9 ms·

NIN Reaction to iPhone App Store Rejection

86 points by ironkeith 17y ago

ironkeith 17y ago
A better link: http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?9,651569,651569#msg-651569 http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?9,651569,651569#msg-651569
- buugs 17y ago
  I was thinking the same thing especially with the tie in to walmart's music sales and the questionable safari application bundled with the iphone :)
pj 17y ago
I don't think this is so bad really. Apple's brand is affected by the kind of material it sells and it wants to protect its brand. It's just like Facebook has porn patrol. Being a vendor of a product isn't just about moving product, it's about moving product in a direction that you believe makes the world a better place for you to live. Apple has the right to choose how to let people use their platform. Imagine a world where you have no right who you can and cannot sell your hard work to. Those signs that say, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone" -- all those would have to come down, by law! I think, right now, that I would prefer a world where a vendor of a service can decide who it does and does not provide that service to than a world where the builder of a product or provider of a service does not have that right.
- chaosmachine 17y ago
  You're missing the point. Apple sells The Downward Spiral in the iTunes store. Not allowing the same content in the App store is just absurd. In fact, the app doesn't even contain the content, it's just accessible through it.
  - pj 17y ago
    what do you suggest is their rationale? Is that the point of this? to point out an irrational decision in the world?
    - endtime 17y ago
      Well, considering most of the people here write software, and this has to do with a (currently) popular software platform, I think it's worth pointing out.
  - joecode 17y ago
    I believe the reason for the apparent contradiction is this: Apple acts as a publicizer for the apps in the app store by letting them into the top-N lists and recent releases. When an "objectionable" app becomes popular, users hold Apple to account. They don't do this with the music store. As the app store gets more and more crowded, Apple will most likely loosen up. Or maybe they will do the really intelligent thing: allow everything in, but only allow "non-objectionable" material into the top-N and recent releases sections.
    - blgraves 17y ago
      Apple has a top-N list for songs, albums, audiobooks, movies, tv shows, etc. on the front page of the itunes store. How is advertising questionable material in those lists any different than advertising apps with questionable content?
      - philh 17y ago
        With iTunes, Apple is a distributor. With the app store, it's a publisher. It's reasonable to assume that most people who are likely to get angry about content in a song/app recognise and understand the difference. And perhaps many of them don't understand that Apple is merely a publisher, and don't actually create most of the apps. Creators and publishers are (usually) considered to have more responsibility than distributors when it comes to objectionable content. I think that's an important difference for Apple's image.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- jobo 17y ago
  Who cares about Apple's brand? If you buy a device it should be YOUR device. No one should be able to dictate what content you put on YOUR device.
  - teej 17y ago
    Under the same line of reasoning: if I own a brick and mortar store, it should be MY store. I should be able to dictate what I stock on my shelves. If customers don't like it, they can shop elsewhere.
    - tdavis 17y ago
      And technically speaking, that isn't even true. Try to allow smoking at your place of business in most states, for instance.
    - joecode 17y ago
      Except if you own all the brick and mortar stores you have a monopoly. Even if you just own a large chunk of them (like Walmart), you end up having way too much control over what form free expression can take. That is closer to the situation with Apple and it doesn't seem too healthy for society as a whole.
    - stanleydrew 17y ago
      But you can't shop elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the app store the only way to get applications for the iphone short of jailbreaking? Don't you think if there was a competing app store that was completely open people would flock to it?
      - axod 17y ago
        The iPhone has a web browser! Welcome to the world of webapps. Where you can run anything you like. Much of it is even free!
      - cstejerean 17y ago
        I'm pretty sure people wouldn't "flock" to it, for the same reason iTunes is still doing well selling music despite a better selection on Amazon MP3. Don't underestimate the importance of convenience to most people.
