Behind 10 eyebrow-raising App Store rejections
Frustrated programmers have highlighted what they believe to be double standards, strange policies, and flip-flopping among Apple's App Store guards.
Several developers whose applications have been rejected from the store, which hosts third-party software developed for the iPhone and iPod Touch, have published their correspondence with Apple.
Apple's rejections of apps accused of infringing a patent or copyright make sense to most industry insiders. But some App Store rejections have raised quite a few eyebrows.
In an attempt to highlight--and perhaps make some sense of--a few of the more questioned rejections, I've compiled a list of those that caused me to scratch my head.
The shock starts here
CastCatcher
CastCatcher is still in the App Store.
(Credit: R7 Developers)Apple wrote in a letter to CastCatcher's developer, Amro Mousa, that the application's update was rejected because it transferred "excessive volumes of data over the cellular network." Mousa was a little perplexed by Apple's decision to suddenly deny the application access to the store, considering that the new version of the app didn't transfer more data than previous, approved versions. Worst of all, Mousa said, his app was using the same amount of data as competing streaming-radio applications.
Current status: Eventually, Mousa and Apple were able to reach a middle ground, and new versions of the application were allowed into the App Store. CastCatcher 1.4.4 is currently offered in Apple's store for $1.99.
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus, an e-book reader app, was denied access to Apple's App Store after the company found that it allowed users to read the Kama Sutra. The ancient book on sexuality was downloaded from Project Gutenberg, which the app used to acquire books.
In a letter sent to Eucalyptus developers, Apple said that the app was denied because it gave users access to "objectionable" material. If the developers removed the Kama Sutra from its book listings, Apple would have allowed the app into the Store.
Current status: After having some discussions with Apple, a Eucalyptus developer wrote on the company's blog that Apple had relented and would allow the full version of the app, Kama Sutra and all, into the App Store. It's currently available for $9.99.
FreedomTime
Freedom Time takes on former President Bush.
(Credit: Screenshot by Don Reisinger/CNET)The app featured President Bush on an analog clock as it counted down until President Barack Obama's inauguration. When users clicked on the President's body, it played so-called "truthisms," clips from speeches President Bush had given about leaving office.
Apple rejected the application on the grounds that it was "defaming, demeaning, or attacking political figures." That's an App Store no-no, evidently.
Current status: FreedomTime is still not available in the App Store. In its place, a Web site has been built to countdown the number of days former President Bush has been out of office.
Google Voice
Google Voice is an application that allows users to to assign a single number to their home, office, and mobile phones. It was denied access to Apple's App Store, along with already-approved third-party applications that used Google Voice to work.
In one fell swoop, a Web firestorm erupted. Journalists started questioning why Apple would reject the app. Consumers felt disenchanted. And the Federal Communications Commission decided to investigate.
Current status: The events surrounding Google Voice's absence from the App Store are still unclear. AT&T says it was not involved in an approval decision, and Apple said it didn't actually reject the application from the store. In a statement, the company said its review of the app is still under way. It doesn't look like this will be over any time soon.
NetShare
Prior to the release of the iPhone 3GS, one of the most requested iPhone features was tethering, or using the phone's wireless connectivity to connect another device to the Internet. Nullriver's NetShare application provided the modem-like functionality last year.
Nullriver's NetShare app was here and gone.
(Credit: Mac-Addict)At first, the application was made available in the App Store for $9.99. But Apple promptly removed the application from its store. NetShare's removal is suspected to be related to wireless carrier AT&T's agreement with Apple over use of its data network.
Current status: Nullriver's NetShare is not available in the App Store and will likely never make its way to the store. Internet tethering is a feature that's built into the iPhone's latest system software and will be made available to AT&T customers later this year, meaning that NetShare would be duplicating existing functionality--another App Store no-no.
