AppStoreApprovalProcess
Latest
Daily Update for October 9, 2012
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get all the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the inline player (requires Flash) or the non-Flash link below. To subscribe to the podcast for daily listening through iTunes, click here. No Flash? Click here to listen. Subscribe via RSS
Microsoft Office for iOS gets blurrycam treatment in weird party-room
What you see before you is a single image purporting to be Microsoft's new Office app for iOS. We can certainly believe such an app exists, and according to The Daily, the UI is similar to OneNote with an added dash of Metro. You'll be able to produce and edit Word, Excel and PowerPoint files locally and online, but the app is still to run the Cupertino's approval gauntlet. The report also claims an Android version is isn't in the works and but that a Metro-styled refresh of OneNote is due in "the coming weeks." That said, we're not sure what sort of place doesn't take the plastic off its carpets, leaves big "product of Spain" crates lying around with leopard-print plushies and USS Enterprise logos hanging on the wall -- but perhaps we've underestimated Redmond's capacity for a good party. Update: We incorrectly reported that an Android version was forthcoming, we've edited to correct our mistake -- please accept our sincere apologies.
Google's Matias Duarte reveals design standards for Android 4.0 at CES 2012
Looking for a little more consistent UI experience with your Android devices? Google is looking to make that happen as the folks in Mountain View has revealed that the upcoming Ice Cream Sandwich OS will be the first Android software to institute design standards for developers. Android Design is a online repository for the UI guidelines and blueprints for version 4.0, which we learned would unify smartphones and tablets back at Google I/O. This set of information should make things all neat and tidy for ICS devices, keeping user interface characteristics a bit more cohesive from app to app. Here, devs will find all the basic info and elements that are native to platform in order to make the best applications possible for the OS. Mr. Duarte warns that if you choose to not follow the style guide, your software will stand out -- and not in a good way. He also quipped that these are indeed guidelines, not mandates. And that they will gain value as more folks adopt them. Yeah, we know... the competition from Cupertino has been doing this for a while now, but a bit more structure in the Android universe certainly won't draw any complaints from us.
Skyfire disappears from iTunes App Store due to technical difficulties (update: 'sold out')
Trying to get a copy of the Skyfire browser for your iOS device? You may not have much luck, as the pseudo-Flash-capable browser has just disappeared from iTunes App Stores around the globe, mere hours after its splashy debut. When we try to download it for ourselves in the United States we get the message immediately above, and RazorianFly readers are chiming in with reports that the app is no longer available in Greece, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Spain and the UK. We just pinged Skyfire for comment and they say it's not Apple's fault; demand for a Flash video workaround is apparently so high that the company's having server issues and decided to pull the app rather than introduce new users to a sub-par experience. Skyfire assures us that it's adding servers as quickly as it can, but didn't provide an ETA on when we might see the app once more. Update: While we're not sure how an digital app can be "sold out," that's exactly what the company says happened to its $2.99 browser today -- after quickly becoming the top grossing app in the iTunes App Store, Skyfire is "temporarily not accepting new purchases" and says it will issue Facebook and Twitter status updates when the next batch of licenses is available. In other words, Skyfire's throttling the flow of purchases from now on. PR after the break. [Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
The Sims 3: Ambitions review (iPhone)
The Sims 3: Ambitions adds a few new things to the mix that you couldn't do in previous versions. It beefs up your Sim's career paths and options, including firefighter, chef, musician, athlete and artist. EA's also added the option to have babies in this new iPhone iteration. Other than that, however, The Sims 3: Ambitions is a streamlined affair with good enough but not astounding graphics, and, if you already play The Sims, a completely expected progression of gameplay. And for us, that progression is fairly addictive. The streamlined version of the full game focuses on the life and career of just one Sim, with a far more limited range of things you can do. Like the previous iPhone version of The Sims 3, life inside of a mobile device is a little more lonely than it was on the desktop: for some reason, my Sim finds less things to do with her time, has less friends, and spends a few minutes at the end of each day sort of just milling around waiting to be tired enough for bed. Fulfilling her whimsical wants (why she wants to kick over garbage cans has never made any sense) is a fun time-waster, but we've always tried to keep our focus razor sharp when honing our Sims, so hobbies have usually come second. Of course, my Sim is also learning to be a gardener. Since her chosen career path was chef, Charlotte (who is named after the author of Jane Eyre and has the honor of being my fourth Sim to bear this name) thought that gardening would be a fitting hobby to cultivate. I haven't yet gotten Charlotte to either the top level of her career or chosen hobby, but I'm fairly certain it's a goal I can achieve... and that's the whole point, isn't it? For those unfamiliar with the franchise (if that's even possible), this new iteration is probably a great starter kit. For diehards like ourselves, the open-endedness of this is a great, enjoyable time sink, to be sure, but it's also a tiny bit disappointing. Obviously we don't expect the full features of desktop versions of The Sims 3, but we can dare to dream of a day when the iPhone version hooks into the actual game, allowing us a little midday peek into the more fascinating lives of our smaller, incoherent selves. Regardless, EA's glorious franchise loses nothing by wasting our precious downtime in yet another way, and while the mobile versions of The Sims may never replace their full counterparts, these games certainly push the limits of the 'casual' gaming category.
