Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How To Get Rejected From the App Store

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the feature-the-steve-in-green-turtleneck dept.

Businesses 252

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister catalogs 12 sure-fire ways to get your app rejected from Apple's notoriously fickle App Store. From executing interpreted code, to using Apple's APIs without permission, to designing your UI, each transgression has been abstracted from real-life rejections — for the most part because Apple seems to be making up the rules as it goes along. 'It'd be nice for Apple to make conditions for rejection clear,' McAllister writes. 'Apple has been tinkering with the language of its iPhone SDK license agreement lately, but that hasn't done much to clarify the rules — unless you're Adobe. For everyone else, the App Store's requirements seem as vague and capricious as ever.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (-1, Troll)

jamesyouwish (1738816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450606)

Rejected What???

this book can't be a complete set (5, Insightful)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450612)

with the current open ended terms, there is no way this book could be a complete set... "just 'cause" will always still be an option for apple.

Re:this book can't be a complete set (5, Informative)

The Qube (749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451350)

I have no problem with "just cause" if there are avenues for communication and appeal. However...

My app was kicked out of the App Store after 12 months [virtualcricket.mobi] . It was the best app for cricket scores out there - #1 app in almost all cricket-playing countries, great online and offline reviews, featured by Apple several times etc. All of the scores etc for it were obtained from legal sources. However, the developers for the official app of the Indian Premier League (sort-of international cricket competition in March/April every year) complained to Apple that my app infringed on their exclusive rights to provide information on IPL matches and, after a bit of back-and-forth arguments between myself and them, Apple pulled the app.

Now, it's not the fact that they pulled it without "just cause" that upset me, but that they refused to comment and communicate about it in any way. I repeatedly sent emails to various official (and unofficial) contacts at Apple to seek clarification, complain and get the app re-instated, but not a peep from anyone. I even sent an official DMCA Counter Notification and not a single response on that either.

After no word from anyone for a long while, I had to close the service even for existing users who already had the app on their iPhones 'cos I couldn't afford to keep paying for the match data feeds with no revenues. Apple's decision has cost me thousands of dollars, but again, what really upsets me is the total lack of professionalism and common courtesy that they have displayed in this.

Re:this book can't be a complete set (0, Flamebait)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451710)

What exactly were you expecting? They aren't democratic about this, and they have never pretended to be - whining about their policy now is foolish, you should have rather just developed for a different platform.

I suppose it's too much to ask if you learned your lesson - for all I know you're busy working on another iApp instead of just competing on an even playing field on a different mobile platform.

*yawn* to more McAllister shit (-1, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450616)

Why does anyone still listen to this turd? Has McAllister ever said anything that was actually insightful?

Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450622)

No one is making anyone buy an iPhone. No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone.

This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS. They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them. You want to compete so bad? Go make your own phone or pad.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (5, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450766)

You know, the fact that there are other options is not a valid reason to simply shut up and accept Apple's capriciousness. Merely taking other options is worthless as a force for change unless you also make it known why you took the alternative.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451668)

What if you want Apple to fail? If you are hoping to punish them it is better to leave them trying to guess what feature caused an exodus of users. That way as they take stabs at changes and features they will (hopefully) continue to lose users until they finally get it right.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1)

Turzyx (1462339) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450770)

I can understand both sides to this. On the one hand, Apple is trying to regulate its 'image' and reputation when it allows apps to be sold on their store. On the other hand, you have developers who, by all accounts, followed the vague rules and got their hard work rejected.

You put it nicely when you said "No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone" and given the tiny margins people make on apps, I'm surprised anyone bothers.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451148)

On the one hand, Apple is trying to regulate its 'image' and reputation when it allows apps to be sold on their store.

And their image has come down to a fundamentally broken OS and related technologies which claim "revolutionary" new features which are really things that people said that iPhone OS needed from day one.

Even the non-geeks are starting to realize it, when they can get the full web experience from Android and not from Apple, cheaper, more available devices from Android, they are switching to Android.

Apple has had several chances to have redeemed itself and each time has thrown away their chances. From not allowing multiple carriers in the US, not allowing various apps, refusing to allow Flash, being so slow to implement things that every other smartphone OS has like copy and paste along with multitasking, etc.

