

Apple now rejecting iPhone Apps for "limited utility." - tstegart
http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/09/04/apple-rejecting-applications-based-on-limited-utility/

======
tstegart
I think its a huge mistake. They could have taken care of the problem of tiny,
silly apps with another method, like creating a separate category or revamping
their review system. Instead they opened up a can of worms by creating a new
category of unwanted "limited utility" apps, yet they still haven't published
formal guidelines on what is or is not "limited utility." Now they've got a
giant developer relations mess.

------
irinotecan
No doubt this is in response to the "I am Rich" app, which technically could
not be rejected on fraudulent grounds since the description stated it did
absolutely nothing.

Yes, I know Apple pulled it anyway, but they potentially set themselves up for
a lawsuit by some other scumbag down the road if they don't find a way to
cover themselves for pulling down apps that are technically legal, but are
solely designed to "fool the gullible".

~~~
jcl
I'd be shocked if the terms and conditions for using the App Store didn't
already contain something like: "We reserve the right to pull your app for any
reason including (but not limited to) Steve waking up in a bad mood."

I'm sure Apple's decision was inspired by "I am Rich" -- but for publicity
reasons, not legal ones.

------
lallysingh
What I don't like about the policy is how it changes the risk equation for
developers. How do you see if Apple will "get" your app without spending the
full $$ on developing it?

Will developers go into any real risk in developing for the iPhone, or will
they just abort the attempt?

~~~
briansmith
Submit a prototype under a different application name. Then, pull the
prototype after it has been approved and after a few people have tried it. You
can also experiment with pricing this way.

~~~
cosmo7
To extend your idea, you could murder existing users when you want to change
your price points.

------
t0pj
I guess this makes the App Store of limited capability as well.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_>(media)

 _"A walled garden, with regards to media content, refers to a closed set or
exclusive set of information services provided for users (a method of creating
a monopoly or securing an information system)."_

This is Apple's system, not yours. No surprise here.

 _(Notice how the parenthesized "media" within the url is not included within
the link?)_

~~~
silentbicycle
You need to link to it as
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_%28media%29> ; those are the hex
ascii codes for the parens.

------
thomasmallen
Android, here I come. Apple's alienated curious developers, but is bringing in
the money-grubbers like there's no tomorrow. Not my crowd.

~~~
lallysingh
That's hardly fair. Give Google a chance to alienate developers as well! :-)

------
h34t
"We have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad
iPhone and iPod touch user community, and will not be published to the App
Store."

That's like Amazon saying "we won't sell your book, because it isn't of
interest to the broad Amazon.com customer community."

They need to do _something_ with the App Store so that it _feeds_ off the
"long tail" instead of fighting against it. (UI improvements? try-before-you-
buy? some other browsing/search/tryout enhancements?)

~~~
tptacek
Apple never promised to publish every application. Books are not a platform
Amazon owns.

~~~
tstegart
No, but they kinda put out the welcome sign, proudly touted their "60 Million
Apps Downloaded!" statistic, and now they're saying, "thanks, you've done your
job now go away."

------
statictype
Why is anyone surprised by this? It was remarkably clear from the beginning
that Apple wants full control over what gets sold in the App Store.

I'm surprised that they've even allowed as many apps as they have.

------
ashu
Welcome to the App Store. A free market-place! Where only the anointed few
will compete.

~~~
byrneseyeview
Few?

~~~
SwellJoe
Yes. Though he should have said, "very few". Have you looked at the Internet
lately? Now _that_ is a big selection of software developers.

------
durana
I wonder if this message from Apple is actually real. I did a quick Google
search for other instances "limited utility" rejections and didn't find any.
There's been plenty of instances of fake controversial legal threats/rejection
letters/complaints that have been used to drive traffic or create a buzz about
something. If this is fake, I don't see how this person will really cash in on
the buzz though.

------
geuis
I know its a contrary opinion to what most commenters will have, but I'm glad
this app didn't get approved. Apple is apparently responding to the very
frequent complaints of useless apps filling up the App Store. What we are
seeing is a pendulum, where they swing back and forth with the policies for
app acceptance until they settle somewhere in the middle that works best for
everyone.

Like many other people, I kept my 1st gen iPhone jailbroken from the day I
bought it. I absolutely loved Installer.app and the huge community of
developers and their applications that I had access to. A lot of the apps in
Installer.app were pretty worthless though, or had little utility. They
frequently cluttered up the categories of things that I really wanted to
review.

However, it was much harder for developers to create jailbroken apps than it
is now with the official SDK. This caused the overall number of available apps
to be much smaller than what we have available through the official channel.
If Apple were to not attempt to manage all of the apps that people are
submitting, it would quickly become nearly impossible to find anything useful.
That would also open up the possibility of nefarious apps that are trying to
get your personal info, etc.

However, so that I don't sound like a complete Apple flunky, I also admit the
App Store on iTunes and on the iPhone itself has a lot to be desired. There
are interface issues which annoy me (like navigating into an app description,
going back to the category but being at the freaking top of the list instead
of where the app appears in the list). They need to improve the App Store
application itself. It would be really great if someone could write a _new_
App Store as a 3rd party app that would interface and manage all of the apps
you have access to. This most certainly could be done on the old jailbroken
systems using something like Summerboard.

~~~
tstegart
But a lot of the problems you mention, like "cluttering" and "impossible to
find anything" are really problems with the App Store, not the apps. iTunes,
after all, has millions of songs, and there doesn't seem to be a clutter
problem there. Apple doesn't tell musicians, "don't make crappy music," or
"you song is of limited musical appeal."

The nefarious apps argument is not really valid, because the number of apps on
the Apps Store has, or will very soon, exceed the number of things humans can
keep track of anyways, so even if crap apps are eliminated, there will still
be too many apps to keep track of.

This is really a problem of taste, and Apple has messed up here. Some people
like silly apps, just like some people like really bad music. The solution is
not to insert yourself into the middle and become an arbiter of taste, the
solution is to make it easier for the crowd to sort the good from the bad and
let each app appeal to its niche while not eliminating innovation or
silliness.

~~~
Angostura
"Apple doesn't tell musicians, "don't make crappy music," or "you song is of
limited musical appeal."

You're right - Apple relies on music publishers to do that for them. The
analogy between music store and appstore is not exact.

~~~
tjr
Except, Apple doesn't restrict itself to only music from formal publishers.
I've got a couple of albums on the iTunes store, and I don't have a contract
with anyone...

~~~
tstegart
Not to mention music publishers don't do a great job in this role of theirs
you say they have, since there's still lots of crappy music out there.
However, I doubt music publishers actually care, since having a crappy song in
iTunes can still make you more money than NOT having a crappy song in iTunes.
And who knows, someone might like it.

The last time I checked, "Silence" by Guster was still on iTunes. If that
isn't the functional equivalent of a "limited utility" app then I don't know
what is. But its there, I'm even sure a Guster fan has bought it. The fact is,
Apple can do a lot of things about limited utility apps without shutting them
down completely.

------
greenagain
Well that's no big surprise. Nullriver's NetShare already was rejected for
limitless utility.

------
dejb
This is what you get when you have a closed, totalitarian system. I've said it
before and I'll say it again - Steve Jobs makes Bill Gates look like Richard
Stallman.

------
callmeed
This does not bode well for my $.99 whoopee cushion app which is almost done
(serious) ... crud

------
raghus
Are the 'inline' comments on the YT video new to YT - or some Omnisio
integration?

------
dbreunig
Guys: we need a better test-case than "Pull My Finger."

