

Rogue Amoeba abandons iPhone because of App Store approval insanity - jws
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/13/airfoil-speakers-touch-1-0-1-finally-ships/

======
andrewljohnson
I particularly object to Apple rejecting apps for "pre-existing conditions."

I have had two apps get randomly rejected for things that had existed for
several versions. I blogged about this a bit:
[http://www.gaiagps.com/news/article/Update%20on%20Gaia%20GPS...](http://www.gaiagps.com/news/article/Update%20on%20Gaia%20GPS%20Releases)

This is just bad for everyone involved. Apple could just say "fix it next time
or we will reject you" rather than throwing a wrench into my operations.

Oh well... I'm going to keep developing iPhone apps and hope things improve.

~~~
megaduck
You're a far more tolerant man than I. The fact that Apple is preventing you
from _supporting your customers_ is inexcusable.

These kinds of issues can be extremely hurtful to an ISV. I wonder if upper
management at Apple knows how much damage they're doing to their reputation in
the developer community.

~~~
smokey_the_bear
It's true that it is extremely painful to watch emails and bad reviews come in
complaining about a bug that you fixed weeks ago when Apple is blocking you
from getting the fix out there. On the other hand, we make money off the app
store, and we didn't off of our website. So it's a little easier to be
tolerant.

------
skullsplitter
I think the essential point is this,

"There’s a bigger story here, however. _It’s one that’s been told before, but
until things change, it needs to keep being told_. Simply put, the App Store
is broken."

~~~
there
_It’s one that’s been told before, but until things change, it needs to keep
being told._

no, iphone developers need to take more drastic action to boycott apple's
actions than just "telling" the story.

apple needs developers to keep the app store and platform popular and, so far,
all of the big developers are singing their tune and continuing to publish new
apps and updates, even if they are complaining on their weblogs.

i think if the top iphone developers got together and had the petitioned
support of dozens or hundreds of smaller developers, and took some serious
action like going to apple headquarters and sitting down with those in charge,
they could work to change things.

~~~
mattmaroon
Two problems.

#1 The biggest developers don't deal with this. You really think EA has to put
up with this crap? The Google Voice thing was a highly publicized fiasco, but
I'd be willing to bet that sort of treatment of other publicly-traded
companies is rare, and even that story probably has much more behind it than
we know.

#2. There's so much money to be made that if half the small developers quit,
the rest will simply fill the void. It's the same game theory concept that
ensures the tuna will be fished into extinction. It would be in everyone's
long term best interest to band together and make Apple fix their policies,
but in each individual's short term interest to take the money and run.

*Totally did not notice when I said that that the very next article on the list was about the extinction of the Bluefin Tuna. Scary.

~~~
rjurney
Probably not a coincidence. There's noticing, and then there's noticing ;)

~~~
mattmaroon
Actually my thought was more along the game theoretical lines than that
article. The Bluefin Tuna is screwed because each country's long-term
incentive is to sustain its population and severely curtail fishing. Unless
every country but one does that, of course, leaving the country that crosses
the picket line to make billions of dollars at the expense of the others.

------
drewcrawford
I've had similar things happen to me (not quite this egregious, but still
pretty bad). I haven't been shipping updates for some of my existing apps
because Apple won't let me keep existing functionality.

Considering doing Android ports, but there's not (yet) enough money in it, and
the software stack is quite a bit crappier IMHO.

~~~
andreyf
_I haven't been shipping updates for some of my existing apps because Apple
won't let me keep existing functionality._

This happened to a product I was working with, as well (albeit with trivial
functionality we had no trouble taking out). The logic is extremely silly,
indeed.

~~~
drewcrawford
It always seems very theoretical and anomalous and far away until it invades
_your_ project and affects _you_.

For every one of these blog posts I see, I wonder how many developers are out
there who just gave up in silence.

------
mark_h
Gruber's commentary: [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/11/13/app-store-
rogue-...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/11/13/app-store-rogue-amoeba)

<http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation>

The first is basically just the RA release, but the second is his analysis (or
refutation of someone's defense of Apple, more accurately).

------
Keyframe
I don't see a way to improve this situation. However I can draw a parallel
with console market. In order to publish a game for a console, there is bar to
entry on SDK price alone and then there is an approval process. If approval
process is relaxed, there is a "Seal of quality" attached from the console
manufacturer for good content, and people are somewhat educated to look out
for that kind of content.

Apple couldn't charge for SDK at this stage, and if they did it would have to
be something like XNA Creators Club. They could streamline/relax approval
process and introduce Seal of quality type of content approval where
applications longing for that status would go through a more rigorous process.
Kind of like Microsoft has for Windows applications (I forgot the naming for
those kind of apps).

------
wmeredith
Wow. The iPhone platform is losing a lot of talented (go Rogue Amoeba! I love
those guys) developers here lately. I wish Apple would fix this.

------
jeroen
Interesting link from the comments:
[http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/rogue-
amoeba.h...](http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/rogue-amoeba.html)

~~~
allenbrunson
i agree with most of that. apple wasn't an angel in this situation, but rogue
amoeba made the whole thing far worse by being petulant.

------
inc
Does anyone know if large developers get any sort of special treatment with
submissions? It's hard to imagine that they'd make EA or Disney wait 14+ days
in between app submissions.

