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!

Apple Reveals the Most Common Reasons That It Rejects Apps

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the too-fat-too-thin-too-talkative dept.

Software 132

mrspoonsi writes One of the great mysteries of the App Store is why certain apps get rejected and why others don't. Apple has let a surprising number of ripoffs and clones through the store's iron gates, yet some developers face rejection for seemingly innocent apps. "Before you develop your app, it's important to become familiar with the technical, content, and design criteria that we use to review all apps," explains Apple on a new webpage called "Common App Rejections." Rejections include: Apple and our customers place a high value on simple, refined, creative, well thought through interfaces. They take more work but are worth it. Apple sets a high bar. If your user interface is complex or less than very good, it may be rejected; Apps that contain false, fraudulent or misleading representations or use names or icons similar to other Apps will be rejected.

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

Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random (5, Insightful)

Galaga88 (148206) | about 2 months ago | (#47806249)

There's not enough fingers in the world to count all the awful apps that violate most of Apple's so-called "standards."

My favorite are the apps that have a string of words from other popular apps' names in them, just to muck up the search results. And they make sure to periodically change the icon to look like another app as well.

Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806287)

Yes, but the interface looks FAAAABULOUS, which is, as any homosexual can tell you, the most important thing.

Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random (3, Interesting)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 2 months ago | (#47806343)

We don't iCare what it iDoes we just iCare what it iLooks like.

Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 months ago | (#47806459)

yeah it's bullshit.

anyone in the business knows that they hardly test that it starts up without crashing and that's about it.

logging in etc - too much trouble.

Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random (4, Insightful)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 2 months ago | (#47806887)

yeah it's bullshit.

anyone in the business knows that they hardly test that it starts up without crashing and that's about it.

logging in etc - too much trouble.

What they probably do, and I'm guessing here, is fire up an automatic UI testing tool that navigates through the app and clicks at stuff in order to provoke crashes and other bugs. In addition to that I would imagine they run the app description and the app icon through some sort machine learning system that tries to identify blatant ripoffs, re-submissions of apps that have been banned in the past, etc. Apps that don't pass these tests are looked at manually.

Again, these are my guesses.

They also do background checks on new App store accounts to try to tie them to people who have been banned for breaking their TOS.

The bad app makers are of course one step ahead of this at any given point in time. It's not hard to think of ways of probing the system by using fake accounts.

Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about 2 months ago | (#47808695)

Yeah, there's a lot of garbage apps, for instance apps that just display a single jpeg and game engine demos that have been repackaged. These never get rejected. It's pretty obvious that Apple is using an automated app approval system

Re:Things Apple Apparently Enforces at Random (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 months ago | (#47810823)

Nonsense. The existence of apps that you wouldn't have approved doesn't indicate that there weren't plenty more that were rejected.

It's a fact that Apple has humans aided by scripts doing the reviewing. For example the reviewers sometimes catch bugs that developers never found.

In fact this new page on Apple's Website indicates that amounts to 8% of rejections.

License (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806273)

Also if they're free as in freedom.

Blame FSF not Apple ... (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 months ago | (#47808033)

Also if they're free as in freedom.

With respect to he VLC media player ... Apple didn't care it was GPL, the developer was OK with the App Store, but a 3rd party threatened to sue Apple so Apple pulled the app.

"The iOS VLC app was created by Applidium, a French mobile software company. In an Ars Technica interview, Applidium co-founder Romain Goyet said "The way I see it, we're not violating anyone's freedom. We worked for free, opened all our source code, and the app is available for free for anyone to download. People are enjoying a nice free and open source video player on the AppStore, and some people are trying to ruin it in the name of 'freedom.'" ... In a follow-up VideoLAN mailing list post, VideoLAN association president Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote, "With 'friends' like you, we don't need any enemies. If I understand correctly, the FSF new policy is to blow up communities?""
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open... [zdnet.com]

The FSF argues that Apple prohibits modifying and/or redistributing the app. That is a somewhat bogus argument. The binary is digitally signed, it won't run if modified or transferred to another device lacking the appropriate key. However the source code is available. A user is free to modify and distribute in terms of source code. They can submit their modified alternative binary to the app store. They can give a few friends binaries via ad hoc distribution. Yes, this costs money. The GPL doesn't prohibit things costing money, you can charge for distribution if you like and people are free to ignore your distribution and go to the source code. Nor does the GPL doesn't mandate a free developer environment.

Its seems the FSF has far more to do with GPL apps not being on iOS than Apple.

