AppStoreApproval
Latest
Spotify for iPhone gets thumbs up from Apple, subscription music with offline playlists is a go
Streaming and subscription music services are a dime a dozen on iPhone, and they seem to get past Apple's app store approval hurdles with relative ease. But Spotify was one whose fate wasn't so clear cut, given its offline playlist function -- which as the name suggests downloads songs ahead of time for you to listen to when there's no WiFi or phone service to stream from -- could very easily fall into the category of "duplication of core iPhone functionality" and get deep-sixed at the drop of a hat. Turns out that's not the case here, as an Apple spokesperson has told paidContent UK that the app's been given the metaphorical stamp of approval and would be hitting the store "very soon." A premium subscription will run about £9.99 ($16.20) per month, with an option to pay annually coming at a later date. Of course, there's a catch, as Spotify's service is only available in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain for now. The company expects to invade America sometime later this year, but that means another round of app store approvals -- and with Apple's track record on consistency, there's no telling how that'll turn out.
App Store Lessons: App Emergencies
Bad things happen. Despite all your user testing, sometimes an iPhone app release hits the wild with unexpected results. I recently heard about one application upgrade that passed Apple review, but that crashed when run on handsets that had a previously installed version of the app. Another app experienced data corruption when incoming phone calls interrupted file write operations. So you're a developer, and this happens to you. What do you do? Developer Emanuele Vulcano issued some recommendations in a recent iPhoneSDK e-mail group post: First, brace yourself for user rage. Customers aren't going to be happy even though you're going to treat this situation as proactively as possible. Update your application description immediately. Explain what is wrong with the update and why users shouldn't upgrade. Put the word IMPORTANT in capitals. Submit your bug fix and then contact the escalation/approval team email from the developer help pages. Explain what happened. If your situation is critical, they can speed up the review process. Just take into account any time they'll spend before looking at your e-mail. This situation recently cropped up for TUAW reader and iPhone developer Mahmoud and his app BargainBin. "The 3.0 update made BargainBin the only app to monitor App Store price changes and provide push notifications to each user when the apps they care about went on sale. We were so preoccupied with making sure the push notifications and user watch list worked properly, that we overlooked a critical bug. How critical? Well, every time BargainBin was launched to any screen other than the 'Watch List,' the user was presented a screen that said 'no items' rather than the relevant price changes." Absolutely devastated by this error, Mahmoud and his colleagues immediately worked on a bug fix. "We updated the code in about 15 minutes to fix this critical bug. But now it was back to the submission process." This was an update that affected critical application performance. So after submitting his BargainBin bug fix on August 6th in the afternoon, he sent an e-mail to the escalation team. And he got results. Apple's iPhone Developer Program expedited the review, making a one-time exception to their normal process. By the evening of August 7th, the update went live in the App Store -- less than 30 hours later, rather than the 7-14 days for a normal upgrade review. As Mahmoud writes, "Kudos to Apple. This [should make] a nice change from the 'how broken [is] the App Store approval process' articles." TUAW agrees. Way to go, Apple. Want to read more about the story? Pop over to this write-up over at Mahmoud's company blog.
Phil Schiller says Apple didn't censor a dictionary
Yesterday's story about Apple censoring the Ninjawords dictionary seems to have made some waves in Cupertino -- none other than Phil Schiller followed up with Daring Fireball's John Gruber to provide Apple's perspective on the situation. According to Phil, Apple's objection to Ninjawords was that by using the free Wiktionary.org dictionary, it "provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries," and that the App Store reviewer initially suggested the developer resubmit when iPhone OS 3.0 was launched with parental controls. Since 3.0 hadn't been released yet, the developer censored some of the words in an effort to get onto the store early, and that's how Ninjawords ended up both censored and rated 17+. Sure, okay, except that Gruber points out that the App Store reviewer flagged some pretty generic swear words, not the smack-your-momma vulgarities Phil claims are the issue. Still, the larger message remains the same -- the App Store review process is maddeningly inconsistent and in dire need of reform -- and on that note Phil says Apple intends to "learn and quickly improve," so it sounds like there's hope yet. Check the read link for more of Phil's response, it's an interesting read.