~~~
antonovka
Yes -- Apple makes direct review contacts available to larger companies,
permits them to break certain portions of the SDK agreement, and provides
assistance and status information while navigating the (much more friendly)
review process.

They also provide leg-ups by negotiating feature of their applications, etc.

~~~
Agent101
Maybe a bunch of the smaller app developers need to get together and form a
large umbrella organization (that they are all share holders in) to get the
better treatment.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
It's called a union.

------
natch
People, it's not that difficult. You do not include Apple icons, Apple, logos,
screen shots (edit: or pictures) of Apple products, Apple trademarks, other
trademarks... OK, it sounds like a long list, but it's really not that bad.

You can blame Apple, but part of the blame also has to go to trademark law,
which requires them to do this in order to protect their valuable trademarks.
Yes, there are other issues besides trademark issues for which the App Store
rejects things, but it's amazing how many stories about this boil down to
someone not having read the Apple guidelines, or having read them but not
believed them.

Even Android has rules relating to trademarks:

<http://www.android.com/branding.html>

Edit 2: I've read the RA "refutation" of Lamarche, and it is close to
delusional with its implication that a screen shot could not be considered a
trademark infringement. The matter is totally open to interpretation, but that
is not the point. The important thing is that any company, including Apple, is
required to take the strict interpretation if they want to do the best job of
protecting their trademarks under the law.

~~~
octover
By that logic then all VNC clients and webviews are in violation. I can use a
VNC client to connect to my Mac, see the screen including Dock with Safari and
other Apple icons. Any webview is capable of pulling over the network
apple.com which contains a plethora of Apple icons, logos, screenshots and
pictures of products.

~~~
natch
That's an interesting take on it. VNC, maybe, especially if it's sold by using
screen shots that show the Apple desktop. Web browser / webview, even Apple
probably wouldn't push it that far, although when you're hiring low wage
workers to review essentially the entire potential universe of content, there
are bound to be some overzealous interpretations.

------
voidpointer
The public API they are referring to is a Mac OS X API. They assert that it is
alright to transfer the image provided by that API to another device and
display it there. This may or may not be the case but in my opinion, the
argument could be a non sequitur. Just because one system provides you the
means of getting a certain bitmap does not automatically entitle you to use
that bitmap somewhere else.

It's silly that Apple accepted it before and refuses the bug-fix release. And
RA is right to be mad at them for that. However, for me the "it's a public API
on the Mac so we are allowed to use the bitmap returned by that function on
the iphone" -argument does not hold.

~~~
dchest
While this is not a legal document, NSImage class docs have the following text
for some constants:

 _Images representing standard artwork and icons that you can use in your
applications_

 _Drag images you can use in your applications._

 _Images representing sharing permission icons that you can use in your
applications._

[http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/R...](http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/ApplicationKit/Classes/NSImage_Class/Reference/Reference.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20000344-SW84)

However, _NSImageNameComputer_ , which Rogue Amoeba uses, doesn't have "you
can use in your applications":

 _Images representing Finder items._

Though, it has the following text:

 _You should use these images to reflect specific elements of the Mac OS X
environment. For example, you might use the burnable folder icon if your
software allows the user to organize content for burning onto an optical disk.
The appearance of images can change between releases. If you use an image for
its intended purpose (and not because of how it looks), your code should look
correct from release to release._

Does Rogue Amoeba use these images _to reflect specific elements of the Mac OS
X environment_? I guess so.

~~~
voidpointer
_"Does Rogue Amoeba use these images to reflect specific elements of the Mac
OS X environment? I guess so."_

I would agree they do, but them they don't do it _in_ the Mac OS X environment
but using it on the iphone... (Apple managed to create such a seamless
integration of the environments that even seasoned developers are getting
confused)

It feels very silly to argue about user experience matters like they were laws
- but that seems to be where those lawyers are getting us :(

What if they took (or bought) a photograph of an imac etc. by themselves
(maybe remove the apple logo as is normally done in stock photography in order
not to infringe on trademarks) wouldn't that have been the most customer
serving move on RA's part?

------
jsz0
If Apple has no intentions of changing the App Store model and will retain
control indefinitely I think they need to monazite the App Store approval
process to prioritize their resource and weed out some of the frivolous apps
that clog up the que. There should be an option for a full level of support
including an account manager who can intermediate disputes and work with
developers throughout the whole process closely on approval issues and future
maintenance releases. It would be good to offer a lower tier of support for
indie/hobby developers for a much smaller premium. Something on a per app
basis that would allow them to cut ahead of the pack.

------
pkulak
Is the Android store any better? Do they just let anything in that people
submit?

~~~
jsz0
The Android store has its own set of problems.

