4 ms·

Tell HN: Watch Out When Linking Wikipedia in Your iPhone App

16 points by andrewljohnson 17y ago

Dear TrailBehind, Thank you for submitting TrailBehind to the App Store. We've reviewed TrailBehind and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store at this time because it is not appropriately rated. Our review indicates that the application content is not consistent with the current rating. TrailBehind allows unfiltered access to Wikipedia, which include frequent mature or suggestive themes. Applications must be rated accordingly for the highest level of content that the user is able to access. Please visit iTunes Connect to resubmit your binary and rate your application appropriately. Regards, iPhone Developer Program

tptacek 17y ago
Dear Apple, Thank you for providing me with Safari on the iPhone. I've reviewed Safari and determined that you cannot continue to provide this version of your iPhone application at this time because it is not appropriately rated. My review indicates application content is not consistent with the current rating. Safari allows unfiltered access to Wikipedia, which include frequent mature or suggestive themes. Applications must be rated accordingly for the highest level of content that the user is able to access. Please provide me with a new version of Safari rated appropriately. Regards, A loyal customer.
jdg 17y ago
Wasn't it determined awhile back, that if you provide access to any UGC at all, you should ensure that you have a mature (or whatever it is, can't remember what the screen says now) rating? E.g., - All Twitter clients. All forum readers. Chat rooms. Anything of the sort. That'd include Wikipedia, of course. j
- andrewljohnson 17y ago
  I'm not complaining. The app store has been very good to us... we have sold a lot of apps, and we'll continue to sell a lot of apps. I didn't offer any commentary on this, and I don't think it's "unfair." I am just warning anyone who submits an app - I posted the exact email that was sent to me, and nothing else. But, this is not part of some checklist you have before submitting an app. You'd have to be an incredibly savvy and aware person to know this... after all, this is our third version of the app, and our app has always included Wikipedia content. Also, it's worth noting that MOST apps that include Wikipedia content are rated 4+, just like we were when we submitted. Have a look at the apps on the App Store if you don't believe me. But once again, I'm not complaining. I'm just trying to help people (like you) avoid the same pitfall. We changed our rating, and we resubmitted.
jasongullickson 17y ago
I haven't written an app that uses the web view yet, but I'm wondering if there is something you can do so that a web view you use in your app respects any "parental security" (the "Restrictions" section in the settings panel) settings that Safari is constrained by? In other words, perhaps the rejection is due to your apps ability to bypass the phone's parental controls?
lacker 17y ago
It looks like this is another case of inconsistent standards. All of the wikipedia apps seem to be rated 4+ for "everyone" so it's not like Apple has a real rule that you can't use wikipedia. You just got screwed by one rogue reviewer.

tptacek 17y ago

Dear Apple, Thank you for providing me with Safari on the iPhone. I've reviewed Safari and determined that you cannot continue to provide this version of your iPhone application at this time because it is not appropriately rated. My review indicates application content is not consistent with the current rating. Safari allows unfiltered access to Wikipedia, which include frequent mature or suggestive themes. Applications must be rated accordingly for the highest level of content that the user is able to access. Please provide me with a new version of Safari rated appropriately. Regards, A loyal customer.

jdg 17y ago

Wasn't it determined awhile back, that if you provide access to any UGC at all, you should ensure that you have a mature (or whatever it is, can't remember what the screen says now) rating? E.g., - All Twitter clients. All forum readers. Chat rooms. Anything of the sort. That'd include Wikipedia, of course. j

andrewljohnson 17y ago
I'm not complaining. The app store has been very good to us... we have sold a lot of apps, and we'll continue to sell a lot of apps. I didn't offer any commentary on this, and I don't think it's "unfair." I am just warning anyone who submits an app - I posted the exact email that was sent to me, and nothing else. But, this is not part of some checklist you have before submitting an app. You'd have to be an incredibly savvy and aware person to know this... after all, this is our third version of the app, and our app has always included Wikipedia content. Also, it's worth noting that MOST apps that include Wikipedia content are rated 4+, just like we were when we submitted. Have a look at the apps on the App Store if you don't believe me. But once again, I'm not complaining. I'm just trying to help people (like you) avoid the same pitfall. We changed our rating, and we resubmitted.

jasongullickson 17y ago

I haven't written an app that uses the web view yet, but I'm wondering if there is something you can do so that a web view you use in your app respects any "parental security" (the "Restrictions" section in the settings panel) settings that Safari is constrained by? In other words, perhaps the rejection is due to your apps ability to bypass the phone's parental controls?

lacker 17y ago

It looks like this is another case of inconsistent standards. All of the wikipedia apps seem to be rated 4+ for "everyone" so it's not like Apple has a real rule that you can't use wikipedia. You just got screwed by one rogue reviewer.