rejected
Latest
Judge dismisses Tulsi Gabbard’s $50 million ad lawsuit against Google
A California judge has struck down longshot Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuit against Google. Last fall, Gabbard sued the company for allegedly infringing on her right to free speech by temporarily suspending her campaign's ad account. The Gabbard campaign, Tulsi Now, Inc., sought $50 million in damages.
QuickPick update in limbo for Lion similarities
On Wednesday, QuickPick 2.0.3 was apparently ejected from the Mac App Store, according to a tweet from developer Seth Willits. A day later, Seth tweeted that the app is still in the store -- as of this writing that's the case -- but update 2.0.3 had been rejected, increasing his confusion. Additionally, he mentions that an Apple rep told him that QuickPick would be "removed from sale," citing a "confusingly similar" argument. For now, the app is in limbo. QuickPick is a full-screen application and document launcher which offers several features reportedly missing from Apple's app launcher -- as it exists today at least. For example, the app's dedicated preferences can set a global keyboard command or hot corner for activation, while users can identify their own most frequently used items to display and leave icons "scrambled" on screen to suit their own organizational style or lack thereof. Most importantly, QuickPick runs on Mac OS X Snow Leopard. Apple may perceive the app as direct competition to Launchpad, one of Lion's most highly touted new features. If users see low-cost alternatives to a potentially costly Mac OS X upgrade, they may be dissuaded from spending the time and money to make the leap to Lion when it arrives this summer (though one feature vs. all of Lion's improvements decreases this likelihood). Perhaps Apple is simply rejecting the app to prevent confusion in their own marketplace; an argument Willits isn't buying. "QuickPick existed years before Launchpad...[Version] 2.0.2 isn't any different than 2.0.3." Willits continues to plead his case with Apple. In the meantime, for US$10, QuickPick 2.0.2 is still available on the Mac App Store and version 2.0.3 is available through the Araelium Group website. [via MacNN]
Google's deal for book digitization rejected by judge, Books plans sent back to drawing board
It's taken a long, long time to fully consider Google's proposed $125 million settlement with publishers and authors of out-of-print works, but now the ruling has been handed down and it's not the one the Mountain View team wanted. Circuit Judge Chin, who had preliminarily approved the deal back in November 2009, has returned with the new conclusion that actually it goes "too far" in Google's favor. The origins of this settlement stem from a class action lawsuit filed against El Goog for a book digitization project it began back in 2004, and it's important to note that terms were agreed way back in 2008, before a bunch of external objections made them revise the document to its current state and refile it with the court in '09. Since then, the Department of Justice has had a look at antitrust concerns relating to Google potentially having a monopoly on orphan works (those whose author cannot be identified) and Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo have all piped up to say it's a bunk deal. Now, the one man standing between us and a whole ton of web-accessible reading materials has agreed with them. He does leave a pretty large door open for reconciliation, however, should Google be willing to accede to less favorable terms. Let's just hope whatever else transpires doesn't take another year and a half to do so.
Apple rejects Readability due to subscription policy -- where will it end?
Readability simplifies websites for easier reading. It's a service which strips online articles of annoying jiggly-belly ads and other distractions, puts that content into a very readable format, and delivers it to you in Safari or on mobile browsers. Readability was so loved by someone at Apple that it was even put into Safari. Unfortunately, you won't see a Readability app in the App Store. Why? Readability requires a $5-a-month subscription. Your $5 a month doesn't just go to the developers -- they take 70 percent ($3.50) of your monthly fee and give it back to the writers and publishers of said content. Seems like a simple, elegant solution to the clutter on the web, doesn't it? Content is delivered, but a software service declutters that content for a price. According to Apple, this constitutes a content app with a subscription fee, and under section 11.2 in the app guidlines: 11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected. Thus, Readability will not appear in the App Store -- it was rejected by Apple, citing the above clause. In a rather scathing open letter to Apple, the developers behind Readability point out that tiny shops like theirs charge tiny subscription fees, a "tiny sliver of app sales that represent a tiny sliver of your revenue." Now the big question: Where will this end? Content is one thing -- Amazon and others charge publishers various fees to publish their content on their stores. Functionality is an understandable use of in-app purchases, like buying more guns or Smurfberries, enabling you to do more things within an app. But services? One huge problem, and a recurring one for the normally tight-lipped Apple, is what constitutes a "content-based" app.
