That's pretty bullshit, I don't care if the guy's apps were questionable, don't approve them. Killing an entire business in 1 day, is pretty fucked up.
If your "business" is dependent on repackaging otherwise free content — that you may not have the rights to — then, is it really a surprise that it gets shut down?
If your "business" is dependent on publishing an application on Apple's App Store then, is it really a surprise that it gets shut down? :)
It's tongue-in-cheek, but it's true: this isn't a free marketplace, it's Apple's playground, and only the business models and application domains that Apple approves of will be permitted. I don't like this guy any more than anyone else here, but a single decision by Apple effectively killed that aspect of his business.
Similarly, if you were to build a business around, say, a Google Voice application for the iPhone, you'd be in the same situation.
The implication that it's somehow wrong to base a business on the App Store is goofy. It's not much different from basing one on a single OS or a mobile platform or even a particular line of automobile or type of entertainment.
It's not a requirement that Apple (or any other company) protect your business model at the expense of their own.
They are not very inconsistent with rules. I have 24 apps on the appstore and the ones that were rejected and later accepted were consistent with the policies aggregated here: http://appreview.tumblr.com/
I am upset because apple rejected google voice but so far I haven't seen anything which was rejected and was not on the list in the link.
Moreover, apple does have an appeal process. Once the app gets rejected they ask you to make changes, and resubmit the app.
There are definitely things that apple can do to improve the process for example, they should definitely get rid of changing the availability date with updates because a lot of developers just keep on posting updates with no real updates to be on the new release list. Check McPhun for example and they are actually able to keep themselves in top 10 for the past 6 months just because they have an update every week. But other than these minor issues which I am pretty sure apple will solve, there are a lot of good things going with it, which people tend to ignore.
I disagree. The rules might be consistent, but Apple certainly doesn't apply them consistently. The classic example is a simple bugfix update, which adds no new functionality, being rejected for something that is already in the approved version of the app. (happened to me, happened to Nine Inch Nails).
I agree to a point, but I don't think this is much different than developing accessories for someone else's product(s) that need to be approved by the owner of the target product. (Example: Official iPod accessories.) Those companies seem to get on just fine risking some money in R&D while trying to get official approval for an item. You can bet they don't just develop in a vacuum, either, but that's what a lot of the very loudly complaining app store devs seem to be doing.
It doesn't have to be such a huge gamble developing for the iPhone. There are Apple representatives that developers can talk to, meet in person at events like WWDC, and even send development builds to. They give feedback and can warn of potential issues with approval, etc. These resources are there, but somewhat scarce. Apple obviously cannot guarantee everyone who pays their $99 access to significant face time with an insider without the dev putting in some effort. As a developer who's aiming to be serious about this, you have to be proactive in elbowing your way into the system - but once you're in, the "risk" is greatly reduced. The big iPhone and OSX studios all know this and work behind the scenes within the system to the benefit of both parties (usually).
then its up to apple not to approve the stuff during the approval process. They pretty much used a nuclear option, without trying something less lethal.
My guess is that the App Store reviewers don't look at where the content is from, and instead look at what the content actually is. In this case, the content was OK. The content source was questionable.
The reviewers at Apple decided to OK the apps. And they then received enough reports that it was pulled. If the reviewers didn't approve the apps initially, we would be seeing a different story: "Apple rejects harmless application from developer".
The App Store has problems. But this decision fixed one small problem that existed, not created another problem.
//Edit: And from the article, Apple did try less lethal options. It sounds like they contacted Khalid and told him their concerns. And he chose to ignore Apple.
The main problem is that Apple didn't know the submitted apps violated copyright at the time they were submitted. (And how could they, until the owners started filing complaints?)
While there are plenty of examples of inconsistencies in App Store policy, this is not one of them. The article is wrong in this respect.
I completely disagreed with you, but that didn't mean I voted you down...
What's going on here, people? Can we protect a variety of differing opinions on things, or are we going to be passive-aggressive about people who don't share our worldview?
Comments
That's pretty bullshit, I don't care if the guy's apps were questionable, don't approve them. Killing an entire business in 1 day, is pretty fucked up.
