Sidebar Sidebar
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

Funny you can't release an app which duplicates a function of the iPhone.
But we can have 6245 flashlight, 42 cowbells and a button that goes wooo?!?!

Common I want functional Apps!
 
I think Android might give Jobs the kick in the pants he needs. If it is successful and pulls some business from Iphone, then perhaps Apple will stop being stupid.

That's my hope anyway. Damn that podcaster thing sounded awesome.
 
NinjaHERO said:
I think Android might give Jobs the kick in the pants he needs. If it is successful and pulls some business from Iphone, then perhaps Apple will stop being stupid.

That's my hope anyway. Damn that podcaster thing sounded awesome.
Click to expand...
IMHO that will never happen.
Android will never appeal to the masses, just a small group of hobbyists and kids.
 
Rybold said:
The more Apps that Apple rejects, the less confident many talented developers are going to become about whether Apple will even approve the Apps that are currently being developed, and they might stop bothering to make Apps in the first place.
Click to expand...

Actually, the problem is both more subtle and more severe than that : it will "merely" kill innovation on the iPhone platform. But it won't prevent hundreds of "me too" applications to hit the AppStore.

If you want to develop an innovative application, you face some specific difficulties :
- you have a timeframe to meet - innovations that arrives too late just make a flop. The approval process can be slow. It's not predictable either. In the meantime, a similar application can hit the Google Android or Windows Mobile market and kill you.
- you have a huge investment. These applications take a long while to finalize. Moreover, you need real serious skills in your team to build them properly. Time x Money = lot of loses in case of rejection by Apple.
- your application is complex and tests are a real necessity. On normal platforms, that would mean alpha tests, then beta tests, then release candidates *before* it reaches the store. Currently the AppStore is extremelly rigid to the point of making this standard way of doing things very impractical. It's an egg and chicken problem: Apple expects applications to be finalized before they can get published on the store, but you can't finalize any complex application until you have let a significant number of testers use it. Likewise, there is a lot of lag when releasing updated versions of an application - this can't be used for things like nightly builds or the like. There is also no support for trial or time limited versions.
 
There has to be mroe to it than that. Bloomberg replaces the standard stock app on my iPhone, Weatherbug replaces the Apple weatehr app on my iPhone, tons of calculators are on the appstore, which would replace the native calc app on the iPhone. I mean, these are all examples of programs that dupicate and expand on functionality. It probably has to do more with specific functionality of specific programs.
 
njpodder said:
There has to be more to it than that.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the problem : the roles are reversed. The developers should not be guessing what the clients want, that's the role of the client to *tell* what it wants and *why* he is unhappy. Precisely. Otherwise, you have developers wasting their times at something they're not good at (mind-reading) instead of spending it doing something they're good at (programming). This is a great way to lower quality...
 
While I don't really see why they rejected Podcaster, except so that they force people to connect to iTunes to keep the iPhone up-to-date, this Application does merit rejection in my mind. You can easily use multiple mail accounts in Mail, so I don't see why anyone would want to use the WebInterface. So if you need to do anything via the internet interface, just do it your self or wait until you get to a computer.

TEG
 
Apple has gone over the deepend. This is downright silly. As a potential iPhone developer, this seems nuts. It really has become at Apple's whim. Its not worth investing in the platform.

Steve Jobs has to replace the guy who's making these decisions. I wonder if he realizes or supports this.

TEG said:
While I don't really see why they rejected Podcaster, except so that they force people to connect to iTunes to keep the iPhone up-to-date, this Application does merit rejection in my mind. You can easily use multiple mail accounts in Mail, so I don't see why anyone would want to use the WebInterface. So if you need to do anything via the internet interface, just do it your self or wait until you get to a computer.

TEG
Click to expand...
Who cares if it duplicates Mail? Don't buy it. How would a developer know before developing the application, that Apple would reject it?

Clarity is needed.

And rejecting Podcaster is downright stupid too. You can do practically the same thing going to http://podcaster.fm on the iPhone. Is Apple going to start blocking websites they find competitive or don't have value which "differentiates" from other websites?
 
TEG said:
While I don't really see why they rejected Podcaster, except so that they force people to connect to iTunes to keep the iPhone up-to-date, this Application does merit rejection in my mind. You can easily use multiple mail accounts in Mail, so I don't see why anyone would want to use the WebInterface. So if you need to do anything via the internet interface, just do it your self or wait until you get to a computer.

TEG
Click to expand...

Your post is EXACTLY why Apple should not reject many apps. For you, Podcaster is important. For me, this mail app would be nice considering I have three different gmail accounts. Two are google apps domain I manage so the ability to NOT log out then back in would be VERY helpful. Plus, to have the star feature and other standard gmail features I use would be nice which mail.app does not do.

Frankly, the "I'm Rich" app (or what ever the name was) should have been left on the store. If some idiot wants to buy it then let them. It doesn't hurt Apple (they make money and it doesn't crash the store or phone). It doesn't hurt the consumer - they should know what they buy and at the very least a disclaimer, oh wait they have feedback so you CAN know what you are buying and what people think of it.
 
