[Macworld]

Post your comments for More senseless iPhone app rejections tarnish the App Store here

[ChrisLJ]

Is the Pope one of their reviewers? This stupidity makes Apple look like fools. I wonder if they know where babies come from.

[natmusak]

We've already heard rumors (with screenshots) about built-in parental controls for iPhone apps coming in the 3.0 update. That alone could open up the doors to far more content. Of course, the media also got mad at Apple for letting Baby Shaker slip through while bewailing the banning of trash like Pull My Finger. Regardless, hopefully parental controls will be given some time at the WWDC unveiling of the next iPhone so Apple won't get sued or slandered for third-party software.
"The App Store is becoming almost as famous for rejecting applications as it is for selling one billion of them."
Except that Apple stated at its iPhone 3.0 press event that 96% of apps submitted to the App Store are approved.

[vfx2k4]

Um the iPhone is made and controlled by Apple. If you don't like how it works or the policies behind it, just go buy a Blackberry or Android and be a total loser.

[cpfoto2005]

"Unfortunately, Fukatsu notes on his blog that QuadCamera 1.95 has been getting rejected for more than three weeks. Fukatsu has not responded to Macworld’s request for comment, but considering Apple’s previous and preposterous reasons for rejecting applications, we can only assume App Store reviewers discovered..."
It must be a slow news day when a blog entry dated March 24th, 2009 and a lack of comment from the developer are enough to fill almost half an article.
Isn't there enough confusion about the approval process already?

[chartier]

natmusak said:

"The App Store is becoming almost as famous for rejecting applications as it is for selling one billion of them."

Quote

Except that Apple stated at its iPhone 3.0 press event that 96% of apps submitted to the App Store are approved.

I wasn't talking about the store rejecting any specific number of applications versus the number that get approved. I was referring to the weight of the consequences of these rejections?they echo loudly in the press, and last longer in the minds of developers. Some applications require half a year (or longer) and $70,000 of investors capital to develop. Getting rejected for something as stupid as the reasoning for Eucalyptus or that Tweetie update I linked is an extremely bitter pill to swallow after all that work.

[mattc986]

Um...try the (very good) app ebook reader Stanza and you can browse Project Gutenburg as well...I actually wandered into the Kama Sutra just the other day. The fact that Stanza, and I'm sure every other ebook reader in the app store, can do that but they won't let this one in is pure hypocrisy, aside from the fact that obviously Safari can as well.

[chartier]

cpfoto2005 said:

Quote

It must be a slow news day when a blog entry dated March 24th, 2009 and a lack of comment from the developer are enough to fill almost half an article.

Isn't there enough confusion about the approval process already?

I've been following QuadCamera's update process because I am a personal fan of the application. I thought it would be obvious that, while the entry has a timestamp of March 24, the developer's mention of being rejected "for three weeks" would have placed the update to that entry sometime within the last week or so.

And yes, there is a figurative ton of confusion about the App Store approval process already, but Apple is doing absolutely no favors by adding to it with yet more rejections. This is infuriating for users, but especially developers.

[smax013]

[quote name='chartier']
>

natmusak said:

"The App Store is becoming almost as famous for rejecting applications as it is for selling one billion of them."
>
> Except that Apple stated at its iPhone 3.0 press event that 96% of apps submitted to the App Store are approved.

I wasn't talking about the store rejecting any specific number of applications versus the number that get approved. I was referring to the weight of the consequences of these rejections?they echo loudly in the press, and last longer in the minds of developers. Some applications require half a year (or longer) and $70,000 of investors capital to develop. Getting rejected for something as stupid as the reasoning for Eucalyptus or that Tweetie update I linked is an extremely bitter pill to swallow after all that work.

Not to mention it is the way of the world. After all, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease", as the saying goes.

A small number of people have problems with a MagSafe connector, but the vast majority never do...but which gets the most notice and is likely remember more...the problems.

The same is true of just about ANY situation. It is the "oddities" that stand out.

As to the point of the article, this is the price that Apple pays for wanting to fully control the app process on the iPhone. They will take lumps when they approve an app that lots of people have problems with (aka the Baby Shaker app). And they will take lumps when they don't approve some app for what appears to be highly hypocritical reasons (aka the Eucalyptus app). In the end, Apple has decided the potential lumps that they take are worth it for benefits that they gain from controlling the process, not the least of which is the cut of the money that they get.

[Hurley42]

Having had paid attention to this problem since the beginning, I chose to have my company abandon any App development and move on to other pursuits, which turned out to be a very good decision since those other pursuits have paid off very well - all without worrying that Apple is going to reject anything. I am even been considering switching to another smartphone when my original iPhone dies, hopefully far off in the future. I love my Macs, but Apple's corporate culture rubs me the wrong way.

[rab777hp]

This is exactly why I don't develop for iPhone