rejection
Latest
Apple pulls C64 App after Manomio shenanigans revealed
Come on Manomio, what did you expect? Did you really think Apple would leave your C64 emulator in the App Store after it was revealed that the BASIC interpreter was still in your software, exposed with a little up, up, down, down, left, right trickery? That's a clear breach of the SDK and well, downright sneaky. In a blog post to its site, Manomio claims that it had "no intention of tricking basic into the app" and only left the code in to be remotely activated later should Apple change its policy. Of course, with so much money left on the table, Manomio promptly submitted a new, presumably BASIC-free app for approval. Something we're sure Apple will get right on.[Via The iPhone blog]Read -- Enable BASIC in C64 hackRead -- Manomio's plea for mercy
Apple rejects µTorrent controller iPhone app
We've talked before about ways to control a BitTorrent client from the iPhone, and some unofficial developers have gotten it working in a jailbroken way. But apparently that's as far as we'll get -- µMonitor, a little iPhone app to control µTorrent (a popular BitTorrent app that I use pretty often) was recently submitted to the App Store, and Torrentfreak reports that it's been rejected out of hand. This isn't the first time something like this has come up: Drivetrain, another torrent remote control tool, was also rejected back in May. Apparently Apple tells the developer that they are disallowing all types of BitTorrent-related apps "because this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights." Often does not equal always, but technically that's another point: it's Apple's App Store, and they can take their ball and go home if they want. Torrentfreak claims that the myNZB app technically does the same thing (it basically controls a newsreader that can be used to download large numbers of files, possibly in violation of copyright), but it's the word "torrent" that Apple (and, likely, their content partners) have an issue with. Sure enough, a search of "torrent" on the App Store doesn't bring up anything related to the BitTorrent technology. You can still run µTorrent on your iPhone, although you'll have to jailbreak it and dive into the Cydia repository, where it's listed under "Utilities." As for Apple's stance, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for things to change on this one -- µTorrent isn't even an app that enables BitTorrent downloading; it just makes it easier (by accessing a client that's doing the work elsewhere), and if they aren't willing to pay heed to these distinctions now, it's not likely they'll bother in the future, either.
Bring out your dead! App rejected? Roll again, adventurer
If you've had an app rejected by Apple in the past and it didn't actually involve nekkid pictures or you think it did not violate App Store policies (yes, realizing those policies can be vague at times), try submitting that app again. It appears to be a season of reconciliation, and it's time Apple got this right. TechCrunch wrote (a couple of weeks ago) that the developers of the Rising Card app were happily surprised when none other than Phil Schiller intervened on their behalf and got their app approved. Great! We're hearing similar stories of previously delayed or rejected apps getting a second going-over. So all we need now is a senior VP from Apple to jump in every time there's a minor discrepancy or some completely foolish misunderstanding of policy and implementation, right? Somehow I doubt this will scale. Phil is no doubt a ball of energy, but he can't power the entire App Store approval process -- which I'm guessing is getting a bit of an overhaul right now, but that's my guess. For all I know Phil just cloned himself and this will all just go away as Phils 1-99 take care of business. Speaking of business, if you have had an app rejected and Sir Phil hasn't rode in on his horse to save the day, we want to hear about it in the comments below. Who knows? While we can't promise any real action from Apple, it might be good to air out your laundry since Cupertino seems, for once, in a listening mood. FCC comments notwithstanding. There's a lot of work to be done for people who want to run a real business on the store, but getting the approval process unbroken is a great move. First on my list of WTF? rejections: Minipops. Apple, did you ever come up with a real reason for rejecting this one or had you hoped we'd all forgotten about it?
Is Apple's Phil Schiller trying to free the App Store from arbitrary app rejections?
