Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, App Store
Distinctions without differences: Apple's inconsistent app store rejection policies
I admit, I was one of those to pile on ol' Ma Bell as the culprit for keeping the Google Voice app (don't I wish that was a real iTunes link) off the App Store. Restrictions on Skype and the SlingPlayer app on the iPhone had conditioned me to believe that the "game changing" iPhone had, well, a completely different set of rules applied to it by AT&T. While many in the tech community continued to jump atop the dog pile, in which AT&T was at the very bottom, Apple ran the ball back the other way without anybody noticing.
Apple's response to the FCC's questions covers several areas -- including the fact that it acted alone without AT&T's consultation -- in rejecting not yet allowing the Google Voice app. Almost as striking as Apple's admitted culpability, however, is its rationale for it, which smacks of odd logic and damages the spirit of the App Store.
In short, Apple states that it rejected "continues to study" Google Voice because, in its current form, the app "replaces the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface for telephone calls, text messages and voicemail."
While the iPhone is more than the sum of its parts, the phone portion of it is arguably the least compelling when compared to other features. Out of the box, the iPhone comes with several apps pre-installed. And, based on their placement at the foot of the home screen (as well as Steve Jobs' Macworld proclamation), Apple views the iPhone as "an iPod, a phone, and an Internet communicator (Safari and Mail)." But the advent of the App Store and the third party apps that arrived with it further reinvented a device that had already reinvented the entire tech market. If the iPhone wasn't already viewed as a computer-first, phone-a-distant-second device, it certainly took this form after the App Store.
Taken at face value, Apple's rationale for rejecting Google Voice also means that YouMail [iTunes link], TextFree [iTunes link], and Skype [iTunes link] should be rejected as well. As Mike noted yesterday, YouMail could serve as a replacement for Visual Voicemail, TextFree could supplant the iPhone's SMS client, and Skype could do both, albeit in a different and slightly limited capacity.
And, while we're at it, other apps should be rejected as well, as they too could "replace" the functionality of the iPhone's other core features. Let's kick out mBox Mail [iTunes link], for despite its Hotmail and Windows Live Mail-only limited audience, it could potentially replace the iPhone's built-in Mail app. Simplify Media's Simplify Music 2 [iTunes link] should also be outlawed. Because of its ability to stream your entire iTunes library on demand, it could potentially serve as a replacement for the built-in iPod app.
The list is endless, as are Apple's application approval and rejection inconsistencies.
To a degree, Apple's rationale for rejecting the Google Voice app assumes that a) there already exists, or there's a strong potential for, a large Google Voice user base and that b) this base will overwhelmingly choose Google Voice over the native phone app on the iPhone. But neither of these are matters of fact, and we won't know if those outcomes are likely while the native app remains in limbo. At least Apple, AT&T and Google agree on the fact that most of the Google Voice functionality is available via the web browser on the iPhone -- just not all of it.
The wording of Apple's argument for rejecting continuing to study Google Voice, an issue that it is still "pondering," certainly leaves the company some wiggle room to approve the app pending changes. Or, Apple could take other routes. Like the podcast downloading feature that was later added in an OS update, one potential avenue for Apple to take is to integrate Google Voice functionality in the iPhone's native phone app. Obviously, some changes may need to be made to comply with AT&T's restrictions, and every feature may not make it in.
Whether, and at what speed, anything occurs will likely depend on public pressure, which we in the collective tech community can serve to channel and focus. We'll proceed with caution, and not take our eyes off the ball.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Robert S Donovan said 10:18AM on 8-22-2009
We all need to remember that the App Store is just another business unit for Apple. It is not some kind of social service where equality and fairness are required or expected. Apple's goal is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders while protecting their own short and long term business interests. Google clearly poses a threat to Apple so their app gets rejected. The other developers that have apps with similar functionality as Google's are not a threat to Apple so they stay. Look at it from a business perspective and it all makes perfect sense. Just because we want Apple to play fair does not give them any compelling reason to do so.
Reply
Dach said 1:38PM on 8-22-2009
I wanted to vote down your comment due to its meanspiritedness, but I can't, because you are absolutely right. I think that in our post-Google world, we expect all companies to operate with the same business ethic. They don't. Apple's capricious App Store policies are not out at all out of character.
bob said 10:21AM on 8-22-2009
isnt the point that gv would literally replace the apple ones not add to them, as you can redirect your number to it, all the other apps you mention just affer additional services.
Reply
jnorton said 10:23AM on 8-22-2009
Is anyone else sick of these stories about App Store rejections?
Reply
crazypenguin said 10:47AM on 8-22-2009
well, i would say that, except it is an extremly annoying problem that apple is doing, and if the media (like TUAW) didn't constantly nag on apple about how terrible it is, then they might just blow it off. the FCC probably started investigating because of the huge complain coming from multiple interweb sources. no one WANTS to read this, no one WANTS to write this either, we wish apple just worked perfectly, so this is how we get what we want. if you don't like the stories, you can just skip them...
