Is Apple's Phil Schiller trying to free the App Store from arbitrary app rejections?
By Tim Stevens 
posted Aug 17th 2009 7:34AM
posted Aug 17th 2009 7:34AM
We've certainly seen plenty of curious rejections for seemingly innocuous applications submitted for inclusion in the App Store, and recently saw Phil Schiller stepping forward to explain one of the most mind-boggling of rejections yet: a dictionary that had the gall to define naughty words. Apparently that's becoming something of a mission of Schiller's, investigating apps that have been rejected, personally contacting developers in some cases, and in general working to make things right... or at least less wrong. However, from what we can see he's only being sent in when word hits the wire about the latest sorry app being sent packing; we're not sure whether he's working to correct all illogical app rejections, or only those that make the news. He is the VP of Marketing, so it wouldn't be entirely surprising for him to only be concerned about Apple's public image, but for now we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's also working to make wholesale improvements on the approval process over in Cupertino -- if only because we're sure the FCC won't be so kind.
NO.ONE.CARES.
Obviously some people do. Why comment if you don't care? awwww someone needs a hug
He's probably commenting so that Engadget knows he doesn't care and takes it into consideration for their next story. I've never understood the "don't comment if you don't care" logic.
I don't care, I came to the comments to see if anyone shared my same lack of caring and disinterest in this article. Solely so I could comment in agreement with them.
@ Rocky : I've never understood the "don't comment if you don't care" logic.
What is there to understand, if you really didn't care or the OP didn't care for that matter they would not have commented. The only true way to show Engadget you don't care is by not commenting. However Apple stories continuously get the most views and comments so apparently a lot of people do care thus making your logic null and void.
You're saying that typing out "I don't care about this story, Engadget." Is not a "true way" to say you don't care? Apple stories get the most comments because they start flame wars. Not because everyone loves Apple. The same reason Microsoft stories get lots of comments. The same reason PS3 vs 360 stories get lots of comments on Joystiq.
Dude, we don't care
Phil looks like an ex bodybuilder who still likes tight shirts.
It's not about liking or disliking Apple when it comes to Engadget. It's about what stories get the most views.....
So for those that don't care about a particular article, just scroll past it.
As for Schiller, I hope he helps straighten this mess out. I've found myself looking at more and more Android phones recently because of this App store fiasco.
All I know is that I have an App from Dictionary.com on my Phone and I can look up vulgar and offensive words on it all day long.
So - it leads me back to inconsistency!
Trying? a man at his position either does or does not.
Also, if he is trying that means there is someone above him pushing for the other direction...
Something tells me Phil is not a Jedi...yet
Definitely not a Jedi.
And consider Jobs and Schiller; looks like a master and an apprentice to me.
More like master and servant.
Master and Commander
Master bater?
I knew it !! Jobs = Yoda !!
I would rather have no excuse than one about Apple blocking a dictionary app because it pulls definition from a web page. That doesn't exactly seem "less wrong". Quite the opposite
@EGO
Really you should have actually bothered looking at what happened before typing that response. The developer was told what to do to get the app approved and decided to go a completely different way to fix it - they decided to pull the words from their dictionary rather than wait for 3.0 OS to launch when they could have done what was asked which was to give it an age rating.
The app used data from a web site, yes, but actually it was all embedded in the app when shipped. So the definition was "not pulled" from the web site.
Are the dictionaries you can buy from bookstore x-rated? Never have i seen a dictionary with text "suitable for ages 11 or older".
Is there a age limit for Merriam-Webster dictionary?
If a 9 year old goes and trys to buy Merriam-Webster dictionary what is the likelihood that the vendor wont sell? Or even think if the dictionary is suitable reading for a nine year old? Or the parents go through the dictionary and black out parts of it? And are the librarys dictionaries offlimits for children?
Any and all flak from this decision is deserved.
Well.. once the fact that the dev could have released the app under V3.0 was established it did become more obvious and less "a story". On Mac OSX parental controls there is an option for removing inappropriate words from the internal dictionary.
If anyone is still wanting to make a point in saying its wrong they would be better placed to highlight that Dictionary.com's app was approved AND it had local data (ex website) AND it had "bad" words in it before 3.0... So the decision was not equal for all. That is the inappropriate action by Apple, not that they didn't let in "bad" words. I'd say in a market place, that's actually worse.
