ReviewProcess
Latest
Terry Cavanagh's latest game rejected from App Store for making fun of in-app purchases
Game developer Terry Cavanagh has released a few really great games over the years -- in addition to the popular PC title VVVVVV, he's also the man behind iOS' recent (and terribly difficult) hit Super Hexagon. Right now, he's in the process of trying to release an old experimental game he made called Don't Look Back (which you can play online in Flash right now) on iOS, but he's hit a speedbump. Apple rejected the app, unfortunately, though not because of anything in the app itself. Nope -- Cavanagh, in the app's description, happened to point out that Don't Look Back didn't have "in-app purchases or any of that nonsense," and Apple sent him back a message saying that he should probably "remove or revise" that line. Cavanagh has since resubmitted the app, and it's actually available on the App Store right now (with the jokey line removed from the description). Now, Don't Look Back is a great, emotional game experience, and it's good to know this could all be figured out. But should Apple really be judging app developers' descriptions for content like this? Checking over descriptions for fraudulent information or obscenity seems fine. But should developers be required to watch their tone when criticizing certain money-making features on the App Store? Apple apparently thinks so.
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.
Apple approves third-party email client for the App Store, violates its own policies
Recently we were sent a PR email about an iPhone app called BdEmailer. No big deal, press releases about new iPhone applications show up in our box in large bundles every day -- but this one was different. According to the release, the program is the "the first wide email iPhone app that supports client SMTP." That means, in essence, that it duplicates an exact function of Apple's Mail application on the iPhone and touch. That's kind of a huge deal, because up until this point we've been led to believe that this duplication of functionality is one of the company's red flags when it comes to approval. Now mind you, we're not complaining. The idea of having more apps to choose from for doing things like sending email is a great idea, but Apple... what the hell is going on? You refused MailWrangler and Podcaster for similar reasons, yet BdEmailer passes through your review process, SMTP functionality intact? This means one of two things as far as we can tell -- either you've relaxed your policies on duplicate functionality, or you've gotten incredibly lazy when it comes to approving applications. We're inclined to believe it's the latter, as BdEmailer has a fair share of bugs that need working out, but really, people need some clarification here on what will and won't pass -- and moving the goalpost all the time isn't going to help.
App Store quietly changes review policy
Since its inception in July, a more fair user-review process has been one of the most constant complaints/requests for the App Store. The old process, which was the same as the existing policy for podcasts, movies, TV shows and music, allowed anyone to review an applcation, regardless if that person had purchased the app or not. The frequent result is as you might expect: 100 reviews kvetching about price by people who never even purchased the application. That isn't fair to developers, and it isn't fair to potential buyers.Fortunately, Apple has decided to change the review process. Starting today (well, I noticed it for the first time today, and so did Matt Gemmell), you have to actually own the application in order to review it. Go ahead and try to enter a review for an app you haven't downloaded or purchased, you'll get the dialog box at the top of this post.This is a GREAT step to making the App Store more equitable for both users and developers. Certainly, it doesn't make up for all of the other valid complaints about the NDA and Apple's non-transparent app review process, but it does address the issue that arguably can have the most impact on application sales.Although free apps will surely still be littered with reviews that solely exist to complain or try to promote another product or continue Internet wars like we're all 12 years old, I don't expect BS reviews to continue to appear on paid apps. After all, is someone really going to pay to trash a competitor's app? This means that the reviews, both postive and negative, can become more reliable, and that would-be customers have a better chance of actually parsing their opinions before making a purchase.