Really, how many times have you thought "I'd really like to get this smartphone platform, but there are a few apps in here that I don't agree with and it drags down the entire platform" . My guess is never.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451160)

I agree. No one is making anyone develop for Iphone.
                          No one should be developing for Iphone.
                          No one should continue developing for Mac until they come down to earth, get real, get a life and get rid of Jobs.... For good.
The greater good.
                          Every line of code written for them enables them to continue to behave like jackasses.
                          When they only have hardware to sell, see if their attitude changes.
                            But gosh, I guess their hardware is really only a P.C. anyway.
                          I guess when you alienate your developers, your employees, your customers then it just becomes about Jobs and the Board of directors. Well we have P.C.s , We have Linux, various BSDs and even Microcrud. Steve Jobs and henchmen are not necessary for this scenario.
                      Apple: Think Drama

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451280)

Tiny margins? They make 70%, and don't have to worry about hosting or credit card processing fees. Those are better terms than most of the other mobile app stores. Definitely much better than what you'd get from the carriers themselves.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (5, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450796)

>This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS

No, its the 2000s and one of the largest smartphone OSs is iPhone (50 million units sold). Lets not forget their near perfect monopoly on music players, which are little more than smartphones sans phone and are binary compatible with ipod/ipad.

Also, in the 1990s no one made you buy Microsoft. You could always have bought a Mac or run a maturing Linux, like today. Harmful monopolies are funny things. In retrospect they are easy to spot, but when you in the midst of one its easy to justify them.

>They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them.

I dont think anyone is suggesting that, but pointing out Apple's rotten policies is a social good, at least in my book. It keeps the consumers informed and the bad publicity will hurt them enough in the long run. We're pretty much witnessing Steve Jobs circa 1980s all over again. He's going to fight for closed and expensive while his competitors will fight for open and cheap(er). Closed and expensive has early advantages but not much staying power.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32451210)

I dont think anyone is suggesting that, but pointing out Apple's rotten policies is a social good, at least in my book. It keeps the consumers informed and the bad publicity will hurt them enough in the long run. We're pretty much witnessing Steve Jobs circa 1980s all over again. He's going to fight for closed and expensive while his competitors will fight for open and cheap(er). Closed and expensive has early advantages but not much staying power.

DItto!

And let's not forget that no one lives forever and we already saw what happened to Apple without a strong and charismatic leadership.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1)

rpresser (610529) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451550)

"Near perfect monopoly on music players"???? WTF? Between my friends and I, we use ten different portable devices to play music (not counting CD players, just digital files). NOT ONE OF THEM WAS MADE BY APPLE. And we don't feel the lack AT ALL.

You just want to play music, there's no need to suck Apple's dick. There are plenty of alternatives. GOOD ONES.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450844)

No one is making anyone buy an iPhone. No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone.

This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS. They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them.

You may be wrong there. Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products.
And the share of the smartphone market that Apple holds might just be big enough, especially when seen in the context of their market share of the music player market.

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451158)

it's not like the itunes store is an entity in the void. music labels asked it to be the way it is, with all the limitations and device restrictions and stuff. not that Apple want it open, but let's not forget all the sides of the equation.

the app store itself is not leveraging anything, being available on windows. and you can put your own song on itunes, so even that part of the store is 'leveraging free'.

you can argue that the iphone is leveraging the app store, but then again debian is leveraging it's repositories. there are no functional differences.

the only shady stuff you can point to is the leveraging between xcode and mac os, yet the market and target for xcode is so small that it's hard to demonstrate an actual gain of apple from it, to the detriment of macos competitors (windows&linux). I guess the iphone brings mac more users for the shiny factor than for the xcode restriction.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (2, Interesting)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451594)

While I still disagree with the monopoly theories, the biggest leverage you're missing is leveraging iTunes and the iPod dominance to gain smartphone market dominance. Playing your iTunes purchased music is (typically) more effort on non-apple smartphones and may even be impossible on some. Personally I don't think anything is to the point of screaming at the Feds to get involved (iPod and iPhone market share are each significant but not a monopoly), but it is worthy of the raised eyebrows it's getting.

So no, the link isn't fundamentally different, but the results are. When the Apple market dominance in music players and smartphones rivals Microsoft's in OSes and web browsers, then take action. Until then.... business as usual I suppose.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451170)

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

You mean besides abusive contractual obligations to third parties, like Pay for a Windows license even if you're shipping Linux on a computer, or else we'll take away all your licenses?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (2, Interesting)

Kielistic (1273232) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451356)

Kind of like don't put OS X on anything but Apple hardware, or else we'll take away your licenses and sue you into submission?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (2, Interesting)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451572)

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

You mean besides abusive contractual obligations to third parties, like Pay for a Windows license even if you're shipping Linux on a computer, or else we'll take away all your licenses?

