4 ms·

Apple now rejecting iPhone Apps for "limited utility."

35 points by tstegart 18y ago

irinotecan 18y ago
No doubt this is in response to the "I am Rich" app, which technically could not be rejected on fraudulent grounds since the description stated it did absolutely nothing. Yes, I know Apple pulled it anyway, but they potentially set themselves up for a lawsuit by some other scumbag down the road if they don't find a way to cover themselves for pulling down apps that are technically legal, but are solely designed to "fool the gullible".
- jcl 18y ago
  I'd be shocked if the terms and conditions for using the App Store didn't already contain something like: "We reserve the right to pull your app for any reason including (but not limited to) Steve waking up in a bad mood." I'm sure Apple's decision was inspired by "I am Rich" -- but for publicity reasons, not legal ones.
tstegart 18y ago
I think its a huge mistake. They could have taken care of the problem of tiny, silly apps with another method, like creating a separate category or revamping their review system. Instead they opened up a can of worms by creating a new category of unwanted "limited utility" apps, yet they still haven't published formal guidelines on what is or is not "limited utility." Now they've got a giant developer relations mess.
ashu 18y ago
Welcome to the App Store. A free market-place! Where only the anointed few will compete.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  Few?
  - ashu 18y ago
    Sorry, it was just an exaggeration. It was a snarky comment, mostly. I like the iPhone and the app store despite all these controls.
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    Yes. Though he should have said, "very few". Have you looked at the Internet lately? Now that is a big selection of software developers.
thomasmallen 18y ago
Android, here I come. Apple's alienated curious developers, but is bringing in the money-grubbers like there's no tomorrow. Not my crowd.
- lallysingh 18y ago
  That's hardly fair. Give Google a chance to alienate developers as well! :-)
raghus 18y ago
Are the 'inline' comments on the YT video new to YT - or some Omnisio integration?
geuis 18y ago
I know its a contrary opinion to what most commenters will have, but I'm glad this app didn't get approved. Apple is apparently responding to the very frequent complaints of useless apps filling up the App Store. What we are seeing is a pendulum, where they swing back and forth with the policies for app acceptance until they settle somewhere in the middle that works best for everyone. Like many other people, I kept my 1st gen iPhone jailbroken from the day I bought it. I absolutely loved Installer.app and the huge community of developers and their applications that I had access to. A lot of the apps in Installer.app were pretty worthless though, or had little utility. They frequently cluttered up the categories of things that I really wanted to review. However, it was much harder for developers to create jailbroken apps than it is now with the official SDK. This caused the overall number of available apps to be much smaller than what we have available through the official channel. If Apple were to not attempt to manage all of the apps that people are submitting, it would quickly become nearly impossible to find anything useful. That would also open up the possibility of nefarious apps that are trying to get your personal info, etc. However, so that I don't sound like a complete Apple flunky, I also admit the App Store on iTunes and on the iPhone itself has a lot to be desired. There are interface issues which annoy me (like navigating into an app description, going back to the category but being at the freaking top of the list instead of where the app appears in the list). They need to improve the App Store application itself. It would be really great if someone could write a new App Store as a 3rd party app that would interface and manage all of the apps you have access to. This most certainly could be done on the old jailbroken systems using something like Summerboard.
- tstegart 18y ago
  But a lot of the problems you mention, like "cluttering" and "impossible to find anything" are really problems with the App Store, not the apps. iTunes, after all, has millions of songs, and there doesn't seem to be a clutter problem there. Apple doesn't tell musicians, "don't make crappy music," or "you song is of limited musical appeal." The nefarious apps argument is not really valid, because the number of apps on the Apps Store has, or will very soon, exceed the number of things humans can keep track of anyways, so even if crap apps are eliminated, there will still be too many apps to keep track of. This is really a problem of taste, and Apple has messed up here. Some people like silly apps, just like some people like really bad music. The solution is not to insert yourself into the middle and become an arbiter of taste, the solution is to make it easier for the crowd to sort the good from the bad and let each app appeal to its niche while not eliminating innovation or silliness.
h34t 18y ago
"We have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad iPhone and iPod touch user community, and will not be published to the App Store." That's like Amazon saying "we won't sell your book, because it isn't of interest to the broad Amazon.com customer community." They need to do something with the App Store so that it feeds off the "long tail" instead of fighting against it. (UI improvements? try-before-you-buy? some other browsing/search/tryout enhancements?)
- tptacek 18y ago
  Apple never promised to publish every application. Books are not a platform Amazon owns.
  - tstegart 18y ago
    No, but they kinda put out the welcome sign, proudly touted their "60 Million Apps Downloaded!" statistic, and now they're saying, "thanks, you've done your job now go away."
- greyman 18y ago
  The Amazon example is not very fitting IMHO, since they have full right to do so. Are they obliged to sell your book? Don't think so...
t0pj 18y ago
I guess this makes the App Store of limited capability as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_(media) "A walled garden, with regards to media content, refers to a closed set or exclusive set of information services provided for users (a method of creating a monopoly or securing an information system)." This is Apple's system, not yours. No surprise here. (Notice how the parenthesized "media" within the url is not included within the link?)
- silentbicycle 18y ago
  You need to link to it as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_%28media%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_%28media%29 ; those are the hex ascii codes for the parens.
lallysingh 18y ago
What I don't like about the policy is how it changes the risk equation for developers. How do you see if Apple will "get" your app without spending the full $$ on developing it? Will developers go into any real risk in developing for the iPhone, or will they just abort the attempt?
- briansmith 18y ago
  Submit a prototype under a different application name. Then, pull the prototype after it has been approved and after a few people have tried it. You can also experiment with pricing this way.
  - cosmo7 18y ago
    To extend your idea, you could murder existing users when you want to change your price points.
durana 18y ago
I wonder if this message from Apple is actually real. I did a quick Google search for other instances "limited utility" rejections and didn't find any. There's been plenty of instances of fake controversial legal threats/rejection letters/complaints that have been used to drive traffic or create a buzz about something. If this is fake, I don't see how this person will really cash in on the buzz though.
greenagain 18y ago
Well that's no big surprise. Nullriver's NetShare already was rejected for limitless utility.
dbreunig 18y ago
Guys: we need a better test-case than "Pull My Finger."
statictype 18y ago
Why is anyone surprised by this? It was remarkably clear from the beginning that Apple wants full control over what gets sold in the App Store. I'm surprised that they've even allowed as many apps as they have.
callmeed 18y ago
This does not bode well for my $.99 whoopee cushion app which is almost done (serious) ... crud
dejb 18y ago
This is what you get when you have a closed, totalitarian system. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Steve Jobs makes Bill Gates look like Richard Stallman.

