Filed under: iPod Family, Bad Apple, iPhone, App Store
App Store Lessons: the game changer rejection
A new kind of App Store rejection is making the rounds in the iPhone World. It's not about violating the SDK. It's not about objectionable content. It's about Apple empowering its reviewers to reject software without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh application.
This kind of rejection is a gamechanger. Devs have complained that Apple's review policies to date have been inconsistent and arbitrary, since it was relatively easy to compare rejections and demonstrate the multiple standards in play. This rejection shields Apple's internal processes even further. Instead of moving towards transparency and responding to developer concerns, Apple has pointed itself in the opposite direction.
-20090611-003253.png)
Making this rejection sting more, the app already was in the App Store; this submission was a bug-fix update. The premium edition of the same app, submitted at the same time, was approved without issue. It seems that previous and current approvals for the same application would argue in favor of letting this version through, or at a minimum providing an explanation of what's wrong with this one. As Christina posted yesterday, developers aren't getting straight answers about App Store rejections, even at WWDC.
"Sole discretion" hides a lot of possible review errors, both subjective and accidental. It makes it harder than ever for smaller companies to appeal rejections and denies them a factual basis on which to evaluate whether their rejection was issued in error. It also gives a firm answer to those who have been hoping for a transparent ticketing system and a open appeal process. Apple isn't interested; it's their store, their rules, and Caveat Developer to anyone whose business plan depends solely on Apple's beneficence.
An app full of admittedly lame jokes might be an appropriate candidate for App Store rejection, but the combination of veto power, the opaque review/appeal process, and inconsistent and capricious application of Apple's ax adds up to a troublesome situation in the developer ecosystem and in the App Store.
Postscript: Kenneth writes in to clarify that the 1.1.1 bug-fix update submitted 3 months ago was rejected. This will not affect his 2.0 Lite version, which was just submitted.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Lars said 12:09PM on 6-12-2009
I'd be hard pressed to write a more douchier worded rejection note.
Reply
oliver hart said 3:03PM on 6-12-2009
How about:
Dear sir, no dice, fuck off.
Mucho douchier in my el booko.
Lars said 3:10PM on 6-12-2009
Good sir, I stand corrected! ;)
Jack Chance said 4:21PM on 6-12-2009
That's dickier, but not douchier
puhsitch said 5:21PM on 6-12-2009
Yeah, a douche response will usually have to include some sort of self-righteous rationalization.
Mystic said 12:12PM on 6-12-2009
So, people complain that there is too much junk in the store for the great programs to stand out, then they complain when Apple tries to filter out the junk?
Personally, I wish they would reject A LOT more apps!
Reply
Matt said 12:53PM on 6-12-2009
There's no problem in rejecting an app. That's what developers sign up for and agree to. The problem is they do not say WHY the app was rejected. Apple HAS to start giving reasons, or they'll just end up pissing developers off.
atomicshockwave said 1:01PM on 6-12-2009
I agree... this sort of thing is what SAVED the video game industry from an early death... i think the only issue we see here at all is that there are still some reviewers who let crap through and not doing there job! Does it suck for developers? yes. will we be better for it as consumers? YES! just look at all the crap in the android market...
Now before you call me an apple fanboy im not. I am thinking about leaving my iphone for a pre.
I just think that keeping the crap out of all app stores def needs to happen.
Franz said 1:03PM on 6-12-2009
I totally agree Matt.
kf9z said 1:34PM on 6-12-2009
That is just plain ignorant. You wish they would reject more applications? Really? I might find some of the applications you currently have extraneous and superfluous but I would never arbitrarily reject apps because they offer no real benefit to most users OR take away the rights of Devs to make and profit from applications. Given the fact that this app was already in the app store in a lite and premium version is egregious one the part of Apple and a subjective policy as such - will prompt many Devs to go the way of Andriod or Pre. Apple if smacking many Devs in the face who put hard work and countless hours into apps that are free or very inexpensive with the hopes to make a buck or two - if Apple allowed for Devs to sell their own Apps in a fashion of their choosing, the MARKET would ultimately chose winners and losers - NOT Apple.
LKM said 4:56PM on 6-12-2009
If Apple has the power to reject apps, they need to provide a service where you can get your idea approved before you invest half a year of development time, similar to how Console publishers do.
Jesse said 12:16PM on 6-12-2009
Why? It's easy enough to filter out the crappy apps from the good ones.
Reply
Mike said 12:17PM on 6-12-2009
This is such bullshit. Damn. There's just no reason behind these rejections.
Reply
Brandon said 2:45PM on 6-12-2009
I'm not even a developer and I feel the same way. When will devs be pushed to their breaking point?
Cowicide said 4:00PM on 6-12-2009
As a long time Apple user, I'm considering get a Palm Pre or Android, etc. Between dragging their feet on a Flash option for the iPhone and this crap... I'm not sure I want to deal with the iPhone.
Matthew said 12:18PM on 6-12-2009
This is most likely naive, but I'll ask anyway. Sure, Apple reserves the right to refuse an application for any reason. That's fine, but the application developers should be informed what the reasons are. Is there any way for the developers to require Apple to disclose the reasons? I assume Apple is not responsible for that.
Reply
Kelmon said 8:11AM on 6-13-2009
Disagree - not only must the reasons for the rejection be provided but they must also be consistent with stated policies that were available to developers, preferably before they even start thinking about an application (it's too late now for that, however). I have no issue with Apple rejecting applications as long as the reasons are reasonable (i.e. malware or pornographic content) and they are applied in a sensible and consistent manner. Right now it seems as though Apple can reject an application simply because the reviewer is having a "bad day" and they feel like being a capricious bastard.
Tony Bowman said 12:22PM on 6-12-2009
didn't chuck norris win a lawsuit against the guy who published a book of chuck norris jokes? i could be wrong about who won the case, but there definitely was a lawsuit against the book.
could that be a factor? it's certainly relevant. by publishing trademarked or copyrighted materials, or those in dispute, apple opens itself up to a whole mess of legal trouble.
Reply
Johnny said 12:29PM on 6-12-2009
I haven't heard about the lawsuit and you may be right about that reasoning, although it seems like it would be easy enough for Apple to say if that is the reason. However, I remember seeing an interview with Chuck Norris not too long ago where he said that he liked the jokes and thought they were funny. I could see how he might object to publishing such a book without his permission all the same.
Tony Bowman said 12:56PM on 6-12-2009
it turns our that the norris suit was filed in december of 2007 and then dropped sometime in 2008.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1706865/chuck_norris_facts_spawn_a_dropped.html