Nine Inch Nails
Nine Inch Nails front man Trent Reznor has embraced technology and the social Web unlike many other artists in the music industry. Perhaps that's why it was so shocking that his band's iPhone app update was denied access to the App Store for, what Apple called, "objectionable content."
The objectionable content Apple was referring to came from "The Downward Spiral," a 1994 Nine Inch Nails album, which was played in the app. That album contains explicit mentions of sexual activity.
Although that might be enough for some to agree with Apple, it's worth noting that the same exact album, unedited, was already available in the iTunes Store.
Current status: The Nine Inch Nails update was eventually allowed into the App Store after Apple realized its double standard. The full, unedited content is available in the Store.
Ninjawords
Ninjawords is (finally) in the App Store.
(Credit: Screenshot by Don Reisinger/CNET)After Ninjawords' developers worked out some design issues, which Apple requested, the company rejected the application again, after finding that the dictionary contained vulgar words that "could be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod Touch users."
Ninjawords' developers were desperate to get their app into the store, so they removed as many objectionable words as possible within a reasonable time frame. Their app was rejected again for containing fewer, but still some offensive, words.
Current status: The application was allowed access to the App Store after removing any word that might be construed as objectionable. It's currently on sale for $1.99 in the App Store.
Podcaster
Podcaster was an app that allowed users to download their favorite podcasts without using iTunes to do it. After submitting the app to the store, Podcaster developers received notice that their app was denied access because it "duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes."
The rejection led to outcry on the Web, as comparisons were drawn between software bundled with Mac OS X and those applications that users can install on their Macs that mimic or improve those bundled applications. To some, there was no difference.
Current status: Although Podcaster is still not available in the App Store, a Podcaster-like application called RSS Player Podcast Client currently allows users to download more than 10,000 podcasts. That said, it doesn't let users search for podcasts through the app (another Apple request). It costs 99 cents.
Pull My Finger
Catalog this under the Apple-needs-to-find-humor-in-apps-to-accept-them category.
Pull My Finger was sophomoric, for sure. The app allowed users to "pull its finger." When they did, it played a sound mimicking flatulence. Apple blocked the application from entering the App Store because it had "limited utility" to the community. It seemed believable. But when one considers that the store is filled with absurd applications, Pull My Finger might have fit in quite well.
Current status: After realizing that it allows at least several useless applications into its store, Pull My Finger was eventually accepted and offered in Apple's Store. It's currently on sale for 99 cents.
South Park
"South Park" might be an extremely popular animated television show, but it just doesn't have what it takes to make it into the App Store.
Apple didn't reject the South Park iPhone app once; it rejected it twice because of "potentially offensive" content included in the app. The application featured several clips from the long-running show. Boing Boing reported that Apple did tell South Park's creators that it might eventually allow the application into its store, since its policies have evolved in the past. According to the company, it didn't originally allow explicit lyrics into iTunes, but it now does.
Current status: It's available on your television, and it has won an Emmy, but you won't find "South Park" on your iPhone because of its "offensive" content. Yikes.
South Park won't see the App Store.
(Credit: South Park Studios)Lessons learned
Although this is just a short list of many applications that have been denied access to the App Store, there's a common thread among the rejections: Apple wants nothing to do with apps that can be found "objectionable," have functionality similar to Apple-built features, or might conflict with a contract it has established with AT&T or other partners.
But in the end, determining what Apple will allow into its App Store isn't an exact science. Developers want better direction from Apple on what types of applications will get approved for--and remain in good standing with--its App Store. Until the parameters are clearer, and the approvals and rejections are consistent, they will continue to face the risk of seemingly arbitrary rejection.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
(It's a South Park reference.... DOH!)
Before parental controls, Apple had a policy of not allowing apps that should be rated "adult" in nature. Most of the above rejections for standards reasons were rejected during that time period.
Since OS 3.0 and parental controls, these rules have changed. Not even mentioning this reality is so biased by the author, it's bordering on tabloid journalism.