35 points by tstegart 18y ago

No doubt this is in response to the "I am Rich" app, which technically could not be rejected on fraudulent grounds since the description stated it did absolutely nothing. Yes, I know Apple pulled it anyway, but they potentially set themselves up for a lawsuit by some other scumbag down the road if they don't find a way to cover themselves for pulling down apps that are technically legal, but are solely designed to "fool the gullible".

jcl 18y ago
I'd be shocked if the terms and conditions for using the App Store didn't already contain something like: "We reserve the right to pull your app for any reason including (but not limited to) Steve waking up in a bad mood." I'm sure Apple's decision was inspired by "I am Rich" -- but for publicity reasons, not legal ones.

tstegart 18y ago

I think its a huge mistake. They could have taken care of the problem of tiny, silly apps with another method, like creating a separate category or revamping their review system. Instead they opened up a can of worms by creating a new category of unwanted "limited utility" apps, yet they still haven't published formal guidelines on what is or is not "limited utility." Now they've got a giant developer relations mess.

ashu 18y ago

Welcome to the App Store. A free market-place! Where only the anointed few will compete.

byrneseyeview 18y ago
Few?
- ashu 18y ago
  Sorry, it was just an exaggeration. It was a snarky comment, mostly. I like the iPhone and the app store despite all these controls.
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  Yes. Though he should have said, "very few". Have you looked at the Internet lately? Now that is a big selection of software developers.

thomasmallen 18y ago

Android, here I come. Apple's alienated curious developers, but is bringing in the money-grubbers like there's no tomorrow. Not my crowd.

lallysingh 18y ago
That's hardly fair. Give Google a chance to alienate developers as well! :-)

raghus 18y ago

Are the 'inline' comments on the YT video new to YT - or some Omnisio integration?