Yeah, that's nothing like an absent set of rules for the biggest smartphone OS and it's locked in store. There's nothing abusive when Apple chooses to reject apps that do what Apple does, or wants to do in the future. How about rejecting an app that was previously approved based on an update? Don't update your app, Apple might revoke the entire thing!

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32451604)

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

You mean besides abusive contractual obligations to third parties, like Pay for a Windows license even if you're shipping Linux on a computer, or else we'll take away all your licenses?

You are refering to the practice that was ended* with the DOJ consent decree of 1995? It was definitely something that needed to be stopped, but this is now more than 15 years ago, time to move on?

(* if anyone had proof of this going on after 1995, they would have been able to hurt MS really really bad. DOJ would not have taken that lightly)

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32451728)

Similar to Pay for a Mac if you're developing for the iPhone -- and if you use a different SDK we'll take away all your licenses?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451228)

You may be wrong there. Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products.

Of course, MS had a 90+% market share on the desktop OS market, what's the iPhone's market share? Even if we're looking at smartphones I have yet to see any stats that even put it above 50%...

As for the music player market, they don't hold a majority on that either, if you narrow down the criteria enough I suppose you could give them a majority market share in part of that market but it's not like MS and operating systems where it was basically "almost completely owns the market except for the server market which they're advancing into strongly".

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1)

donny77 (891484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451398)

I could understand if Apple was rejecting developers because they also release on other platforms. THAT is what Microsoft was doing. Instead they are rejecting certain applications based on the application. If these apps are available on other platforms and users want them, then Apple shouldn't be getting all that market share. I can't demand Sony support playing XBOX 360 games on a PS3.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (2, Insightful)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451484)

Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products. And the share of the smartphone market that Apple holds might just be big enough, especially when seen in the context of their market share of the music player market.

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

This is what has been floating in my head, but I've been unable to put into words. Excellent comment!

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (0, Troll)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450942)

Troll? Really? So making a factual statement gets downmodded but trashing Apple is a guaranteed +1 Insightful...got it.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32451326)

Tiresome argument is tiresome.

Repeating like a parrot that "nobody's forcing to buy something" is simply flawed logic aiming at dismissing any kind of critics on no grounds. Yes we are not forced to buy it, yes we still have all rights to point out sleazy practices.

Anyway, nobody's forcing you to share a point of view against your cult...

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451586)

Troll? Really? So making a factual statement gets downmodded but trashing Apple is a guaranteed +1 Insightful...got it.

Welcome to /. Here's your tinfoil hat.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450984)

And by that logic movie critics should never write bad reviews, because nobody's forcing them to watch those movies. If Apple is acting immorally, what is wrong with calling them out on it?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (0)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451512)

Are you saying that movie critics should be able to halt the playing of movies completely just because they didn't like it?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (1, Flamebait)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451026)

Yes, but, this is a group exercise in admonishing poor business practices by a dishonest company duping suckers as though it were a cult.
When, if ever Sour Apple Macincult can be a stand up company offering value for dollars, I'm sure they will get the respect they have coming.
Till then, they can feel free to continue on their path and endure the public badmouthing and disrespect they have coming.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (-1, Offtopic)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451116)

For the record, mods...the above post *was* a troll.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (-1, Flamebait)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451340)

Speak for yourself moron. The parent is an observation about the nature of our disposition
on rotten apples.
      For the record, mind your own business.
If you are trying to curry favor with those who have mod points, perhaps you should try using more tongue, just beneath the head.
      This isn't a troll either, just me putting some mamas boy stool pigeon sycophant in his place.
          No real nice way of doing that. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32451376)

For the record, mods, the above post is both full of sour grapes, and is offtopic. Also, NiceGeek blows his hermaphroditic mother at night because he was told it was wrong to touch himself.

Innovate too well, Apple kills it. (5, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450642)

Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

It probably would be better to have a plan to offer it to jailbroken iPhones to at least reduce losses.

iMaxpad app should about do it (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450754)

CANCELED

Another Onion Article Painfully Close to the Truth (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450842)

Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

I found this article [theonion.com] hilarious over a decade ago. Now it's kind of sad how Apple is treating innovative third party developers on the iDevices. Think outside the box, but not too far outside the box!