GV Mobile and Voice Central pulled from App Store
Update: The official Google app is apparently not going to be released either. Earlier today, iPhone developer Sean Kovacs posted on his blog that his Google Voice client, GV Mobile, is getting pulled from the App Store due to "duplicating features that the iPhone comes with (Dialer, SMS, etc)." Kovacs says he received a call from an Apple staffer, who "wouldn't send a confirmation email either - too scared I would post it." The app still appears in the App Store, but when you attempt to purchase it you will be told "The item you tried to buy is no longer available." We've also heard that Voice Central (another Google Voice application) is similarly no longer available for purchase. There has been speculation that Google is preparing its own iPhone app for Google Voice, however, in light of the news that Apple 'requested' that Google make Latitude a web app instead of a native app "in order to avoid confusion with Maps on the iPhone," I wonder if we are unlikely to see such an application from Google. MailWrangler, a native Gmail client for the iPhone was also rejected from the App Store because the "application duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application Mail without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion." As a heavy duty user of Gmail, I've wished for MailWrangler from the beginning. Sure you can use Gmail through Mobile Safari -- as you can use Google Voice -- but as Apple soon learned after trying to convince users and developers that web apps were all we needed, there are certain things which a native application makes much easier. GV Mobile is a very popular application for using Google Voice on the iPhone. Apple's own phone application is great, but for Google Voice users, a native application was a nice thing to have. I'm not sure why Apple keeps insisting that users would be confused by apps which do similar things (How many different applications are there which duplicate "Notes" functionality?), but a greater concern is the idea that a developer can work on an application, have it released to huge success, and then have Apple turn around and yank it from the App Store. This in loco parentis attitude from Apple hurts iPhone users and developers alike. Developers like Fraser Speirs have stopped developing new applications for the iPhone and he's not the only one. (Fraser's post on Twitter was how I heard how I heard about GV Mobile being pulled from the App Store.) I hope these are growing pains that Apple and the App Store will leave behind. Users who seek out, find, download, and install 3rd party applications are unlikely to be "confused" by the "duplication" of functionality. The fact that they sought them out is evidence that they found something lacking from the applications that Apple offers. The App Store is wonderful, except for the parts of it which are terrible; namely, the review process (which takes too long and rejects too many apps) and the removal of applications which do no harm and which have been released for some time to great success. UPDATE: The developers of Voice Central had an interesting conversation with Apple. Mostly involving the word "can't."
App Store Rejections: Apple rejects iKaraoke app, patent filed published for a karaoke player
As if the waters surrounding the App Store approval process weren't murky enough, one developer has just hit an unprecedented wall. Apple rejected his app, iKaraoke, citing that it duplicated functionality of the iPod application. Of course, the "duplicate functionality" reason is nothing new, but Apple's next step is: just a few weeks after rejecting the application, they have filed a patent for including karaoke functionality into the iPod app.A brief look at the demo iKaraoke's website will quickly tell you that, while the app does bear a light resemblance to some of the menus found in the iPod application, the actual interface that the user interacts with to select and download a song is far from duplicating the iPod's polished interface. Another key point is that the file format used by iKaraoke is known as the .kar format -- an unofficial extension of the MIDI specification that enables lyrics to appear in time with music. The lyrics are then displayed on the screen, and highlighted as the song is played. Does any of this sound like functionality found in the iPod app? We didn't think so.So what exactly was duplicated then? According to apple, iKaraoke "duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application, iPod, without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality." But they didn't just stop there. The reviewer went on to say that the application "downloads media files that are not managed by the iTunes application, which also manages media files, we believe this would be confusing to the user." Now, hold on a minute here... it's fine for several other apps to stream and download media files that are supported by the iPod without being managed by iTunes, but it's not OK for an app to download media that isn't natively supported, and provide functionality that isn't natively provided by the iPod? This wouldn't be much different from your typical app rejection if the story stopped there, but it doesn't. This morning, Apple filed a patent [application here] which details built-in Karaoke functionality being added as part of the iPod application, with some additional bells and whistles such as monitoring the pitch of the user's voice. So it seems the functionality that was duplicated is functionality that Apple has not yet released, and possibly not yet even begun to develop. Maybe the $99 iPhone Developer Program fee should include a crystal ball for testing apps before submitting them.As with the many other patents Apple has filed, this feature may never see the light of day. But is it really acceptable to reject an application, based solely on what appears to be a duplication of a feature that may or may not even be released in the future? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.Update: As a few of you have pointed out in the comments, although the patent application was published today, it actually was originally filed back in April of 2008. While this does indicate that the patent was indeed filed long before the SDK was even released, questions still remain about whether or not Apple may choose to reject applications based on functionality found in unreleased features. Similar rejections have occurred with apps that offered podcast downloads prior to the inclusion of podcasting functionality in iTunes, for example. Essentially, what needs to happen is that Apple needs to clear the air on what exactly is considered a duplication of functionality, and to be clear with the developer on exactly what aspects of their application are in violation of this requirement, rather than sending a vague form letter and ignoring inquiries for additional information from the developer.
