rejections
Latest
Danish newspaper protests App Store censorship
According to The Mac Observer, Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet isn't too happy with Apple's App Store policies regarding nudity. In a series of recently published editorials, the newspaper takes issue with Apple banning the Ekstra Bladet iPhone and iPad app because of their Page 9 Girl, a nude photograph of a woman they have been publishing for 34 years. Accusing Apple of double standards and acting like "an American nanny," the paper's Heine Jørgensen writes that he can't understand why they would ban something seen by Danes as "an innocent Danish institution on par with The Little Mermaid." Whether seen as an innocent institution or not, it really shouldn't come as a surprise that Apple has rejected an app from the App Store for nudity. As mentioned here on TUAW before, Apple has not only been banning sexual content in the App Store for quite some time now, but they have also started banning anything seen as controversial, such as the Manhattan Declaration, which we wrote about just last week. While what offends me may not offend you, Apple has to draw the line somewhere -- and they have decided to start with the idea that even "innocent" nudity is sexual content. I can't blame the folks at Ekstra Bladet for being upset at the removal of their app, but them's the rules as they stand right now.
On the Manhattan Declaration and Apple's curation of the App Store
After receiving thousands of complaints, Apple removed the "Manhattan Declaration" app from the App Store this week. The app, which espoused anti-gay and anti-abortion views, was originally released by a religious group founded by Chuck Colson. The app's ejection from the store has raised the ire of some who now decry Apple for not supporting free speech and/or being anti-Christian. Let's see if we can separate the light from the heat on this issue. First of all, stories about App Store rejections have been a staple since the dawn of the App Store. Then came stories of apps that were accepted and subsequently removed. The most infamous instances of yo-yoing in and out of the store were the Google Voice apps, which have since been restored after over a year's absence, but that is a rare case. Most times, when an app is removed, it is gone forever. Some great apps have been yanked, including MiTube, Camera+, iDOS and many more. On the inappropriate content front, Apple also removed a "Baby Shaker" application and a huge number of apps that were deemed "too sexy" for the App Store. Of course, porn apps have been banned since the App Store was announced.
Rejected, 'politically charged' iSinglePayer app gets the green light
True to form, Apple has rethought its strategy on an App Store rejection, and has granted the "politically charged" iSinglePayer rights to terrorize potential buyers with its alarming messages. If you'll recall, the application tackles the hot-button healthcare issue in America by offering spending advice for consumers and a GPS lookup for local Congress members' and their healthcare-related donations. As we mentioned in our original post, it's a pretty tame set of functionality, and certainly nothing that seems outwardly offensive (at least not any more offensive than lots of apps you can purchase). Just as with our previous complaints about Apple's way of doing business, it's not so much the rejections that bother us, but the unclear set of circumstances by which the company arrives at those decisions. Regardless, some firebrand app reviewer has seen fit to allow this townhall-rattling piece of software into the Store, so now you can go see what all the fuss was about for yourself. [Via Daring Fireball]
Yeah, there's an app for that. But for how long, and at what cost?
With the recent kerfuffle surrounding the removal and rejection of Google Voice apps from the App Store, many developers are beginning to question the trust they have placed in Apple to provide them with a reliable system for developing and distributing applications.Generally, the major hurdle associated with iPhone development is getting approved by Apple. It's no secret that this process is often quite frustrating, and sometimes downright arduous. Developers often wait several weeks without any response before they are suddenly rejected, and then they must make the requested changes (if possible), resubmit their application, and again wait for a response. But once they have put your app through the paces, and presumably have double and triple checked to ensure that you have complied with the terms, you're safe, right? Your hard work has paid off, Apple has accepted your app, and now you can move on.Wrong. As the developers of GV Mobile and VoiceCentral recently discovered, Apple can take an app that was previously given the all-clear, decide that it now duplicates native functionality of the iPhone, and yank it from the App Store in a matter of minutes. Needless to say, there are some serious flaws in this process. First, the functionality provided by both of these apps isn't actually provided by the iPhone, so there's really nothing to duplicate, unless Apple is going to start expecting developers to predict future features and avoid duplicating those too. Then you have the fact that the feature sets provided by the apps and the iPhone itself have not changed since Apple approved them in the first place, so if they truly are duplicating native functionality, they should have been rejected from the start, not months after they were approved.Now one might also argue that some features offered by Google Voice do overlap with the iPhone, such as the SMS and voicemail functions, although contrary to popular belief, Google Voice is not a VoIP service and doesn't really compete against AT&T. But even if you concede that point to Apple, couldn't they just ask the developers to remove those features and resubmit? What about the other apps -- like Skype, TextFree, or iCall -- that offer similar feature sets, are they going to disappear too? And if AT&T is really responsible for this, as has been suggested previously, why was the app pulled from the App Stores of other countries? Why not just honestly tell the developer that the app is being pulled at the request of the carrier?