Re:Another Onion Article Painfully Close to the Tr (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451720)

"think outside of their box, not our box" (their being "big bro" of the day, IBM, microsoft, take your pick).

Re:Innovate too well, Apple kills it. (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450966)

Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

You mind telling me what exactly Apple has forgotten that they said? It will make it easier for people who don't pay that much attention to the iPhone and I am not exactly sure what to google to check and get irate about. Apple is a corporation, and with all corporations their PR departments love to forget things.

On a side note, are cut-paste and tethering really the best examples for innovative? You have to be able to come up with better examples of innovative than that. Copying features from other cell phones is not innovative even if you are a 3rd party. I would dare say that the devs of apps that do those two things were worried about "when" they would be implemented in iPhone OS, and not "if". There was enough complaints from consumers that it was a matter of time for those features..

I wish more people would complain about the Nintendo Wiiware store, but meh. It has a lot of similar problems to the App Store from what I can tell.

Re:Innovate too well, Apple kills it. (2, Informative)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451084)

Those were ready examples of things that Apple put in later-generation revisions of their software and/or devices that they said were not important.

Apple just wanted to gauge importance by seeing how much someone will protest about its non-presence.

Well, duh? (1, Funny)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450676)

It's because each app administrator just Thinks Different.

using vendor API's !welcome? (3, Insightful)

TheLevelHeadedOne (700023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450680)

...to using Apple's APIs without permission...
Didn't Micro$oft have API's that they used and didn't want anyone else to use? Didn't they get lambasted for that?

Re:using vendor API's !welcome? (5, Insightful)

TheoCryst (975577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450720)

The problem with using Apple's private APIs is that they tend to be unstable, and there are no guarantees that they won't change. Apple would very much rather that half the apps in their store didn't break because of an OS update that changes an undocumented API. And they've always been good about making private APIs public once they stabilize, so it's not as big a deal as this guy makes it sound.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome? (3, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450828)

Microsoft has the same problem. If you read The Old New Thing [msdn.com] , you'll get a lot of stories over time about things that people start doing in Windows/DOS that weren't documented, that were private APIs, etc. But they had to keep them working because otherwise some really important program would break. Microsoft generally seems to try to keep that stuff working.

Apple is exercising control that Microsoft didn't have over Windows. Since Apple controls distribution, they can prevent people from doing these things, and save themselves hassle later.

Just because someone discovers that a specific microwave can also open their garage door doesn't mean that all new versions of that microwave should have to do that forever.

Apple (and Microsoft) never said "If you do this, it will work." Usually they say "DON'T do stuff unless we say it's OK, 'cause it will break."

Apple just has a chance to force the issue.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome? (2, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451458)

My question is, why should they be allowed to? Just slap a warning on it, and let it go. Last I checked, image management wasn't a valid reason to restrict other peoples' actions.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome? (0, Troll)

ianezz (31449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450756)

Didn't Micro$oft have API's that they used and didn't want anyone else to use? Didn't they get lambasted for that?

Apple is not (yet?) a monopoly.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome? (-1, Troll)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450776)

Obligatory "But Apple has a monopoly on Apple products!" /froth_at_mouth.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32451002)

people attribute the double standards to the whole monopoly thing WAAAAAY too much. I don't see how this is related to monopoly. Are they using their market control to push other products? That falls under monopoly's umbrella. Are they using API's that they don't want others to use? I can't see how that has anything to do with the market. Monopoly is about business, not about the technology. They could have good reasons for not wanting others to use APIs that they didn't approve for general use as they ARE a proprietary product.
 
Can we stop it with the whole monopoly thing? That is generally *NOT* the reason for most double standards between Microsoft and Apple.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome? (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450914)

The issue there was that Microsoft app writers (like Microsoft Office) were able to use private APIs and nobody else was. This meant that no other competing software could be as efficient as Microsoft's. That was a clear case of using a monopoly in one area (the OS) to stifle competition in another (the apps).

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smart phones, and given the vigorous competition I doubt they'll get one. More importantly, as far as I can tell they aren't competing in apps. They aren't trying to sell their own software through the app store and relying on private APIs for a competitive advantage. (I haven't been following what's available for the iPad, so if they're selling iPad apps please let me know.)

Re:using vendor API's !welcome? (4, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451052)

The issue there was that Microsoft app writers (like Microsoft Office) were able to use private APIs and nobody else was.

