Apple Censors App Store Rejection Notices 477
isBandGeek() writes "After a few reasonable App Store bans, such as the ones on I Am Rich and NetShare, developers started complaining about excessive restrictions on applications like Podcaster and MailWrangler, supposedly because they provided 'duplicate functionality.' In response, Apple rubbed salt in their wounds by slapping non-disclosure agreements on application rejection notices. Now developers are not even allowed to tell their fanbase that Apple decided to withhold approval for an application. Is Apple confident that Google's open platform Android won't be much of a threat?"
What happens if you don't agree? (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens if you don't agree to a non-disclosure agreement on the rejection notice you receive?
Usually NDAs have to be signed before you get access to see cool secret stuff. But what if the only thing you're agreeing to is to be rejected?
Re:Reasonable? (Score:2, Interesting)
How was banning a tethering application reasonable?
If providers (like O2 in the UK) were provided with an assurance from Apple that tethering would not be allowed.
And if providers (like O2 in the UK) set up their pricing policy on that assurance.
Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable for Apple to ban a tethering application.
I can't say if that is definitely what has happened.
In the UK, O2 provide unlimited data with no fair usage policy for the iPhone. Every other 3G device they support has data limits and strict fair usage policies.
Best will in the world - you can't use that much data with an iPhone. Start tethering? Let's play.
I'd guess the providers will want to amend agreements with the consumers before they allow tethering.
Re:well (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, duh! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Fuck it, we're evil," [today.com] said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls. "But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it's pretty and it's cool and it works. It's not like youâ(TM)ll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!"
It's foolish to have expected anything else. As Neal Stephenson put it [artlung.com] in In The Beginning Was The Command Line:
It's as applicable now as it was in the late 1990s. That bit of Apple's corporate culture is straight from Steve Jobs.
Re:well (Score:2, Interesting)
But if you don't agree to the NDA, then you are obviously going to loose your developer membership, which is required to get your apps in the store. You may not agree that the whole situation is fair, but they sure as hell have the legal right to do what they're doing here -- they have a whole team of good lawyers to make sure of that.
It's not about Android (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What happens if you don't agree? (Score:5, Interesting)
Click through EULAs have been deemed to be unenforcable.
I'd be willing to bet that their NDA would be if push came to shove as well.
And you can't retroactively add things under NDA.
Re:well (Score:5, Interesting)
My company was poised to start developing for the iPhone until I brought this to their attention at the last staff meeting.
The entire iPhone dev project has been put on hold because of this.
Apple had better figure out how to pull their heads out of their arse because lots of companies thinking of this will instantly back off like we have.
I know I was going to write some apps, but I'm not going to pay $99.00 to be blessed to write freeware and then have my apps rejected.
Re:That is an analysts opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
Can I run Android on an iPhone ....?
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, if you keep up on the Apple blogs and such, even a lot of long-time Apple fanboys are having trouble understanding Apple's play here. It's less a question of whether or not they're legally entitled to do what they're doing (it is their App store afterall), but more just a general wonder what Apple is trying to accomplish with the arbitrary nature of restrictions that they've created.
Long time and successful mac developers are wondering what the hell is going on. They see Apple rejecting well designed iPhone applications for reasons that haven't been previously disclosed, and it makes them hesitant to produce applications of their own for fear of having it rejected over some rule that they were never told about.
And looking at this from another angle, the NDA has meant that there aren't good forums or anything online for developers to share iPhone programming tricks or issues or whatever. Not to mention that you can't go buy a book about it to help you learn. That's just another wall that Apple has built that developers have to find their way over in order to make applications.
Again, Apple is probably fully within their legal rights to reject any application for any reason. But that still doesn't make it smart for them to do so. If they want to create a mobile platform, which it seems fairly obvious is a goal of theirs, then nobody is really sure how Apple's actions so far have helped. They're still selling the phones by the truckload, so maybe it doesn't matter that much to them, but taking the longer view, a lot of people who had been very excited about the iPhone are having a hard time seeing where Apple is going with this.
