All Articles Tagged rejected apps

Amazon, citing new provisions of their API/data terms of use, informed Delicious Library developer Wil Shipley that if he didn’t immediately remove Delicious Library for iPhone from the iTunes App Store, they’d remove his ability to use Amazon APIs and data from all of his products, including the long-standing Delicious Library for Mac.

Just when we thought Apple had a hold on mind-boggling app blocking. Sigh.

TUAW quotes the relevant new passage:

(e) You will not, without our express prior written approval requested via this link , use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device.

So, according to Shipley:

Delicious Library for iPhone isn’t coming back as long as we’re using Amazon’s APIs, unless they decide to make an exception to section 4e.

Which he says he’s been told they aren’t going to do at this point.

Is this just another big company stumbling around in confusion about new mobile technology and how it’s used, ready to rectify it when public outcry makes them aware and uncomfortable. Or is this a sign that Amazon has big plans for this new mobile technology themselves, and they don’t plan to share?

Last week the first iPhone (and iPod touch) app to feature nudity was live in the iTunes App Store. Technically, however, it was simply a change in the server behind the app — the developer added nude images.

Subsequently, however, the app became unavailable. The developer first reported that their own servers couldn’t keep up with demand for the newly nudified images, but it turns out Apple laid the hammer down on the “soft-core porn” app:

Apple will not distribute applications that contain inappropriate content, such as pornography. The developer of this application added inappropriate content directly from their server after the application had been approved and distributed, and after the developer had subsequently been asked to remove some offensive content. This was a direct violation of the terms of the iPhone Developer Program. The application is no longer available on the App Store.

Given that Apple has included new parental controls and App Store restrictions in iPhone 3.0, including a declaration for nude content, and given the eternal argument that nudity is available for age-appropriate viewers via iTunes movies, is there some contradiction still at work? Or is Apple drawing the line artificially close for now while it watches and gauges reaction?

[via CNN]

Tim Daley let us know via Twitter that his app, What Would Chuck Do?, was rejected by Apple’s iTunes App Store for the most terrifying reason imaginable. Because they said so:

Thank you for submitting WWCD – What Would Chuck Do to the App Store. We’ve reviewed the Application and, consistent with the criteria considered in our approval process, we have chosen not to publish this application. As you know, Apple reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject an application for any reason.

Regards,

iPhone Developer Program

While as a publisher, this is absolutely within Apple’s rights, as a platform that needs to nurture and maintain the support of both its developer and user base, it’s suicidal. And what’s worse, it’s stupid. In this day and age, especially for a company as connected as Apple, poor communication causing bad PR is as astounding as it is inexcusable.

Steve Jobs and Eddy Cue need to pull out whatever flame-thrower they marched the halls of MobileMe with last year and turn them full-throttle on whatever passes for the current App Store rejection policy. If any reviewer even thinks of typing “because we said so” they should immediately be transfered to whatever passes at Apple for Siberia.

It’s getting tiring to keep typing this, but developers deserve clear, consistent guidelines, users deserve top notch reviewers to make sure we get the best technical quality in apps, and Apple deserves a happy developers and PR experience that matches the phenomenal success of the App Store.

It’s such an easy thing to fix, which makes it all the more stupefying Apple not only hasn’t fixed it, but hasn’t even reached out to developers to show they understand the frustration level and are working to fix it.

For more examples, see TUAW’s recent reports from Christina Warren on MiniPops and Erica Sadu on iLaugh Lite.

Stupefying.

Short story: GP Apps made iVidCam, a video recording app. Apple rejected it for using undocumented APIs. The developers appealed on the grounds that other camera-related apps also use undocumented APIs and demanded Apple allow it in, and let them sell it for 2 months before Apple released their own video recording functionality, as anticipated for WWDC 2009. Apple thanked them for pointing out other API violators, said they would investigate, and let the rejection stand.

Long story, including personal response from Apple VP of marketing, Phil Schiller: See GPApps.com.

It’s hard not to sympathize with GP Apps given the amount of hard work and obvious passion they’ve put into iVidCam. They’ve made 680(!) other apps already and had them approved in the App Store.

It’s hard to sympathize with Apple, whose App Store approval policies remain opaque and seemingly capricious to the point we’re amazed developers have any hair left.

But here’s the thing: the app is in clear violation of App Store policy. If Apple keeps the other violating apps in the store, GP Apps could clearly argue fairness, but if Apple investigates and removes the other apps, that’s a done deal. Basing significant development resources on the shaky foundation of others getting away with something is harder to sympathize with. It’s more of a gamble than an investment.

In other words, if several people jaywalk in front of us, and we get caught, we’re still getting the ticket. And demanding that the cop not give us the ticket, and give us two months of unmolested jaywalking privileges on top of it… Well, we admire the hutzpah, but when the cop’s name is Apple, we don’t see it getting us too far.

Still, we wish GP Apps good luck. If those APIs are made public (as happened with the undocumented API’s Google was using), and Apple restricts their built-in video functionality to third generation hardware, we expect it will iVidCam may still appeal to a lot of iPhone 2G and iPhone 3G owners.

What do you think?

Daring Fireball has posted a bitingly satirical look at Apple’s iPhone App Store review process which, like the best of comedy, is firmly rooted in both tragedy and truth. That Apple hasn’t posted clear guidelines for developers is frustrating enough. That they apparently haven’t imposed them on their own internal staff raises the flabbergast bar to dizzying new heights.