Apple to require in-app subscriptions for periodicals by March 31st, fine print still a bit fuzzy
We knew The Daily was to be just the first drop what's destined to be a flood of titles with in-app purchases for the iTunes store, but we weren't quite sure how hard Apple would be twisting the faucet -- until now, that is. According to The Wall Street Journal, Cupertino will reject any newspaper or magazine app that doesn't take subscription payments through the iTunes store. It doesn't have to be solely Apple's store -- developers can still sell through websites in addition to the mandated in-app option. (If you recall, this is the same issue that Sony Reader for iOS just faced.) There are a few big questions lingering out there: will the 70 / 30 revenue sharing apply? Does the "rejection" apply to apps already in the store like Amazon's Kindle? You bet your (virtual) bottom dollar we'll be finding out soon enough.
Apple rejects Sony Reader app, really doesn't want you buying content from others (update: Apple says it needs official in-app purchases)
It's been quite a while since Apple's tight reins on the App Store were a subject worth discussing, but they're back in the spotlight now following the company's rejection of Sony's Reader app for iOS. The reasons given to Sony were that Apple will not no longer accept applications that permit in-app purchases of content that don't go through Apple itself, and, moreover, will not tolerate apps that access material purchased through external content stores. So the Sony Reader Store is out -- but wait, doesn't the Kindle app spend its time serving up Kindlebooks? No comment has been offered on the matter from either Apple or Amazon, while Sony's Reader Store page describes the situation as "an impasse" and promises to seek "other avenues to bring the Reader experience to Apple mobile devices." In the mean time, you can get the Reader app for Android or just read your ebooks on a device dedicated to that task. Update: As noted by Harry McCracken over at Technologizer, it has actually been Apple's longstanding policy to forbid in-app purchases -- the Kindle and Nook apps send you to a browser -- so Sony's desire to do so will have been the major cause for the Reader application's rejection. That doesn't invalidate the second concern expressed in the New York Times article, that Apple will no longer tolerate content brought in from external stores, which is a displeasing development, if true. Update 2: Looks like McCracken nailed it -- Apple's come out with a statement pointing out that the App Store guidelines require that apps that allow content purchases must also allow them in-app through Apple's official iTunes-backed system. We can't imagine that Sony is thrilled with the idea of cutting Apple in on Reader content, but if they want to play ball, they should be able to score an approval. Notably, Apple says that they are "now requiring" this even though the guidelines haven't changed, suggesting they're just now getting around to enforcing it; the effect on iOS' Kindle and Nook apps isn't yet known, but we wouldn't be surprised if Apple started nudging them in the direction of pushing updates. More on this situation as we have it.
Apple pulls VLC from the iTunes store
Looks like VLC's role as champion of open-source legal rights is no more -- rather than lawyer up, Apple's taken the easy way out, and simply removed the VLC media player from the App Store. Rémi Denis-Courmont -- the VideoLAN developer who originally sued to have it removed -- reports that an Apple attorney informed him that the company had complied with his takedown request, and pulled the app accordingly, which likely puts the kibosh on other potential VLC ports as well. If you think about it, the open-source community may have just planted the first brick in a walled garden of its own.
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]
Champions Online tells players what not to expect
Sometimes it's very helpful to hear what you're not getting. It's never particularly pleasant, of course -- we usually like to hear about the cool things coming right around the bend -- but it's also useful to be told what isn't coming for your favorite game. The most recent installment of Ask Cryptic for Champions Online falls under that category, with several questions about upcoming features given a straight denial. There are no plans for four-armed characters, rotating and scaling tattoos, and a current push for more persistent content as opposed to zone-wide attack events. On the flip side, the answers do paint a few interesting pictures, such as talk about potentially adding a villainous counterpart to the game in the vein of City of Villains. The idea is discussed as something not in the immediate future, but on the list for future inclusion -- albeit with a much more sandbox style of gameplay, keeping in the vein of a supervillain romp. Champions Online is currently pretty well dedicated to getting its existing systems shored up and working well, however -- and while that might mean a few rejected ideas, it means that the team wants to build a solid foundation.
