Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Bad Apple, Apple, iPhone, iPod touch
App Store Rejections: Apple rejects iKaraoke app, patent filed published for a karaoke player
As if the waters surrounding the App Store approval process weren't murky enough, one developer has just hit an unprecedented wall. Apple rejected his app, iKaraoke, citing that it duplicated functionality of the iPod application. Of course, the "duplicate functionality" reason is nothing new, but Apple's next step is: just a few weeks after rejecting the application, they have filed a patent for including karaoke functionality into the iPod app.A brief look at the demo iKaraoke's website will quickly tell you that, while the app does bear a light resemblance to some of the menus found in the iPod application, the actual interface that the user interacts with to select and download a song is far from duplicating the iPod's polished interface. Another key point is that the file format used by iKaraoke is known as the .kar format -- an unofficial extension of the MIDI specification that enables lyrics to appear in time with music. The lyrics are then displayed on the screen, and highlighted as the song is played. Does any of this sound like functionality found in the iPod app? We didn't think so.
So what exactly was duplicated then? According to apple, iKaraoke "duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application, iPod, without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality." But they didn't just stop there. The reviewer went on to say that the application "downloads media files that are not managed by the iTunes application, which also manages media files, we believe this would be confusing to the user." Now, hold on a minute here... it's fine for several other apps to stream and download media files that are supported by the iPod without being managed by iTunes, but it's not OK for an app to download media that isn't natively supported, and provide functionality that isn't natively provided by the iPod?
This wouldn't be much different from your typical app rejection if the story stopped there, but it doesn't. This morning, Apple filed a patent [application here] which details built-in Karaoke functionality being added as part of the iPod application, with some additional bells and whistles such as monitoring the pitch of the user's voice. So it seems the functionality that was duplicated is functionality that Apple has not yet released, and possibly not yet even begun to develop. Maybe the $99 iPhone Developer Program fee should include a crystal ball for testing apps before submitting them.
As with the many other patents Apple has filed, this feature may never see the light of day. But is it really acceptable to reject an application, based solely on what appears to be a duplication of a feature that may or may not even be released in the future? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Update: As a few of you have pointed out in the comments, although the patent application was published today, it actually was originally filed back in April of 2008. While this does indicate that the patent was indeed filed long before the SDK was even released, questions still remain about whether or not Apple may choose to reject applications based on functionality found in unreleased features.
Similar rejections have occurred with apps that offered podcast downloads prior to the inclusion of podcasting functionality in iTunes, for example. Essentially, what needs to happen is that Apple needs to clear the air on what exactly is considered a duplication of functionality, and to be clear with the developer on exactly what aspects of their application are in violation of this requirement, rather than sending a vague form letter and ignoring inquiries for additional information from the developer.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
ToddFSU said 3:06PM on 7-02-2009
Huh? That's terrible Apple. Don't make the 2010 iPhone... the 3G[k]
Reply
Andre said 3:09PM on 7-02-2009
Lawsuit.
Reply
dig said 3:12PM on 7-02-2009
Isn't it about time the practice of rejecting apps that are "duplicating functionality" is tried and tested in court?
Reply
Hobbes said 3:40PM on 7-02-2009
It's Apple's store. When you sign up to be a developer you're bound to their terms and that's as good as any contractual obligation.
I don't believe there is anything left to be decided in court. The only option the developer has is to not develop for the iPhone or go the jailbreak route.
LB said 5:12PM on 7-02-2009
I think a good IP/Anti-Trust lawyer could probably make a case that apple is using it's monopoly power in the small player space to strong arm developers. There is also an argument that could be made that the iPhone/iPod Touch are actually computers and they should have to provide some for of third party app loading.
Can you imagine how quickly apple would have died off if they had this kind of restriction on their main OS platform. Really all this process seems to do is generate bad press for apple.
owenmhv said 3:18PM on 7-02-2009
What came first, the chicken or the egg.
What asssurance do I have that submittting an app won't be rejected then copied and patented by apple.
Reply
Swimatm said 5:32PM on 7-02-2009
Easy, the chicken.
FantomRedux said 9:52PM on 7-03-2009
Wrong. Twas the T-Rex
SSteve said 3:18PM on 7-02-2009
Apple's technology is so far advanced that the app approval process is actually handled by reviewers in the future where the iPod Karaoke functionality has already been implemented.
