Posts tagged rejected apps

No Google Voice on iPhone: one year later

Tech Crunch’s Jason Kinkaid reminds us that it’s been a year since Apple responded to the FCC about Google Voice’s rejection (or perpetual non-acceptance) from the iPhone App Store.

Apple denying the app to those who want it, especially when it allows similar apps such as Line2 into the App Store, means it’s almost certainly what we thought it was last year — less to do with what the app does than what it represents.


Before the Google Voice rejection story broke Apple and Google still seemed to have a love affair going on. Apple provided beautiful devices and Google supplied incredible services. It was a match made in heaven.

Following the Google Voice rejection it became clear that those two goals were becoming less cooperative and more competitive. Apple wants their beautiful devices to be the focus, and to be able to swap in and out different services behind the scenes without affecting the UI or being noticeable to end users. Google on the other hand wants their incredible services to be the focus regardless of device, and to be able to easily swap users from iPhone or Pre to Google’s own, growing, Android platform.

Apple’s exclusionary control over the iPhone is a huge problem for Google, just as Google’s predatory control over their services is a huge problem for Apple.

What if Apple pulled Google from the iPhone? Google could lose a huge percentage of revenue to Microsoft (or whomever Apple swaps in) in the blink of an eye. What if Google pulled their services from the iPhone? Apple could lose a ton of users to Android just as fast. (Whether Apple or Google would ever do that is besides the point — it could happen, therefor strategically planning for the eventuality has to take place.)

Google transformed their original Android-as-BlackBerry competitor to an Android-as-iPhone competitor. Apple began building data centers, acquiring PlaceBase and Siri. And generally the move from friends to fremies to enemies progressed.

Since the Google Voice rejection, Google has continued to leverage their services and Android has surged in popularity thanks to Verizon’s Droid line, HTC’s Evo 4G, and Samsung’s Galaxy S.

Apple has continued to tightly control their user experience, creating controversies with Adobe but also introducing new features like FaceTime which depend on Apple owning the phone UI, not Google.

Has the Google Voice rejection cost Apple customers? Probably. Given that a) Google Voice is still only available in the US means its absence only effects US users and b) it’s still a mostly geek-centric service, further reducing the pool of potentially affected users. Of those affected, it’s perhaps further split between those who really want the functionality of Android over the user experience of iPhone, and those who wanted to grab headlines (and in some cases quickly came back to that user experience). Google’s also had their own set of controversies, especially concerning privacy, net-neutrality, some of the content that’s ended up in their app market, and that their much vaunted openness applies primarily to manufacturers and carriers, not necessarily users. Whether or not that has cost them any users is equally hard to tell.

Kinkaid says:

Most of Apple’s ardent defenders will simply tell people like me to go use another, more open platform if they have a problem with the App Store and Apple’s policies. Fair enough. But the time and uncertainty involved in having to switch to a new computer platform are far from trivial, and eventually we may have kids who are raised on iOS — getting them to switch platforms so they can use an innovative new browser or FaceTime competitor or whatever else Apple is quietly blocking from the App Store will be no easy task. It is this inertia, which is only going to become more difficult to overcome as iOS becomes more successful, that troubles me most. Apple will be able to get away with even more egregious behavior, because its users will want to stick with what they know.

And maybe so, but would moving from iPhone to Android really be any harder than moving from Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Contacts, Google Docs, Google Talk, Google Reader, Google Voice, Google Navigation, Blogger, and all their other services to Apple’s, Microsoft’s, or anyone else’s? Probably not. (Personally, it’s far, far easier for me to pick up a Nexus One, stick in my Google ID, and go than it ever would be to transfer all my Google stuff over to Microsoft or someone else if I had to — even the thought of the work involved makes me wince.)

At the end of the day — or of the next year — Apple and Google have both become devils we know. Apple will reject another app for annoying, intolerable reasons and Google will allow in a Nazi theme or malware app. Apple will block a competing service and Google will abuse our privacy. What troubles me is the mistaken belief one is essentially better than the other. What assuages me is that we have both — and potentially a resurgent and more open Palm webOS, and equally controlled Windows Phone on the horizon.