If your "business" is dependent on repackaging otherwise free content — that you may not have the rights to — then, is it really a surprise that it gets shut down?
If your "business" is dependent on publishing an application on Apple's App Store then, is it really a surprise that it gets shut down? :)
It's tongue-in-cheek, but it's true: this isn't a free marketplace, it's Apple's playground, and only the business models and application domains that Apple approves of will be permitted. I don't like this guy any more than anyone else here, but a single decision by Apple effectively killed that aspect of his business.
Similarly, if you were to build a business around, say, a Google Voice application for the iPhone, you'd be in the same situation.
The implication that it's somehow wrong to base a business on the App Store is goofy. It's not much different from basing one on a single OS or a mobile platform or even a particular line of automobile or type of entertainment.
It's not a requirement that Apple (or any other company) protect your business model at the expense of their own.
True. But you could at least expect:
- consistency
- open rules
- an appeal process
The way it is it is more like a gamble.
They are not very inconsistent with rules. I have 24 apps on the appstore and the ones that were rejected and later accepted were consistent with the policies aggregated here: http://appreview.tumblr.com/
I am upset because apple rejected google voice but so far I haven't seen anything which was rejected and was not on the list in the link.
Moreover, apple does have an appeal process. Once the app gets rejected they ask you to make changes, and resubmit the app.
There are definitely things that apple can do to improve the process for example, they should definitely get rid of changing the availability date with updates because a lot of developers just keep on posting updates with no real updates to be on the new release list. Check McPhun for example and they are actually able to keep themselves in top 10 for the past 6 months just because they have an update every week. But other than these minor issues which I am pretty sure apple will solve, there are a lot of good things going with it, which people tend to ignore.
They are not very inconsistent with rules
I disagree. The rules might be consistent, but Apple certainly doesn't apply them consistently. The classic example is a simple bugfix update, which adds no new functionality, being rejected for something that is already in the approved version of the app. (happened to me, happened to Nine Inch Nails).
I agree to a point, but I don't think this is much different than developing accessories for someone else's product(s) that need to be approved by the owner of the target product. (Example: Official iPod accessories.) Those companies seem to get on just fine risking some money in R&D while trying to get official approval for an item. You can bet they don't just develop in a vacuum, either, but that's what a lot of the very loudly complaining app store devs seem to be doing.
It doesn't have to be such a huge gamble developing for the iPhone. There are Apple representatives that developers can talk to, meet in person at events like WWDC, and even send development builds to. They give feedback and can warn of potential issues with approval, etc. These resources are there, but somewhat scarce. Apple obviously cannot guarantee everyone who pays their $99 access to significant face time with an insider without the dev putting in some effort. As a developer who's aiming to be serious about this, you have to be proactive in elbowing your way into the system - but once you're in, the "risk" is greatly reduced. The big iPhone and OSX studios all know this and work behind the scenes within the system to the benefit of both parties (usually).
When you build accessories for the ipod, you talk with apple before you go and make it to see if they would be fine with it.
That's exactly my point. You can do that with apps, too.
then its up to apple not to approve the stuff during the approval process. They pretty much used a nuclear option, without trying something less lethal.
My guess is that the App Store reviewers don't look at where the content is from, and instead look at what the content actually is. In this case, the content was OK. The content source was questionable.
The reviewers at Apple decided to OK the apps. And they then received enough reports that it was pulled. If the reviewers didn't approve the apps initially, we would be seeing a different story: "Apple rejects harmless application from developer".
The App Store has problems. But this decision fixed one small problem that existed, not created another problem.
//Edit: And from the article, Apple did try less lethal options. It sounds like they contacted Khalid and told him their concerns. And he chose to ignore Apple.
The main problem is that Apple didn't know the submitted apps violated copyright at the time they were submitted. (And how could they, until the owners started filing complaints?)
While there are plenty of examples of inconsistencies in App Store policy, this is not one of them. The article is wrong in this respect.
I completely disagreed with you, but that didn't mean I voted you down...
What's going on here, people? Can we protect a variety of differing opinions on things, or are we going to be passive-aggressive about people who don't share our worldview?
Well, I'm Romanian. Go figure.