Manipulated by apple (2, Interesting)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 months ago | (#47806295)

Apple PR again. In light of good press from Microsoft and android simply having more apps. IOS is falling behind in both quality and quantity. Posted from a 5.5" phone

Re:Manipulated by apple (4, Insightful)

Rosyna (80334) | about 2 months ago | (#47806435)

Yup, good news from Microsoft about Quality App Stores [microsoft.com] that never reject clearly bogus apps.

Re:Manipulated by apple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806471)

Don't worry, the iFans will buy 20 million iPhone +=1 after the announcement in a few days and everything will be back to normal. Their paid sycophants in the media will once again hail it as the best device ever made, and the stuff copied from Android will be deemed to have not existed prior to its inclusion in iOS.

Re: Manipulated by apple (1)

Jerslan (1088525) | about 2 months ago | (#47807025)

And when Android copies some new feature the Android fanatics will conveniently start to claim that Apple copied them...

It's software, mores specifically OS software... Everyone copies everyone from now until forever...

Re: Manipulated by apple (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 months ago | (#47807645)

> It's software, mores specifically OS software...

That's not the entire picture:

  * Hardware
  * Software
  * User Experience

These days these 3 things are indeed similar.

> Everyone copies everyone from now until forever...

As Steve Jobs used to say paraphrasing Pablo Picasso:

Good artists copy; great artists steal.

Re: Posted from a 5.5" phone (0)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 2 months ago | (#47807595)

Why stop at 5.5"? Wouldn't a 10, 20, or even 30" phone be more useful and impressive?

Re:Manipulated by apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47808309)

Be a damn shame if one day they actually rejected most of their own apps.
"usability" They are no one to judge.
Someday they will find out exactly how much politics and payola
are involved in this 'process'

Some soft fat fruit basket named 'apple-the-hut' is in charge,
and when he dies chocking on a banana, he will be sorely missed,
and the world will rejoice.

Re:Manipulated by apple (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 months ago | (#47809119)

Ah, it's tupe666 again with his nonsensical Apple bashing. You might have had more of a reasonable argument if you hadn't brought up the Android and Microsoft stores in terms of quality.

Re:Manipulated by apple (-1)

Yaztromo (655250) | about 2 months ago | (#47810007)

Apple PR again. In light of good press from Microsoft and android simply having more apps. IOS is falling behind in both quality and quantity. Posted from a 5.5" phone

Let's try to remember for a moment why Andriod phones were bigger in the first place.

Andriod apps written against Davlik are garbage collected, however the garbage collection process on a phone with the typical quantity of phone memory requires a) frequent collection runs, and b) causes pauses. In order to alleviate this effect, Andriod device manufacturers started popping multi-core CPUs into their devices, simply to be able to handle garbage collection in the background, and make their devices appear closer to real-time performance and reduce UI "hiccoughs". Particularly early versions of these processors were more power hungry, requiring a larger battery to meet the same per-charge runtime as the iPhone. This required a larger overall package.

As such, the Andriod phones aren't larger because larger is better. They're larger because they couldn't compete with the iPhone in terms of performance or battery life if they were the same size.

Keep that in mind the next time you want to brag about your giant phone :).

Yaz

Uncool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806297)

In other words, if your not uncool like all the other uncool kids you cant stay in the uncool crowd...

Eh, not quite (5, Interesting)

hsmith (818216) | about 2 months ago | (#47806315)

I've had an app in the store for years now that requires a login. We provide two to apple to test (one success one fail). I don't recall the last time the accounts logged in (perhaps version 1.0.0.0), their last login date has sat the same for years. So, not hard if you get in and sit there to slowly change to something malicious.

Re:Eh, not quite (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about 2 months ago | (#47806573)

not hard if you get in and sit there to slowly change to something malicious.

Compelling point; I've not seen this mentioned before.

Re:Eh, not quite (4, Interesting)

Assmasher (456699) | about 2 months ago | (#47806779)

Dooood, don't make them angry. I had a hard enough time getting the damn reviewer to actually use the login (Apple/Apple.)

It was rejected TWICE in a row after 3 weeks of waiting because "it appears to require login account information" - despite a VERY clear explanation of how the app works and why you need to login and properly filling out the testing account entries in iTunesConnect, et cetera.

I started to think they were employing monkeys over there.

Just like you, every submission after the first acceptance - ZERO account activity on the apple demo account ;).

Re:Eh, not quite (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47807321)

I have had the same experience. I have ALWAYS included login/demo account information and - no exaggeration - they have never successfully read the information that tells them how to log in. Always ends up something that I need to send them in a follow up.

Once they used credentials from the review notes that I included in a completely different product!! It was like they tried to avoid the information that I provided for the app that was being reviewed.

