All Articles Tagged rejected apps

Umpteenth verse, same as the first — Macworld turned their iPhone ebook into and app and submitted it to the iTunes App Store. It was rejected. Several times. Finally editor Jason Snell expressed his frustration on Twitter and several high profile blogs picked it up. Apple called him immediately to try and make it right.

Good for Macworld. Bad for all the developers who lack the same megaphone by virtue of their job and connections.

Granted, with 100,000+ apps, the non-sensical and erroneous rejections remain a tiny percentage, but even a tiny percentage of 100,000+ represents many developers’ time, effort, and money. It’s frustrating for them and embarrassing for Apple.

Tim Cook and Phil Schiller claim they’re making improvements, and no doubt they are. From a pure perception point of view, however, this is one issue that needs fixing sooner rather than later.

One of TiPb’s favorite iPhone games, indeed the game that cost some of us fingerprints on our index fingers, StoneLoops! of Jurassica has been pulled from the iTunes App Store following a copyright infringement complaint from Luxor-maker MumboJumbo. According to the developers’ blog Casual Games Harmony:

About 3 weeks ago we have learned that MumboJumbo supplied Apple with a formal complaint and a request to remove StoneLoops! from the AppStore. The reason? Infringing Luxor copyright, confusing customers, stealing Luxor’s look & feel and even stealing their source code! This might sound absurd to anyone who knows both games but apparently Apple decided otherwise as we’ve been requested to prepare a formal response, which we did. We described how ungrounded each claim is and supplied various materials to back our claims.

The developers responded, denying all but one complaint (the word Luxor appeared in the text of a quoted review, which they offered to remove). Apple, it seems, removed StoneLoops of Jurassica anyway. This led to the developer further pondering that:

if Apple stands by its decision this will create a dangerous precedence. If you are a developer and have an application in the AppStore you should quickly request Apple to remove the apps of your competition, before someone else requests to remove you! I don’t believe this can get any more absurd, but this is exactly where this reasoning is getting us.

Copyright and infringement is a messy, litigious business, one which Apple puts itself squarely in the middle of by virtue of acting as sole App Store custodian. How can they determine merit all on their own, and avoid action by either affected party regardless of what they decide?

We love StoneLoops! We want it back immediately, but more than that — we need a better way for these disputes to be handled. Is there one?

[via AppAdvice, thanks Tyler!]

In a post on their official blog, Google has let the world know that, “in the interest of transparency,” they’re allowing the FCC to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request to fully publish their response about the whole Google Voice Rejection Brouhaha, and it’s an interesting read, to say the least. You can grab the PDF of the letter right here.

The letter, which had been previously redacted, claims that not only did Apple fully reject both Google Voice and Latitude, but the rejection came after conversations between top executives, including Phil Shiller. This contradicts Apple’s claim that they had not rejected the apps, but merely reviewing them in a more extensive way.

The reason for the rejections (as Google calls them) is what you probably expected: “duplicate functionality.” Google writes:

Apple’s representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality

The story is much the same for Google Latitude, but has a bit more shadenfreude to it since the functionality that’s being duplicated is “a version of Google Maps.” Google also details the dates of calls, emails, and in-person conversations between Alan Eustace of Google (VP of Engineering and Research) and Phil Schiller of Apple (VP of Worldwide Product Marketing, but you knew that).

So… the worm and turned and Google’s letting the world know they feel rejected. How do you feel after this latest development?

Rhapsody [free - iTunes Link] is now available in the iTunes App Store. It was less than a month ago that we told you about the submission of RealNetwork’s Rhapsody iPhone app, well Apple may have been scared straight by the FCC because it’s been approved and is now available as a free download.

Now don’t don’t forget there is a $15/month subscription fee you must dish out if you want all of that music streaming goodness over AT&T’s data network or Wi-Fi. Sorry folks, no off-line access like Spotify here.