So if you're all so angry then at least be usefully so, as opposed to "being opposed" cause it's flame bait.
This story is nearly ancient now though. The other app that recently hit the media was a banned eBook reader, after which the blog-wire (inc Engadget) erupted with Apple is crushing all eBook readers and making their own. That actually turned out to be because the dev made an eBook reader which shared content via Bluetooth which would enable copyright breach of works. That on the other hand is fair. Or...
Because Airsharing and other filestore apps for example can share content (though I don't know any that spit between iPhones as yet except for contacts and photos) and those Apps could easily contain copyright information, including full program installs or eBooks its an edgy "equal for all" issue again.
Apple still has a long way to go working this one out. They will be some suing along the way I suspect.
Be realistic. There is no way a VP is going to look at every single app personally. There are enough apps in the store and I am sure enough new submissions coming in that I highly doubt any one person could actually give them all a solid inspection and critique, with the associated tacking paperwork and rejection letters etc. even if they wanted to.
As for the FCC, despite what you say, they are looking at the google/at&t/apple triangle. The app store in general can, if they choose to do so, reject any application without so much as an explanation and never be told differently by anyone. It is their store, and no one, not the customer, not the government, not any the press can tell them they have to carry something in it. That would be like going into a Sony store and telling them they have to sell Xbox consoles and Vizio televisions.
This just reminds me of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" when people are talking about indie movies being more harshly rated. Unless developers band together or are part of a company (like EA) Apple can do whatever they wish and the people who get apps rejected just look like complainers. I mean, these people are random developers, Apple has already made loads of money and still will, what's losing a dev or two if it makes the Apple brand "clean".
You know usually I don't like the way Apple handles things, they seem like control freak Nazis to me most of the time. In the FCC investigation of Apple not allowing Google Voice you are right in your opinion(imo). This is their app store, they can do what they want with their store because it only supports their device. If this was the industry leading(market share) application store that all handsets could go to then it would make sense with the FCC investigating them. At this point there should be nothing forcing Apple to support Google Voice being its a competitors application on Apples device. Because people always have the choice to leave the iPhone to go to a device that supports Google Voice. Thats the beauty of the Free Market. However if all phones downloaded apps from Apples app store and then Apple decided not to allow Google Voice for their own profit gains I could see a gray area where you might see an anti-competition/anti-trust case arising. But as it is they are only hurting themselves not supporting it, users have options.
Apple will be the new Microsoft one day, all the hippies out there will migrate to other phones, or other operating systems because Apple will become the new "the man." Someday it will get so trendy that people will go find other devices to be different from all the Apple owners. Or the hipsters will finally wise up to the dictator-like ways of their savior computer company, I however will never own an Apple product at the rate they are going.
indeed. a lot of developers either figure out the issue themselves, were told the issue at the time of rejection, etc. so the only ones Phil would know about are the ones that make any noise.
as for the nasty comments about the 17+ stuff. they have to do it to make Parental Controls work the way they claim it does. otherwise they would get sued by some parent who was shocked to find out that his kid bought an app that would take him on the web and show him what a girl's vay-jay-jay looks like.
if you don't have Parental Controls on, it doesn't affect you so what's the deal.
Who really cares? Apple has revolutionized the way we get apps for our mobile devices and blogs focus on the rejection of a few. How about the 60,000 that didn't get rejected. Too many people able to sit on the sidelines and second guess these days. There is a reason why the term Monday morning quarterback exists. Perhaps all the blogs should build there own devices and market them to see how difficult it actually is. And then deal with the wining of a few rejected app developers. If I was Apple I would say F*@k off to the developer that has the nerve to complain when they don't get their way. It is kind of like the child running home to Mom to complain the teacher made him do his homework.
It's funny, you must be Apple, because a hearty F-Off is pretty much what they've given most of the developers of rejected apps. If you have read about some of the apps that have been rejected, you'd see that there is very little consistency in their review process, and developers don't get a ton of feedback on why an app is rejected. Apple has tended to leave these folks groping in the dark, and I'm glad to hear that someone is trying to get a little sunlight on the approval process.
All that being said, Cydia is the way to go, better to let the consumers decide what is worth downloading in my opinion. Market forces will determine successful and appropriate apps.
