Their own pre-emptive attempt at exculpation "So you’re upset that Apple wouldn’t approve your money-grubbing stupid idea?" is pretty much my sentiment.
Come back when you have a legit gripe. Just because others get away with something is no reason you should get away with same. "Hey, officer, I saw other people speeding too and you didn't cite them, not fair!"
But I offer this thought: do you feel like you might tell your kids or grandkids that you remember a time when any of your friends could try out the software your created on their own devices? When anyone had the ability to do whatever they wanted with their devices, without having to agree to a license agreement first?
Hmm, ok. I think you actually compared yourself to happy-fart or something, but whatever.
In any event, it's as if you would deny them "learning". I would refer to any legal code. You can observe it change with time in order to adjust to behavior, attitudes, mores, technology, etc.
Imagine the crime boss "Hey, IRS (the US tax board), that was legal last year, how come you took away my loophole?" Now, granted, the IRS has to go thru a process to implement code changes, but this is an analogy to illustrate that codification requires change over time.
It'd be shortsighted to want to limit the change regimen from ad hoc to periodic, for your convenience.
Sense of humor; is that even germane to anything? Would it have been better if they had cited some cells from xkcd?
> We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist.
"We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn't do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted."
Seems pretty clear to me, unless you're wanting to be pedantic about 'some form of lasting entertainment'. Their bar for this is obviously incredibly low, but you managed to shimmy under it while grinding an axe at the same time. Well done.
>We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist.
That's just good sense. They try to set up the rules as best they can, then some joker comes up with a way to do something that isn't in line with the spirit of the platform but not explicitly forbidden (you can't think of everything). Of course I would expect them to close the loophole at that point and protect the overall environment of the site rather then say "well, this breaks everything but we're so inflexible that we can't fix rules after the fact".
I doubt this is the point of the article. To me it is about rejections with no grounds on violation of any specific rules involved. It's about the ambiguity, or the lack of meaning thereof, in the "rules" itself.
I think the reason this got rejected was the fact that it has commercially dubious aspects to it which would probably have lead to several customer care complaints to Apple, had Apple accepted it and published it.
I don't think the "joke" aspect has anything to do with it. We recently had a joke app published on the app store with no problems at all. In fact the first submission of the app came after the rule clarifications they did (last Sept? Oct?). Of course the humor(?) in our app doesn't revolve around ripping people off ("Ha ha...you bought our in-app purchase. Jokes on you!").
I'm actually a little sorry I clicked the original article link. It sounds like they spent two days on something with the specific purpose of getting some publicity around a rejection. Mission accomplished, I guess.
If released, there's a small chance it could become a running joke, especially if you'd promise to donate 50% of profits to charity or something. (Maybe iDonate would be accepted?)
Although I see the cheese of sarcasm in your statement, but AFAIK, official Apple App Store policy (this time, written down), is that you can't have a "donation" application. Which is why you don't see a "Give to the American Red Cross" or what have you application.
I didn't know about the no-donations policy, thanks.
I also really meant what I said about a donations game, it would work in a society where everybody wants the world to know about the good things they do in private.
Its true that you can't have an in-app donation process but you can have the user fill out their information and have them press a donate button that opens up a Safari window to process the actual credit card transaction.
The idea was worth the try, but I'm not surprised it was rejected.
As an iOS developer myself, I respect Apple's power to police the app store as they see fit. It's their platform and they have every right to set the precedent on what content is allowable. Approving your app would spawn numerous clones and obviously Apple doesn't agree with your utilization of in-app purchases.
> Even if your App is built in accordance to every policy, Apple can still reject it.
I think we reached this conclusion a while back. While many developers may consider it unfair, I should point out that I have never seen a non-gimmicky, high-quality, and polished app face this same predicament of arbitrarily getting rejected. These types of things just don't happen to those stellar apps that have been through a long development process (unlike the one mentioned in this article).
The truth is that arbitrary rejections aren't so arbitrary. You won't see an app like Doodle Jump be rejected, but you may see it happen to a fart app. While Apple doesn't necessarily point out the particular reasons of a rejection every time, most of us can agree that there is a clear distinction between those that are arbitrarily rejected and those that aren't. This goes to show that there is some reasoning behind Apple's decisions.
People need to realize this and understand that there is probably a pretty good reason why their app got rejected - even if Apple doesn't point it out for them.
"arbitrarily" - Anybody like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, WSJ realizes that selling content on the iPad platform (now that the platform is popular) is going to require them to play ball with Apple.
I had predicted ahead of time that someone would try to argue with that bold statement of mine. However, you have looked over that key word, "arbitrarily". Apple has justification for the rejection. Hence, it is not arbitrary.
If someone finds a high-quality and useful app that was rejected with no explanation whatsoever, let me know.
"FreedomVoice has so far invested $600,000 and more than half a year in the app."
http://www.mynewber.com/ - they waited 465 days for approval from Apple, no communication, finally gave up.
"It’s an app that effectively turns your iPhone into a second phone line by utilizing the handset’s geographic awareness to move calls between devices"
I have since had better experiences in the AppStore, including an astonishing under 24 hour approval...followed by a couple-of-week approval (http://handyapp.com/merit-badges/)
4 months in queue with repeated changes on how to get in compliance then apple backtracking and banning the app's core functionality in all apps in the store and rejecting it.
This was a made-to-be-rejected-and-whined-about app:
"We built an iPhone game in just under two days and submitted it to Apple for approval. The concept was a little iffy, but we figured it was worth the gamble. If nothing else, it could attract some attention to our web RPG, Forumwarz."