geuis 18y ago

I know its a contrary opinion to what most commenters will have, but I'm glad this app didn't get approved. Apple is apparently responding to the very frequent complaints of useless apps filling up the App Store. What we are seeing is a pendulum, where they swing back and forth with the policies for app acceptance until they settle somewhere in the middle that works best for everyone. Like many other people, I kept my 1st gen iPhone jailbroken from the day I bought it. I absolutely loved Installer.app and the huge community of developers and their applications that I had access to. A lot of the apps in Installer.app were pretty worthless though, or had little utility. They frequently cluttered up the categories of things that I really wanted to review. However, it was much harder for developers to create jailbroken apps than it is now with the official SDK. This caused the overall number of available apps to be much smaller than what we have available through the official channel. If Apple were to not attempt to manage all of the apps that people are submitting, it would quickly become nearly impossible to find anything useful. That would also open up the possibility of nefarious apps that are trying to get your personal info, etc. However, so that I don't sound like a complete Apple flunky, I also admit the App Store on iTunes and on the iPhone itself has a lot to be desired. There are interface issues which annoy me (like navigating into an app description, going back to the category but being at the freaking top of the list instead of where the app appears in the list). They need to improve the App Store application itself. It would be really great if someone could write a new App Store as a 3rd party app that would interface and manage all of the apps you have access to. This most certainly could be done on the old jailbroken systems using something like Summerboard.

tstegart 18y ago
But a lot of the problems you mention, like "cluttering" and "impossible to find anything" are really problems with the App Store, not the apps. iTunes, after all, has millions of songs, and there doesn't seem to be a clutter problem there. Apple doesn't tell musicians, "don't make crappy music," or "you song is of limited musical appeal." The nefarious apps argument is not really valid, because the number of apps on the Apps Store has, or will very soon, exceed the number of things humans can keep track of anyways, so even if crap apps are eliminated, there will still be too many apps to keep track of. This is really a problem of taste, and Apple has messed up here. Some people like silly apps, just like some people like really bad music. The solution is not to insert yourself into the middle and become an arbiter of taste, the solution is to make it easier for the crowd to sort the good from the bad and let each app appeal to its niche while not eliminating innovation or silliness.

h34t 18y ago

"We have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad iPhone and iPod touch user community, and will not be published to the App Store." That's like Amazon saying "we won't sell your book, because it isn't of interest to the broad Amazon.com customer community." They need to do something with the App Store so that it feeds off the "long tail" instead of fighting against it. (UI improvements? try-before-you-buy? some other browsing/search/tryout enhancements?)

tptacek 18y ago
Apple never promised to publish every application. Books are not a platform Amazon owns.
- tstegart 18y ago
  No, but they kinda put out the welcome sign, proudly touted their "60 Million Apps Downloaded!" statistic, and now they're saying, "thanks, you've done your job now go away."
greyman 18y ago
The Amazon example is not very fitting IMHO, since they have full right to do so. Are they obliged to sell your book? Don't think so...

t0pj 18y ago

I guess this makes the App Store of limited capability as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_(media) "A walled garden, with regards to media content, refers to a closed set or exclusive set of information services provided for users (a method of creating a monopoly or securing an information system)." This is Apple's system, not yours. No surprise here. (Notice how the parenthesized "media" within the url is not included within the link?)

silentbicycle 18y ago
You need to link to it as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_%28media%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_%28media%29 ; those are the hex ascii codes for the parens.

lallysingh 18y ago

What I don't like about the policy is how it changes the risk equation for developers. How do you see if Apple will "get" your app without spending the full $$ on developing it? Will developers go into any real risk in developing for the iPhone, or will they just abort the attempt?

briansmith 18y ago
Submit a prototype under a different application name. Then, pull the prototype after it has been approved and after a few people have tried it. You can also experiment with pricing this way.
- cosmo7 18y ago
  To extend your idea, you could murder existing users when you want to change your price points.

durana 18y ago

I wonder if this message from Apple is actually real. I did a quick Google search for other instances "limited utility" rejections and didn't find any. There's been plenty of instances of fake controversial legal threats/rejection letters/complaints that have been used to drive traffic or create a buzz about something. If this is fake, I don't see how this person will really cash in on the buzz though.

greenagain 18y ago

Well that's no big surprise. Nullriver's NetShare already was rejected for limitless utility.

dbreunig 18y ago

Guys: we need a better test-case than "Pull My Finger."

statictype 18y ago

Why is anyone surprised by this? It was remarkably clear from the beginning that Apple wants full control over what gets sold in the App Store. I'm surprised that they've even allowed as many apps as they have.

callmeed 18y ago

This does not bode well for my $.99 whoopee cushion app which is almost done (serious) ... crud

dejb 18y ago

This is what you get when you have a closed, totalitarian system. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Steve Jobs makes Bill Gates look like Richard Stallman.