It seems that whenever an app comes along that duplicates the function of another piece of Apple written software, it is rejected, regardless of how much more functional the other software is. There is quite a few flaws with the current Mail app. Actually a lot when I think about it. Simply lying and saying that the application is too complicated is complete ******** and is not a reason for the application to be rejected.

The application that allowed you to download Podcasts on the go was a great idea but since Apple, in all of their greatness, decided to make it so that you had to actually go home, download the podcast on your PC then sync it to your phone which could take up to 15 minutes. 15 minutes of the day wasted just because Apple decided to be a complete Jackass.

I hope Android bursts Apple's bubble a bit. Thankfully we have some guys out there who have been jailbreaking the iPhone for us so that we can have the apps that don't make it to the app store. :D
 
I don't like the trend. I hope Apple makes their guidelines more clear, more consistently implemented, and hopefully less restrictive!
 
What happened to the old days when Apple allowed developers to create whatever they wanted, waited until they had a stable product, then stole the idea and incorporated it into the OS? How does Apple expect to get any new ideas for features?

Watson --> Sherlock
Konfabulator --> Dashboard
hacked EFI --> Bootcamp
 
sgibson said:
I was actually surprised it was rejected for duplicating Mail and not Safari.

"my app is simply directly loading and showing Gmail inside of an application."

By that it sounds like all the app does is displays gmail in a Safari control and adds on some password remembering.

It was also rejected for being incomplete - the only way to get access to a gmail account if you changed the password was to delete the account information in the app and start again from scratch.

I don't agree with some of Apple's decisions (I know the guys that made Murderdrome) but in this case it sounds like the app really didn't do anything that couldn't be done in Mail or Safari already AND wasn't in a finished state.
Click to expand...


I agree. All he did was embed Safari in an app and call it something else.

I'm not sure why you would need additional password remembering. I don't ever have to log into any Google apps from my phone. If you tell it to save it, it does. I guess if you clear your cookies it would be gone, but I don't do that very often on my phone.

Just stick a home icon pointing to the mobile version of the Google app you want. I've got reader, news and docs...the Gmail app is solid too. And they even have a bar at the top to switch between them.

This guy just stuck that in another app that you install and said it was something new.

I don't agree with some of the recent rejections, but I can agree with Apple on this one.
 
That's still as much effort as went into a lot of the junk in the store. How long did it take to write those torch apps? 15 minutes? 10? I'd almost bet a paycheck that it took longer to sign them than it took to write them. What makes this any different? Apple doesn't like it. That's it. I have no doubt that Apple will wake up at some point and realize that throwing out apps for meaningless reasons has hurt them. The real question is when that happens, is anyone going to give a ****? I've gone back to writing for other platforms because why bother? Apple has little idea of what it's doing, the "approved" interface is an immature mess and, if you can believe the store rating thing, all users want to do is whine about how everything isn't free. So screw 'em all. RIM has three times the market share and Symbian three times that. If you're going to be stuck with a crappy OS and SDK, may as well make it worth your while.
 
megfilmworks said:
IMHO that will never happen.
Android will never appeal to the masses, just a small group of hobbyists and kids.
Click to expand...

So, by your analogy, you must think I'm either a hobbyist or a kid? Get a life. Seriously.

Back on topic...

I don't think anyone is disputing that Apple "has the right" to reject MailWrangler (and Podcaster). I think what some of you fail to understand is our feelings that it just isn't right.

Sorry, but imho, the duplication excuse is just that: AN EXCUSE.

There are literally HUNDREDS of calculator apps, weather apps and the like. For those of you defending Apple, please explain to me why Apple didn't reject those calculator apps and weather apps? Secondly, Steve Jobs HIMSELF says that it's ok for a developer to create a VOIP app for the iPhone as long as it doesn't use 3G or EDGE wireless networks. Here's the problem though: IT DUPLICATES THE PHONE APP.

Isn't the Phone app the CENTRAL app to the Jesus Phone?

See the problem?

Finally, I suggest EVERYONE to take some time out and read Wil Shipley's (Delicious Library developer) view on this. Hopefully, the apologists will start understanding our point of view. Maybe.

http://wilshipley.com/blog/2008/09/iphone-app-store-let-market-decide.html
 
If Microsoft was sued numerous times for embedding IE or Windows Media Player in Windows, I don't see why Apple can't be sued for such practices. As a consumer I should have the right to choose whichever application I find appropriate. And I should have an alternative to Apple's apps if I find a new application that works better and is easier to use. If someone writes a whole new browser that works better than Safari, I want to be able to use that, and I don't want Apple to remove it because they feel the competition breathing down their necks. This is a textbook example of anti-competitive practice.

Writing software is rarely child's play, companies invest a huge deal of time and money in developing it. Imagine working 6 months and investing money in an App and Apple removing it for whatever reason. They should not be allowed to do such things.
 
megfilmworks said:
What analogy?
I made a statement of opinion.
I have a life and yes I'm serious.
Click to expand...

For you to make such a broad generalization. No, you don't have a life, and no I don't take you seriously.

Step away from the kool-aid, take down the shrine to Apple, and start opening your eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back