Re:Eh, not quite (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47808941)

We had two different versions of our apps rejected for exactly that. iTunesConnect has boxes for username and password, but some of the reviewers just do whatever the hell they like then reject it. The first app rejected because we told them to use demouser@example.com as the username. Our mail app automatically fills in the @example.com on the screen as you type, so naturally after they failed it we looked in our logs and sure enough they had entered demouser@example.com@example.com.

Later we submitted an updated version (we added support for other domains) and having learned our lesson, gave them just the username and asked them to select @example.com from the dropdown in the "additional instructions" section. Sure enough, demouser@example.com@example.com.

Re:Eh, not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47807685)

I started to think they were employing monkeys over there.

Just like you, every submission after the first acceptance - ZERO account activity on the apple demo account ;).

How in the world did you ever stop thinking that they were employing monkeys over there. I'd say they've been infected with them for most of the last decade, like most other big companies.

Re:Eh, not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47808353)

Well if it had nudes of Jennifer,
then it would not need approval,
it would be leaked anyway...

Re:Eh, not quite (1)

TomGreenhaw (929233) | about 2 months ago | (#47809429)

That's interesting. They always log on to ours.

All about the brand (5, Interesting)

sideslash (1865434) | about 2 months ago | (#47806317)

I have dealt with App Store rejections on various projects, and it was quite a culture shock coming from the desktop development world. In many ways it reminded me of college. Giving the right answer is not important per se, but rather just providing the answer you know the professor/grader wants to hear. As a programmer, it rankles me for someone else to dictate major issues of app architecture that touch on quality in a debatable way.

But it's their way or the highway if you want to sell to iOS users. And yes, you do want to sell to iOS users. Android users never spend any money. /slight-exaggeration

Re:All about the brand (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47806639)

But it's their way or the highway if you want to sell to iOS users. And yes, you do want to sell to iOS users. Android users never spend any money. /slight-exaggeration

So to whom should one sell, say, an app for monitoring a wireless network or a video game in a historical fiction setting? Apple provides no public API for enumerating nearby SSIDs, and under Guidelines 15.3 [apple.com] , Apple would reject games whose "enemies" are a particular organization (such as soldiers in a particular country's army).

Re:All about the brand (1)

Theovon (109752) | about 2 months ago | (#47806641)

I don't know what your professors were like, but I instruct my graders to (a) do the assignment themselves for an objective set of answers (to later compare to mine) and (b) look for common "wrong" anwers and evaluate them carefully. For (b) there are three reasons why we might mark correct a "wrong" answer. One is that I just screwed up my work. Another is that I screwed up the question. And another is that I may have given a misleading explanation that lead students commonly produce a wrong answer. We also consider carefully how many people got it "right." A few times I have just dropped a question out of the grading and given extra credit to those few who got a good answer.

I suspect I put more time into grading than I "should" given tenure requirements, but I can't bring myself to do a shit job at teaching.

At least not intentionally. :)

Re:All about the brand (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about 2 months ago | (#47806731)

Certainly it would be unfair of me to say that all of my professors had a stilted and artificially narrow grading process. Some of them were very much as you describe and no doubt put a lot of effort into doing it right. Cheers!

Re:All about the brand (2)

quietwalker (969769) | about 2 months ago | (#47807435)

I had the same experience.

I get the feeling that they're inundated with apps, and they have a minimum-wage staff that's probably working in some outsourced Pune office, and they just follow the guidelines, literally. They go down a check list - and the guidelines are more specific than what they're posting here - if it passes, it passes. If it's not on the checklist, they don't care.

So it's not about 'good design' - since that's subjective, and that's hard to write a spec to - or to outsource. Instead, it probably has rules like "Capitalization is allowed for the first letter of the title of the app only: Extreme Snowboarding is fine, eXtreme Snowboarding is not.". They just go down this list of rules, and as long as you don't break them, you're fine. Some minor subjective decision making must be involved, since an app can be rejected, immediately resubmitted, and then accepted with no changes, but for the most part it's just rote.

My guess is that, like everything else Apple, they feel that if they publish the actual criteria, they'll lose control of some of their intellectual property, or people will be able to game the system or something. They have a real problem with control after all.

High bar? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806323)

Such a subjective phrase. Looking at the App Store I doubt they even begin to comprehend its meaning. For every semi decent app there are a few thousand absolute shites copying the function. For every blockbuster app there's a few million trying to be it.

Absolute rubbish.

"Apple sets a high bar." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806331)

All the better to limbo under...

Bypassing the paywall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806351)

I though the most common reason was bypassing the iTunes pay wall by using their own mechanism for in-app purchases.