Apple's App Store approves first explicit content, Anita Bryant races to Cincinnati
After all the cases of benign apps being rejected on grounds of "objectionable content," the first outright application featuring jiggly bits has made it to the App Store. How could this happen? Easy, Apple's shift in policy is made possible by the parental controls included in the iPhone OS 3.0 -- you know, so you can parent instead of Apple. Hopefully this brings an end to arbitrary App Store rejections and begins a new era of fire and brimstone threats of eternal damnation.[Via MacRumors] Read [Warning: not safe for work]
Apple rejects Bittorrent control app from App Store because it might be used to infringe copyrights
Sigh. Just as we thought Apple's ridiculous App Store approval process was about to get better with the advent of parental controls in iPhone OS 3.0, it goes and pulls another boneheaded move that makes us wonder if the entire system isn't hopelessly broken forever. This time the company's rejected Maza's Drivetrain, an app that allows users to remotely control the Transmission Bittorrent app, because "this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights." Right, "this category of applications," apparently meaning any app that has anything to do with Bittorrent at all -- Drivetrain doesn't actually upload or download anything, it's just used to manage Transmission running on your desktop. That's an awfully paranoid and restrictive stance towards one of the most popular file-transfer protocols around, especially since there are millions of legit torrents available, but somehow we're just not surprised -- this type of foolish, petty, and capricious behavior from Apple has sadly become par for the course with the App Store.[Via iLounge]
iPhone OS 3.0 now being used for App Store admission reviews (updated)
So this is interesting -- we were just forwarded an email from Apple informing iPhone developers that all future App Store testing and review will occur on iPhone OS 3.0 to prepare for a smooth transition this summer, and that incompatible applications won't be approved. Seeing as we're already on beta 5, we're guessing most devs shouldn't find this too much of a burden, but we're wondering if the recent string of bad publicity over App Store approval guidelines has forced Apple's hand here, since 3.0's parental control features will ostensibly relax Apple's currently asinine content restrictions and allow non-kiddie-apps to get through without any hoopla. Let's hope.Update: Looks like our guess was spot-on. The iPhone Blog's noticed a new set of parental controls in beta 5 (and possibly earlier) that suggests some sort of app rating system is in the works. Sure, it's a promising idea, but let's just hope the current broken process is also getting an overhaul -- simply slapping a 17+ rating on, say, Tweetie doesn't actually fix the problem.
iPhone OS 3.0's parental controls to assuage some app submission woes?
Here's something that should help Trent reach a level of moderate contentment. Although we already knew that Apple was expanding its parental controls with iPhone OS 3.0 into the realm of TV shows, movies and App Store apps, a report today about the rejection of Makayama's Newspaper(s) app provides a good example at the ramifications of such alterations. According to iLounge, it was rejected due to a picture of a topless woman under the section for UK-based tabloid The Sun. The accompanying letter suggested a resubmission once 3.0 (and subsequently the parental controls) go public, which we take to mean that the questionable content will suddenly be okay for the App Store once it's behind the appropriate age gate. We won't know for sure until everything falls into place, but sounds like this is one part of the submission approval process that'll soon end up much less frustrating for developers. [Via 9 to 5 Mac]