For example, not mentioning that the iTunes music store DID have parental controls, so it is NOT incongruous to ban an app but not a song re: NIN, is just lazy or dishonest journalism. Same holds true for the South Park app. It would be allowable now. And same for the dictionary, which was using uncensored open source dictionary sources. They decided not to be rated adult, and instead remove access to the words, but that was their choice.
And any one of those companies could have produced a "web app" instead of an "app store app" that functioned through the web interface. That's not mentioned either. In fact it's never mentioned in these "look what Apple rejected this time" articles. There is more than one route to putting content on an iPhone (web apps, jailbroken apps), but if you want to go through Apple's App store, you should understand the contract you are going to have to follow.
You are now the face on the screen waiting to be hammered.
Wait, do iPhone/iPod Touch users live in America or in China?
And the WinMo model has been so successful, that they're now opening up their own app store.
12% market share vs. 8% for iPhone. While I hae to kive kudos to apple for picking a crappy platform and still getting 8%, they still lag Windows Mobile.
It would not suprise me if Windows and even the old Palm OS both had more applications than the iPhone. A WinMo app store won't hurt their market share.
App Store Apps are not websites.
There are hundreds if not thousands of apps that duplicate functionality: web browsers, mail, weather, stock, clock, calculator, address books, calendar, maps, music players, notepads/todo lists, music players (streaming audio), video, VoIP, messaging (including free SMS), cameras, etc.
Again, because the author purposely fails to mention this very important fact, it creates confusion among the readers who believe everything they read in biased news articles.
This draconian and overly paternalistic ensemble of Apple Cultists should start their own religion. Oh, wait. They have.
Until Apple starts treating its customers like adults instead of ego-driven, 'I'm too cool for the rest of you' children incapable of making an adult decision, I will never own one.
If they were truly rejecting apps that could be objectionable to people, they'd eliminate web browsing and e-mail functionality altogether. Way too much sex in spam. Oh, and they should probably eliminate voice capabilities since phone sex could possibly happen - or a crank call. Also text messaging since you NEVER know what smut someone else may send. And of course, MMS has to go the way of Google's apps, too. After all, sexting is all the rage among young teens and you know how much trouble THAT causes them.
Gosh, the iPhone, as it's designed to be used, is one gigantic collage of potentially objectionable functions! They should just ban the iPhone altogether and be done with it.
Something smells here....
Look Apple is passing up mucho revenue by not selling pron apps, but a company has a right to decide what they will and won't sell. Blockbuster doesn't sell porn, nor does Borders books. Some people find that evil, most people find it sensible.
What ever floats your boat...but yes, something does have an odor about it.
@ikramerica--2008
You're right, Apple doesn't want to be in the porn business (I applaud the moral high ground stance), but don't gloss over the real point here...this is simply about content distribution (and how Orwellian Apple is going about it). DOG went for shock factor and you were distracted by 'the shiny sparkly' aspect of it. Forget the sparkles and focus on the big picture.
Reisinger cites two apps that hit at the crux of the issue - CastCatcher and NetShare. There's obviously nothing morally objectionable with these applications...so what exactly is, if not 'morally', objectionable about them? It's the fact that either of these apps represent one of two things: potential revenue loss (for Apple) or higher operational costs (AT&T). Neither prospect sound too stimulating to either company so they did what any company would (if they could) have done - they banned them.
This kind of behavior is fundamentally monopolistic and iPhone owners should be a little miffed at being taken advantage of in this fashion.
Same goes for Google voice. care to explain what was the issue with rejecting that App!!!!
So a few app rejections out of 50,000 or so constitutes "many". Way to blow something way out of proportion and get some hits as well (I guess I fell for it too). The article itself should help to shed light on the App approval/rejection process. Other than that last paragraph, very informative.
Go figure...
The South Park app isn't at the app store NOW because nobody has resubmitted it. Not because Apple has rejected it since instituting parental controls in OS3.0
The reason why there are less virus/ worms, etc on Apple is simply because of the market share...how many corporate industry use Macs to run their business...So why target a small percentage of users..