We've certainly seen plenty of curious rejections for seemingly innocuous applications submitted for inclusion in the App Store, and recently saw Phil Schiller stepping forward to explain one of the most mind-boggling of rejections yet: a dictionary that had the gall to define naughty words. Apparently that's becoming something of a mission of Schiller's, investigating apps that have been rejected, personally contacting developers in some cases, and in general working to make things right... or at least less wrong. However, from what we can see he's only being sent in when word hits the wire about the latest sorry app being sent packing; we're not sure whether he's working to correct all illogical app rejections, or only those that make the news. He is the VP of Marketing, so it wouldn't be entirely surprising for him to only be concerned about Apple's public image, but for now we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's also working to make wholesale improvements on the approval process over in Cupertino -- if only because we're sure the FCC won't be so kind.
Apple's new low: censoring a dictionary
You know guys, you're not really doing yourself any favors at this point. We've seen plenty of stories thus far detailing the company's absurd, reactionary, and typically confusing application rejections or changes for its App Store, but the treatment given to dictionary app Ninjawords seems particularly telling. In essence, the program, a simple and fast reference tool -- a straight-up dictionary -- has omitted a handful of common words seen as objectionable by the Star Chamber of application reviewers at Apple HQ. What kind of words, you ask? Well, namely the same kind of words which you can find in any standard dictionary in just about any classroom in this country. John Gruber of Daring Fireball fame succinctly calls out what is patently obvious: Apple censored an English dictionary. A dictionary. A reference book. For words contained in all reasonable dictionaries. For words contained in dictionaries that are used every day in elementary school libraries and classrooms. But it's far worse than that.
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.
Apple's App Store approves first explicit content, Anita Bryant races to Cincinnati
After all the cases of benign apps being rejected on grounds of "objectionable content," the first outright application featuring jiggly bits has made it to the App Store. How could this happen? Easy, Apple's shift in policy is made possible by the parental controls included in the iPhone OS 3.0 -- you know, so you can parent instead of Apple. Hopefully this brings an end to arbitrary App Store rejections and begins a new era of fire and brimstone threats of eternal damnation.[Via MacRumors] Read [Warning: not safe for work]
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.
Wacky App Store rejections du jour
If it's Monday, there must be a few more stories of iPhone apps rejected for curious and spurious reasons. Today's contenders are up to the line... and away they go!First, it's Maza's Drivetrain app, a remote control for the Transmission client for Bittorrent running on the user's computer. Rejected! In this case, the reason is that Bittorrent is sometimes used for the trading of third-party copyrighted material. Yeah, but... um... the iPhone app isn't a torrent client at all, it's just a UI for a client running elsewhere. How does that make any kind of sense? iLounge quotes the developer as saying the rejection is "ridiculous," and it's hard to disagree.Second, if you've ever wanted to replace the face of Jesus with your own, well, you can't do it with an iPhone app. SAI reports that the developer of the previously-approved Animalyzer (which let you replace animal faces with your photos) has gotten a rejection notice for the Me So Holy app that extends the face-replacement to religious figures. Apple's justification for the rejection is the catch-all "objectionable content" clause 3.3.12 of the developer agreement, which states"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."Could one reasonably judge that some iPhone or iPod touch users might object to an app that lets users replace a divine visage with a mugshot or LOLcat? Sure, they might... but when an app that lets you aim virtual urine at a toilet sails through to the store without a hiccup, 'reasonable judgement' doesn't seem to be a valid operating standard any longer. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of 'offensive' apps in the store already -- but offending religious sensibilities is clearly different than grading feces.[via Engadget & Techmeme]
Opera: Apple won't let us in the App Store
Opera Software CEO Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner said in a New York Times interview yesterday that its engineers have developed a version of the Opera web browser that works on the iPhone, but Apple has rejected it for the App Store because it competes with Safari. This isn't unprecedented: Apple rejected an app called Podcaster possibly because it duplicates functionality in an upcoming version of the iPhone software. Podcaster was (for a time) available via ad-hoc distribution before that, too, was shut down. Daring Fireball's John Gruber suggests that Apple rejected Opera because the browser included its own JavaScript interpreter, something forbidden by the iPhone SDK developer agreement. Opera makes two flavors of its mobile web browser: Opera Mini for most mobile phones, BlackBerry, Palm, or Windows Mobile; and Opera Mobile, a more featured version for Symbian and Windows Mobile. A beta version of Opera Mini for Android is also in development. Update: Gruber used his massive Rolodex over the weekend to determine through an unnamed source that the app may not have even been submitted to the App Store. Huh.