I guess you'd also love to live in China/North Korea/etc - because, really, isn't it totally nice of the governments there to filter out "unnecessary" news so that you don't have to think for yourself?
Apple didn't revolutionize anything here. Sites like Handango have been selling thousands of apps for Palm and Winmo for years. As always, Apple's success has been at marketing.
@tcc3
I don't know why more people can't accept this when ragging on Apple. Apple is renowned and awarded for its business, marketing, JIT manufacturing (low inventories), packaging, industrial design and user interface (iTunes makes one wonder).
And while they have invented -some things- and introduced -some things- into the industry, Apple is by no means a key inventor or electronics design leader. More an integrator of parts, which is the company's origin; actually in kit computing for enthusiasts using standard parts.
Is it that the complainers expect them to be amazing at that as well, or just declare their discovery of what everyone else has known for the last 30 years.
Come on Phil, YOU CAN DOOOOOOO IT!!!
Finally, someone is think different!
Look unless they start talking to developers as to why apps get rejected with helpful explanations & tips on getting approved, why trust them with your hard work?
They need to not only fix the system, they need to work with developers & TALK or the competition is going to capitalize on it.
It seems his actions are isolated to damage control -- just directing them at well-read blog writers and not the cadre of developers who are actually being affected -- and it works, at least temporarily slowing the support in favor of the developers.
My company authored software that's faced arbitrary rejection for over two months without a single non-form-email notice from Apple. If Schiller were really working for reform, you'd think developers would have received something acknowledging problems, giving us a way to communicate with Apple if we have fallen victim to these problems as well. We haven't seen anything at all and the arbitrary rejections continue.
If you're curious, our application interfaces with the camera screen, and that's why it's being rejected. After the first rejection, our team redesigned the app to meet Apple's criteria, but the rejections continue -- sometimes it gets rejected without a reviewer even testing the app.
Trying to free Apple from bad publicity seems more likely.
Unless they give one guy the job of approving or denying every single app, there are going to be inconsistencies. That's what happens when you have rules and you have humans enforcing them. If the rule is that they want family friendly apps so you don't accidentally ever see a swear word, then rejecting the dictionary was the right thing. They can't say it's OK since in it's a dictionary, then deny a game because it contains the same words. At least Apple seems to be fairly interested in fixing decisions that get apps wrongly approved or rejected rather than pretending there isn't any problem.
The only way they can be 100% consistent is if they allow all apps, and give them ratings.. and trust parents to police their kids. ha.
Thank you for seeing what is common sense. If you have different people looking at things, no matter what guidelines you have in place, you are going to get different results. Like being a referee in an NBA game. From that persons point of view they are making the right call, while from someone else's point of view they are making the wrong call. Both people know the rule-book but it really depends on where you are standing and what thing catches your eye. A referee can think they see something, but from another angle it just appeared to happen.
If some one is given a rule to not allow this, this and that through the process, they app in question might appear to them to fit in one of those categories and reject it, while the developer might be thinking it doesn't really do that. Nobody is perfect and I am sure that they no-doubt receive a lot of applications that say they do one thing and then actually do something else. Or ones that tie into external sources and then the developer changes the content after the submission trying to pull a fast one.
And i agree, if you say your rating will do something, then no matter what the application it has to fit that rating, no matter if its a game, reference source etc.
Apples only "revolution" in content delivery is being a company that forces you to use their service (that they make money on) to distribute your content, limits the content the end user can use, and doesn't allow for any legal way for users to install non-approved programs, or to pay for their content another way-- and still have people believe that Apples method is "better" than having a WinMo solution where there are advertised Apps at an Microsoft-run App store...but, you can also get programs from anywhere and install them yourself, paying the developer directly. Microsoft is actually more consumer- and developer-friendly than Apple.
Imagine that.
I have been anxiously awaiting the addition of "iKeepass" to the app store (http://ikeepass.de). It is an iPhone version of the popular open source Keepass, a password storage database program that is very popular.
The app was initially denied due to encryption and export law reasons which is understandable, but since then the developer seems to be unable to get the app approved. It seems like the apps store approval team is unwilling to follow his instructions on how to use the app and he has even gone as far as to create a video to explain usage. He has been denied over and over and now has a string of comments encouraging him to port this app to Cydia for those with unlocked iPhones.