The Google Voice rejection: What's needed now
If you've been following coverage of Apple's rejection of Google Voice for iPhone, you saw TUAW blogger Chris Rawson considering whether pressure from AT&T might have been behind the Google Voice rejection -- an assumption first floated by TechCrunch and later substantiated by Daring Fireball. The absurd nature of the app removals is highlighted in the blog post from Riverturn, developers of VoiceCentral, which reports the conversation with an Apple representative. Google Voice offers free call forwarding to your home, office, and cell, free Internet-accessible voice mail (with text transcription!), free SMS, and a single phone number for life. These free features compete against AT&T's revenue streams. When it comes to "duplicate functionality", Apple doesn't seem to have any problem allowing applications like AT&T co-branded Virtual Recptionist (iTunes link) in App Store. Virtual Receptionist provides custom call forwarding to three phone numbers, in a similar manner to Google Voice. In the wake of the rejection, sites like Wired, which should get credit for predicting this issue, have considered whether Apple's move might invite regulation due to the company's control over the App Store and possible anti-competitive concerns. A legislative response isn't out of the question should enough unhappy customers start petitioning their congressmen, especially in a political climate that encourages government intervention in private business. Granted, the iPhone isn't a monopoly among smartphones, but Apple does hold all the cards when it comes to app approval on the platform. ChannelWeb's Rick Whiting (via the Wall Street Journal) points out that the US Department of Justice has "begun investigating whether large U.S. telecommunications companies such as AT&T and Verizon Communications were engaging in anti-competitive behavior, including locking up the most popular handsets. The exclusive deal between AT&T-Apple is said to be drawing the most scrutiny." Whiting believes that AT&T and Apple may be drawing attention from a DOJ intent on cracking down on exactly this kind of excess. AT&T's tight relationship with Apple might be affecting how Apple runs App Store, as might be the case with the Google Voice rejection.
Is AT&T behind the rejection and removal of Google Voice apps?
In the wake of TJ Luoma's report earlier tonight that the two independent Google Voice applications have been removed from the App Store, Jason Kincaid at TechCrunch says that the official Google Voice app has also been given the shaft. He theorizes that, despite the official Apple line that the apps "duplicate features that come with the iPhone," the real reason the apps were removed was because of squawking from AT&T.While TechCrunch doesn't offer any definitive proof that AT&T is behind the Google Voice blockage, they do cite GV Mobile developer Sean Kovacs' point that Phil Schiller himself, who you may remember from Apple events like Macworld '09 and WWDC, personally approved the GV Mobile app last April. In fact, Kovacs says that Schiller called him to apologize for the delays in getting the app approved. Given that high-level support for the app, it's not hard to follow TechCrunch's logic and set sights on AT&T when looking for reasons for its removal. While few people would argue that Apple's app approval process is pretty broken right now, it's hard to believe that an application that was approved by Apple's VP of marketing was somehow magically unapproved because it "duplicates functionality."As TJ said in his post, it's difficult to believe that Apple truly thinks users will be confused by an application that does the same thing as the built-in Phone app when they went out of their way to purchase and download it. Even setting that aside, it's not at all clear exactly what functionality is supposedly being duplicated. If it's the dialer, then that's a poor excuse; lots of other approved apps include dialers, including Skype. If it's the SMS functionality, again, poor excuse, as other apps provide SMS functionality as well.It's true that Google Voice isn't necessarily as "scary" to AT&T as a true VoIP app like Skype, but some of the Google Voice functions that TechCrunch describes, like free SMS messages and cheaper long distance, certainly do sound like something that would rattle AT&T's cage.Take into consideration that Skype was approved because it will only work over Wi-Fi, even though there's no technical reason it shouldn't run over 3G. Look at how crippled SlingPlayer is compared to the same app on other phones. Now, Google Voice is dead in the water on the iPhone. What we have is a very clear and disturbing pattern. Applications that provide innovative solutions to users, but which fall outside the bounds of what a traditionally-minded telecommunications company like AT&T considers acceptable, are being either hobbled by arbitrary restrictions like Skype and Sling or blasted out of existence like Google Voice. Whether it's Apple's fault or AT&T's, it's getting tiresome to see innovative applications like Skype or Google Voice constantly kicked to the curb or kneecapped. Are we headed for an App Store with nothing in it except fart apps? Those, at the very least, don't duplicate any built-in iPhone functionality that I've heard of.One more thing: who else thinks it's ironic that a company started by a couple of guys who spent lots of time phone phreaking in a garage in the 1970s now kowtows to AT&T and kills apps that help people make cheaper calls?
App Store Lessons: the game changer rejection
A new kind of App Store rejection is making the rounds in the iPhone World. It's not about violating the SDK. It's not about objectionable content. It's about Apple empowering its reviewers to reject software without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh application. This kind of rejection is a gamechanger. Devs have complained that Apple's review policies to date have been inconsistent and arbitrary, since it was relatively easy to compare rejections and demonstrate the multiple standards in play. This rejection shields Apple's internal processes even further. Instead of moving towards transparency and responding to developer concerns, Apple has pointed itself in the opposite direction. Making this rejection sting more, the app already was in the App Store; this submission was a bug-fix update. The premium edition of the same app, submitted at the same time, was approved without issue. It seems that previous and current approvals for the same application would argue in favor of letting this version through, or at a minimum providing an explanation of what's wrong with this one. As Christina posted yesterday, developers aren't getting straight answers about App Store rejections, even at WWDC. "Sole discretion" hides a lot of possible review errors, both subjective and accidental. It makes it harder than ever for smaller companies to appeal rejections and denies them a factual basis on which to evaluate whether their rejection was issued in error. It also gives a firm answer to those who have been hoping for a transparent ticketing system and a open appeal process. Apple isn't interested; it's their store, their rules, and Caveat Developer to anyone whose business plan depends solely on Apple's beneficence. An app full of admittedly lame jokes might be an appropriate candidate for App Store rejection, but the combination of veto power, the opaque review/appeal process, and inconsistent and capricious application of Apple's ax adds up to a troublesome situation in the developer ecosystem and in the App Store. Postscript: Kenneth writes in to clarify that the 1.1.1 bug-fix update submitted 3 months ago was rejected. This will not affect his 2.0 Lite version, which was just submitted.
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