iPhone App Graveyard: It's where unloved apps go
We know of a few iPhone applications that were unloved by Apple. What are we talking about? You know ... the cool iPhone applications that developers make -- then Apple doesn't approve of them, and they never see the light of day again (or maybe they do). Needless to say, there are probably more iPhone applications out there that we don't know about. That is the basis of the iPhone Application Graveyard -- it is a website designed to document all of the rejected iPhone applications. The site is run by Peter Hosey of Growl and Adium fame. Developers can email him tidbits of information about their unloved application, and he will post it to the site. Which rejected application do you wish you could have on the App Store?
App disqualified from App Store because it 'duplicates iTunes functionality' (updated)
An iPhone developer who created an app that manages and plays podcasts says the app was disqualified from the App Store because "it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes." That's right, iTunes for the desktop. This opens up unsettling possibilities for other developers. There are many applications that duplicate the functionality of Apple software for both the desktop and mobile devices. For instance, there are many calculators that duplicate the functionality of Calculator. Twitterrific has a small browser built in, duplicating the functionality of Safari. NetNewsWire duplicates some RSS reading functionality in Mail for Mac OS X. There's a well-defined slippery slope here. While Apple is within its rights to accept or reject any app into the App Store for whatever reasons it sees fit, its communication with the developer community leaves a lot to be desired. (We talked a little about this on last Sunday's Talkcast.) Even though the developer says he followed all the rules, there's still a chance that an app will simply fall ill of Apple's fickle fancy. Will this latest move by Apple chill relations with developers? Or are the upsides still too great to ignore? Let us know what you think by leaving a comment. Update: And commenters think I'm overreacting: Frasier Speirs, developer of Exposure, isn't writing any more iPhone apps because of this whole mummalum. [Via Metafilter.] Thanks, Mike!
Take-Two's Zelnick reiterates rejection of EA buyout
Take-Two Executive Chairman Strauss Zelnick continues to hold the line against EA's buyout offer, repeating once again the company still isn't interested. In a Q&A with The Hollywood Report, Zelnick believes that consolidation is likely to continue in the industry, but he would like Take-Two to remain an "independent company."We'll have to wait and see if it's just lip service, but Zelnick actually says a few things that stray from the well-paved path we've seen from EA and (ever-increasingly) Activision. He finds pride in the progress made over the last 10 months since taking over the company and then commits the video game executive version of shock-and-awe by saying, "Does consolidation create better games for consumers? Does it create better careers for the creatives? Those questions are just as important. If all stakeholders aren't taken care of, then none of the stakeholders will benefit." If Take-Two survives what some analysts say is the inevitability of an EA buyout, and Zelnick sticks with that line of thinking, we may have to send him a Valentine's Day card next year. We'll have to find out if he prefers flowers or chocolates?[Via GameDaily]
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]
IEEE "Task Group N" rejects first 802.11n draft proposal
In a move that came as little surprise to those who know how these things work, but that will still probably hurt manufacturers who've been releasing MIMO-enabled networking peripherals for the last few months, the IEEE 802.11 working group tasked with creating a next-gen WiFi standard has recently rejected the first draft of the highly-anticipated 802.11n. Not only did the first 802.11n draft fail to capture the 75% supermajority needed for passage, it couldn't even muster a regular majority among "Task Group N," which is a troubling development for those consumers who have already gone out and purchased pre- or draft-N gear from Linksys, Netgear, and the like. As we've reported in the past, some manufacturers had warned -- and independent testing corroborated -- that draft-N gear could negatively effect current 802.11b/g products already on the market, by hogging the available 2.5GHz bandwidth and causing performance issues on existing WLANs. Still, taken in a historical perspective, rejection of the first draft of a proposed 802.11x specification is not uncommon, and actually seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, in the life-cycle of these multi-year, multi-party standards talks.