Except that according to people like Raymond Chen, the Office folks were just crappily reverse engineering those private APIs and doing things they weren't supposed to be doing by having done so.

From a a comment in this [msdn.com] article posted by him:

The functions were exported only by ordinal. There was no documentation, there was no LIB file to link against, the function wasn't named; you had to reverse-engineer the LIB file and link with it. Surely that must've been a clue that what you were doing was the slightest bit dodgy. Office probably found those undocumented functions the same way you did. In the Windows division, we treat Microsoft applications the same as any other company's applications. In fact, earlier versions of the programs now known collectively as Office were such problems that -- I hope the Office folks' feelings aren't hurt by this -- we made up insulting names for them just to keep our sanity. The only one that comes to mind right now is "PowerPig". (I must point out that in the intervening years, the Office folks have done a fabulous job of getting their act together.)

Re:using vendor API's !welcome? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451062)

One main difference that people complained about was that MS may have been using those undocumented APIs for their own products like Office but would not release them to 3rd parties. Could Apple be doing the same thing? Yes, but could it is also likely that those undocumented APIs are unstable.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome? (2, Interesting)

steveha (103154) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451488)

Didn't Micro$oft have API's that they used and didn't want anyone else to use? Didn't they get lambasted for that?

Oh yeah. I worked at Microsoft in the early 90s, and I even worked on one of the flagship applications (Microsoft Word for Windows). I never saw any "secret backdoor" APIs, and I firmly believe that those rumors were wildly overblown.

But Apple is actually doing it. They have undocumented APIs that they won't let anyone else use. Even on the Mac they have them, and they have been known to break the undocumented APIs seemingly just to burn apps that dare to use them. Now that they have the "app store" it's even more up front: if Apple figures out that you are using their double-secret APIs, they will reject your app.

Microsoft was widely flamed over rumors of doing this, while few people care that Apple actually does it a lot.

Feh. Give me Linux, please.

steveha

Enough with the Apple stories for a bit (4, Insightful)

Kabuthunk (972557) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450694)

Could we PLEASE try to go even a single day without some apple-based story? My god, there's more to the world of science and technology than a single company!

Canada attempting to pass a bill to put filesharing along the same lines as in the USA?
Info on the oil leak?
Hewlett-Packard cutting 9000 jobs?

To hell with all of that, someone somewhere posted something about Apple!

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32450774)

There's always time for a daily story as a club to bash Apple with. I hated Apple before it was cool to hate them.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32451102)

Could we PLEASE go one day without someone yammering about how he hates to see Apple stories?

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit (1)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451112)

You know full well they just posted a story about Frank Zappa!

Give it a rest! Slashdot's clearly focusing on proper science and technology stories.

Lord almighty.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit (1)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451118)

Well, I just posted a story about Ballmer saying bad things about the iPad. Does that count?

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451182)

Could we PLEASE try to go even a single day without some apple-based story?

Would you prefer Microsoft-based story?

There will always be a flamebaity topic for articles on Slashdot, if only to drive visitors to the site. Like it or not, but most are here for the comments, not the stories. It just so happens that, these days, Apple generates most controversy, and its user demographic is somewhat specific in that any Apple-related story is a virtually guaranteed 500+ comment flamewar.

Canada attempting to pass a bill to put filesharing along the same lines as in the USA?

There was a /. story for that, actually.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit (3, Informative)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451368)

If you don't want to see it, then go into your preferences and uncheck Apple. Poof. You won't see any more Apple stories.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32451380)

Could we PLEASE try to go even a single day without some apple-based story? My god, there's more to the world of science and technology than a single company!

Canada attempting to pass a bill to put filesharing along the same lines as in the USA? Info on the oil leak? Hewlett-Packard cutting 9000 jobs?

To hell with all of that, someone somewhere posted something about Apple!

You do know you can just deselect Apple in prefs?

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit (1)

barkingcorndog (629651) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451446)

I'm sorry that someone forced you to read and comment on this story. I truly am.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit (0, Offtopic)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451526)

If you were here, I would buy you a beer.

I can't agree enough.

Streaming (1)

nemasu (1766860) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450696)

There's no internet radio streaming? FTFA # 5. Use too much bandwidth - Internet radio apps are off-limits. I listen to waaay too much internet radio on my current phone to give that up. Driving to work, driving back, uuh....guess that's it... Anyway I'm surprised though that this wouldn't be allowed though...I would think they would let the user determine how much data they can/can not use.