Wi-Fi Sync: wirelessly sync the iPhone with iTunes... in your dreams (video)
Hey iPhone, welcome to 2007. Following Opera's script in building grassroots hysteria to goad Apple into approving a contentious app, developer Greg Hughes is teasing a video of his Wi-Fi Sync app to the peoples of planet internet. As the name implies, the app promises a complete sync of your iPhone or iPod touch with iTunes without having to tether and looks pretty straightforward (and occasionally useful) based on the video demonstration found after the break. Greg says he'll be submitting it to Apple for approval at the end of the week -- good luck with that Greg, we hope to be seeing you on Cydia at the very least.
iPad devsugar: Moving beyond your 50 promo codes
iPadpalooza is in full swing. If you're like a lot of devs, you're quickly moving through (if not past) your 50 promo code limit per application version. If marketing now is important to you, don't forget that you can gift applications through iTunes. After all is said and done, this will cost you 30% of the price. Apple will return 70% of the cost back to you at the end of the month because you are basically buying from yourself while making sure that Apple gets its cut. Gifting applications offers a reasonably cost effective way to expand your marketing beyond complimentary promo codes. Keep this option in mind as the iPad App Store gold rush gets underway.
Opera Mini for iPhone submitted to Apple for approval (video)
Can you feel the tension? Opera is now in the throes of the App Store approval process. The wait is on to see if Apple will loosen its grip and approve the fast (very fast) Opera Mini browser for iPhone app that we checked out at MWC. Remember, Opera Mini relies on Opera's servers to render and compress pages before sending them back to the iPhone for display. As such, there's no code interpretation being done by the software -- a definite no no for approval. So the only thing that could cause Apple to reject the app would be a perceived duplication of core iPhone functionality even though it already approved several WebKit-based browsers. Whatever happens, this is going to be good. Update: Opera just threw up a counter tracking how long the approval process has taken. You know, 'cause everyone likes to be backed into a corner. Makes you wonder if Opera is serious about this or just doing it for the publicity -- one of several angles we mulled earlier.
Opera Mini on iPhone is fast, but why?
We came, we saw, and we're still scratching our heads over what Opera is up to with its Mobile World Congress demonstration of its Opera Mini browser running on the iPhone 3GS. But before we get into that, let's talk performance: it's fast. Opera Mini is very, very fast on the iPhone. Loading the New York Times, for example, was about 5x faster than loading the same page in the iPhone 3GS' stock browser. Pages loaded smoothly and were interactive just as quickly as the content began to load -- not unlike the Safari browsing experience. From a functionality standpoint, Opera Mini operates exactly as it does on other, less-contentious platforms. So while double-tap to zoom is supported, pinch-to-zoom is not. The iPhone version does, however, remember the state of the browser when you exit Opera Mini. As such, you'll find your tabs and recent pages right where they were when you last used the app. The impressive performance gain has to do with how Opera Mini works. First, it's not doing any rendering of the pages or code processing locally. Web pages are processed by Opera's servers before sending just the results to the iPhone. Not only does this speed up the local processing but it also limits the amount of data sent -- a potential big money saver for people browsing while data roaming (like us in Barcelona) or for those without unlimited data plans. Unfortunately, Opera refused to let us or anyone photograph the app or take any video of it in action. We couldn't even photograph the Opera icon in the launch bar or the wallpaper adorned with the Opera logo. Why? It looks just like Opera Mini beta on any other device so it's not like we're exposing any competitive intelligence. And it's not like Opera would be violating any Apple NDA related to the SDK or the app approval process. Unfortunately, Opera was unable to give us a valid reason other than, "you just can't." So why is Opera making such a fuss about this before it has even submitted to Apple for approval? We have three theories that we discussed with Igor Netto, Senior Product Manager within Opera's Mobile group. Click through if you like conspiracies.