Amateur hour (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806381)

What is this, amateur hour? Why does Slashdot constantly rehash the "reasons Apple rejects apps" topic? They've published detailed guidelines on this for years. If you're developing for iOS, read them.

The guidelines used to be paywalled (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47806559)

Why does Slashdot constantly rehash the "reasons Apple rejects apps" topic?

To help certain iOS fans who frequent Slashdot (BB, SK, etc.) understand why not all apps are ported to iOS and why some people choose devices that run something other than iOS. The featured article states that most applications that Apple rejects are broken in some important way. But conspicuous by omission are apps that aren't broken but which Apple rejects for other reasons.

They've published detailed guidelines on this for years.

Only very recently (a few months ago [slashdot.org] ) has Apple made the guidelines [apple.com] available to the public. Previously you had to sign up for the paid iOS Developer Program just to see them. That hurt people who bought a Mac and an iOS device to start developing, only to learn that the application's concept was in a category of applications that Apple completely rejects [pineight.com] . That's entire sections of the market that Apple has made a business decision to decline to serve.

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806689)

Curious, one of the items in the pineight link is that you can't ask for email address as a customer identifier. So if you can't id a user by any characteristics of the phone either (like device id or phone#), how can you create an external unique key to id the user in case he reinstalls? i.e. you effectively can't build an app that references your external server to provide data to that app?

(obviously not an Apple dev here...)

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806719)

Curious, one of the items in the pineight link is that you can't ask for email address as a customer identifier. So if you can't id a user by any characteristics of the phone either (like device id or phone#), how can you create an external unique key to id the user in case he reinstalls?

Have the user create a Username.

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47807189)

Amazon, Dropbox, and several other web sites use an e-mail address as the primary key. What does the flow in the Amazon, Kindle reader, and Dropbox apps for iOS look like to create a username and associate it with the user's account?

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (2)

Rosyna (80334) | about 2 months ago | (#47807041)

So if you can't id a user by any characteristics of the phone either (like device id or phone#), how can you create an external unique key to id the user in case he reinstalls? i.e. you effectively can't build an app that references your external server to provide data to that app?

(obviously not an Apple dev here...)

Correct. You're not supposed to. If a user uninstalls an app, ALL data relevant to the app must be deleted, including any UUID. UUIDs are keyed to a specific app install. There should be no way to uniquely identify a user across installs.

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (2)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 2 months ago | (#47807711)

So how would Dropbox work? New account every time you install? Kind of useless as a cloud storage app, though.

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 months ago | (#47808137)

Curious, one of the items in the pineight link is that you can't ask for email address as a customer identifier. So if you can't id a user by any characteristics of the phone either (like device id or phone#), how can you create an external unique key to id the user in case he reinstalls? i.e. you effectively can't build an app that references your external server to provide data to that app?

(obviously not an Apple dev here...)

When the app runs you can "receipts" for the app purchase and any in-app purchases. This allows you to configure the app as it was before the re-install. Basically the purchases, storage used on iCloud, etc is all tied to the Apple App Store account.

As for your server, I believe Apple lets users create accounts on your server. Don't recall the details

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47808267)

I think the question is interesting, so wasted a point on an AC post. Someone below received a point for a good answer also, so it's fair. Remember that email addresses are dangerous things to use for numerous reasons. Having a unique User Name/ID fixes those issues without that much extra work, and removes the security issue of having a single account name for everything a user needs.

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (1)

Ronin Developer (67677) | about 2 months ago | (#47807215)

If the reason you purchased an iDevice and subsequent developer account is to develop apps that subsequently end up violating the developer guidelines, then one is either misguided or overly wealthy (or both). There is nothing preventing a developer from creating an OSX or iOS application that goes outside the guidelines provided they don't with to sell within the walled garden. But, if you want to sell to users using the app store, you are subject to their requirements.

OSX and iOS devices are intended to be consumer ..umm...appliances. This is a different philosophy over Android or Linux-based devices which tend to have a more technical audience and customer base. More technically savvy apps are distributed via other channels to jailbroken phones or by installing from a 3rd party site (for OSX apps, mainly). You are free to sell those apps. You just don't get the floor or shelf space that an "approved" app gets or access to that distribution channel.

A complaint, however, frequently raised here on /. is how APP X is rejected but similar APP Y is not or why APP Z is simply rejected. There didn't appear to be rhyme or reason and the answers out of Apple left much to be desired. Now, we have a little more understanding of what it is they are looking for during the approval process. I, for one, would prefer a written report returned to developers explaining the reason for rejection.