Re:Streaming (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32450728)

One app got rejected. There's plenty other ones, including Pandora.

It's just some fluff article to get them clickthroughs.

Re:Streaming (2, Informative)

1000101 (584896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450762)

I don't get that one either. I'm listening to Pandora Internet Radio on my iPhone right now.

Re:Streaming (2, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451222)

The article calls that out:

Return7 seems reasonably upset about this. After all, every other Internet radio site remains in the App Store, and, again, three previous versions of CastCatcher were approved. It claims there is nothing in this new version that would require more bandwidth than any of the other streaming radio services.

It's just Apple's app review as usual. At this point, with all the evidence we have, I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's based mainly on wave function collapse.

Re:Streaming (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451076)

*gasp* You mean a an article by McAllister might twists facts around in an article for nothing more than to drive hits to his blog? Say it ain't so!!!!

Fuck it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32450706)

Fuck Apple. Go to Android.

What's the point? (1)

Sir Holo (531007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450736)

Ummm, If they are so notorious for rejecting apps, is there really a point to a recipe for getting rejected?

Re:What's the point? (1)

Bugamn (1769722) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450982)

So you can avoid this recipe?

Apple is Evil (0, Flamebait)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450772)

I just don't know why people aren't boycotting Apple.

Re:Apple is Evil (2, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450884)

The reality distortion field that Jobs invented works well. Too bad Microsoft never got one.

Re:Apple is Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32450900)

Because they do not give a shit about app rejections and just want a phone that works?

Re:Apple is Evil (1)

Bugamn (1769722) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450936)

Most people don't care if developers can't send their apps to Apple. They know they can do the things their friends can, it looks nice and shiny and it's an Apple product, it must be good, it isn't cheap., they must know what they are doing.

Re:Apple is Evil (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450962)

I just don't know why people aren't boycotting Apple.

I never thought I'd see the day on Slashdot when someone called Apple evil and then get modded up.

What next, a black President?

Re:Apple is Evil (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450996)

Because people (read, not us /.'ers) fucking LOVE Apple.

From our standpoint, they're far too propriatary, far too closed, and far to like Microsoft of 10-15 years ago. (and yes, I know we have another 5 million arguements of why Apple sucks beyond that)

From the general public's standpoint, they make shiny esteticly-pleasing gadgets that are relatively high-quality, durable, and have high resale values. They are easy to use, and most of the public don't care if someone is tightly controlling their user experience, because they LIKE the iDevice user experience.

I mean shit, how many of us don't use iPods as our portable MP3 players? If you have one, do you hate the device itself (forget the suckery of iTunes for a minute)?

Shit, I have an iPhone, and while I hate Apple's policies on the app store & the like, I bloody well love the phone/device itself (and thankfully I'm not in the USA so I don't have to fight the suckery of AT&T with it...I have no dropped calls, full tethering, etc).

If you get rejected, try a job! (1)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450788)

Looking for telecommuters from anywhere in the United States! Major technology company. Need Linux experience including kernel module development. Database experience a plus. C a must, plus scripting languages. This will be for an enterprise storage system for files in a long-term context. Email scybert@gmail.com .

Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes (2, Insightful)

retardpicnic (1762292) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450820)

They used to have a game called Calvinball where the rules were made up as they played the game and ever changing. Dealing with Apple (or even thier bedmate ATT) is a lot like playing CB....sigh

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes (5, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450944)

No, it's nothing like Calvinball.

In Calvinball, both players got to change the rules. With the iphone, only Apple gets to.

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451240)

Developers can change the rules, too. Just make sure your next version runs on Android, too... for now. And the next one after it might be running on Android only - if need be.

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451414)

With the iphone, only Apple gets to.

Not entirely true. That's why we have jailbroken iPhones.

All this complaining is from a developer's point of view. Users aren't really complaining about app rejection.

And if users really are complaining about app rejection (or a lack of apps for sale) and continue to buy iPhones, well, all I can say is - tough for them. There *ARE* other options out there. And good ones, too.

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451674)

No, it's nothing like Calvinball.

In Calvinball, both players got to change the rules. With the iphone, only Apple gets to.

Wait...there's rules? I've only seen judgments, if you've got the current set of rules, you should post them!