Mission...accomplished.
For what it's worth, anyone reading the introduction to the 9/2010 app store guidelines would expect the rejection:
* We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn't do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted
* If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your first practice
App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of
serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour.
* 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.
While I can buy that, it's still a little ludicrous that it took nine weeks for them to say "Remove this and it's okay, no, wait, nevermind, banleeted." You'd think that if it was as cut and dried as "We don't need any more fart apps" that you could reject it with about 45 seconds of review.
35 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 1584 ms ] threadCome back when you have a legit gripe. Just because others get away with something is no reason you should get away with same. "Hey, officer, I saw other people speeding too and you didn't cite them, not fair!"
We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist.
Moreover, it shows they clearly have no sense of humor.
"Apple reserves the right to refuse..."
I'll bet there's a line in the developer agreement to that effect. A catch-all defense used at times like this. Shouldn't come as any surprise.
But I offer this thought: do you feel like you might tell your kids or grandkids that you remember a time when any of your friends could try out the software your created on their own devices? When anyone had the ability to do whatever they wanted with their devices, without having to agree to a license agreement first?
You can do this with the iPhone right now so long as "your friends" doesn't include all iOS owners.
In any event, it's as if you would deny them "learning". I would refer to any legal code. You can observe it change with time in order to adjust to behavior, attitudes, mores, technology, etc.
Imagine the crime boss "Hey, IRS (the US tax board), that was legal last year, how come you took away my loophole?" Now, granted, the IRS has to go thru a process to implement code changes, but this is an analogy to illustrate that codification requires change over time.
It'd be shortsighted to want to limit the change regimen from ad hoc to periodic, for your convenience.
Sense of humor; is that even germane to anything? Would it have been better if they had cited some cells from xkcd?
Seems pretty clear to me, unless you're wanting to be pedantic about 'some form of lasting entertainment'. Their bar for this is obviously incredibly low, but you managed to shimmy under it while grinding an axe at the same time. Well done.
That's just good sense. They try to set up the rules as best they can, then some joker comes up with a way to do something that isn't in line with the spirit of the platform but not explicitly forbidden (you can't think of everything). Of course I would expect them to close the loophole at that point and protect the overall environment of the site rather then say "well, this breaks everything but we're so inflexible that we can't fix rules after the fact".
I don't think the "joke" aspect has anything to do with it. We recently had a joke app published on the app store with no problems at all. In fact the first submission of the app came after the rule clarifications they did (last Sept? Oct?). Of course the humor(?) in our app doesn't revolve around ripping people off ("Ha ha...you bought our in-app purchase. Jokes on you!").
I'm actually a little sorry I clicked the original article link. It sounds like they spent two days on something with the specific purpose of getting some publicity around a rejection. Mission accomplished, I guess.
If released, there's a small chance it could become a running joke, especially if you'd promise to donate 50% of profits to charity or something. (Maybe iDonate would be accepted?)
I also really meant what I said about a donations game, it would work in a society where everybody wants the world to know about the good things they do in private.
As an iOS developer myself, I respect Apple's power to police the app store as they see fit. It's their platform and they have every right to set the precedent on what content is allowable. Approving your app would spawn numerous clones and obviously Apple doesn't agree with your utilization of in-app purchases.
Cough. Time to go listen to some MP3's, maybe buy a copy of a free-to-air show I've already seen.
I think we reached this conclusion a while back. While many developers may consider it unfair, I should point out that I have never seen a non-gimmicky, high-quality, and polished app face this same predicament of arbitrarily getting rejected. These types of things just don't happen to those stellar apps that have been through a long development process (unlike the one mentioned in this article).
The truth is that arbitrary rejections aren't so arbitrary. You won't see an app like Doodle Jump be rejected, but you may see it happen to a fart app. While Apple doesn't necessarily point out the particular reasons of a rejection every time, most of us can agree that there is a clear distinction between those that are arbitrarily rejected and those that aren't. This goes to show that there is some reasoning behind Apple's decisions.
People need to realize this and understand that there is probably a pretty good reason why their app got rejected - even if Apple doesn't point it out for them.
Walk over here with me, and I can introduce you to the fine folks at a small company called "Sony"
If someone finds a high-quality and useful app that was rejected with no explanation whatsoever, let me know.
"FreedomVoice has so far invested $600,000 and more than half a year in the app."
http://www.mynewber.com/ - they waited 465 days for approval from Apple, no communication, finally gave up.
"It’s an app that effectively turns your iPhone into a second phone line by utilizing the handset’s geographic awareness to move calls between devices"
This is much longer & much more invested and a more serious app than my own first experience (almost 8 months of silence, then rejected because they "weren't accepting any apps with political content" http://handyapp.com/2009/12/and-the-verdict-is/ http://handyapp.com/askobama/).
I have since had better experiences in the AppStore, including an astonishing under 24 hour approval...followed by a couple-of-week approval (http://handyapp.com/merit-badges/)
kb
I have seen it. Moderate 5 figures.
"We built an iPhone game in just under two days and submitted it to Apple for approval. The concept was a little iffy, but we figured it was worth the gamble. If nothing else, it could attract some attention to our web RPG, Forumwarz."
Mission...accomplished.
For what it's worth, anyone reading the introduction to the 9/2010 app store guidelines would expect the rejection:
http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/app-store-guide...
* We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn't do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted
* If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your first practice App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour.
* 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.
kb