With 35,000+ apps and a billion downloads Apple is well on their way towards building that next great platform. Until they fix the app approval process, however, that building is a house of cards.

Enough of the choir preaching. Here’s Gruber bringing the painful funny:

MONDAY MAY 18: The dude who wrote that game with the iPhone icon seems very upset. Says that the iPhone image is used to explain that the user must tilt the device in order to play the game, and so how can he show this visually without using an image of an iPhone. And he has a list of other apps already in the Store which use similar graphics. I reply with the exact same message as last week, word for word. Spend the rest of the day playing Flight Control.

Read the entire Excerpts From the Diary of an App Store Reviewer via Daring Fireball…

• Our podcast feed
• Download Directly
• Subscribe via iTunes

Read the rest of this entry »

A while back we mentioned that an update to popular Twitter client, Tweetie was rejected by the iTunes App Store because, at that particular day and time, ****itlist showed up as a popular trend on Twitter. Later that same day Apple reversed the decision. But they haven’t, apparently, reversed the capricious lunacy that led to it.

Latest example: the e-book reader Eucalyptus has been rejected because not once, but twice, an App Store reviewer specifically searched for “the kama sutra of vatsyanya translated fr…” (or at least searching for enough of it to be offered that search term, then selecting it).

Developer James Montgomerie blogs about his frustrations, the continued opaqueness of the App Store review policy, and points out the blatant inconsistency of Safari, Google Mobile, and a variety of other built-in and already approved 3rd party apps providing complete internet search access to pretty much any content imaginable. (And some we’d frankly rather not imagine, thanks!)

Needless to say — and regardless of Apple’s statistics saying 98% of all apps are approved within 7 days of submission, 35,000+ apps in the store, and over one billion downloads — that simple, clear, and consistent guidelines, and developer support equal to the customer support Apple touts and prides itself on, are still not available some 10 months since launch, is embarrassing.

The App Store is a phenomenal success, no doubt about it, but doesn’t matter how fine your tuxedo is if you keep walking around with one or more battered, bloody eyes.

Need more absurdity? Forbes profiles the trials and tribulations involved in getting an app approved about US President Obama’s dog in cartoon form…

[via @chokenberry on Twitter, and the Reptile]

According to one of Trent Reznor’s latest tweets, an update to the very popular and crafty Nine Inch Nails application has been rejected by Apple.

Apple rejects the NIN iPhone update because it contains objectionable content. The objectionable content referenced is “The Downward Spiral”

For any of you not familar, The Downward Spiral was Reznor’s 1994 hit album that featured the popular song “Closer“. It’s a pretty good guess that is the song that put a halt to this update hitting the App Store. But wait one second… you can purchase this complete album including that particular song right one iTunes?!

Not much to say about this one but wow… just wow.

Update: Our good friend from WMExperts, @PhilNickinson, just sent over a link from the NIN forums where Trent Reznor has posted a bit more information on the rejection. Turns out The Downward Spiral is not even available to listen to in the updated app yet the objectionable content is The Downward Spiral… We are scratching our heads as well.

[Thanks to Juan for the tip!]

Today is a depressing day for all of the South Park fans out there. The South Park app that Dieter told us about back in October has been rejected once again by Apple.

We first announced our iPhone App back in October, after we submitted the Application to Apple for approval. After a couple of attempts to get the application approved, we are sad to say that our app has been rejected. According to Apple, the content was “potentially offensive.” But Apple did admit that the standards would evolve, citing that when iTunes first launched it didn’t sell any music with explicit lyrics. At this point, we are sad to say, the app is dead in the water. Sorry, South Park fans.

Who is Apple to say what is offensive and what isn’t? They let fart apps in the App Store in groves. Who is to say those do not offend anyone? How about Wobble? An app that gives you the ability to make certain female body parts jiggle around your screen. That doesn’t offend anyone? That is a choice the consumer should be making, not Apple. Ok, I’ve made my point.

There is one simple solution to something that may offend someone. If you are offended, don’t buy it!

[Via Southparkstudios.com]

To no one’s surprise, but perhaps to a few’s disppointment, Apple may have denied entry to the iTunes App Store to Opera Mini. Says the New York Times (via Daring Fireball):

Mr. von Tetzchner said that Opera’s engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won’t let the company release it because it competes with Apple’s own Safari browser.

Opera doesn’t state what the terms of rejection were, be it “duplicative functionality” like PodCaster, they dared touch Steve Jobs’ sacred dock, or whether they were trying to parse JavaScript against the terms of the SDK. Whatever the reason, however, there remains uncertainty for developers and a deafening lack of justification from Apple. (Perhaps even more ironic, given Valley Wag’s assertion that Opera was once considered by Apple to be the iPhone browser!)

For those not familiar with Opera Mini, on the Windows Mobile, Palm, and even Blackberry platforms that have been woefully under-served by the likes of Blazer and Pocket IE, Opera Mini has become one of the first things installed in a desperate attempt to get at least something closer to the actual internet on their devices (though this is changing with the likes of Android, and devices such as the Blackberry Thunder). Opera has also found a niche in embedded systems (e.g. video game platforms).

However, Opera Mini pre-crunching all data on their own servers before shipping it to handsets sets off a “Gibsonian response” in my central security core, so while it wouldn’t appeal to me on the iPhone, I would prefer to reject it myself rather than have Apple do so perfunctorily on my behalf.

What about you? Anyone seriously bummed there won’t be Opera for the iPhone any time soon?