Apple rejects iPad app for pinch-to-expand
We've heard all kinds of reasons for rejected apps on the App Store, but this one seems new to us. An iPad app called Web Albums HD has reportedly been rejected from the App Store for including a pinch-to-expand feature in its Picasa albums viewing functionality, as reported on Apple Insider. The developers allegedly hand-coded a pinch-to-expand feature for their galleries to match Apple's official photo app, but were told by App Store editors that the feature was "associated solely with Apple applications." Interesting. Not actually true, as "pinch-to-expand" is really a feature that's common to many touchscreen interfaces, even if this photo gallery-browsing instance is unique. But apparently Apple feels it has laid claim, and so no other apps on the store get to use it. The folks behind Web Albums HD promptly removed the feature, and their app was subsequently approved on the store (which is why it's there now), but before you go spend the $2.99, know that even the devs think that they've "ended up having an inferior product" out there. Of course Apple has definitely limited the functionality of apps in the past by disallowing certain APIs, but now it seems replicated functionality of something they deem Apple's domain can also fall under their banhammer.
Molinker is no more on the App Store -- ratings scam results in expulsion
Well, here's the happy side to the police state known as Apple's App Store. One of the more prolific app makers out there, Molinker, has been recently unceremoniously expelled from the Apple orchard due to its manipulation of app ratings and reviews. As it turns out, Molinker has been massaging the truth by pumping out false five star reviews for its wares, and now Phil Schiller himself has stepped in and pulled the company's whole catalog -- consisting of more than 1,000 apps -- seemingly permanently: Yes, this developer's apps have been removed from the App Store and their ratings no longer appear either. So the App Store is now a bunch of travel guides lighter and Mr. Schiller gets a "good boy" badge from the blog brigade. Good news all around then.
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.
Happy funtime Memorial Day video: Rejected Wii Play minigames
A caution to our readers: anyone with a conscience or refined sense of humor may want to stay far away from the above video, which features a host of "rejected" Wii Play minigames to hilarious effect. It even includes Ribbon Dancing Revolution, which we called back in August of '06. The excellent reproduction of the Mii's simplistic style is alone worth the price of admission, so go ahead, click on the play button.We're not watching.[via GoNintendo]
Real ID gets shot down by Maine legislature
Although it has been a tick since we've heard anything substantial on the proposed Real ID card set to take the place of individual state drivers' licenses, it seems like Maine legislature has had their wheels turning (and fists curled) for a good bit. While a majority of lawmakers have simply given a whimsical thumbs-up to the potentially voyeuristic plan, the folks in Maine seem to think the invasion of privacy (not to mention the $185 million in implementation cost for the state) is downright lame. Shenna Bellows of the Maine Civil Liberties Union derided the presumably RFID-based Real IDs as "a one-stop shop for identity thieves," and it was noted that several other states (like New Hampshire, Georgia, and Montana) just might bust out their true feelings on the matter now that Maine has broken the collective silence. Of course, Maine hasn't completely gone loopy and opted out of the process just yet, as the current protest is simply filed as a "resolution," but backers seem fairly serious in their attempts to "protect the people of Maine from just this sort of dangerous federal mandate." So, what about that iris database you guys are building, hmm?[Via Wired]
Apple iPhone trademark rejected in Canada?
Regardless of what Mr. Jobs got up on stage and enunciated to us all, it seems Apple has quite the uphill battle to fight before this summer's big launch, and while it just might find a loophole to use the "iPhone" moniker here in the US (or not?), it looks the Canucks might have just shut Cupertino out. According to a trademark request in the Canadian Trademark Database, Apple's request to trademark the term "iPhone" has been "opposed" as of last week. Of course, the filing spills out a barrage of legal hub bub describing how Apple planned on using the term, a sequential list of events leading up the eventual denial, and lists Ontario's Comwave Telecom Inc. as an "Opponent," for whatever it's worth. Essentially, we're not particularly sure whether this opposition leaves the iPhone in Canada, but we're sure Apple isn't likely to take "no" for an answer.[Thanks, Gord]
Games you won't see on the Wii
This video makes us sad because that $5/Hour game looks like it could be a real winner. Although for sheer enjoyability you'd have to go with Nuclear Holocaust. The Japanese do love their weird and wacky games, so don't be surprised when Airport Security actually makes it to a shelf near you. Video is embedded after the jump, and has one tiny NSFW scene.What are some real life activities that you'd love to see on the Wii?[Thanks Daniel]
