How Apple took nine weeks to arbitrarily reject our app

http://blog.forumwarz.com/2011/02/01/irejected-how-apple-took-nine-weeks-to-arbitrarily-reject-our-app/

by EvilTrout • 15 years ago

35 34 15 years ago

blog.forumwarz.com

mc322• 15 years ago

Their own pre-emptive attempt at exculpation "So you’re upset that Apple wouldn’t approve your money-grubbing stupid idea?" is pretty much my sentiment.

Come back when you have a legit gripe. Just because others get away with something is no reason you should get away with same. "Hey, officer, I saw other people speeding too and you didn't cite them, not fair!"

EvilTrout2• 15 years ago

We weren't upset because other people got away with something. In fact, I don't think anyone has created a remotely similar app.

We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist.

Moreover, it shows they clearly have no sense of humor.

fookyong• 15 years ago

Isn't this basically covered in every legal agreement since time began?

"Apple reserves the right to refuse..."

I'll bet there's a line in the developer agreement to that effect. A catch-all defense used at times like this. Shouldn't come as any surprise.

mc322• 15 years ago

Hmm, ok. I think you actually compared yourself to happy-fart or something, but whatever.

In any event, it's as if you would deny them "learning". I would refer to any legal code. You can observe it change with time in order to adjust to behavior, attitudes, mores, technology, etc.

Imagine the crime boss "Hey, IRS (the US tax board), that was legal last year, how come you took away my loophole?" Now, granted, the IRS has to go thru a process to implement code changes, but this is an analogy to illustrate that codification requires change over time.

It'd be shortsighted to want to limit the change regimen from ad hoc to periodic, for your convenience.

Sense of humor; is that even germane to anything? Would it have been better if they had cited some cells from xkcd?

eps• 15 years ago

I'm sure you would get a laugh every time someone buys an upgrade, but that hardly qualifies as a humour.

darren_• 15 years ago

  > We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist.

"We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn't do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted."

Seems pretty clear to me, unless you're wanting to be pedantic about 'some form of lasting entertainment'. Their bar for this is obviously incredibly low, but you managed to shimmy under it while grinding an axe at the same time. Well done.

loewenskind2• 15 years ago

>We were upset because it demonstrates that Apple can effectively make up reasons to block your app when none previously exist.

That's just good sense. They try to set up the rules as best they can, then some joker comes up with a way to do something that isn't in line with the spirit of the platform but not explicitly forbidden (you can't think of everything). Of course I would expect them to close the loophole at that point and protect the overall environment of the site rather then say "well, this breaks everything but we're so inflexible that we can't fix rules after the fact".

asknemo• 15 years ago

I doubt this is the point of the article. To me it is about rejections with no grounds on violation of any specific rules involved. It's about the ambiguity, or the lack of meaning thereof, in the "rules" itself.

adharmad• 15 years ago

The perils of the walled garden: Apple can take their ball and go away anytime.

wankerrific• 15 years ago

I think the reason this got rejected was the fact that it has commercially dubious aspects to it which would probably have lead to several customer care complaints to Apple, had Apple accepted it and published it.

I don't think the "joke" aspect has anything to do with it. We recently had a joke app published on the app store with no problems at all. In fact the first submission of the app came after the rule clarifications they did (last Sept? Oct?). Of course the humor(?) in our app doesn't revolve around ripping people off ("Ha ha...you bought our in-app purchase. Jokes on you!").

I'm actually a little sorry I clicked the original article link. It sounds like they spent two days on something with the specific purpose of getting some publicity around a rejection. Mission accomplished, I guess.

ebaysucks2• 15 years ago

I LOVE the idea behind this app!

If released, there's a small chance it could become a running joke, especially if you'd promise to donate 50% of profits to charity or something. (Maybe iDonate would be accepted?)

terinjokes2• 15 years ago

Although I see the cheese of sarcasm in your statement, but AFAIK, official Apple App Store policy (this time, written down), is that you can't have a "donation" application. Which is why you don't see a "Give to the American Red Cross" or what have you application.

ebaysucks2• 15 years ago

I didn't know about the no-donations policy, thanks.

I also really meant what I said about a donations game, it would work in a society where everybody wants the world to know about the good things they do in private.

bkaid2• 15 years ago

Its true that you can't have an in-app donation process but you can have the user fill out their information and have them press a donate button that opens up a Safari window to process the actual credit card transaction.

ireadzalot• 15 years ago

Didn't Apple say something along the line of "No more fart apps anymore" when they updated their App store approval guidelines last time around?

pagliara• 15 years ago

The idea was worth the try, but I'm not surprised it was rejected.