In a strange twist of fate, PreCentral.net tells us Palm has rejected their first App Catalog app, NaNPlayer, a (superior according to PC) replacement for the built-in Pre music player. Why did they do this? The developer used an undocumented API and that violates the SDK agreement. Sound familiar, iPhone users? Will Palm now get the same grief Apple does?

Sound off in the comments!

As of this writing, while the C64 emulator app still shows up in the iTunes App Store, attempting to buy it results in the above error message:

The item you tried to buy is no longer available

The availability of the item changed while you were using the store. The same item may be available with a different price or elsewhere on the store.

Whether this is just a glitch in the system, or a result of Apple pulling the app due to the BASIC interpreter still being accessible via a workaround (which would likely be a violation of the SDK license agreement), is unknown. If the latter, hopefully the developer can update and return the app to the store ASAP. Given how fast Apple has been processing Facebook updates lately, it shouldn’t take long to get a revision up, right?

[Thanks to @clayrussell for the head's up!]

According to developers Bjango, Apple is now telling developers to remove the “Free Memory” function — the ability to clear data from RAM without force quitting or rebooting — from their iPhone (and iPod touch) applications or those applications will be removed from the App Store.

Bjango, who makes iStat [$1.99 on sale - iTunes link] had to do just that for their latest version:

Stat’s Free Memory function was removed at Apple’s request. This decision was completely out of our hands. Please note that all other apps with Free Memory appear to have been removed or updated without their Free Memory function too.

After eliciting feedback and considering their options, Bjango went ahead and removed the feature. (Bjango advises users who want the feature to NOT UPGRADE their copies, and reminds Mac users with Time Machine how to downgrade to the old, “Free Memory”-enabled version if necessary.)

To rub salt on their wounds, negative reviews are now piling up for iStat in iTunes, of course, despite Bjango explaining Apple requested the removal in the app’s “What’s New in This Version” section.

What Apple’s rationale may be (if Phil Schiller deigns anyone with another email) is unknown.

[Thanks Scott for the tip!]

Convertbot [$0.99 - iTunes link] has seen their latest update, version 1.4 for iPhone (and iPod touch), rejected by at least 2 of Apple’s 40+ App Store reviewers because the icon they’re using for “Time” (the same icon they’ve been using since 1.0, mind you) is nigh-identical to Apple’s built in “Recent” icon, and that was enough to raise that troublesome “user confusion” flag at iTunes HQ.

They’re going to try and find a different yet equally minimalist icon, and we’re going to start counting down to a letter from either Phil Schiller or the FCC…

Sigh.

[Via Daring Fireball]

Apple has responded to the FCC’s questions, issued following the controversial rejection of Google’s Google Voice application (though, in their response, it looks like Apple is claiming they haven’t rejected Google Voice, but are merely reviewing it (updated: under the dubious “duplicates functionality” rationale, due to independent and different dialing and voice mail interfaces and) to see if it violates Apple’s contract with AT&T not to allow VoIP over AT&T’s data network.)

We are pleased to respond to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s inquiry dated July 31, 2009, requesting information regarding Apple’s App Store and its application approval process. In order to give the Bureau some context for our responses, we begin with some background information about the iPhone and the App Store.

The entire document is available via Apple.com.

Google and AT&T responded as well, though not on their own websites yet. Engadget is hosting their letters. AT&T claims they were never contacted about Google Voice, however if their contract with Apple forbids it, like Skype and other VoIP apps, Apple wouldn’t have to contact them, so again — huge round of jeers for AT&T’s non-denial denials.

[Thanks to Doug for the tip)

Mac developer and Panic luminary Steven Frank’s public break-up with the iPhone over Apple’s capricious App Store policy was one of the few so grounded in rationale and reason we couldn’t discount it, and neither could Apple’s Senior VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller.

While Schiller previously responded to Daring Fireball’s John Gruber over concerns about the Ninjawords app, Schiller’s response to Steve Frank was different in kind, if similar in sentiment:

I haven’t sought Phil’s explicit permission to republish the letter, so I won’t do so here. But to summarize, he said: “we’re listening to your feedback”. Not all of my suggested solutions were viable, he said, but they were taking it all in as they continue to evolve the app store.