[TechCrunch]

No Google Voice on iPhone: one year later is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

TiPb – The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog



Director of App Store for Apple also made fart and wiz apps

Apple’s App Store Director Sells His Own Fart Apps  Read More http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/08/apple-fart-apps/#ixzz0wzD9IhtB

Wired did some poking around and discovered Phillip Shoemaker, Apple’s director of App Store — the man purportedly in charge of App Store approval and rejection — was or is the developer of fart and urination apps.


Shoemaker apparently had or has a company named Gray Noodle, whose titles include Animal Farts and iWiz. Although the social networking profiles and posts that led Wired to the discovery have subsequently been removed, they’ve retained archive copies. An Apple spokeswoman gave them the following comment:

“Phillip’s apps were written, submitted and approved before he became an Apple employee,” an Apple spokeswoman said in a statement. “His experience and perspective as a developer is one of the valuable things he brings to Apple’s developer relations team. Apple’s policy allows for employees to have apps on the App Store if they’re developed and published prior to their start at Apple.”

Other former Apple employees confirmed that special, executive level permission was required in order for an Apple employee to publish on the App Store, though if the apps predated Apple employment permission for them to remain on the App Store might be easier to obtain.

So is it reassuring for developers to have someone with experience getting controversial apps approved inside the App Store? Does it mean if you were rejected, you didn’t even meet the Animal Farts sniff test?

[Wired, thanks Luke!]

Director of App Store for Apple also made fart and wiz apps is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

TiPb – The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog



Apple and magazine publishers at odds over subscriptions?

MediaMemo is saying Time Inc. is having trouble setting up their own subscription service for a Sports Illustrated iPad magazine app:

Last month, the publisher was set to launch a subscription version of its Sports Illustrated iPad app, where consumers would download the magazines via Apple’s iTunes, but would pay Time Inc. directly. But Apple rejected the app at the last minute, forcing the Time Warner (TWX) unit to sell single copies, using iTunes as a middleman, multiple sources tell me.


First, at the iPhone 3.0 event in 2009, Apple showed off App Store subscriptions for magazines alongside in-app purchase, but while in-app purchases are now fairly common, I’m hard pressed to find a showcase example for App Store subscriptions. What happened to them? Are publishers not eager to embrace them or has Apple not provided the mechanism?

Second, it looks like Time is trying to go around the App Store for subscriptions, kind of like what Amazon and Audible do for users who buy books via Mobile Safari on the web but can then download their library in-app. Is Time trying to do something similar to that but not getting their app approved?

So what happened? The Time Inc. insiders I talked to don’t have a clear answer, presumably because they can’t get one from Apple itself. One theory: Apple is concerned about the publisher’s plans for the consumer data it would collect with each subscription. A darker one: Steve Jobs loves the idea of digital magazines and wants to control the market for himself.

“Darker” certainly scores the melodramatic points, but Apple had no problem rolling out iBooks while still allowing the aforementioned Amazon Kindle app and a host of other competitors. They’ve let streaming music and video apps in to vie for music money against iTunes.

Due to the opaque nature of the App Store approval process, and Apple’s secrecy surrounding unannounced features and technology, there’s never an easy way to tell if a delay is political, business related, or because Steve Jobs will be announcing some new magazine-focused API for subscriptions in September.

These are huge companies, there’s a lot of money on the table, and a critical amount of personal user data behind it. I’m sure we’ll see a lot of foot stomping and fist shaking, and press leaks to spin the story. I’m sure we’ll hear cries that evil Apple is denying big publishers their control, and big publishers are gouging users for digital copies. Fine. At the end of the day I want what I think most end users want — an easy, secure, privacy-protecting way to get my magazines (and comics!) on my iPhone and iPad at a fair price. Apple wins. Publishers win. We win.

Let’s figure that out, shall we?

[MediaMemo, thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

Apple and magazine publishers at odds over subscriptions? is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

TiPb – The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog



Sex shock! Nudity disbelief! iChatr Chat-Roulette-style app for iPhone 4 pulled from App Store

iChatr chat-roulette for iPhone 4

Apple has yanked iChatr — the chat-roulette-style app for iPhone 4 — from the iTunes App Store.

If you’re familiar with what goes on in these kinds of apps, the (predominantly male) nudity and sexual activity, then this probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise. If you’re not familiar, you probably downloaded it, became familiar quickly, and near instantly complained to Apple prompting the removal.