And All Aps work on Apple...get a reality check...there are thousands of Aps which are amde for PC...Take Google Chrome for eg...it started with Windows...reason, the same....attract the "masses"....
And speaking of Control...you make Apple sound like the Matrix itself..everything is just a another system of control...
@mayhem6ix
The reason why there are less virus/ worms, etc on Apple is simply because of the market share..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then explain why there were viruses for the older OS 9, yet in the roughly 9 years and 5 versions of OS X there isn't even one virus or worm (Mayhem6ix, there *ARE* trojans for OSX though, so watch yourself!)? There isn't a reason to read drara07's garbage any further, since he's proven he can't even reason intelligently let alone understand what he's talking about.
Your logic escapes me. You seem to be saying that less ability to do the job becaue of less applications to do it, is worth it because of less malware.
You are wrong to say "it's harder to pull things like that off on Apple". More than one expert has shown it's easier to hack a Mac as they actually have less scurity than a Windows Machine (less practice and need no doubt).
Your assumption that apple ensures their party apps work perfectly with all other applications is false. Apple may have a more stable OS (I haven't seen this to be the case myself) but their control and time is limited.
Your logic escapes me. You seem to be saying that less ability to do the job becaue of less applications to do it, is worth it because of less malware.
You are wrong to say "it's harder to pull things like that off on Apple". More than one expert has shown it's easier to hack a Mac as they actually have less scurity than a Windows Machine (less practice and need no doubt).
Your assumption that apple ensures their party apps work perfectly with all other applications is false. Apple may have a more stable OS (I haven't seen this to be the case myself) but their control and time is limited.
@ Dalkorian,
Like he said. Less market share. Criminals and the Criminally insane are smaret enough to put their time where they are most likely to get rewarded. Still there is malware for OS X. Just nowhere near as much. Linux also benefits from the market share or lack of it.
Don't be under the impression that there will be tethering available with the Iphone anytime soon. I work for AT&T and they are NOT planning on rolling out the ability to do this with your Iphone. The Iphone uses so much bandwidth, in AT&T's opinion, that they dont want to flood the servers with usage by tethered Iphones, even if people are paying for it.
Also, this is probably not going to happen, but AT&T is toying with additional charges for MMS. They currently bundle MMS under the SMS/MMS packages, but they have been discussing adding an additional charge for MMS with the IPhone in order to capitalize on Iphone owners STRONG desire to MMS.
But you didnt hear it from me:)
- by scottbomb August 25, 2009 8:37 PM PDT
- Can anyone recommend a "smart" phone/modern-day PDA that will allow me to install whatever "apps" I want? (You know, like I do on MY computer)??
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by CyR00k August 26, 2009 3:01 AM PDT
- I can't think of any in the US at the moment you could try your luck at getting a Palm TX or Z22, I have the TX but I bought it 4 years ago. Those are really your best bet at this point. There is also the ultra-portables which are a bit larger (around 8 inch screens) but those are more likely then the Palms to be available. This doesn't go to openness but there is talk that the current prototype of the PSP that is being worked up will contain a cellular transmit/receive board in addition to it's wifi and bluetooth connectivity. There are a lot of hacks and software mods available for the PSP, if you are into that. The downside to these devices and really the wifi enabled mobiles is that they cannot utilize WPA2 security so connecting to an enterprise network is out of the question.
- Like this
-
- by DrtyDogg August 26, 2009 3:25 AM PDT
- Windows Mobile
- Like this
-
- by DrtyDogg August 26, 2009 3:26 AM PDT
- Android too.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (85 Comments)As @Callendurst pointed out the telecoms have absolutely no intention of allowing you to use THEIR network that you pay for as you wish to use it. It will take nothing short of federal regulations by the FTC and FCC for consumers to allowed to use the devices that they own as they wish without being told when and how they can be used.