As an iOS developer myself, I respect Apple's power to police the app store as they see fit. It's their platform and they have every right to set the precedent on what content is allowable. Approving your app would spawn numerous clones and obviously Apple doesn't agree with your utilization of in-app purchases.

Dylanlacey• 15 years ago

Yes, how dare you draw attention to how people spend realmonies for digital goods with basically no replication costs.

Cough. Time to go listen to some MP3's, maybe buy a copy of a free-to-air show I've already seen.

solipsist2• 15 years ago

> Even if your App is built in accordance to every policy, Apple can still reject it.

I think we reached this conclusion a while back. While many developers may consider it unfair, I should point out that I have never seen a non-gimmicky, high-quality, and polished app face this same predicament of arbitrarily getting rejected. These types of things just don't happen to those stellar apps that have been through a long development process (unlike the one mentioned in this article).

The truth is that arbitrary rejections aren't so arbitrary. You won't see an app like Doodle Jump be rejected, but you may see it happen to a fart app. While Apple doesn't necessarily point out the particular reasons of a rejection every time, most of us can agree that there is a clear distinction between those that are arbitrarily rejected and those that aren't. This goes to show that there is some reasoning behind Apple's decisions.

People need to realize this and understand that there is probably a pretty good reason why their app got rejected - even if Apple doesn't point it out for them.

terinjokes2• 15 years ago

> I should point out that I have never seen a non-gimmicky, high-quality, and polished app face this same predicament of arbitrarily getting rejected.

Walk over here with me, and I can introduce you to the fine folks at a small company called "Sony"

xuki• 15 years ago

Dude, their app violates App Store's policies.

ghshephard• 15 years ago

"arbitrarily" - Anybody like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, WSJ realizes that selling content on the iPad platform (now that the platform is popular) is going to require them to play ball with Apple.

solipsist2• 15 years ago

I had predicted ahead of time that someone would try to argue with that bold statement of mine. However, you have looked over that key word, "arbitrarily". Apple has justification for the rejection. Hence, it is not arbitrary.

If someone finds a high-quality and useful app that was rejected with no explanation whatsoever, let me know.

kbutler2• 15 years ago

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/03/developer-inves/

"FreedomVoice has so far invested $600,000 and more than half a year in the app."

http://www.mynewber.com/ - they waited 465 days for approval from Apple, no communication, finally gave up.

"It’s an app that effectively turns your iPhone into a second phone line by utilizing the handset’s geographic awareness to move calls between devices"

This is much longer & much more invested and a more serious app than my own first experience (almost 8 months of silence, then rejected because they "weren't accepting any apps with political content" http://handyapp.com/2009/12/and-the-verdict-is/ http://handyapp.com/askobama/).

I have since had better experiences in the AppStore, including an astonishing under 24 hour approval...followed by a couple-of-week approval (http://handyapp.com/merit-badges/)

gte910h• 15 years ago

4 months in queue with repeated changes on how to get in compliance then apple backtracking and banning the app's core functionality in all apps in the store and rejecting it.

I have seen it. Moderate 5 figures.

SoftwareMaven• 15 years ago

Luckily, there is a great alternative out there selling just as well as iOS.

bkaid2• 15 years ago

That users spend a fraction of the money on. Which would render this game irrelevant - if it had any relevance to begin with.

jokermatt999• 15 years ago

A fraction of the money is still more than zero. Android may not pay out well, but iOS is a gamble as to whether you'll even get to sell your app.

jbanko• 15 years ago

So you’re upset that Apple wouldn’t approve your money-grubbing stupid idea? Give me a break.

kbutler2• 15 years ago

This was a made-to-be-rejected-and-whined-about app:

"We built an iPhone game in just under two days and submitted it to Apple for approval. The concept was a little iffy, but we figured it was worth the gamble. If nothing else, it could attract some attention to our web RPG, Forumwarz."

Mission...accomplished.

For what it's worth, anyone reading the introduction to the 9/2010 app store guidelines would expect the rejection:

http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/app-store-guide...

* We have over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don't need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn't do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted

* If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your ﬁrst practice App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour.

* If your app is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.

cheald• 15 years ago

While I can buy that, it's still a little ludicrous that it took nine weeks for them to say "Remove this and it's okay, no, wait, nevermind, banleeted." You'd think that if it was as cut and dried as "We don't need any more fart apps" that you could reject it with about 45 seconds of review.

nickpp• 15 years ago

I don't know about you, but I am glad that POS "app" got rejected. There is enough crap out there already.

How Apple took nine weeks to arbitrarily reject our app

Related Stories