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 rejects Macworld iPhone Superguide from App Store... for using the word 'iPhone'
The iPhone App Store's arbitrary and inconsistent approval process continues to baffle and annoy on every level, as Macworld Editor-in-Chief Jason Snell just had his iPhone book rejected... for using the word "iPhone" in the title. Apparently Apple doesn't like app names or icons to include the word iPhone or images of the iPhone -- which arguably makes sense on some level -- but you'd think a freaking iPhone reference manual would warrant an exception, wouldn't you? Making matters worse, it appears that one Mr. David Pogue didn't have this problem, as his iPhone: The Missing Manual was approved with title and icon intact. Sigh. Phil Schiller -- deploy!
Apple rejects iSinglePayer iPhone app for being 'politically charged'
Apple might be talking a big game about how it's revising the App Store approval process with an oversight board and trotting out Phil Schiller to do damage control at opportune moments, but the process itself is still generating inconsistent and maddening results -- like today's rejection of an app advocating for healthcare reform called iSinglePayer, which was rejected for being "politically charged." Yeah, that's insane, especially since the app just consists of healthcare spending information and a GPS-driven lookup tool for local Congress members and how much money they've received in health-sector donations. Say what you want about the political motivations of the app, but that's a fairly benign set of functions, and it's one that's been echoed by political apps on both sides of the aisle since the launch of the App Store. So why this rejection, and why now, when apps with names like "Conservative Talking Points" have been approved? And honestly, how is it even possible anyone at Apple is dumb enough to reject this without anticipating the firestorm of controversy it would cause? Who knows anymore -- we have a feeling ol' Phil's about to earn his paycheck explaining this one. [Via Daring Fireball]
Google says Phil Schiller himself rejected Google Voice from the App Store
It was always curious that Google's response to the FCC inquiry about Google Voice and the App Store had been redacted, but now we're starting to see why -- El Goog and the FCC have just released the full text of the letter, and it flatly contradicts Apple's take on the matter. If you'll remember, Apple claimed that while Google Voice hadn't been approved, it also hadn't been rejected, and that its status was in limbo while the folks in Cupertino "studied" the matter. Not so, says El Goog: according to its letter, Phil Schiller himself told Google that GV had been rejected on July 7 for duplication of functionality, following a similar conversation on April 10th during which Schiller rejected Google Latitude in part because it might "offer new features not present on the preloaded maps application." Yeah, that's a huge discrepancy, and it makes Apple's version seem even more divorced from reality that it already is. Things are starting to heat up -- we'll see what the FCC makes of all this. Update: And here we go -- Apple just pinged us to say the following: "We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter. Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google." Update 2: So we've been thinking about it, and here's our question -- if Apple didn't reject GV, and is still studying it, what exactly did Phil Schiller say to Google to make them think it had been rejected? The difference between "rejected" and "on hold pending further discussion" isn't a subtle one, and Google clearly thought GV had been explicitly rejected. For whatever it's worth, reports of GV's "rejection" are how this whole mess got started, so either this is all one huge misunderstanding, or someone here isn't telling the entire truth. Read - Google unredacted FCC filing [Warning: PDF] Read - Google Public Policy Blog explaining decision to release letter
First Palm App Catalog rejection: NaNplayer
Palm's App Catalog isn't exactly bursting with titles yet, but that isn't stopping the company from rejecting apps -- and the dubious honor of First App Rejected goes to NaNplayer, a music player app. Apparently NaNPlayer made use of an undocumented webOS API call, so it makes sense that Palm wouldn't approve it, but there's a somewhat less-sensible flipside: it was using the same API the built-in music player uses to index files so it could make playlists. That's pretty basic functionality, so we're hoping this all gets resolved with a future webOS update -- and in the meantime, NaNplayer will be released to the burgeoning Pre homebrew community when it's complete.