People are still making apps for iOS and Mac with many being free or enterprise apps for a variety of reason. And, the target for those developers is the user who wants an appliance that gets the job done. iOS devices still appear to be the preferred devices by industries such as health and big pharma. Sadly, the fact that the days of the little guy striking it rich with a killer app (unlike something stupid like 'Yo!') are pretty much over. However, developers still are seeking iOS development jobs and they HAVE to have a portfolio to even get noticed. Consequently, the store ends up being filled with dollar store type junk as a result of this portfolio creation process or a result of somebody's CS class homework assignment.

What would be nice is if Apple provided a separate area for this types of apps (classwork and developer portfolio apps) and leave real, useful and commercial quality apps, on the store.

OS X has sideloading, unlike iOS (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47807367)

There is nothing preventing a developer from creating an OSX or iOS application that goes outside the guidelines provided they don't with to sell within the walled garden. But, if you want to sell to users using the app store, you are subject to their requirements.

This is true of OS X but not of iOS, because OS X has sideloading and iOS does not. There are exactly three ways to get an app installed on an iOS device. The first and most common is Apple's App Store. The second is being an employee of an established company that is a paying member of the iOS Developer Enterprise Program or a student of an accredited university that is a member of the iOS Developer University Program; such organizations are allowed to run their own App Stores. The third is to be a paying member of the iOS Developer Program yourself.

What would be nice is if Apple provided a separate area for this types of apps (classwork and developer portfolio apps) and leave real, useful and commercial quality apps, on the store.

In high school, classwork is done on OS X, which allows sideloading. In college, classwork is done through the iOS Developer University Program. A developer portfolio should use a combination of three methods: A. having one or more of your applications on the App Store to demonstrate that you are familiar with the skill of negotiating with Apple, B. videos, and C. demonstration on a device connected to a paid-up iOS Developer Program membership during an in-person interview.

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 months ago | (#47808865)

Don't forget there have been devs totally freaked out for having followed all the "guidelines" that apple would tell them about, then still be refused multiple times because it "violated their guidelines", and apple refusing to even tell them what guideline was even violated.

Me personally, I suspect that they have a listmonkey do the preliminary check, then another monkey throws a dart.

Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 months ago | (#47810577)

Completely tangential...

The link you gave, to your site, contains "Disproof of Turing completeness"

However, the process of Pick-a-Winner is equivalent to Russian roulette. As stated above, Apple Inc. refuses to digitally sign a program implementing the rules of Russian roulette. But any universal Turing machine can run Pick-a-Winner. Therefore, a machine that refuses to execute a program that Apple has not signed cannot be Turing complete because Pick-a-Winner is excluded from programs that it can run. This makes an iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad without a developer license or jailbreak not a general-purpose computer, QED.

That's a joke right?

I mean first up, you don't have any actual evidence that "pick-a-winner" would even be rejected. The prohibition on Russian Roulette is clearly a prohibition on the "suicide game".

For example, there are plenty of minigames on the Wii that are mechanically equivalent to Russian roulette. Where players take turns, doing something (cutting a rope in a tangled knot for example) which is essentially random, until one of them is eliminated. I would be very surprised to see them rejected from the apple app store due to being "russian roulette"... I'd be very surprised if they weren't ALREADY on the ios app store.

Re:Amateur hour (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about 2 months ago | (#47806589)

They've published detailed guidelines on this for years

Yes. What's new is the Most Common part.

Re:Amateur hour (1)

master_kaos (1027308) | about 2 months ago | (#47808535)

If you actually HAD to follow every single guidelines, the app store would have almost nothing on it.
I recently submitted a book to the iBook store, and we were worried because it blatantly broke a few of the rules. We were going to correct them but thought, eh let's just submit it and will fix it if it gets rejected. Well it got rejected, but for an entirely different reason (some broken links that we didn't even know existed). Fixed those, resubmitted, and was approved.

Because (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806385)

Because the programmer is straight

None of Their Busness (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 months ago | (#47806401)

Apple obviously does not deeply review each and every entry. Many of the apps would hardly even stand up to a glance. So how can they arbitrarily say that an interface is too complex if they do not even spend the time to learn anything about the app.

Re:None of Their Busness (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 2 months ago | (#47806709)

If you have to learn anything about the app, the interface is to complex.
I on my part just delete those apps, I don't care how they came into the app store.

Re:None of Their Busness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806827)

Yup. If you make an Apple user think, you have unforgivably pissed off both him and Apple.

Re:None of Their Busness (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 2 months ago | (#47808173)

You aren't aware of the term "cognitive burden", with respect to user interfaces?