See Netflix (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450834)

One that I find moderately frustrating as a developer; the Netflix app. Fire it up and within the first one or two screens you see a pile of UI issues that would get any mere mortal rejected. I understand that the lax approval for Netflix is all about the benjamins, but it is still a little irritating to the free market economist in me. Perfect competition is tarnished when some are a little more equal than others.

Just don't coopt the Brand (2, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450878)

If your app does anything that might make it bigger than The Phone, then you screwed up. Apple wants their customers to always have in mind that they're using an iPhone; not your apps on an iPhone. Same reason Valentino Rossi won't get to race on a Ducati.

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand (2, Insightful)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451194)

Thank-you!

Now I don't need to spend ten minutes trying to think of a clever way to word what you just explained.

Not that I technically needed to say anything. But this iPhone thing is like an obsessive itch; It bugs me because it's a major piece of social engineering in progress and it's being run by a control freak dick whose dream of reality just pisses me off. The fact that Apple calls its lead tech PR staff, "Evangelists" is creepy on so many levels. . !

-FL

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451576)

Wow. This has got to be the single best thing I've ever seen someone say on the topic.

Number 5 - Network centric apps (1)

TyFoN (12980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450908)

Why then did they approve the Spotify client [spotify.com] ?

Re:Number 5 - Network centric apps (1)

GuldKalle (1065310) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451726)

When Benjamin told them to? Or when they realised that they couldn't afford to not have that app?

let's look at each one. (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32450970)

I think we can say at the outset that Apple's policy is outlandish, but let's look at this as we move towards the computer appliance and not back to the mainframe.
  1. If it don't work, then don't sell it. This has been the bane of computer programs for years. No warranty, if it trashes your business, it is your fault.
  2. I have little problem with this. It does not prevent Skype, but prevents a million look alike apps
  3. Look and feel is why we buy Apple. We expect to do certain things in certain ways. There are some things that will always be wanted. It is like cup holders. Just because some consumers buy cars based on cup holders does not mean that we should all have to drive car with 23 cup holders.
  4. This has been discussed ad infintum. I think battery life should take precedence over developers wanting to take the easy way out. I pay for code to be good.
  5. I have no idea on this one. I think if people had not felt they had a god given right to infinite bandwidth ATT would still be selling unlimited plans.
  6. Objectionable content is truly silly. Gowalla is 4+ while netflix is 12+? WTF?
  7. Those of us who programmed in MS DOS knew that MS did not document API. We had buy books that reversed engineered those hooks. Apple was pretty open with the details, the Mac Books were a huge set of volumes. The risk with used unsupported API was that Apple would pull it without noticed. It happened a lot. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use unsupported APIs, but when the program breaks, we can't blame Apple.
  8. When Apple posted GPL content and then removed it, the general rational EFF cried foul, even though Apple really did nothing wrong. People assume that if it is in the Apple store, then Apple can be blamed.
  9. I wish Apple would enforce this. It would raise the level of the Apps.
  10. As for the rest of these, we are at a junction from WIMP to touchscreen. One thing that continues to make MS Windows so dreadful is that it never made the jump to an efficient WIMP interface. This is why we have 35 button mice, and windows does not work well with a touchpad. There are Apps that still assume they are using a pure WIMP interface. For instance the Grey's Anatomy app requires you to click a button to move to the next screen rather than just use the finger to drag. It should have been rejected until it was fixed. I can see developers in 10 years still using widget where a gesture would do, and defending it as the way we have programmed for generations.

Re:let's look at each one. (2, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451320)

Look and feel is why we buy Apple. We expect to do certain things in certain ways. There are some things that will always be wanted. It is like cup holders. Just because some consumers buy cars based on cup holders does not mean that we should all have to drive car with 23 cup holders.

It is a flawed analogy. No-one is asking for that. What people want is the ability to add extra cupholders to their car in case they need them (and apparently many people do!). But Apple only lets you install anything into your machine in its own service centers, and they only offer a limited range of options.

Also, "iTunes sync over WiFi" = "cupholder", seriously?

This has been discussed ad infintum. I think battery life should take precedence over developers wanting to take the easy way out. I pay for code to be good.

The Flash aspect has been discussed ad infinitum. However, there isn't any good reason why a user cannot run an application which is an interpreter (and advertised as such), rather than uses an interpreter internally (and does not advertise it).

I mean, seriously, what does a HyperCard implementation - which the user would have to explicitly feed code to run - have to do with battery life?

