9 ms·

Apple Rejects EFF Updates App, because it links "objectionable" youtube video

67 points by evdawg 17y ago

DenisM 17y ago
I see the pitfals of a non-scalable business model. Apple has a few parts of their business that do not scale well: retail stores and app vetting process. In either case the per-employee marginal revenue is small in these sectors and so the cost has to be managed. Same is not true for scalable businesses such Mac OS X development where per-employee marginal revenue is very high and you can actualy afford to hire the brightestand and train them well.
- froo 17y ago
  I see the pitfals of a non-scalable business model. And yet only recently Techcrunch did a piece on just how profitable Apple's mobile phone business actually is. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/01/the-spoils-go-to-the-smartest-apple-and-rim-take-majority-of-cell-phone-industry-profits/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/01/the-spoils-go-to-the-sm... They have a large chunk of the mindshare when it comes to mobile phones, they're making a bucketload in sales, not only in phone but with apps... just how is that not a scalable business model? Do you have any data to backup your claim?
  - DenisM 17y ago
    Firstly, Wal-Mart is hugely successful and their business does not scale at all. If you find yourself in such business you have to be very good at controlling costs, but you can still be very profitable. In the case of Apple I perhaps should be more accurate - their business has parts that do not scale well and parts that do scale well. The stores and the app review parts do not scale, therefore Apple must be super-diligent in controlling costs there. Result of cost-control is of course less trained and less well paid personnel. Hence the gaffes with review process are to be expected. Apple's fault is in not designing a proper escalation process (other than the "Techcrunch PR egg-on-face channel") . By the way, the jury is still out on how much the app sales are bringing to Apple and what are the costs of the review process. I've seen analysis (can't find it now) that has shown Apple is barely breaking even on the apps themselves and make all their money on hardware. Which is nothing new - they used to make next to nothing from iTunes music store and make a lot of money with iPods. So the more reasons to control costs.
joel_feather 17y ago
On a small tangent, getting rejected by the app store probably made the Eucalyptus Reader a few thousand extra dollars.
- pstinnett 17y ago
  This is a great point. I wish there was some stat on how many people heard of Eucalyptus Reader via the press around its rejection.
  - calambrac 17y ago
    How is this a great point? How does this 'fact' (serious question: does anyone actually know if this is true?) at all inform how we should feel about Apple's app approval process? It's not like every app that gets unfairly rejected gets this kind of publicity - Eucalyptus did because it caught Gruber's attention and he blogged about it; this one did because it's coming right on the heels of the Eucalyptus incident and it's the EFF. So, seriously, what, exactly, are we supposed to take from this point?
    - pstinnett 17y ago
      Maybe I misused the word "point". I do think it would be interesting to see some sort of analysis on how press attention regarding rejected apps affects sales.
- calambrac 17y ago
  I agree. Apple should totally start charging developers hefty fees for those rejection letters they send out, it's just free publicity. Fucking freeloading pervy developers.
ube 17y ago
Couldn't Apple just leverage facebook's 150+ porn patrol employees? All kidding aside - how could you systematically enforce guidelines on applications when the universe of applications is wide open? In other words, there's no baseline so how could you create test case? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a group of iphone users (i.e. folks that like to play with anything on the iphone) and have them vote on the app? (apple could reward these users with the app for free or some other random goodies - itouch, ipods, etc...)
axod 17y ago
I know it's in the rules not to post comments moaning, but do we really need a live feed of every single app store rejection on here? Is it useful or interesting? It's linkbait + spam IMHO. If you don't want the risk of developing for a closed platform, don't do it! But please please please stop whining about it.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- billymeltdown 17y ago
  Axod, I don't think it's that bad (linkbait, wise), and: I like to know about such things because I'm also an app developer. I also think it should be publicized because it's outrageous bull. Even if I wasn't an app developer, I'd think this was interesting on grounds of knowing how people get content, and who can/does censor that access. Also, there wasn't any whining in the EFF article.
  - axod 17y ago
    How many people on here are not aware that: * Apple censors stuff * Apple aren't consistent * Apple take random time to approve/deny apps. I'd be surprised if many people aren't aware of those facts by now. It'd be news IMHO if any of the above changed. I personally don't find it outrageous in the least. It's their platform to do with what they wish. Developing on top of someone else is a big risk. Just as if you build something on top of twitter, they could and might cut off access if they decide to.
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      I'm aware because these stories get posted here. I like them.
      - axod 17y ago
        So you enjoy news saying "Yup, Apple still reject random stuff, nothings changed"? We have different definitions of 'news' ;)
st3fan 17y ago
Dear EFF, please sue Apple.
- axod 17y ago
  For what??? Seriously. What would they sue Apple for? Apple don't have to let you onto their app store. They don't even have to be fair or consistent.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Intel thought the same about their treatment of AMD. Now Intel is out several billion dollars. Turns out that anti-competitive business practices are not legal.
    - zimbabwe 17y ago
      Since when was the EFF competing with Apple? You're mental.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        Since when was the EFF competing with Apple? You're mental. I would be if I said anything remotely resembling that. When Apple arbitrarily rejects applications, it can be construed as being anti-competitive. While at this point, it's not overt (like saying, if your company makes an Android app, we will never approve your iPhone app), the infrastructure is in place for implementing this system. Maybe it's happening now, and we just don't notice. Anyway, just saying that this might not actually be OK. Or, it might be. (Try writing software for your favorite video game system.)
        zimbabwe 17y ago
        That's pretty damned paranoid. I've read no stories of anything similar to that. The system is fucked up, obviously, but there's a difference between fucked up and totalitarian, and it's pretty huge leap from one to the other. Last I heard, lots of developers were releasing video games cross-platform; not quite sure I understand you.
tocomment 17y ago
Has anyone seen this one before? "We cannot post this iPhone application to the App Store at this time because it encourages a physical activity that could result in a customer damaging their iPhone." That's what they told me for my beloved Falling Man app http://www.blendedtechnologies.com/iphone-applications/ http://www.blendedtechnologies.com/iphone-applications/ :-( I guess it's one of the more reasonable rejecting reasons, eh? I'm not worried, it was my first project, just playing with the accelerometer.
crabl 17y ago
Funny video! I watched it on my iPhone using the built-in YouTube app...
swixmix 17y ago
You guys are funny. One post talks about not wanting Apple Rejects on HackerNews, and another talks about how Apple is censoring applications. First Apple, then HackerNews, next we'll be claiming that our own mother's try to influence us! I won't believe it.
obvioustroll 17y ago
Isn't the EFF just guessing at what Apple found "objectionable"? I mean, Apple doesn't usually tell you....