He went on to say that the rumors of widespread e-book app rejection I’d heard were false — that specifically one e-book app had been rejected because it facilitated iPhone-to-iPhone sharing of (potentially copyrighted) books. But that otherwise, there was no sweeping ban on e-book readers.

First, it’s interesting to see such high level and yet fairly intimate intervention by an Apple executive when it comes to the App Store. It’s not an open letter by Steve Jobs — it’s something subtler, and yet seemingly targeted to engender the type of good will that could give Apple the time and good faith they need to fix the App Store approval process if — and it’s a huge if — they truly take the time to fix it. And that’s the fulcrum of actions and results upon which Schiller’s intervention will ultimately succeed or fail.

Second, Steven Frank is now left to wonder whether to continue his boycott of the iPhone given the lack of those observable actions visible results, or to extend his hand back to Apple and give them that same second chance.

It will be interesting to see what happens next…

Let’s just ask it: is it time for an open letter from Steve Jobs concerning the state of the iTunes App Store? Apple’s CEO has written several of these over the course of the last few years — rare public statements typically addressing wide-spread perceptions of critical problems or situations facing Apple. He’s taken on DRM in music (but not video) to prevent the EU from forcing Apple to license FairPlay DRM, offered $100 to early iPhone 2G buyers incensed by a rapid post-launch price drop, addressed the lack of native apps on the iPhone amid massive developer dissatisfaction, espoused Apple’s commitment to the environment given Greenpeace’s constant PR pressure, and spoken about the uncertainty surrounding his health prior to Macworld to help assuage investor panic. There was even a “leaked” internal letter regarding the troubled MobileMe launch, one of the worst customer relations situations Apple has faced in recent years.

While the App Store is not yet a large-scale consumer facing problem like the iPhone 2G price cut or MobileMe were (some consumers don’t even use the App Store, many others don’t follow any backstage news about), nor a regulatory issue like DRM-music threatened to be (Apple is hardly a monopoly in the smartphone space) or Jobs’ health might have been to investors, it is and will continue to cause Apple pain in one very important area: tech savvy, power users (and media) who typically influence friends (and readers) and generally presage public perception.

Jason Calacanis, who’s frustration at this point clearly overcame his reason (see Marco Arment’s retort), and Mike Arrington, who might again garner Leo Laporte-esque responses himself, are easy to dismiss given their bombastic personalities, passion, and self-interests. Others aren’t so easily dismissed. Long time Mac developer Steven Frank is one example. Daring Fireball’s John Gruber is another. Dieter’s ranted about it on iPhone Live! and Jeremy and I have even written a word or two. Heck, even Apple’s highly operational COO Tim Cook and perennially affable Senior VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller, have mentioned it.

But Steve Jobs hasn’t.

Granted, Jobs is just getting back to work after an extended leave of absence and has been letting his team do their share of heavy lifting, but despite Apple’s highly innovative, world class executive team, Steve Jobs is still the voice of Apple, and there’s likely very little else — aside from carefully watching and tracking tiny improvements over an extended period of time — that will help ease the growing concerns about the App Store and grant Apple a little renewed faith along the way.

An open letter from Steve Jobs in Apple’s news feed, symbolic though it may be, stating a clear “we want a delightful App Store experience for developers” manifesto, reflecting an understanding of the current concerns, offering a “Mobile Me News” olive branch of openness — doing what he did for DRM, the $100 credits, the green initiative, the native apps SDK — would not only address the immediate perception problem, but could start fixing the root cause. Even a “leaked” letter like the one that followed MobileMe’s launch would be a start.

Apple’s often effective, often decried, culture of secrecy is widely thought to emanate from Steve Jobs. He’s shattered it before for Apple’s benefit. Is it time for him to shatter it again?