Filed under: Bad Apple, iPhone, App Store
Rejection: Apple hates (certain) books and whistling
It seems like only yesterday Apple was surprising us with its App Store rejection antics. You'll recall that just last Monday, Apple was seen flaunting its control over the App Store by rejecting a remote-control client for the BitTorrent desktop application "Transmission" called "Drivetrain." Of interesting note in that case is that there is a web version of this application that I have on my iPhone's home screen.Today we received word of an application called Eucalyptus that provided access to free-for-all books from Project Gutenberg. John Gruber over at Daring Fireball writes,
"Eucalyptus has been rejected by Apple, for the absolutely outrageous reason that one of the books you can search for and download from Gutenberg is Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana. Not only can anyone load and read this exact same book on any iPhone using MobileSafari, but it's also available through other e-book readers already in the App Store."In both the Drivetrain and Eucalyptus cases it seems that Apple is playing favorites in terms of who it will let violate its rules. The strange thing though, is that both of these applications' functionality can be accomplished from within MobileSafari. Clearly Apple wants MobileSafari to be your only access to any
Before you get out your pitchforks however, there's more. If you have an application that has been approved twice, then guess what, the third time's the charm for you because you can expect the rejection hammer to come a'knockin'. At least that's the case for Yaniv Solnik's application "IsraelParty." When Yaniv submitted his app to resolve some routine bug fixes apparently the App Store royal guards decided they didn't like his marketing description of the application. The phrase that was so offensive as to warrant a rejection of an already-existing app that had been approved twice before? Adult content ahead, "Blow your iPhone's microphone to whistle."
Perhaps someone at Apple is bothered by the fact that they are not able to whistle themselves or perhaps they simply do not like the idea of an application that celebrates Israel's independence day. In any event the rejection is simply ludicrous; it brings me back to the late 90s when the over-zealous language filters in chat rooms would filter the phrase "the wind blows."
The clause that Apple cites in these cases refers to Apple's "reasonable judgment" (full text here). However, in my opinion, they are taking on a more overbearing role than they should. Not to say that I disagree with a filter on the App Store, on the contrary, I think a well-defined filter is absolutely necessary.
Because of Apple's unwillingness to firmly define and enforce the rules, I believe Apple is opening itself up to a "bag of hurt" by being the police of App Store city. It will not be long before advocacy groups will want Apple to provide the same filtering for Apple's own applications. I do not believe Apple wants to be in the business of filtering the web or our email, but by filtering applications based on availability of "inappropriate" content they are quickly headed down that path.
Hat tip to Peachfuzzy and Yaniv for the scoop.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ryan said 6:42PM on 5-21-2009
I agree, Apple needs to begin defining clear terms on what is and is not allowed. At a minimum it is unfair, The Eucalyptus blog not only mentions Mobile Safari but also that "Classics" has access to the same material and has been approved. And at a maximum it is going to begin driving developers away.
If Apple is going to retain the right to arbitrarily reject applications, developers are going to begin looking elsewhere for a platform that does not run the risk of unpredictable rejection after a lot of investment. It's slowly becoming a gamble, fart apps make it in, baby shakers make it in, but this gets rejected.
If Apple keeps this up we might end up left with an app store full of flashlights flatulence jokes.
Reply
eMax said 3:08PM on 5-23-2009
This is 100% cause of a "call center" type of app approval process. There are no "favorites" there is just inconsistencies.
I am sure the reason some apps get rejected and others get approved is just because one person is letting them through and another person is not.
Apple probably has a team of people sitting in front of their computers and they get notified when a new app gets sent into a "pool" and each person just takes from the pool and works through them throughout the day.
Many companies have the same type of operation for high volume processing, like 401k & insurance processing.
unfortunately this is just poor quality control and leading to poor PR and service from Apple.
crazypenguin said 6:44PM on 5-21-2009
the kamasutra is also available on Stanza through feedbooks i believe. apple, you're stupid.
Reply
Jay said 6:44PM on 5-21-2009
not to be an apple apologist, but, don't they usually overturn the original denial once it's been brought to their attention? i bet apple has a bunch of individual app reviewers who have general guidelines but occasionally have to make a call. sometimes they make the wrong call.
if apple refused to overturn their decision, then i could understand. anger over an initial denial seems really reactionary.
Reply
Aron Trimble said 6:57PM on 5-21-2009
Actually the process you refer to is the Internet/blogosphere firestorm followed by Apple's tail going between its legs and doing what it should have done in the first place.
Jay said 7:02PM on 5-21-2009
actually the process i refer to is a well known business practice when it comes to submissions of all sorts. i'd be willing to bet that if the situation were addressed without a bunch of bloggers whining about it, that it would be resolved in the positive also.
mistakes happen. they're fixed. everyone moves on.
Ryan said 7:11PM on 5-21-2009
You should read the Eucalyptus blog (http://www.blog.montgomerie.net/whither-eucalyptus) He submitted on 4/27 and has had a back and forth since. Apple keeps repeating their same rejection. So this time it seems they are not overturning the reviewers decision.
Jay said 7:21PM on 5-21-2009
oh, well, if that's the case then yes, by all means, complain as loud as you can. that makes sense.