- dinkumthinkum 17y ago
  What if Apple did this for it's PCs and laptops? It's just making the world a better place right?
- dinkumthinkum 17y ago
  Also, do you really weep for those poor shop owners that can't refuse service to black people and gays anymore?
- ice5nake 17y ago
  Huh? Are you serious? The cellphone is the new PC. Let me run whatever applications I want on my computer. Can you imagine in Microsoft said you can only buy software for your computer via our App Store and oh we are going to take a cut of all Windows software.
sadfsa 17y ago
I'm never, ever getting an iPhone.
- pj 17y ago
  You think the Pre is going to be all right? I'm waiting on it, but I've never seen it. What do you suggest as an alternative, I'm about to get a new device.
  - stanleydrew 17y ago
    The g1 running android is pretty great. I've been using it for four months and have very few complaints, plus it's a completely open-source system. The new software update provides an onscreen keyboard if you don't like to type on real keys, but I think having the choice to use a tactile keyboard is really nice. I'll also never own an iphone.
    - hboon 17y ago
      It claims to be a completely open-source system. Wasn't there a case where a tethering app was pulled out by Google from Market due to telco pressure? Of course being Android, with a few more steps, you can add an alternative "market place". But that's besides the point, it is not completely open even though it claims to be. At the moment, no, experience-wise for the consumer, it is almost always worse than the iPhone. And yes, I have both phones.
      - mseebach 17y ago
        > Wasn't there a case where a tethering app was pulled out by Google from Market due to telco pressure? I own neither an iPhone or a G1, so can someone clarify this for me: On the iPhone, you can't get an app on there, except through the App store or jail-breaking? On Andriod, you can do both? So even if your app isn't in the market, you can distribute it separately, which you can't for the iPhone?
        17y ago
jetako 17y ago
Can anyone chime in on the app store review procedure? Is each app assigned an individual review monkey, or is it passed through multiple hands? Methinks Apple needs better screening and performance evaluation of their app store employees. All it takes is a few jackasses in the mix for this to happen. Their rejection policy clearly leaves certain things open for interpretation.
- edd 17y ago
  As far as I am aware from reading around the subject after reading the millionth "the app store sux" article. The best indication we have is from this article: http://www.marco.org/98546611 http://www.marco.org/98546611 "In all cases, the reviewers don’t touch the app until the day before approval or rejection. And they don’t seem to interact with the app for more than a few minutes. The app just sits there for 6-8 days, untouched, then goes through an approval or rejection process that, as far as I can tell, takes less than 20 minutes for a complex app (and probably much less time for a simple one)."
- joecode 17y ago
  Based on my server logs, it appears there are multiple levels of review. The pattern I usually see is a little interaction after a few days of submitting, then a little more interaction right before approval. In one case, my app got rejected for an interface issue, and it looked like more people were involved. So it seems to be a "red-flag" kind of system.
  - plusbryan 17y ago
    Yes, for some apps, the first-stage approval is clearly done by someone fairly non-technical, just reading from a list of things they need to deny apps for. I've had first-level reviewers deny apps for really silly things, in some cases where the problem was the reviewer's command of the english language, rather than the app itself. Resubmitted with no changes and it went through 6 days later. Oh and there are no appeals at this stage. This isn't a democracy. Resubmit the binary and get to the back of the line, scruffy. But if you do get forwarded on, it seems to take about 2x as long, and get you to someone inside Apple who knows a thing or two.
klon 17y ago
It's sad that Apple can get away with this. Somehow competition is not working like it should in this market.
- HolyoakeD 17y ago
  That's how Apple has always set it out to be. They lock everything down so that competition can't grow properly..
  - dinkumthinkum 17y ago
    Yeah, but that was the other person's point. Apple is still successful. Therefore, competition is not the panacea to solve all the worlds ills, since Apple is behaving so poorly yet we all just pony up the cash for iPhones anyway. :)