The basic idea is this: You want people to use your software, not throw their phone at the wall.

Re:None of Their Busness (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 months ago | (#47808887)

Some people "throw their phone at the wall" if they have to choose between two buttons.
Apparently some of them work at apple.

Re:None of Their Busness (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47807225)

If you have to learn anything about the app, the interface is to complex.

So in a Chess app, how would you expect the user learn what each piece can do?

Re:None of Their Busness (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 2 months ago | (#47807749)

Chess is not compliant with the Apple User Policy 4.3.6:

Thou shalt assume that the user is a dumb fuck.

Re:None of Their Busness (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 2 months ago | (#47807835)

Why would someone who can not play chess download a chess app?
And: for that you have the help section. Or you simply try it, as a decent chess app only allows valid moves :)
Point is: a chess app that needs a menu or buttons or input fields to move the pieces is a fail.

Re:None of Their Busness (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47808951)

Why would someone who can not play chess download a chess app?

Why would anyone try a game for the first time?

If you have to learn anything about the app, the interface is to complex.

for that you have the help section.

The help activity is still "learn[ing] anything about the app".

Apple sets a high bar (0, Flamebait)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47806403)

Does that include protecting your cloud apps with basic security so that pics of Jennifer Lawrence's pussy don't get leaked?

Apple sets a high bar (1)

kick6 (1081615) | about 2 months ago | (#47806423)

thankfully, no.

Re:Apple sets a high bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806439)

Does that include protecting your cloud apps with basic security so that pics of Jennifer Lawrence's pussy don't get leaked?

Most of the photos came from dropbox google drive and one drive.

Re:Apple sets a high bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806485)

Not according to Jennifer Lawrence.

Re:Apple sets a high bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806521)

most

Definition

1. superlative of many, much
2. greatest in amount or degree

Re:Apple sets a high bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806885)

While Jennifer Lawrence can't be considered to be many she certainly fits the second point in her being the greatest amount of herself one can possibly find.

Re:Apple sets a high bar (1)

clifyt (11768) | about 2 months ago | (#47806569)

If you set your luggage combination to 1234, the same as your bank pin, don't be angry when someone figures it out.

That said, I have shitty passwords for a lot of services I don't care about. My flikr account was like a 5 letter password that I shared with friends. I, however, didn't care if someone saw my peen because after my yearly camping trip with my friends, it is usually the most reported item on our facebooks (only embarrassing when the head of your department comments on it).

Re:Apple sets a high bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806743)

Does that include protecting your cloud apps with basic security so that pics of Jennifer Lawrence's pussy don't get leaked?

Frankly, if you're stupid enough to put sensitive personal data in the Cloud, you deserve what happens to you. Lesson learned!

LMAO..CAPTCHA was "starlet"

Re:Apple sets a high bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47807707)

Deserve it? No, I don't agree with that. The people involved in the hacking are clearly in the wrong, and nobody deserves it. Now, were the celebs foolish? Most certainly. You can say it was expected eventually that these cloud storage services would be hacked, and as such foolish to place highly desirable data on those "private" servers, but that doesn't mean the celebs deserved it. They were just foolish.

Happy that i did not buy an iphone (1)

drolli (522659) | about 2 months ago | (#47806511)

Sometimes it's ok for me it the UI of an app it's not so great as long as it does the job which i need to be done right now. (e.g. importing/converting files formats, unusual calculations etc....)

No right answer (4, Insightful)

blueshift_1 (3692407) | about 2 months ago | (#47806537)

I feel like this is basically the same issue as the "Displaying Top Apps" discussion from a while back. There's no great way or perfect rule to solve the issue. You somehow need to make it flexible enough to be able to work for every possible kind of app, but also strict enough to keep out the riff raff. You have to make some kind of judgement to help the user and the developer both... which at some point will annoy both parties. In my experience, it works well enough. Sure it could be better (and also worse), but it seems to do the job well enough.I just feel like by making them stricter it'd have plenty of seen and unforseen consequences.

Re:No right answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806993)

More importantly. If you decide to write a rule down and make it public. Enforce it as it is written, not when and as you see fit.
If you intention was to remove undesired elements at will you should write "We reserve the right to remove applications for any reason" and leave it at that.
There is no point in giving other guidelines if you aren't going to follow them in every case.
The best option is of course to write rules that you can enforce. That way you avoid a lot of drama and confusion.

WHAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806613)

Not enough lasting value

If your app doesn’t offer much functionality or content, or only applies to a "small niche market", it may not be approved. Before creating your app, take a look at the apps in your category on the App Store and consider how you can provide an even better user experience.