People are releasing updates constantly just to get to the top of the list for
new releases. Once you install apps you're constantly bombarded with updates
that seemingly change or fix nothing. (because they don't, it's a marketing
ploy) There's apparently no way to filter different languages out so I have to
hunt through a list of apps with titles in languages. Apps have compatibility
problems. The Market is littered with non-sense like "pre-CupCake edition"
"Eclair edition" and "DOES NOT WORK WITH _insert handset name here_ " Some
apps just crash on startup. Some apps don't support virtual keyboards. I
downloaded a random system monitor app that said every possible value like
RAM/CPU was NULL. Compatibility is a problem. Some apps install services that
cause other apps to work differently. For example I installed some random file
manager that caused the photo app to take an extremely long time to startup.
Removed it and all was well again.

There's no real easy way to UNINSTALL apps. You have to go to a list that
includes everything including system components like
com.something.blah.something. The Market doesn't support screenshots? or
developers simply don't upload them? App naming is very inconsistent. One app
might be AMAZING APP, another might be Amazing App, another might be Amazing
App 1.0 Pre-Cupcake. Makes your program list a bit difficult to navigate. Apps
can pollute your application list. I have something called UIServer-something
or another in my programs list -- when I run it nothing happens. No clue what
it is but it sounds important so I don't really want to remove it either.

So yeah... the grass isn't always greener. It's shaping up to be another Mac
vs. PC thing where you can probably do more exotic things on the PC (Android
in this case) but you pay a price for it with added complexity. The iPhone
will offer a more seamless experience but you have to play by Apple's rules.

~~~
natch
Cupcake? What's that?

~~~
vetinari
Codename for specific version.

Android 1.5 = Cupcake

Android 1.6 = Donut

Android 2.0 = Eclair

------
Wump
The other point here is that Rogue Amoeba's frustration and ultimate response
was exacerbated by the process, not just the result. The process was marred by
vague, unresponsive communication, insanely long wait times, and
inconsistency.

If this whole back and forth between RA and Apple had taken a week instead of
almost 4 months, their response probably would have been very different. They
probably wouldn't have left the platform. The process is broken, and it makes
things worse for both developers and users.

------
padmanabhan01
From a pure business perspective, who is losing out here?

I mean, a web developer may hate IE, but what would be the outcome if he
designs the site as firefox/safari alone. or a software developer for that
matter with windows.

If the project is a hobby, sure. anything and everything goes. But what about
the business perspective?

~~~
whopa
Blackberry is the #1 smartphone, yet the app ecosystem there is pretty dismal.
Clearly there is another dynamic at work there, and pure installed base isn't
as compelling a factor as it seems. One reason could be that the Blackberry
platform is absolutely horrible to develop on.

~~~
nearestneighbor
Why is it horrible? Do they have anything similar to the App Store, btw?

~~~
whopa
They have the Blackberry App World.

It's horrible because the platform views the web as an afterthought, so there
are no modern APIs for dealing with it. The Java version is ancient as well,
and you have ridiculously small system limitations, like number of open files
and such. I could go on, it's so bad it's almost comical.

This is why there isn't a really healthy app ecosystem, only people who are
paid enough by their employers to offset the pain develop apps, or people just
pay Blackberry itself to develop something for them.

------
shimi
Its all a fab.

A year ago engineers and corporates around the world made sure they have an
iPhone app no matter the expense, and now everyone start to abandon the idea.

~~~
lutorm
You mean a fad? fab = fabrication? That doesn't make sense to me.

------
trezor
I can see Apple's point about not wanting anyone else to infringe on their
trademarks and representing their application like anything officially from
Apple. I can see that. That is one hundred percent reasonable.

However when Apple demands that you explicitly write code in your software to
detect if any bits or bytes you push to the iPhone screen originates from
Apple somewhere and block that, that is something completely different.

If that is the line they require people to follow, the following is a list of
applications I can see requiring rewriting to follow the guidelines: VNC, Web-
browsers, picture viewers, feed-readers, audio players displaying artwork.
Basically any application displaying anything from any network source, maybe
even local sources. Heck, any application displaying any bitmaps at all.

If Apple indeed thinks this is a reasonable line of thought and expect
everyone to follow it, they should provide a public API to ease the burdons of
the developers. They could make a function like
_NSContainsAppleTrademarkedComponents_ and require all applications to use
that.

To really make things easier, they could redo some parts of the API, like
making a _NSShowBitmapAppleOnly_ function which actually displays a bitmap,
and a function available to the general public called _NSShowBitmap_ which
automatically invoked and checked via _NSContainsAppleTrademarkedComponents_.

Somehow I suspect that Apple understands that this is an impossible task, a
stupid thing to check for, and that they will in no way be willing to write
the code to make this happen, no matter the size of the company and resources
they have available.

Yet somehow they expect any small developer to do this.

Apple is definitely the worst control freak out there, restricting absolutely
anything they can restrict, and yet people still say Microsoft, with their
relatively open and reasonably well documented AIPs (there are horrible
exceptions and yes I know), that with all this evidence to the contrary that
Microsoft is the bad guys.

I just don't get it. I don't own an Apple computer, just an iPhone, so maybe I
lack the essential hardware required for absolute self delusion.

If the way of Apple is the way of the future, I don't want a part of it. When
I develop stuff, for a mobile platform or not, you can be sure Apple won't be
on the list of supported platforms.