Reply
Rackham Hoke said 3:20PM on 7-02-2009
This is not nearly as shady as it seems. Patent application 12/107,931 was filed on April 23, 2008. It just happens to have been published (made available for public viewing) today.
Reply
gib said 5:03PM on 7-02-2009
This is a point that Michael Jones failed to make when he stated "his morning, Apple filed a patent..."
Sensational, check. Exaggerated, check. Written only to try to attract readers, check. What is "Yellow Journalism" called if you are talking about a blog instead of a newspaper? "Journalism".
Michael Jones said 5:09PM on 7-02-2009
Thanks for pointing that out. I had mistakenly noted the published date and not realized the filing was that old. I have updated the post accordingly.
I agree that, even if the filing had taken place today, it may not have been directly related to the rejection. But from the standpoint of the developer having their app rejected, and then seeing Apple patent a similar application just weeks later, it really doesn't look good on Apple, no matter what the actual motive behind the rejection was.
gib said 5:32PM on 7-02-2009
@ Michael Jones -- "I have updated the post accordingly."
Umm... not really. You still have a headline implying Apple is stealing the developers idea, you didn't fix the error in the body of the post, and your update at the bottom of the post talks more about functionality duplication than the error you made. The entire article is still has no purpose, except for túaw looking for web hits by exaggerating a situation.
I understand that you would want to inform the readers about what is going on in the world of Apple, that's fine. That's why I read túaw posts multiple times per day... But this whole post was nothing more than an attempt to draw people to the site by distorting the truth.
James Donevan said 3:21PM on 7-02-2009
Let's use just the faintest hint of common sense with a modest dose of reality. Apple has an in-house functionality planned for the iPhone in 2010. Meanwhile an independent developer submits an application with the same function beforehand. Pick one...
Does Apple:
a. approve the indie application knowing the developer will scream foul in 2010 and claim Apple stole his idea with all the media brouhaha that will generate.
b. reject the indie application indicating it duplicates a functionality (be it still in development) thereby curtailing the developer's efforts and nipping an obvious problem in the bud.
c. approve the indie application then pull it from the App Store in 2010 leaving a bad taste for everyone (think tethering).
Every designer in the world has had a concept in development only to find someone, somewhere is doing something very similar. Indeed I would go so far as to say it commonly happens. While it is always disappointing for one of the parties involved, it happens.
Reply
Gwydion said 3:25PM on 7-02-2009
d. Approve the application, that's all.
Ups, there's a lot of browser apps, they have to be retired from App Store.
Ups, there's mail apps, they have to be retired from App Store.
Devon said 4:28PM on 7-02-2009
They should let the application in. If Apple doesn't want competition then they sure can block the application but that is kind of pathetic of them. Some people don't realize how much time it takes to put out an iPhone application. Yes the developer agreement says Apple can basically do whatever they want but that does not mean it's fair to the developer to pretty much waste their time developing something that can't be sold.
Johnny said 4:44PM on 7-02-2009
They should allow developers to submit their ideas before they start for pre-screening. It shouldn't be required for those who like to gamble and there would still be the chance of it being rejected, but not based on the entire premise of the app. The developer could then remove the 'objectionable content' without having the whole thing thrown out completely.
Travis Walls said 4:57PM on 7-02-2009
What about all of those voice recorder apps in the App Store? Most of them essentially duplicate the functionality of the new Voice Memos app in OS 3.0, but we didn't see them get rejected or pulled from the store before or even after the update was released.
CaptSaltyJack said 5:03PM on 7-02-2009
How is this scenario different from Apple's new Voice Memo app? There were tons of voice recording apps submitted and approved, and I'm sure Apple had plans to create a voice memo application. Nothing was rejected. Now Apple is just competing with indie developers, that's all (I actually prefer "Recorder" because of the wifi sync feature).
I just don't see how this is different, and why this time Apple rejected it. Maybe the iKaraoke app was too damn good and too big of a threat.
LGgeek said 11:28PM on 7-02-2009
developer should go see a lawyer, Apple is just abusing it power of controlling the app store. And in this case to rip off a developer.
Reply