This is SO stupid. IMO, Apple has no good reason to reject these apps. Apple is just trying to eliminate the competition with their own apps. I would have loved Podcaster, and I can see how this app would be nice for others as well. If Apple wants to keep the app store from becoming overloaded with apps, they should at least remove the many useless apps instead of these which would actually be useful.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MailWrangler: Another App rejected for competing with Apple Apps
- Thread starter Stella
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It sucks that they blocked this app (I for one would have bought it!) but from my (limited) understanding of the law it would be tough to argue against Apple. The big sticking point with Microsoft was that it was the de facto operating system for the vast majority of the world's computers, and strangling development on specific windows software pretty much cut your options out at the knees.
With Android, windows mobile, Blackberry, the possible future palm OS and even the increasingly standardized java environment on feature phones, there's more options than JUST the iPhone to develop for. This isn't to say it would be impossible to argue anti-trust, just very, very, difficult. If Apple wins against Psystar, I would imagine it would be even more difficult to make that argument, and vice versa. Just my .02.
And so it continues ....
Well, yes! Apple is trying to eliminate anything that might interfere with future plans of theirs for product improvements. Remember the big "fiasco" when OS X introduced dashboard widgets, and there was already a shareware package doing just about the same thing?
I recall them pretty much railroading right over competing apps when they decided they wanted to create iTunes, too.
Declaring an app "lacking in functionality" is a nice way of rejecting something in a relatively "political correct" manner, because it's subject to so much interpretation. But let's face it. Apple is rejecting stuff MOSTLY because it makes a product of theirs look worse or deficient in some respect. Other times, it's simply because they're already tossing around the idea of implementing something the person was trying to do.
In the end, you can call it "stupid" all you want, but Apple ultimately DOES have the right to decide not to help you sell whatever program you decided to make and submit to them. Just like any "mom and pop" 3rd. party Apple dealer can tell you, Apple looks out for their OWN interests first. If you want to succeed selling on their store, it'd be wise not to write apps that remind people the stuff built into the iPhone "sucks at doing this or that, so you should try this alternative". Conversely, Apple really likes things that are "innovative and original". Does your app give the iPhone a whole new capability it didn't have before, allowing Apple to add yet another "selling point" for the phone to potential customers (EG. ability to remote control a desktop with VNC protocol)? That's the type of app they're going to embrace, assuming it doesn't cross any lines AT&T has drawn in the proverbial sand.....
Well, yes! Apple is trying to eliminate anything that might interfere with future plans of theirs for product improvements. Remember the big "fiasco" when OS X introduced dashboard widgets, and there was already a shareware package doing just about the same thing?
I recall them pretty much railroading right over competing apps when they decided they wanted to create iTunes, too.
Declaring an app "lacking in functionality" is a nice way of rejecting something in a relatively "political correct" manner, because it's subject to so much interpretation. But let's face it. Apple is rejecting stuff MOSTLY because it makes a product of theirs look worse or deficient in some respect. Other times, it's simply because they're already tossing around the idea of implementing something the person was trying to do.
In the end, you can call it "stupid" all you want, but Apple ultimately DOES have the right to decide not to help you sell whatever program you decided to make and submit to them. Just like any "mom and pop" 3rd. party Apple dealer can tell you, Apple looks out for their OWN interests first. If you want to succeed selling on their store, it'd be wise not to write apps that remind people the stuff built into the iPhone "sucks at doing this or that, so you should try this alternative". Conversely, Apple really likes things that are "innovative and original". Does your app give the iPhone a whole new capability it didn't have before, allowing Apple to add yet another "selling point" for the phone to potential customers (EG. ability to remote control a desktop with VNC protocol)? That's the type of app they're going to embrace, assuming it doesn't cross any lines AT&T has drawn in the proverbial sand.....
Wow. Don't be such an apologist for Apple. Your post goes beyond fanboi. It's like excusing someone for being an a**hole. I mean they don't have to be nice to you but yeah they're still an a**hole, right?
Apple is only looking out for itself - not you, not the consumer, but numero uno Apple. If you fanboi's haven't realized it by now then these latest acts of application rejections must make you see it - they are the new Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong. I will still buy Apple like the way I still buy Microsoft products - cuz well they make good products. But no way am I loyal. Once something better comes out (my interpretation) then I'm gone.
C'mon people look out for your own interest. Podcaster and this app would really help out the consumer. Sheesh don't let Apple tell you what you want or should have. I think the word I'm looking for is lemmings.
Apple is only looking out for itself - not you, not the consumer, but numero uno Apple. If you fanboi's haven't realized it by now then these latest acts of application rejections must make you see it - they are the new Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong. I will still buy Apple like the way I still buy Microsoft products - cuz well they make good products. But no way am I loyal. Once something better comes out (my interpretation) then I'm gone.
C'mon people look out for your own interest. Podcaster and this app would really help out the consumer. Sheesh don't let Apple tell you what you want or should have. I think the word I'm looking for is lemmings.
This is a pretty tenuous situation Apple has gotten itself in. I would like to think that if only Apple weren't dependent on AT&T for cell access, things would not be so stringent... but rejecting decent podcasting and mail apps due to 'duplication' of Apple apps kind of makes me think otherwise...
Not when:
* these Apps conform to the published Apple guidelines
* Apple accept duplicate functionality apps to the AppStore ( i.e., flashlight et al ) but reject more useful applications such as this and Podcaster.
* Apple don't like people 'completing' against Apple applications and producing enhanced alternatives
Divided
I think Apple needs to release clear guidelines on what applications are accepted. It's horrible for developers to be rejected AFTER they've done all the work.