Re:well (Score:4, Interesting)
I would really like to develop an app for my ipod touch that will allow me to preview music with headphones while creating a playlist and playing it with an rca out from the dock connector. I can easily see apple banning it though, so fuck that.
Re:well (Score:2, Interesting)
And I heard from a non-native speaking friend of mine it's only the native speakers that screw it up. Because the way they think of words in there[sic] head, loose would never accidentally come out as lose.
Bad way to treat your customers (Score:1, Interesting)
When my customers complain about the services I provide, I ponder their complaints and think of ways of addressing them. I don't always succeed in finding workable solutions, but I do try...after all, my customers are my bread and butter.
I don't respond by making them sign contracts forcing them to stop complaining. That kind of bully-like behavior would leave me without customers in the blink of an eye. But even if it wouldn't...even if I did hold some kind of vice-grip on them...I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I had treated them so badly after accepting their money.
But then again....I am not a jerk.
Canary? (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the Canary approach?
1. "I promise under penalty of Perjury not to actively state a false status of my app. with Apple."
2.
"Today I was not declined by Apple."
"Today I was not declined by Apple."
"Today I was not declined by Apple."
"Today I was not declined by Apple."
3. ( ... Crickets ... )
Re:Does Steve know? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do they insist on shooting themselves in the foot like this?
Because the gun's not loaded, lets face it, most people will not be upset about this, and if a feature is that freaking cool that it needs to be developed or you're going to have mass panic, then Apple will do it themselves.
The user isn't going to care how the company treats the developer, especially now that the developer is being banned from complaining. Their competition is development on other platforms, and even then, their lack of media text messages or copy-and-paste functionality, must have features of two to three years ago, shows that even if there is big features missing, their consumer base isn't going to care.
netshare? wtf? (Score:2, Interesting)
Just scroll /. frontpage down a little (Score:4, Interesting)
Studies Say Ideology Trumps Facts
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/25/036232 [slashdot.org]
This comment was very nice: "cognitive dissonance"
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=975171&cid=25148179 [slashdot.org]
Applied to Apple it would mean that people that bought completely overpriced Apple products are now looking for justification and trying to convince other people that it was right to spend so much money.
Re:What happens if you don't agree? (Score:5, Interesting)
Click through EULAs have been deemed to be unenforcable.
Common fallacy here on Slashdot - EULAs in general have not been found to be unenforcable. Certain terms of certain EULAs have been, and some jurisdictions place some restrictions on them, but there has been no general, catch all legal ruling on the concept of EULAs in general.
Re:well (Score:5, Interesting)
Precisely.
A few years ago when Paypal was taken to court, most of the "user agreement" was thrown-out since it violated state or federal laws. The judge decided that consumers can not sign-away their legal protections. Apple's unsigned or shrinkwrapped NDA would also be thrown-out for similar reasons.
And to be honest, even if I was legally-bound to the NDA, I'd still disclose the whys and wherefores of my application rejection. From time-to-time, liberty must be protected with a little civil disobedience in order to protect one's rights, privileges, and freedoms.
Re:well (Score:5, Interesting)
I, too, have been working on three apps, and have put them on hold.
The seemingly arbitrary blocking/rejection of certain apps makes me wonder just what their criteria is. For some, such as the net tethering application, it is obvious (direct competition/avoidance of AT&T's minutes plans). But for other apps, what is the criteria?
It is starting to look like the iphone app market is closing, because if Apple is declaring certain apps to be "duplicate functionality", then how can competition have a role?
The developers who were first to the store have all the advantage right now. I.e., timing, not functionality or merit, is key. Apple should clarify exactly what they are doing, which policies they are employing to make this determination.
Maybe I'll just write some "flashlight" apps -- those always get accepted. /rolls eyes
This is why Apple is the best (and worst) (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as their technological integration of products go, they are superior in many ways to most other products. The ownership of the HW, OS and application SW and the integration they do with them out of the box makes them very good.
