Jun 19, 2007
    Plymouth, MN
    Not only is that not illegal it is nowhere near the definition of what constitutes a legal definition of what a monopoly is. If Apple's integration of software and hardware is illegal (which it isn't) than the business models of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony (all of whom sell software and hardware integrated in their video game systems) would not be able to run their businesses.

    There is nothing illegal with selling two related products together.
  17. rstansby macrumors 6502

    Jun 19, 2007
    or putting ads for DirectTV on cable. (wait a second, they do that all the time.)
  18. appleating macrumors newbie

    Dec 3, 2009
    Apple Rejects Droid Promo App for the iPhone

    The Droid smartphone won't be seeing any publicity on the iPhone thanks to Apple's
    rejection of the iDroid app from its App Store. The iDroid app was designed to run on the iPhone and iPod touch
    , but did nothing more than advertise the Droid smartphone, according to TechCrunch.

    iDroid displayed the red glowing eye used in Droid marketing along with marketing bullet points.

    The rejection makes sense because direct marketing with an application is prohibited by Apple's terms of service for iPhone app developers, which makes it likely that the developers knew iDroid would be rejected and were hoping to spin that into publicity for themselves.

    For now, it looks like iPhone developers wanting to directly promote products in their apps will have to find ways that are a little less blatant.
  19. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Jun 19, 2007
    Plymouth, MN

    First, do you have the link to the article that you go this from - I don’t doubt that there is one, but I dislike plagiarizing and the author deserves credit.

    Second, the point of the terms were blatantly violated is important. The developer created something that he knew was going to be rejected. That should eliminate all sympathy that he asks for. He gets none. Of the few things that we know constitutes a rejection, that was one of them.
  20. cjmillsnun macrumors 68020

    Aug 28, 2009
    Try the MacBytes link in the first post. It relates to a TechCrunch blog post that was referenced by the Washington post! :rolleyes:

Share This Page