What amazes me is that Apple can approve useless apps like iFart, but this useful app with a following of users waiting to download it has been stuck in limbo for many months.
It's because Apple will not allow apps that reproduce functionality of the phone. Which is completely stupid, bullyish, and should not be allowed. Isn't this how monopolies are formed?
This dude is just running around trying to protect the Apple image. Apple's image has been tarnished lately and they can't stand it. They're supposed to be the perfect company destroying other companies images, but when it happens to them they cry like a little baby.
You know, we have a whole lot of people (myself included) who view Apple's review process as a flawed system and talk about the developers who get treated like dirt. However, the App Store continues to grow and the developers invariably try again. I hate the iPhone ecosystem with a passion, but the truth is that they can get away with it because the market lets them. They are not experiencing developer exodus and probably won't no matter what they do. So, given that there is no real consequence to their actions (pending FCC investigation aside) why in the world would they give up such a lucrative and controlled system? No one is voting with their dollars and developers are willing to take the abuse. As much as I hate it and what this really shows Apple to be, I can't imagine anybody there actually thinking they need to change something.
Some of us are. I don't an iPhone, even though I want one. The hardware and the OS are themselves a treat to have, and the number of applications for it are astonishing and useful (for the most part). However, I will not buy a gadget that I have to jailbreak to use as I want to. I will not pay a premium for something that should be standard. Apple's policies may not affect most users, but for people who take technology seriously, I'm surprised at how many people look at the ramifications of what a closed ecosystem does and still want to use it.
Personally, I've taken to using WinMo 6.5 and even in the pre-release version, I'm able to get what I want out of my device and also have the freedom to choose what I want installed, and can do it myself. I don't resent Apple having an App store. I think it is a useful repository and social networking site where you can see popular apps, and can peruse a collection of apps-- I just think that it should not be tied to a proprietary software like iTunes, and that it should not be the only place you can get Apps. It defeats the point of a competitive marketplace for software, and it would be illegal for any other manufacturer..so why is Apple allowed to do this?
If Microsoft, Sony, Dell, Toshiba or any other OS/hardware provider tried dictating what could and could not be used on a computer, everyone would be up in arms-- and rightfully so. If Microsoft blocked iTunes for the PC, claiming "duplicates functionality", they'd be sued and in anti-trust hearings within days. Yet people like to imagine that somehow, when it's a product by Apple, that Apple has the right to tell you how to use your device. Bull. When I buy something, it's mine. I shouldn't have to break into my phone to install an Application that Apple doesn't deem appropriate. I should be able to make that decision myself, because I am an adult. Perhaps they are simply worried about the security of their device...or they are watching their bottom line. Either way, it's not a good sign for consumers that so many people are promoting this kind of behavior. It's especially troubling to see people saying "well, it's Apples device...", because that implies that ANY company could make a product and you still wouldn't own it.
Imagine buying a table from IKEA and having guys come in and removing a leg. Well, it's "their" product, so they determined that you only needed three legs for your table.
There is a difference between a company making a good product, and a company being a "good" company. Apple makes a good phone, but the draconian way they expect consumers to accept being restricted by Apples software makes me avoid this product like the plague. What's next? Them telling me I can't listen to music on my iPod that has naughty language. It's "their" device too, after all....
Just sell the damn phone jailbroken, and nobody will care what a crappy job you do with the app store.
webOS got them running. I guess the recent frustrations from developers not being able to make an app they feel worthy and then having the fruit company deny it seems like a waste a time. Now that everyone is recruiting for the mobile OS. Apple better get on the ball and approve some of this stuff. The funny thing is that the apps are still rejected. Its like being slapped in the face and then saying sorry i hit you hard hard but you still deserved it.
@OG_Phenix: "If Microsoft, Sony, Dell, Toshiba or any other OS/hardware provider tried dictating what could and could not be used on a computer, everyone would be up in arms-- and rightfully so."
OK.. you kinda lost yourself there with the defs. A computer.. ie. "PC" is virtually the same machine throughout... there is no PC competitor.. what makes the machine different is its OS.. An iPhone on the other hand.... has hundreds of other devices that it is competing against so people DO have other choices/options.. NOT THE SAME... get my drift?
Haha Schiller's the man.