But, unfortunately, they are totatally, absolutely control freaks, not only of their products, but of their users. Instead of allowing people to do what they wish with something they buy from them, they force you to do anything and everything exactly as they believe is best - regardless of whatever other good ways there are to do something.
This is why, while I like their products, I will never buy one.
The term "Unconscionable" comes to mind (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, I'm not sure if that's entirely the right expression, but courts will often refuse to enforce clauses in contracts which are a dramatic expansion of the intended purposes of contract law.
I think in California, non-compete agreements which prevent people from working for any other employer in the same industry were struck down under this principal, and I would imagine that a clause which restricts you from even sharing with other parties that your app was rejected, and under what terms, would be in the same boat.
Non-disclosure agreements are intended to protect true secrets, like the formula or means of production for a product. The knowledge that an application was rejected, man, I can't see *how* that is really a company secret, other than Apple just wanting to silence criticism, which courts do not look favorably upon.
Now, I could potentially see the *why* of the rejection being covered by an NDA, *if and only if* the reason for rejection was a technical reason which would require the disclosure of a technical secret in order to explain. Still, anything that an app developer is doing for a platform shouldn't be a 'secret'.
Anyhow, I for one have started looking at the Android platform, and it's certainly interesting. Still feels a bit immature in terms of lacking some things, but I imagine a lot of the 'missing' stuff will be added with future releases. I'm hoping for, among other things, VOiP support when I'm on a WiFi network (that might, hopefully, come through third-party apps, but I think I saw a quote somewhere that Google has done something to try to prevent Apps from implementing VoIP, but not sure), and Ogg Vorbis & Theora support in the media player component (I've encoded much of my pre-Internet CD collection to Ogg).
Re:well (Score:4, Interesting)
yea, but that's not how the legal system works--it's how it should work, but not how it does in reality.
for instance, i used to work at an indie record label here in SoCal that i later left for personal reasons. a few days ago my boss dropped by my apartment to say hi and ask me to help him with a problem that recently arose. now, amongst the label's back catalog is a now defunct band called Acid Bath, and they have a popular song called Dr. Seuss is Dead. when the album containing this track (When the Kite String Pops) was originally published, the band spelled the title incorrectly as Dr. _Suess_ is Dead and that's what was printed on all the track listings. seeing as "Dr. Seuss" is a trademarked name, my boss decided to play it safe and keep the misspelling all these years (the album was released in 1994).
oddly enough, after i left the company, my boss decided to have the spelling mistake corrected. so what happened was that the estate of Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss), or their lawyers rather, found some Acid Bath merchandise being auctioned off on e-bay--we actually printed a Dr. Seuss is Dead t-shirt with original artwork by a friend of the band. the e-bay seller apparently rolled on the record label, and the lawyers came after my boss and demanded that he take all of the Dr. Seuss is Dead/When the Kite String Pops merchandise off the site, and also hand over all the leftover stocks of the albums/DVDs/hoodies/t-shirts/posters/etc.
despite the fact that this is a legal parody, and that the band really only makes a single reference to Dr. Seuss in in the actual lyrics, the Geisel estate has threatened to take legal action against my boss and his company if their demands aren't met. frankly, i don't see any legal basis for their claims. this is clearly a protected form of trademark fair use. but the reality of the matter is, the Geisel estate is a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and my boss, though a rich man, simply doesn't have the money to take them on in court. the legal feels alone would force him to settle out of court.
so it doesn't matter if a claim is legally grounded or not. it only matters that the party making the claim/demands is a multi-billion-dollar corporation and the defense is not. like most people facing a legal threat from a large corporation, your only real option is just to meet their demands unless you want to be bankrupted by court/lawyer fees.
Re:well (Score:3, Interesting)
A platform whose stability is dependent on the restriction of development to specific code is insanely fragile. It should not be possible for developers to destabilize the platform using the published APIs, as the underlying OS should properly manage its APIs and resources. Furthermore, it's not like code audits are performed on the applications that are in the app store, so these arguments are rather specious.