According to the developers, SKJM:

“The iChatr application has currently been removed from the App Store due to reports of a number of users exposing themselves during the random video chat sessions. We are currently discussing possible solutions to the problem with Apple.”

Jeff Scott from 148.apps adds:

you might as well stop now unless you have some wicked automatic genital recognition technology built in.

Good luck with that. And as to Apple’s second, open development platform, HTML5, we’re not sure that supports the porn-cam yet…

[148apps]

Sex shock! Nudity disbelief! iChatr Chat-Roulette-style app for iPhone 4 pulled from App Store is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

TiPb – The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog



Apple removes Dashboard-style apps from iPad App Store

screenshot1

Here are the first (to our knowledge) class of apps to get removed from the brand new iPad App Store: Dashboards.

Desktop, for example, no longer shows up via its iTunes link.

These apps leveraged the large iPad display to offer multiple windows and mini-apps/widgets to get around some of iPhone 3.2’s 3rd party multitasking constraints.

We’re waiting to hear a reason for the removal. Even if it duplicates the rumored functionality of the upcoming iPhone 4.0 software, that’ll be little comfort to the developers who invested time and resources into these apps.

Apple removes Dashboard-style apps from iPad App Store is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

TiPb – The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog



Apple Cracking Down on Mass Produced, Low Functionality Apps?

app_store_church_lady

TechCrunch is reporting that companies who mass produce (or provide tools and templates for the mass production of) “cookie cutter” apps are hearing that they need to add differentiation and functionality or risk Apple not allowing them into the iTunes App Store. Jason Kincaid says:

Between the developers I spoke to, the consensus was this: Apple doesn’t appear to be opposed to ‘app generators’ and templates per se, but in the last month or so it has started cracking down on basic applications that are little more than RSS feeds or glorified business cards. In short, Apple doesn’t want people using native applications for things that a basic web app could accomplish. For some of these services that’s bad news, because that’s exactly the sort of application they produce; any new applications they submit are going to get rejected. But all hope isn’t lost for them, provided they can make their apps more useful.

Kincaid says Appmakr for one has taken suggestions from Apple to improve things like in-app purchases, instant notifications, offline access, and landscape viewing modes and describe the process as positive. Other services apparently haven’t had as much luck.

The move seems to be part of Apple’s ongoing efforts to increase the quality of the App Store experience and protect the brand. Much like the removal of sex-based apps last month, “cookie cutter” apps could seen as low value, sometimes verging on spam. For consumers it could result in a cleaner App Store and ultimately better apps (more than just re-packaged RSS feeds) but at the expense of quantity and choice. For developers, it’s likely another in a list of things they’ll consider before building on Apple’s platform.

If Apple is indeed working on revamping the mass produced app, what think you?

Apple Cracking Down on Mass Produced, Low Functionality Apps? is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

TiPb – The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog



Apple Removing Wi-Fi Scanning Apps from App Store

wifi-where

Cult of Mac reports that Apple has begun removing apps from the iTunes App Store that scan for Wi-Fi access points. It looks like these apps are being removed due to their use of private APIs, which is prohibited by the iPhone SDK agreement. This would make it similar to the recent removal of apps that misused the iPhone camera DCIM folder to store and exchange documents.

There’s been some suggestion, however, that list reflects a policy change from Apple closer to the recent removal of sex-based apps.

Our speculation is that Apple has either added the Wi-Fi private APIs to their static analysis tool, or has just finally gotten around to checking for them. That would make it appear like a new policy when it’s actually the originally agreement finally being enforced.

Some developers believe long term lack of action by Apple equals tacit approval for private API use. Those beliefs likely have to start changing. When Apple makes an API public, they’re guaranteeing that developers can use them and have faith Apple won’t break them (and the apps built on them) in a future update. Private APIs are the opposite — Apple can and will change them at any point, breaking apps that try to use them when they shouldn’t. In some cases Apple is working on public versions of private APIs and will release them in future versions of the iPhone OS. In other cases they aren’t — sometimes for security, other times just for proprietary reasons.

In either case, this isn’t the first and likely won’t be last set of rejections. While we feel for developers, we feel more for users who may have come to depend on the functionality of these apps.

If you’re a developer who’s dealing with this and have a better take on the situation, please let us know!

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

Apple Removing Wi-Fi Scanning Apps from App Store is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

TiPb – The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog





Related Posts with Thumbnails