That said, I don't necessarily disagree with Apple's decisions. I don't see the harm in the whoopie cushion apps, but duplicated functionality can be confusing, and Apple supports the iPhone's native applications. It can be a bad experience for the customer when there's multiple ways to do things.
Personally, I'm more than capable of properly using the rejected apps, but I also know that a **very** large portion of the population has trouble even understanding that there's more than one way to retrieve email from the same account. Now what happens when people change to POP from IMAP or webmail, then everyone complains that they're getting duplicate emails?
I think Apple needs to release clear guidelines on what applications are accepted. It's horrible for developers to be rejected AFTER they've done all the work.
That said, I don't necessarily disagree with Apple's decisions. I don't see the harm in the whoopie cushion apps, but duplicated functionality can be confusing, and Apple supports the iPhone's native applications. It can be a bad experience for the customer when there's multiple ways to do things.
Personally, I'm more than capable of properly using the rejected apps, but I also know that a **very** large portion of the population has trouble even understanding that there's more than one way to retrieve email from the same account. Now what happens when people change to POP from IMAP or webmail, then everyone complains that they're getting duplicate emails?
They have the right to reject apps such as this, but I wish they wouldn't. I would like to have access to this app, and Podcaster.
Apple needs to loosen their Darth Vader grip on the app store.
I am glad that they have the Steve Jobs spirit running the company (success and profitability), but they need to add the Woz spirit for balance.
Apple needs to loosen their Darth Vader grip on the app store.
I am glad that they have the Steve Jobs spirit running the company (success and profitability), but they need to add the Woz spirit for balance.
I'm not apologizing for Apple, and I'm not a "fanboy."
What I'm suggesting is that people focus on the core issue. Rather than whine about the application policy here, direct your energy toward getting Apple to change its policy.
If you want the iPhone to be open to installing any application you want, then demand it. If Apple doesn't make the product you want, then don't buy it. There are "smartphone" alternatives now; if competition doesn't motivate Apple to take action, I'm sure posts such as these aren't going to tip the decision.
There have always been smartphone alternatives.
Its a shame Apple treat their user base as a load of 2 year olds instead of adults. Users can think for themselves - they, not Apple should decide what apps they'd like to install.
Until Apple take a chill pill, users should jail break their iPhones at the first opportunity and enjoy the benefits of user choice and install some great rejected iPhone / Touch applications. Users should also be sent email of these experiences.
Well... the problem with this is that Apple does impose kind of a monopoly on what's supposed to be an expandable (by software) platform. Sure, they don't have a monopoly in the whole smartphone market - but from a customer perspective it is pretty similar: Apple is selling a hardware platform and they are distributing 3rd party work while limiting the customers' choice. Of course that's perfectly legal as long as there is no legal monopoly involved. Still, it's not good for the customers who have bought iPhones - which makes it a perfectly valid topic to discuss, IMO.
By the way, your "Stop whining; companies can do anything they want, as long as they aren't legally obliged to something" attitude seems quite "american" to me. Really... I frequent(ed) European Mac forums for quite a while but hardly did I read this so frequently and pronounced as in the few days here at macrumors. Please don't take this as anything personal... just something I happened to notice
I don't think he/she was apologizing for Apple. Just pointing out that to expect a company to do anything BUT look out for its best interests is incredibly naive. Steve Jobs makes things HE wants to make. If you don't like those products, move on to a different phone/platform.
Also, while it sucks that someone would spend hours or days or months on an app, only to have it rejected, it isn't out of the ordinary at all. Not just in software development, but in plenty of other industries. Get over it.
This situation does suck, because anyone who defends Apple on this will be called a fanboi by anyone who doesn't agree with Apple's recent decisions. No matter what. Even if I consistently post negative comments about Apple, I'm still a fanboi for agreeing with their stance.
BTW,
Why? When that's the very thing you're scolding Apple for.
Me me me, I want I want I want. Silly consumers....
You can't compare software to magazine articles, its not a fair comparison, at all. Its not how software works - see how OSX, Windows and other smartphone apps are distributed vs iPhone / Touch apps.
If an application gets rejected from AppStore, its virtually dead in the water. If your article gets rejected from NY Times you can try some other publication.
Yes, it is out of the ordinary, for software. See "shareware" distribution.
If someone writes an OSX app and distributes it, the consumer will reject it, not a gate keeper such as Apple.
Have you read any of the App Store reviews?
Anyway, I can see why this application would get rejected. Though I'm not sure why it still did.
As long as the App doesn't violate the Terms in the SDK then it should be allowed. I don't understand why a mail app isn't okay but there are calcs and weather apps. What gives?
Maybe I'm not understanding something, but it sure seems to me that Apple is in the right here - it's directly duplicating one facet of the mail app. The author says this:
"This is an interesting claim since although handing email, my app is simply directly loading and showing Gmail inside of an application. How you can confuse Gmail with Mail.app I’m not sure."
How about the fact that the mail app can load and show Gmail? So maybe he handles the setup a slightly different way, I agree with Apple that that's not very different at all. Apple is most likely assuming that if an app comes out that does GMail, potential iPhone owners will think the built-in apps don't support GMail (otherwise why would someone make a GMail app and sell it?), and that they have to pay extra to add that feature.
"This is an interesting claim since although handing email, my app is simply directly loading and showing Gmail inside of an application. How you can confuse Gmail with Mail.app I’m not sure."
How about the fact that the mail app can load and show Gmail? So maybe he handles the setup a slightly different way, I agree with Apple that that's not very different at all. Apple is most likely assuming that if an app comes out that does GMail, potential iPhone owners will think the built-in apps don't support GMail (otherwise why would someone make a GMail app and sell it?), and that they have to pay extra to add that feature.