Anyone have a copy of any bona-fide Apple App Store rejection notice?
It's possible both sides are playing semantic games. A "we can't include this app at this time without tweaks" could be seen as a 'rejection' or merely a 'request for info/changes' depending on your perspective. I wouldn't put it past Apple to have carefully worded all 'rejections' and 'approvals' so that there is always wiggle room in both directions.
False. The iTunes Connect interface displays a red stoplight and a "Rejected" indication when an app has been rejected. Can't be clearer than that. Now whether or not they showed this image to Google I haven't the foggiest idea, but that's the way it's always happened to me. Behold:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/59605/imgboards/Screen%20shot%202...
As for e-mail rejection notices, they can be a little weasley. Here's the operative sentence in a rejection I got from Apple:
> We've reviewed [app name] and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because [reason].
Though, I can see Apple's wiggle-room still. The image talks about rejecting a 'binary'. The boilerplate text, rejecting a 'version'.
So picturing myself seated on Apple's (self-interested, self-serving) mental furniture, they may interpret things as: "We've rejected a version, and rejected a binary, but the app itself is still (and perpetually!) eligible for further consideration."
Now we're playing semantics. The problem with redefining "rejecting an app" is that the phrase already has a perfectly good meaning: "dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste." Rejecting doesn't (have to) imply permanence; I rejected non-Newtonian physics for much of my life, but I do so no longer. If showing a red stoplight, the word "Rejected", and Phil Schiller calling you to say the app's not in the store doesn't mean the app was rejected than the phrase has no meaning. (Again, don't have any insider knowledge here; just inferring what happened based on my experience with app rejections).
Further, even playing by Apple's own semantics (which I take strong issue with), there's clearly an "Application status" called "Rejected". So even if they were to suddenly become nihilists and apps are never rejected, that's not consistent with what the iTunes Connect interface actually says, which (IANAL) I presume is legally actionable with respect to what constitutes an official Apple communication.
Obviously, there's some kind of communication/PR/spin gap between Apple and Google. The distinction is so tiny and cosmetic that it's not worth getting all worked up over: Apple is weaseling around its decision, and it's pretty slimy, but it's going a little far to shout "you lie." (A "nuke"? Seriously?)
Personally, I wish the hotheaded folks at the 'Crunch would move on to the larger questions: what's the real reason the app was "not accepted"? Is the decision anticompetitive? What can Google (and its customers) do about it?
The documents released yesterday indicate that Google was informed of the rejection of the current Google Voice application during a phone call with Phil Schiller on July 7th. Plenty of room for ambiguity in that.
Comments
Anyone have a copy of any bona-fide Apple App Store rejection notice?
It's possible both sides are playing semantic games. A "we can't include this app at this time without tweaks" could be seen as a 'rejection' or merely a 'request for info/changes' depending on your perspective. I wouldn't put it past Apple to have carefully worded all 'rejections' and 'approvals' so that there is always wiggle room in both directions.
False. The iTunes Connect interface displays a red stoplight and a "Rejected" indication when an app has been rejected. Can't be clearer than that. Now whether or not they showed this image to Google I haven't the foggiest idea, but that's the way it's always happened to me. Behold: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/59605/imgboards/Screen%20shot%202...
As for e-mail rejection notices, they can be a little weasley. Here's the operative sentence in a rejection I got from Apple:
> We've reviewed [app name] and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because [reason].
Thanks for the details!
Though, I can see Apple's wiggle-room still. The image talks about rejecting a 'binary'. The boilerplate text, rejecting a 'version'.
So picturing myself seated on Apple's (self-interested, self-serving) mental furniture, they may interpret things as: "We've rejected a version, and rejected a binary, but the app itself is still (and perpetually!) eligible for further consideration."
Now we're playing semantics. The problem with redefining "rejecting an app" is that the phrase already has a perfectly good meaning: "dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste." Rejecting doesn't (have to) imply permanence; I rejected non-Newtonian physics for much of my life, but I do so no longer. If showing a red stoplight, the word "Rejected", and Phil Schiller calling you to say the app's not in the store doesn't mean the app was rejected than the phrase has no meaning. (Again, don't have any insider knowledge here; just inferring what happened based on my experience with app rejections).
Further, even playing by Apple's own semantics (which I take strong issue with), there's clearly an "Application status" called "Rejected". So even if they were to suddenly become nihilists and apps are never rejected, that's not consistent with what the iTunes Connect interface actually says, which (IANAL) I presume is legally actionable with respect to what constitutes an official Apple communication.
Law is just playing semantics.
This is just a big, semantic muddle. Gruber put it best:
Google doesn’t see the difference between "not accepted" and "rejected" that Apple claims to see. (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/09/18/google-unredacts)
Obviously, there's some kind of communication/PR/spin gap between Apple and Google. The distinction is so tiny and cosmetic that it's not worth getting all worked up over: Apple is weaseling around its decision, and it's pretty slimy, but it's going a little far to shout "you lie." (A "nuke"? Seriously?)
Personally, I wish the hotheaded folks at the 'Crunch would move on to the larger questions: what's the real reason the app was "not accepted"? Is the decision anticompetitive? What can Google (and its customers) do about it?
Agreed, I'm trying to work out what the story actually is here.
Apple said that they hadn't rejected Voice, just they hadn't accepted it yet because of concerns it competed with the iPhone's core functionality.
The truth is they had rejected Voice, for the above reasons. Is that it?
The documents released yesterday indicate that Google was informed of the rejection of the current Google Voice application during a phone call with Phil Schiller on July 7th. Plenty of room for ambiguity in that.