Editorial: Apple, the FCC, and the sideloading solution
As Engadget's resident former attorney, my first instinct when I sat down to re-read Apple, AT&T's and Google's FCC filings regarding Google Voice was to put on my lawyer hat and try to find inconsistencies that might shed some additional light on what had actually happened -- if Apple's account differed from AT&T's, for example, perhaps those subtle differences would reveal the actual truth. This proved to be much more difficult than I had imagined, however: not only had Google redacted the most interesting part of its statement, I came to a profound realization after just a few moments of work. I don't care. Each of the responses was long, dense, and polished to a high-gloss shine that made each company's actions seem not only rational and justified, but almost inevitable in a way -- as I wrote at the time, Apple isn't exaggerating when it says that these are entirely new problems, and simply reading the individual letters paints a fairly sympathetic picture of how this whole chaotic process ended up in such disarray. But that's a perspective that assumes deeply-rooted interest in the systems and procedure of the App Store, a perspective that assumes there's a good reason we should be looking to lawyers and government regulators to figure out what's going on with the most exciting and vital software market that we've seen in a long time.
AT&T, Apple and Google respond to the FCC over Google Voice and the iPhone App Store
Whoa -- we were just sent AT&T response to the FCC's investigation into the rejection of Google Voice apps from the iPhone app store, and Ma Bell isn't pulling any punches: according to the letter, AT&T "had no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application." That puts the ball pretty firmly in Apple's court, but it doesn't close the door on AT&T's involvement in App store approval shenanigans entirely, since the letter also says "AT&T has had discussions with Apple regarding only a handful of applications that have been submitted to Apple for review where, as described below, there were concerns that the application might create significant network congestion." Not only did that result in CBS and MobiTV killing the Final Four app's ability to stream video over 3G, it also explains what happened to SlingPlayer Mobile -- we'll see what the FCC says about that. Update: And here come Apple and Google's responses as well! We're digesting everything as fast as we can, we're going to do this semi-liveblog style after the break, so grab a frosty and dive in. Update 2: Okay, so we've read through all three filings and broken them down after the break. Our main takeaway? Apple's being pretty hypocritical by claiming on the one hand that the iPhone is at the forefront of a mobile revolution and then saying iPhone users can't figure out how Google Voice is different than the iPhone's built-in functionality on the other. Either your customers are paradigm-busting visionaries or they're not very smart at all, Apple -- you have to pick one. As for AT&T, well, it just seems like it's worried about its network above all else, and while we think it's ridiculous that it enforces the VoIP and SlingPlayer ban on the iPhone and not, say, Windows Mobile devices, we can see why the carrier would push those contract provisions hard. In the end, we're just hoping the FCC forces everyone involved to be more open and transparent about what they're doing and the deals they're making -- Apple's not necessarily exaggerating when it says these are entirely new problems, and whatever happens next will set a precedent for a long time to come.
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 pulls adult-content app from App Store, anyone surprised? Updated
And just like that, the iPhone App Store is once again safe for children, people at work, and those who enjoy the iron fist of an anonymous application reviewer gently controlling their hardware / software ecosystem. Yep, the "Hottest Girls" application has been yanked after just a few hours of availability, and it's no secret why: although the app was clearly labeled and approved under iPhone OS 3.0's app rating and parental control guidelines, naked-ladies-on-the-iPhone was quickly becoming too much news for Apple's squeaky-clean image to bear. Of course, that once again prompts us to remind everyone that this exact same content is easily accessible through any number of applications on the iPhone, like, say, Safari, and that the App Store's arbitrary and capricious review procedures are an incredible liability to an otherwise dominant platform, but honestly, no one's listening because they'd rather talk about boobs. Good work.Update: Interesting -- the dev's site now says that Hottest Girls has been "pulled" because their servers were "reaching their limits" and that the app will be back up soon, naughty pictures intact. We're guessing that means their image servers are cracking under the strain, but we'll see if this app or others like it make a reappearance anytime soon.[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
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.