Jeremy said 8:06PM on 5-21-2009
Yeah, I don't think you understand how this works. The ONLY method of protesting or appealing one of these rejections is to generate outside publicity on blogs and the like. You cannot communicate with the reviewers to do this in any manner whatsoever.
SpinThis! said 2:32PM on 5-22-2009
I gotta agree partly with Jay here. People think bitching and moaning on blogs has anything to do with getting an app unrejected is pure nonsense. If you're unhappy, write to Apple/Jobs. Blogs may be a place to vent but Apple doesn't read them all.
Especially in the case of, say, Tweetie, no less than a couple *minutes* after the developer posted a tweet, sites were doing the same old song and dance of "Apple is evil, those draconian bastards, etc". Hours later, Apple reaccepted the application after the developer brought it to their attention. Sounds like an honest mistake to me. You have to wonder if the blogosphere hadn't erupted, would Apple still have re-approved the app? I would wager that they would.... of course blog writers would argue otherwise because it helps their revenue stream.
I'm beginning to think some of these rejections were on purpose to generate drama for the App store—like a soap for geeks. Any kind of hype is good or bad. Apple knows they can sucker us Apple nerds, piss us off for awhile, and we'll still keep coming back to the mothership. After all, customer service studies reveal you're just as likely to purchase from the same vendor who screwed up your order initially but fixed the problem properly.
I don't agree with all of Apple's policies and I think they could lax up a bit but here is not the place to write it. Write directly to Apple/Jobs' e-mail.
Kai Cherry said 7:21PM on 5-22-2009
"I gotta agree partly with Jay here. People think bitching and moaning on blogs has anything to do with getting an app unrejected is pure nonsense. If you're unhappy, write to Apple/Jobs. Blogs may be a place to vent but Apple doesn't read them all."
I'll keep it short, and clear, as it is obvious that you aren't 1. an iPhone Dev and 2. a reasonable person that expects things to make sense:
There is no, I repeat NO APPEAL PROCESS. There is no "here, let us explain". There is NO DIALOG *whatsoever*...no one to call, nothing.
The process does not work this way. It is very much a one-way black box.
-K
mark said 6:51PM on 5-21-2009
Sell it to jailbreakers via Cydia then. To hell with the App Store.
Reply
holo2015 said 7:12PM on 5-21-2009
I wonder if Drivetrain got rejected due to submitted screen shots. Looking at the website, the built in web browser shot has "abortion" right in the middle of it..
Reply
Kento Ito said 8:01PM on 5-21-2009
drivetrain got rejected, and you can blame that on at&t, since they do not want to be liable for allowing an app that might be used for potential pirating remotely.
Drunken Economist said 7:16PM on 5-21-2009
Basically this all boils down to outsourcing of .Me and the crAppStore.
Obviously the "overseas assets" who audit the apps cannot leave their culture at the door and this is the result: the NIN.app being rejected for the same reason as a book reader that can search for classic content.
Apple needs to ditch the southasian (lack of) talent and employ REAL DEVELOPERS, like computer science interns LOCALLY who share our culture and standards, because OBVIOUSLY the outsourced drones they have now DO NOT.
And yes, it's a dead giveaway when I see app approvals at 3am.
Reply
Bradley said 6:54AM on 5-22-2009
My guess is that if the audit process is outsourced, it's being done in China, where my MacBook Pro was built. Chinese definitely do not have the same standards as Americans. I know it for a fact. I'm an American, currently living in Singapore, which is a predominantly Chinese society. On top of that, I rent out a room in the home of a Chinese family. While they're very nice and sociable, the difference in cultural norms is often painfully apparent.
Kento Ito said 7:59PM on 5-21-2009
My suggestion for the app writer: Resubmit the app again.
Since all the app is reviewed by people, and not the machine (thank god), same app is reviewed by different person per version, to give unbiased views.
So my suggestion, resubmit the app, this time, different person will review the app.
Another suggestion: submit the app once final version of 3.0 hits the market, since 3.0 has in app parental controls built in, which can filter adult content.
Reply
David Stephens said 8:26PM on 5-21-2009
The iPhone/iPod Touch application 'Bookz' used built-in Project Gutenberg browsing and downloading as the primary means of acquiring books in the first couple of iterations of the program. I use 'Bookz' daily and love the program. Apple has never seemed to had had concerns with PG access for this application.
I don't fault Apple for rejecting any app for any reason. I do have a problem when two apps that do the same thing and one is approved ('Bookz') while the other is rejected ('Eucalyptus').
Apple is incredibly inconsistent in applying their standards of an application's acceptance. It makes them appear unethical and draconian with their developer relations!
Reply
Matt said 8:30PM on 5-21-2009
"Of interesting note in that case is that there is a web version of this application that I have on my iPhone's home screen."
Would you please post the link for this website?
Reply
Shunnabunich said 8:33PM on 5-21-2009
It's about time Apple stopped dicking around and either remove any and all of its own iPhone apps which can access the Internet (i.e. Safari, Mail, YouTube, Maps, iTunes, and so on), or stop being absolutely hypocritical about third-party apps. Since Apple is inarguably no longer exercising "reasonable" judgment, perhaps some legal loophole has been opened? :P
Reply