AppStoreReview
Latest
Apps downloaded with a promo code can't be reviewed anymore
Last month, Apple began tweaking its App Store to more accurately rank applications based on criteria besides the number of downloads. Presumably, this new rating system takes into account both app reviews and ratings from customers. To tighten up the reviews and keep them honest, Apple has reportedly implemented a new policy that prohibits people from leaving a review when they obtained the application using a developer promo code. A forum post at Touch Arcade contains an email purportedly from Apple customer support that describes these changes. The support personnel writes, "I am sorry to inform that it is no longer possible to rate or review an app if it was downloaded using a developer's promotional code." Anecdotal evidence suggests this policy applies to applications recently downloaded with promotional codes. Promotional applications downloaded from a year ago still allow user reviews. Though inconvenient for some, these changes are consistent with Apple's desire to shore up its App Store ratings system. [Via MacStories]
Facebook app developer rejects App Store, irony ensues
We always said that if Apple's arbitrary, inconsistent, and quite frankly baffling approval process didn't get straightened out soon, the defections were going to pick up pace -- and what do we have here? Joe Hewitt, the developer of the well-loved and highly regarded Facebook iPhone app, has flipped the script and rejected the App Store. And, as you'd expect, our man is not mincing his words, stating that his "decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple's policies," and that he's "philosophically opposed to the existence of their review process." While Hewitt can't comment on specific future projects (he's still at Facebook, but the app itself has been handed off to another developer) he has mentioned that he'll be devoting his time to web development for mobile devices. As you know, there is no approval process for the world wide web (which is apparent if you've spent any time on Geocities back in the day). Way to give 'em hell, Joe! [Via TUAW]
Apple adds submission histories to iTunes Connect
iPhone developer Brian Stormont pinged us this morning to share the news that Apple has quietly updated iTunes Connect with a great new feature: Status History. Appearing near recently reviewed items, this option opens a detail table showing how your application has worked its way through the App Store review process, and on to the shelf. Stormont details this update on his site. This option does not, at this time, appear to be universally available. When I checked my personal apps this morning in the iTunes Connect "Manage Your Applications" screen, I was unable to find any Status History links on any of my application listings. However, I was able to confirm this feature with other iPhone developers. Another new feature appears to be that the amber-bubbled status messages have been extended. In addition to the standard "In Review," iTunes Connect now offers a "Waiting for Review" status for newly uploaded material. If you see any further interface changes or new status messages, drop us a comment and let us know. So what does this all mean? In my opinion, this is all great stuff, helping move Apple towards greater developer feedback. No, it's still not the full ticketing system that a lot of us are hoping for but it's definitely a step in the right direction. Thanks, Maior
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.
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.
Even at WWDC, developers can't get straight answers about App Store rejections
This is just becoming stupid. For the past year, we've heard from developers who have had their apps rejected from the App Store for the silliest of reasons. You know, the app might allow someone to access content that could also be accessed through Mobile Safari, it might display an Old-English translation of the Kama Sutra, or include potentially adult language; but this rejection wins the "most asinine rejection ever" award: Because we said so. Meet Craig Robinson. Craig is an artist and illustrator. For the last ten years, he's been creating these extremely cool Minipops, tiny pixelated renditions of celebrities and musicians. Check out Radiohead and The Office (UK). These creations have built up a nice fanbase, and Craig even published a book, aptly titled Minipops, in several countries. When Yahoo! Music launched a few years ago, Minipops were featured. So Craig and his friend Matt decided to create a Minipops iPhone app -- essentially a portable version of the Minipops collection, along with some clever commentary for each illustration and the chance to "guess" what each image represents. The app was rejected from the store under the guise of being potentially offensive. This was shocking, but the guys persevered and resubmitted the app. Once again, rejected. Originally, Craig thought it might have been his sometimes sarcastic commentary that was the offensive part, but the second e-mail made it clear that they found the pixelated illustrations themselves offensive. Keep in mind, these illustrations are very, very cute -- and if anything, flatter the people they represent more than anything else. Plus, these illustrations have been published not only in Craig's own Minipops book, but used in various other media as well. A book about Michelle Obama will even feature the Minipops of the Obama family.
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.
Thoughts on the iPhone App Store review process
Should Apple have approved "I Am Rich"? Pretty much everyone agrees that it's a useless application. But once approved, should they have pulled it? Jason Kottke says it should stay in the App Store. He argues that Apple should be providing an open marketplace rather than a hand-selected boutique. Say what you will about Apple's App Store shortcomings (no shopping carts? What were they thinking!), iPhone consumers are split between those who'd prefer greater oversight and those who'd rather let the free market decide. Follow the jump for more thoughts about the App Store review process.