67 points by evdawg 17y ago

I see the pitfals of a non-scalable business model. Apple has a few parts of their business that do not scale well: retail stores and app vetting process. In either case the per-employee marginal revenue is small in these sectors and so the cost has to be managed. Same is not true for scalable businesses such Mac OS X development where per-employee marginal revenue is very high and you can actualy afford to hire the brightestand and train them well.

froo 17y ago
I see the pitfals of a non-scalable business model. And yet only recently Techcrunch did a piece on just how profitable Apple's mobile phone business actually is. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/01/the-spoils-go-to-the-smartest-apple-and-rim-take-majority-of-cell-phone-industry-profits/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/01/the-spoils-go-to-the-sm... They have a large chunk of the mindshare when it comes to mobile phones, they're making a bucketload in sales, not only in phone but with apps... just how is that not a scalable business model? Do you have any data to backup your claim?
- DenisM 17y ago
  Firstly, Wal-Mart is hugely successful and their business does not scale at all. If you find yourself in such business you have to be very good at controlling costs, but you can still be very profitable. In the case of Apple I perhaps should be more accurate - their business has parts that do not scale well and parts that do scale well. The stores and the app review parts do not scale, therefore Apple must be super-diligent in controlling costs there. Result of cost-control is of course less trained and less well paid personnel. Hence the gaffes with review process are to be expected. Apple's fault is in not designing a proper escalation process (other than the "Techcrunch PR egg-on-face channel") . By the way, the jury is still out on how much the app sales are bringing to Apple and what are the costs of the review process. I've seen analysis (can't find it now) that has shown Apple is barely breaking even on the apps themselves and make all their money on hardware. Which is nothing new - they used to make next to nothing from iTunes music store and make a lot of money with iPods. So the more reasons to control costs.

joel_feather 17y ago

On a small tangent, getting rejected by the app store probably made the Eucalyptus Reader a few thousand extra dollars.