86 points by ironkeith 17y ago

A better link: http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?9,651569,651569#msg-651569 http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?9,651569,651569#msg-651569

buugs 17y ago
I was thinking the same thing especially with the tie in to walmart's music sales and the questionable safari application bundled with the iphone :)

pj 17y ago

I don't think this is so bad really. Apple's brand is affected by the kind of material it sells and it wants to protect its brand. It's just like Facebook has porn patrol. Being a vendor of a product isn't just about moving product, it's about moving product in a direction that you believe makes the world a better place for you to live. Apple has the right to choose how to let people use their platform. Imagine a world where you have no right who you can and cannot sell your hard work to. Those signs that say, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone" -- all those would have to come down, by law! I think, right now, that I would prefer a world where a vendor of a service can decide who it does and does not provide that service to than a world where the builder of a product or provider of a service does not have that right.

chaosmachine 17y ago
You're missing the point. Apple sells The Downward Spiral in the iTunes store. Not allowing the same content in the App store is just absurd. In fact, the app doesn't even contain the content, it's just accessible through it.
- pj 17y ago
  what do you suggest is their rationale? Is that the point of this? to point out an irrational decision in the world?
  - endtime 17y ago
    Well, considering most of the people here write software, and this has to do with a (currently) popular software platform, I think it's worth pointing out.
- joecode 17y ago
  I believe the reason for the apparent contradiction is this: Apple acts as a publicizer for the apps in the app store by letting them into the top-N lists and recent releases. When an "objectionable" app becomes popular, users hold Apple to account. They don't do this with the music store. As the app store gets more and more crowded, Apple will most likely loosen up. Or maybe they will do the really intelligent thing: allow everything in, but only allow "non-objectionable" material into the top-N and recent releases sections.
  - blgraves 17y ago
    Apple has a top-N list for songs, albums, audiobooks, movies, tv shows, etc. on the front page of the itunes store. How is advertising questionable material in those lists any different than advertising apps with questionable content?
    - philh 17y ago
      With iTunes, Apple is a distributor. With the app store, it's a publisher. It's reasonable to assume that most people who are likely to get angry about content in a song/app recognise and understand the difference. And perhaps many of them don't understand that Apple is merely a publisher, and don't actually create most of the apps. Creators and publishers are (usually) considered to have more responsibility than distributors when it comes to objectionable content. I think that's an important difference for Apple's image.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
jobo 17y ago
Who cares about Apple's brand? If you buy a device it should be YOUR device. No one should be able to dictate what content you put on YOUR device.
- teej 17y ago
  Under the same line of reasoning: if I own a brick and mortar store, it should be MY store. I should be able to dictate what I stock on my shelves. If customers don't like it, they can shop elsewhere.
  - tdavis 17y ago
    And technically speaking, that isn't even true. Try to allow smoking at your place of business in most states, for instance.
  - joecode 17y ago
    Except if you own all the brick and mortar stores you have a monopoly. Even if you just own a large chunk of them (like Walmart), you end up having way too much control over what form free expression can take. That is closer to the situation with Apple and it doesn't seem too healthy for society as a whole.
  - stanleydrew 17y ago
    But you can't shop elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the app store the only way to get applications for the iphone short of jailbreaking? Don't you think if there was a competing app store that was completely open people would flock to it?
    - axod 17y ago
      The iPhone has a web browser! Welcome to the world of webapps. Where you can run anything you like. Much of it is even free!
    - cstejerean 17y ago
      I'm pretty sure people wouldn't "flock" to it, for the same reason iTunes is still doing well selling music despite a better selection on Amazon MP3. Don't underestimate the importance of convenience to most people.
dinkumthinkum 17y ago
What if Apple did this for it's PCs and laptops? It's just making the world a better place right?
dinkumthinkum 17y ago
Also, do you really weep for those poor shop owners that can't refuse service to black people and gays anymore?
ice5nake 17y ago
Huh? Are you serious? The cellphone is the new PC. Let me run whatever applications I want on my computer. Can you imagine in Microsoft said you can only buy software for your computer via our App Store and oh we are going to take a cut of all Windows software.

sadfsa 17y ago

I'm never, ever getting an iPhone.

pj 17y ago
You think the Pre is going to be all right? I'm waiting on it, but I've never seen it. What do you suggest as an alternative, I'm about to get a new device.
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  The g1 running android is pretty great. I've been using it for four months and have very few complaints, plus it's a completely open-source system. The new software update provides an onscreen keyboard if you don't like to type on real keys, but I think having the choice to use a tactile keyboard is really nice. I'll also never own an iphone.
  - hboon 17y ago
    It claims to be a completely open-source system. Wasn't there a case where a tethering app was pulled out by Google from Market due to telco pressure? Of course being Android, with a few more steps, you can add an alternative "market place". But that's besides the point, it is not completely open even though it claims to be. At the moment, no, experience-wise for the consumer, it is almost always worse than the iPhone. And yes, I have both phones.
    - mseebach 17y ago
      > Wasn't there a case where a tethering app was pulled out by Google from Market due to telco pressure? I own neither an iPhone or a G1, so can someone clarify this for me: On the iPhone, you can't get an app on there, except through the App store or jail-breaking? On Andriod, you can do both? So even if your app isn't in the market, you can distribute it separately, which you can't for the iPhone?
      - 17y ago

jetako 17y ago

Can anyone chime in on the app store review procedure? Is each app assigned an individual review monkey, or is it passed through multiple hands? Methinks Apple needs better screening and performance evaluation of their app store employees. All it takes is a few jackasses in the mix for this to happen. Their rejection policy clearly leaves certain things open for interpretation.

edd 17y ago
As far as I am aware from reading around the subject after reading the millionth "the app store sux" article. The best indication we have is from this article: http://www.marco.org/98546611 http://www.marco.org/98546611 "In all cases, the reviewers don’t touch the app until the day before approval or rejection. And they don’t seem to interact with the app for more than a few minutes. The app just sits there for 6-8 days, untouched, then goes through an approval or rejection process that, as far as I can tell, takes less than 20 minutes for a complex app (and probably much less time for a simple one)."
joecode 17y ago
Based on my server logs, it appears there are multiple levels of review. The pattern I usually see is a little interaction after a few days of submitting, then a little more interaction right before approval. In one case, my app got rejected for an interface issue, and it looked like more people were involved. So it seems to be a "red-flag" kind of system.
- plusbryan 17y ago
  Yes, for some apps, the first-stage approval is clearly done by someone fairly non-technical, just reading from a list of things they need to deny apps for. I've had first-level reviewers deny apps for really silly things, in some cases where the problem was the reviewer's command of the english language, rather than the app itself. Resubmitted with no changes and it went through 6 days later. Oh and there are no appeals at this stage. This isn't a democracy. Resubmit the binary and get to the back of the line, scruffy. But if you do get forwarded on, it seems to take about 2x as long, and get you to someone inside Apple who knows a thing or two.

klon 17y ago

It's sad that Apple can get away with this. Somehow competition is not working like it should in this market.

HolyoakeD 17y ago
That's how Apple has always set it out to be. They lock everything down so that competition can't grow properly..
- dinkumthinkum 17y ago
  Yeah, but that was the other person's point. Apple is still successful. Therefore, competition is not the panacea to solve all the worlds ills, since Apple is behaving so poorly yet we all just pony up the cash for iPhones anyway. :)