I have no idea on this one. I think if people had not felt they had a god given right to infinite bandwidth ATT would still be selling unlimited plans.

Bandwidth usage is something that should be strictly between the user and his mobile provider. Then, of course, if Internet radio is a serious network strain, then iPhone "3G" is a misnomer.

When Apple posted GPL content and then removed it, the general rational EFF cried foul, even though Apple really did nothing wrong. People assume that if it is in the Apple store, then Apple can be blamed.

A GPL violation is a definite copyright infringement, though; there's no shady ground here. But a BitTorrent client? They're not illegal. And the app in question isn't even that - it's simply an UI to control a BitTorrent client running on a computer remotely.

Re:let's look at each one. (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451462)

I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use unsupported APIs, but when the program breaks, we can't blame Apple.

Because when Joe User updates their phone, and then their favorite fart app won't work (or more likely, some app they've come to depend on), then they're going to blame Apple, not the developer, even though it is entirely the developer's fault. Not allowing private APIs avoids this problem altogether.

Part of the problem: *not* sure-fire. (2, Interesting)

DdJ (10790) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451044)

Part of the problem is that these ways are not sure-fire.

The app reviewers are overloaded and the app review process gets gummed up, and so sometimes mistakes are made and things are not enforced consistently. So, you can have an app that gets through the process just fine for a while, and then gets rejected. Sometimes, it should have been rejected to begin with, but wasn't, and that makes people think that what they're doing is okay, and they got an explicit "wink" and approval.

The (specific, not only) problem is that inconsistent enforcement makes it seem more like there are inconsistent rules than is actually the case.

Costco (1)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451126)

Another day, another /. bag on Apple's policy article. I don't get it; those crying monopoly are insane. This is no different than a Costco. No one makes them carry a certain kind of anything. They have buyers, a submission process, a fickle price negotiation for margin, and a decision about whether the company should carry a specific product. Why is this any different?

Re:Costco (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451688)

Because there's still stores other than Costco to get stuff at legitimately. If you own an iPod/iPhone, and you don't want to Jailbreak it, you can ONLY get things through the app store. Either Apple needs to open up the marketplace, or they need to open up a legitimate alternate channel for app purchase. If I buy it, it's my phone. Why does Apple get any kind of say at all as to what I put on it?

No, that's a serious question. It's not a specialized device like a console. It's capable of running lots of different things, and doing it well. As long as I'm not violating someone else's copyright, why should anyone care what goes on my phone?

designing your own UI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32451188)

>...to designing your UI...

This is not mentioned anywhere in the article, why is it in the description?

apple better look out as M$ got in a big mess over (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451282)

apple better look out as M$ got in a big mess over stuff like this.

WGN gets around the no Internet radio apps rule (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451312)

WGN gets around the no Internet radio apps rule as they have a live feed on the app store.

Still... (2, Insightful)

joh (27088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451390)

I certainly totally hate it when some useful app vanishes or new rules pop up out of nothing, but on the other hand I can somehow understand that Apple has to make the rules as it goes along. I mean, if they'd put up clear rules and would stick to these, developers would instantly start to find loopholes and to work around them, naturally. And for Apple the iPhone/iPad platform is what they bet their future on. And this platform is still at a very early stage. They do not want to be the dog with which the tail waggles.

Apple (and the Mac and OS X) has more than once suffered from others having too much control over things. Like Adobe with taking ages to port their apps to Intel Macs because they did not use XCode in the first place. Imagine Apple allowing Flash and any kind of programming language and compilers and middleware and then, 4 or 6 years on, they try to go to a totally different hardware platform (which *will* happen sooner or later, be assured). Suddenly they'd have a large amount of apps they couldn't offer any migration tools for then and be at the whim of some third party (or worse, hundreds of them). Look at Microsoft -- Windows and all its apps are married to Intel and the flood of ARM platforms for tablets is totally out of bounds for MS here. There is absolutely no way to port Windows and all applications to another platform. Trapped.

For Google, Android itself and its apps is still a minor thing. Google does not sell systems. As long as they get your data and your eyes, they can allow Android apps to go whereever they go. They don't actually care.

Really, I'm somewhat happy that there's more than one way. All of this is a large experiment and attacking the problems from more than one angle is good. Freedom is not when everyone does the same.

The easy solution: (1)

kuzb (724081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32451544)

Stop writing software for the iPhone, start writing it for Android. End of problem, write what you want!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?