RejectionLetters
Latest
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.
iPhone App rejected for "Limited Utility"
When a developer submits a "Pull My Finger" application, you've kind of got to expect it's going to be rejected. iFartz was rejected. Ibrate was rejected -- and that one was even raising money for breast cancer research. Today, over at Mac Rumors, I read about "Pull My Finger"'s rejection for limited utility. Right at the bottom of the rejection letter was the name "Victor Wang". Mr. Wang has become a near legend for his rejection letters, usually long, delayed (I suspect he's second- or third-tier in the review process) and for aesthetic reasons that leave developers blinking with surprise. While "Pull My Finger" would probably not meet "Koi Pond" levels of user reach (here's our look at Koi Pond), it could have a solid audience. It's a simple, stupid joke app (notice how I'm not pulling punches here) but it's the kind of simple, stupid joke app that a lot of people would download and use because people like simple, stupid joke apps. I've complained about this before, so apologies to everyone who has heard this point -- the next post is just a wee bit below this one, feel free to scroll -- but until Apple offers developers a firm set of guidelines, developers will continue to be ticked off by seemingly arbitrary rejections like this one. Apple is clearly refusing applications that fail the sniff test -- and yes, I know that's a little more apt a metaphor than this application deserves. "Pull My Finger" is tasteless. Apple should have rejected it for that reason, rather than pulling new reasons out from thin air.Apple needs to step forward, and do so soon, with a clear set of guidelines that explain to developers exactly what to expect when they press that "submit" button for their new app. Developers shouldn't be wasting Apple's time with unpublishable software. Apple should not be wasting Developers' time with a secretive and arbitrary review process.Update: The app's author has set up a plea-page
iPhone Developer Program Rejections: Take 2
"I'm busy washing my hair Saturday night. Why don't we get together some other time?" "I'm concentrating on my career -- but let's be friends." "Thank you for your letter. We have no openings at this time but we'll keep your resume on file in case a position opens up." Sometimes it doesn't have to come right out and say it to, well, say it. We all know a rejection letter when we see one. Planet-iPhone claims to have the insider scoop on those developer program rejections, but with all due respect and courtesy my bogus-detector is pinging softly. Their unnamed "executive" says that 10 developers were selected. (*ping*) That's awfully specific and if true might refer to developers who presented at launch. But 10? Apple never planned to launch and pick "ten" extremely selected developers. The application form just doesn't have enough information to pick that way. 10 random guys? No. He says they were "extremely selective." (So: *ping* *ping* *ping*). Purported Unnamed Executive also says the huge SDK response did not allow them to scale their registered developer perks to the applicant numbers and they're working on that now. No *ping*. This is reasonable and what has been called by many bloggers. If one of our tipsters is to be believed, the certificate program isn't even in place. So did Apple accept anyone last week? TUAW remains dubious. (And so, apparently, are others.) Apple would have done better sending out "we're swamped" as the message rather than "we have an exclusive limited beta -- and you're not part of it." Foot in mouth? Certainly. Secret acceptances? Probably not. Thanks Kevin SullivanReaders report that Apple has sent out a new mailing. Full text after the jump.