pstinnett 17y ago
This is a great point. I wish there was some stat on how many people heard of Eucalyptus Reader via the press around its rejection.
- calambrac 17y ago
  How is this a great point? How does this 'fact' (serious question: does anyone actually know if this is true?) at all inform how we should feel about Apple's app approval process? It's not like every app that gets unfairly rejected gets this kind of publicity - Eucalyptus did because it caught Gruber's attention and he blogged about it; this one did because it's coming right on the heels of the Eucalyptus incident and it's the EFF. So, seriously, what, exactly, are we supposed to take from this point?
  - pstinnett 17y ago
    Maybe I misused the word "point". I do think it would be interesting to see some sort of analysis on how press attention regarding rejected apps affects sales.
calambrac 17y ago
I agree. Apple should totally start charging developers hefty fees for those rejection letters they send out, it's just free publicity. Fucking freeloading pervy developers.

ube 17y ago

Couldn't Apple just leverage facebook's 150+ porn patrol employees? All kidding aside - how could you systematically enforce guidelines on applications when the universe of applications is wide open? In other words, there's no baseline so how could you create test case? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a group of iphone users (i.e. folks that like to play with anything on the iphone) and have them vote on the app? (apple could reward these users with the app for free or some other random goodies - itouch, ipods, etc...)

axod 17y ago

I know it's in the rules not to post comments moaning, but do we really need a live feed of every single app store rejection on here? Is it useful or interesting? It's linkbait + spam IMHO. If you don't want the risk of developing for a closed platform, don't do it! But please please please stop whining about it.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
billymeltdown 17y ago
Axod, I don't think it's that bad (linkbait, wise), and: I like to know about such things because I'm also an app developer. I also think it should be publicized because it's outrageous bull. Even if I wasn't an app developer, I'd think this was interesting on grounds of knowing how people get content, and who can/does censor that access. Also, there wasn't any whining in the EFF article.
- axod 17y ago
  How many people on here are not aware that: * Apple censors stuff * Apple aren't consistent * Apple take random time to approve/deny apps. I'd be surprised if many people aren't aware of those facts by now. It'd be news IMHO if any of the above changed. I personally don't find it outrageous in the least. It's their platform to do with what they wish. Developing on top of someone else is a big risk. Just as if you build something on top of twitter, they could and might cut off access if they decide to.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    I'm aware because these stories get posted here. I like them.
    - axod 17y ago
      So you enjoy news saying "Yup, Apple still reject random stuff, nothings changed"? We have different definitions of 'news' ;)

st3fan 17y ago

Dear EFF, please sue Apple.

axod 17y ago
For what??? Seriously. What would they sue Apple for? Apple don't have to let you onto their app store. They don't even have to be fair or consistent.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Intel thought the same about their treatment of AMD. Now Intel is out several billion dollars. Turns out that anti-competitive business practices are not legal.
  - zimbabwe 17y ago
    Since when was the EFF competing with Apple? You're mental.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Since when was the EFF competing with Apple? You're mental. I would be if I said anything remotely resembling that. When Apple arbitrarily rejects applications, it can be construed as being anti-competitive. While at this point, it's not overt (like saying, if your company makes an Android app, we will never approve your iPhone app), the infrastructure is in place for implementing this system. Maybe it's happening now, and we just don't notice. Anyway, just saying that this might not actually be OK. Or, it might be. (Try writing software for your favorite video game system.)
      - zimbabwe 17y ago
        That's pretty damned paranoid. I've read no stories of anything similar to that. The system is fucked up, obviously, but there's a difference between fucked up and totalitarian, and it's pretty huge leap from one to the other. Last I heard, lots of developers were releasing video games cross-platform; not quite sure I understand you.

tocomment 17y ago

Has anyone seen this one before? "We cannot post this iPhone application to the App Store at this time because it encourages a physical activity that could result in a customer damaging their iPhone." That's what they told me for my beloved Falling Man app http://www.blendedtechnologies.com/iphone-applications/ http://www.blendedtechnologies.com/iphone-applications/ :-( I guess it's one of the more reasonable rejecting reasons, eh? I'm not worried, it was my first project, just playing with the accelerometer.

crabl 17y ago

Funny video! I watched it on my iPhone using the built-in YouTube app...

swixmix 17y ago

You guys are funny. One post talks about not wanting Apple Rejects on HackerNews, and another talks about how Apple is censoring applications. First Apple, then HackerNews, next we'll be claiming that our own mother's try to influence us! I won't believe it.

obvioustroll 17y ago

Isn't the EFF just guessing at what Apple found "objectionable"? I mean, Apple doesn't usually tell you....