You mean Like Apple? i know troll hahahaha

And the reason I'll never go with an i* device (3, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | about 2 months ago | (#47806617)

or only applies to a small niche market, it may not be approved

I've got android apps with only 5-10k downloads, but they fit my needs. One is Fulio Pro [google.com] , a nice little application for tracking fuel usage and car expenses, the developer has been very open to enhancement requests and quick to respond on bug tickets. The guy certainly hasn't gotten rich at $10-20k in earnings from the paid app, but he's got some income and I have a useful application.

Web apps instead (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47806681)

Instead of putting an application in the App Store, a developer could usually create the application as a web application using Safari JavaScript. Web apps can even run offline now if needed.

And the reason I'll never go with an i* device (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 months ago | (#47807209)

I'm not sure that 5,000 downloads for an application that tracks fuel usage would be a "niche app" that Apple would reject. I think it's more like, if you released an app that was dedicated to the purpose of surveying Siberian tiger-moles for the purposes of determining fur growth and moulting during the leap-years, specifically in attempting to correlate growth to the frequency of solar flares, Apple might go, "Yeah, that could be a great app, but we don't see the point of putting it up in our store."

I think that it should be recognized that for all of these reasons that Apple might reject an app, they're probably looking for fairly extreme cases. Like they're saying that they can reject an application for being poorly designed, but I've seen plenty of ugly and cheap-looking applications in the iTunes store. They're probably just rejecting applications that are completely awful.

That's not a niche (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47807597)

There are probably 10-20 applications in the Apple App Store that do fuel/vehicle expense tracking.

I don't think you are understanding what a niche really means...

There are also many, many applications that have received under 100 downloads so it's not like 5-10k is anywhere near a small amount they would reject.

Re:And the reason I'll never go with an i* device (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 months ago | (#47808413)

Well, he could always use a third-party app-sto......oh wait.

Reading Comprehension Problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47806705)

Most of the apps I have seen get rejected are due to the developers not reading the agreement they clicked through on their way to paying the $99 to publish their app. They develop something before they find out what is verboten and then get upset when the app gets rejected. I have been developing apps for the App Store since 2009 and have yet to get one rejected, for any reason. All the stories I hear are from devs that thought they could do whatever they wanted, use any API and get their app through. That's just not how it works.

How did iOS 7 get through then? (1, Interesting)

Assmasher (456699) | about 2 months ago | (#47806727)

Talk about ugly as f***...

Niche market (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 2 months ago | (#47806847)

If your app doesn’t offer much functionality or content, or only applies to a small niche market, it may not be approved.

Not long ago Apple used to be niche market.

Itunes itself violates good design principles (1)

Fly Ricky - The Wine (590782) | about 2 months ago | (#47806911)

So that sort of undermines their credibility in judging other people's work on the basis of usability, doesn't it? Also, the App store search is essentially broken. They should get their own house in order.

Re:Itunes itself violates good design principles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47807083)

iTunes is not an iOS app and is not distributed through the App Store. Your comment has no bearing.

Truly Tasteless Jokes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47807063)

Still don't know why the truly tasteless jokes app was rejected.

http://www.trulytastelessjokes.com/protest/

another major decision criteria (1)

guygo (894298) | about 2 months ago | (#47807437)

They forgot to mention the rejections due to the App Store reviewer having had an argument with his SO that morning, or had a lousy breakfast, or sat in a traffic jam, or ...

Fart App (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 months ago | (#47807509)

I figured once this made it in, it was pretty much 'anything goes'.

ui consistency is very important. (4, Insightful)

resfilter (960880) | about 2 months ago | (#47807517)

i have to hand apple one thing, about their walled garden. although i have some cool android apps on my phone, my wife's iphone is much more of a pleasure to use.

why? because, for example, there are ten thousand friggn' notepad apps for android, and i'm too lazy to find one that look like the rest of the android interface, so after browsing through a dozen, i just picked one...

click her notepad app, and it looks like im just smoothly entering another part of the iphone experience... ... click mine, and i'm launched into an ugly frenzy of badly placed wrongly colored controls etc with entry fields that behave strangely, and buttons with icons that i don't recognize.

when you have 1000 developers making 1000 apps that do the same thing, the only difference being how the ui looks, and none of them even match the rest of the operating system, you fucked up your operating system. that's android for you. nobody even knows what an android app is really supposed to look like anymore, and developers don't care, they're just off in their own little world with no taste in design.

graphical operating systems need fairly strict ui design conventions. period. they need to be breakable, but encouraged very strongly to the point of where breaking them for no reason makes your app seen as a peice of junk. this is apple's only real advantage in locking out outside apps, being able to blacklist ugly things.

i appluade them for attempting to force that kind of consistency on their device, not that it always works... no solution is 100%.

not that i'd buy an iphone myself, and you don't have to either. just sayin'.