UI said 10:31AM on 8-22-2009
When the App Store was launched I think not even Apple knew how popular the iPhone would become. At the time it probably seemed like a good idea to to have a single point of purchase for all iPhone apps. But with 8,500 new apps flooding in every week waiting to be reviewed (I’m guessing that number is growing every week) I have to wonder how can this model be anyway sustainable for Apple? Not only do they have to worry about the basic functionality of the iPhone but they’ve also made themselves responsible for every app someone might want to install on their iPhone. Sure it makes for a great user experience but at what point does the whole App Store become too much hassle for Apple?
Reply
Robert S Donovan said 10:45AM on 8-22-2009
@UI:
I'd argue that 8,500 new apps a week DOES NOT make for a "great user experience." Most apps I've bought have been a complete waste of money. Good luck finding the truly great apps among the dialy flood of crap entering the App Store...
I think Apple should develop a more rigorous app development and certification policy and include free trial downloads. One of the things I love about my Mac is that, even though there are fewer choices in software than a PC, the applications that are available are generally very well developed.
IMO the App Store is giving Apple's products a bad reputation as the user experience degrades in a quagmire of poorly developed apps.
UI said 11:10AM on 8-22-2009
@Robert S Donovan
Agreed. 8,500 crap apps doesn't make for a great user experience but I guess what I was saying was that the convenience of being able to buy them from a single store does.
Scott said 10:40AM on 8-22-2009
Don't forget that the reason stated in your article wasn't the ONLY reason given.
I, for one, was shocked when I read that GV would download my ENTIRE address book to their server.
Sorry, but I've got client phone numbers and unlisted numbers that I would prefer Google NOT have in their ever growing database.
While I agree with your point about duplicating the phone features, to me, the bigger issue was privacy and my entire address book being uploaded.
Reply
Dan said 10:56AM on 8-22-2009
I agree, the fact that Google is copying the entire address book is a big issue. I would _never_ allow that!
That Google never mentioned this nor that it was replacing functionality such as Visual Voice Mail is rather disingenuous and bordering on evil.
Harry Wang said 10:41AM on 8-22-2009
Guess what? Apple can reject any app for any reason. If a developer has a problem with that then don't write software for the iPhone. If a user has a problem with that, then don't buy the iPhone (a consumer knows what apps are available when the phone is purchased). The market will drive decisions, not a bunch of uninformed whiners.
However, I can never read enough of the millions of posts about the "unfair" approval process. Boo hoo.
Reply
andrewh said 10:55AM on 8-22-2009
You're obviously not a developer.
The App Store represents a huge potential audience, and the payoff can be worthwhile. Saying you should develop for another device is like saying you can be a successful vendor of closed-source linux software. Sure, it's *possible* that you can be successful, but the audience just isn't there.
The approval process isn't necessarily "unfair," it's just inconsistent. You can spend all your time developing a piece of software, only to find it's rejected for some stupid reason that 10 other pieces of software on the app store already provide.
The "free market" you defend has already chosen. Users prefer the iPhone, and are buying them in droves. Developers have a market to tap; it's just Apple is acting as a middleman, often to the detriment of the user/developer relationship.
Rohit said 11:02AM on 8-22-2009
Here's a comic take on APPLE, AT&T and FCC issue!!! http://tinyurl.com/comicappleattandfcc
Reply
Rob said 11:35AM on 8-22-2009
Actually, the letter from Apple says that Google's app isn't just an "alternative" to these features (visual voicemail, etc), but that it DISABLES Apple's version.
THAT is a major violation of the Developer agreement if it is altering components of the phone, especially CORE components. Google basically tried to hijack the iPhone and make it a Google phone!
Reply
Tagbert said 12:11PM on 8-22-2009
Is that actually true or just a misleading argument from Apple? It seems odd if true. We may never know unless Apple does approve the app.
taeser said 12:33PM on 8-22-2009
The reason apple claimed it disabled visual voicemail only has to do with the fact that calls that come in over google voice go to GV voicemail. So really, they just worded it that way to give the FCC a reason to side with them. It's not the app that Apple doesn't like, it's the service. of COURSE if someone calls your OTHER phone number which is forwarded to your iPhone, it might not go to AT&T voicemail.
Carroll Wills said 12:42PM on 8-22-2009
Yes, it seems that some in the developer community (at least as represented by this blog) are awfully quick to give Google a pass and jump on Apple. Of the two companies, Apple is the one that actually publicized its rationale. Google had the FCC redact its response to the question of why the app was rejected.
What, I wonder, is Google protecting? They have no particular incentive to cover Apple's behind.
Reply
Ian Richardson said 1:26PM on 8-22-2009
Yeah Hawks!
Reply
KTaylor said 12:06AM on 8-23-2009
Thank you for beating me to the go hawk comment...oh I'm ready for hawkeye football this year.
Rego said 2:02PM on 8-22-2009
Assuming that some of the points above are valid, (and that I understand them) can you imagine how members of the general public, iphone users, would react to learn after downloading google voice that their whole address book has been downloaded into GV (forever) and they may now have 2 places to look for visual voice mail. I think many folks would be upset. Yes I know you could delete the GV app, but the irritation may continue and some would inevitably be directed at Apple.
I would love to see Apple develop it's own voip and GV type app. If Google can do it; Apple could do it better.
Reply