Re:ui consistency is very important. (1)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about 2 months ago | (#47808931)

"graphical operating systems need fairly strict ui design conventions. period. they need to be breakable, but encouraged very strongly to the point of where breaking them for no reason makes your app seen as a peice of junk."

Tell that to the oem and anti-virus MSWindows software engineers.

Re:ui consistency is very important. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47809491)

Android has had a strict UI design guide since 3.0, and gets updates with every revision. The only apps I use which don't follow them are text editors, primarily because they tend to be developed by the kinds of people who don't give a rat's ass about design guides, instead just doing everything they could to shove a desktop text editing experience onto a phone.

Re:ui consistency is very important. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47810067)

I've developed for Android and it's basically the same as iOS - here are some controls and here is your layout. The problem with Android is that Android has a huge variety of different screen sizes so layouts can be all over the place. iOS layouts are down to the pixel.

The second problem with Android is that they provide ways to style everything. So buttons can be green or red or bold or italics etc. Yes, you can do something similar in iOS - except developers don't. So iOS apps tend to all look the same and all the Android apps basically are all different looking.

And Android apps are more backward compatible. I can still develop Android 2.x apps and iOS everybody needs to be on iOS 6 or whatever it is now. So Android drags around a lot of legacy interfaces from apps that don't need to update.

Re:ui consistency is very important. (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 2 months ago | (#47810307)

graphical operating systems need fairly strict ui design conventions. period. they need to be breakable, but encouraged very strongly to the point of where breaking them for no reason makes your app seen as a peice of junk. this is apple's only real advantage in locking out outside apps, being able to blacklist ugly things.

You mean something like this [android.com] ?

Re:ui consistency is very important. (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 2 months ago | (#47810533)

You mean something like this?

No, I think he means something that is actually followed... and possibly enforced.

As a rule, if you say "but there is a standard; let me link to the documentation" there isn't a standard.

Sure thing, Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47807717)

If Apple wants to doublespeak their way to victory, then their old 1984 commercial is rather sad. Next they'll be telling us that Firefox and Chrome weren't "up to snuff" rather than them just being scared shitless of some healthy competition in their walled garden. Next they'll be telling us that the intentionally crippled version of webkit they force competitors to use "had to be that way to protect the integrity of their ecosystem".

Re:Sure thing, Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47807987)

Chrome works fine on my stock iPhone and iPad. Don't know what your problem is.

Re:Sure thing, Apple. (1)

jmitchel!jmitchel.co (254506) | about 2 months ago | (#47808757)

It's not really Chrome, it's a Chrome wrapper around the Safari rendering engine. Not because iOS couldn't run the Chrome rendering engine - them's just the rules. Even as a big fan of Apple, shit like that makes me mad. Just not mad enough to put up with Android.

Re:Sure thing, Apple. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47809563)

Apple's point-of-view is that app developers shouldn't be writing their own rendering engines. Coming from the western world of "Everyone just uses Chrome or Firefox" this sounds asinine, but you should see the sketchy-ass browsers popular in non-western countries that you probably have never heard of. iOS handles it's security by just sandboxing the crap out of everything, but the security of a browser is not something you can really fix with sandboxing. In fact, most Javascript engines work horribly or not at all without JIT, which is fundamentally incompatible with a no-unsigned-code security environment. This is why Safari on iOS gets special permissions to mark JIT'd code blocks as executable without a signature check, and why it's been the target of multiple jailbreaks.

(And before you act like jailbreaks are a good thing, keep in mind that jailbreak just means "we weaponized a zero-day to let you sideload apps". Every jailbreak relies upon the presence of actual security vulnerabilities which can be used to steal your nude photos just as easily as it can install Cydia.)

Bull-fucking-shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47808129)

"Apple and our customers place a high value on simple, refined, creative, well thought through interfaces."

I'm looking at you, iTunes.

impure (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 months ago | (#47809019)

Of course apps are also rejected because they don't meet the arbitrary standards of puritanism that Apple applies, or allow the user to purchase content that doesn't meet those standards. Such as digital comics containing male nudity. [boingboing.net]

Shit interface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47809747)

Contrary to what the UX shitbags thing.

Apple's UI design is shit and the interface is crippled because they demand that you to do things their way.

Difference between M$ and Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47810559)

bigest difference between M$ and Apple?

I can actually buy software that makes Windows usable.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?