I think its a huge mistake. They could have taken care of the problem of tiny, silly apps with another method, like creating a separate category or revamping their review system. Instead they opened up a can of worms by creating a new category of unwanted "limited utility" apps, yet they still haven't published formal guidelines on what is or is not "limited utility." Now they've got a giant developer relations mess.
No doubt this is in response to the "I am Rich" app, which technically could not be rejected on fraudulent grounds since the description stated it did absolutely nothing.
Yes, I know Apple pulled it anyway, but they potentially set themselves up for a lawsuit by some other scumbag down the road if they don't find a way to cover themselves for pulling down apps that are technically legal, but are solely designed to "fool the gullible".
I'd be shocked if the terms and conditions for using the App Store didn't already contain something like: "We reserve the right to pull your app for any reason including (but not limited to) Steve waking up in a bad mood."
I'm sure Apple's decision was inspired by "I am Rich" -- but for publicity reasons, not legal ones.
What I don't like about the policy is how it changes the risk equation for developers. How do you see if Apple will "get" your app without spending the full $$ on developing it?
Will developers go into any real risk in developing for the iPhone, or will they just abort the attempt?
Submit a prototype under a different application name. Then, pull the prototype after it has been approved and after a few people have tried it. You can also experiment with pricing this way.
"A walled garden, with regards to media content, refers to a closed set or exclusive set of information services provided for users (a method of creating a monopoly or securing an information system)."
This is Apple's system, not yours. No surprise here.
(Notice how the parenthesized "media" within the url is not included within the link?)
"We have determined that this application is of limited utility to the broad iPhone and iPod touch user community, and will not be published to the App Store."
That's like Amazon saying "we won't sell your book, because it isn't of interest to the broad Amazon.com customer community."
They need to do something with the App Store so that it feeds off the "long tail" instead of fighting against it. (UI improvements? try-before-you-buy? some other browsing/search/tryout enhancements?)
No, but they kinda put out the welcome sign, proudly touted their "60 Million Apps Downloaded!" statistic, and now they're saying, "thanks, you've done your job now go away."
I wonder if this message from Apple is actually real. I did a quick Google search for other instances "limited utility" rejections and didn't find any. There's been plenty of instances of fake controversial legal threats/rejection letters/complaints that have been used to drive traffic or create a buzz about something. If this is fake, I don't see how this person will really cash in on the buzz though.
I know its a contrary opinion to what most commenters will have, but I'm glad this app didn't get approved. Apple is apparently responding to the very frequent complaints of useless apps filling up the App Store. What we are seeing is a pendulum, where they swing back and forth with the policies for app acceptance until they settle somewhere in the middle that works best for everyone.
Like many other people, I kept my 1st gen iPhone jailbroken from the day I bought it. I absolutely loved Installer.app and the huge community of developers and their applications that I had access to. A lot of the apps in Installer.app were pretty worthless though, or had little utility. They frequently cluttered up the categories of things that I really wanted to review.
However, it was much harder for developers to create jailbroken apps than it is now with the official SDK. This caused the overall number of available apps to be much smaller than what we have available through the official channel. If Apple were to not attempt to manage all of the apps that people are submitting, it would quickly become nearly impossible to find anything useful. That would also open up the possibility of nefarious apps that are trying to get your personal info, etc.
However, so that I don't sound like a complete Apple flunky, I also admit the App Store on iTunes and on the iPhone itself has a lot to be desired. There are interface issues which annoy me (like navigating into an app description, going back to the category but being at the freaking top of the list instead of where the app appears in the list). They need to improve the App Store application itself. It would be really great if someone could write a new App Store as a 3rd party app that would interface and manage all of the apps you have access to. This most certainly could be done on the old jailbroken systems using something like Summerboard.
But a lot of the problems you mention, like "cluttering" and "impossible to find anything" are really problems with the App Store, not the apps. iTunes, after all, has millions of songs, and there doesn't seem to be a clutter problem there. Apple doesn't tell musicians, "don't make crappy music," or "you song is of limited musical appeal."
The nefarious apps argument is not really valid, because the number of apps on the Apps Store has, or will very soon, exceed the number of things humans can keep track of anyways, so even if crap apps are eliminated, there will still be too many apps to keep track of.
This is really a problem of taste, and Apple has messed up here. Some people like silly apps, just like some people like really bad music. The solution is not to insert yourself into the middle and become an arbiter of taste, the solution is to make it easier for the crowd to sort the good from the bad and let each app appeal to its niche while not eliminating innovation or silliness.
Except, Apple doesn't restrict itself to only music from formal publishers. I've got a couple of albums on the iTunes store, and I don't have a contract with anyone...
Not to mention music publishers don't do a great job in this role of theirs you say they have, since there's still lots of crappy music out there. However, I doubt music publishers actually care, since having a crappy song in iTunes can still make you more money than NOT having a crappy song in iTunes. And who knows, someone might like it.
The last time I checked, "Silence" by Guster was still on iTunes. If that isn't the functional equivalent of a "limited utility" app then I don't know what is. But its there, I'm even sure a Guster fan has bought it. The fact is, Apple can do a lot of things about limited utility apps without shutting them down completely.
That application is one of the dumbest ways I can think of to spend programming time. Pull my finger? How about if that developer pulls his head out of his ass? I'm sure I'll get modded down for this. Whatever.
I am by no means an Apple zealot. In fact, I think the iPhone is pretty lousy. But why is it that so many people feel like they have a right to have their application sold in the iPhone App Store? Store owners do get to pick and choose what they're going to sell. You can't just come up with whatever lame product, show up at Best Buy or Amazon headquarters and demand that they start selling it in their stores. What in the world makes this guy or anyone else think the App Store is somehow an exception?
They weren't jerks about it either. They tactfully told this guy that his app was worthless and explained how he could distribute it to friends and family. He's lucky an application called "Pull My Finger" was even reviewed in the first place.
If people are unhappy with App Store policies then maybe the conditions are right for a competitor to come along and open a store. Of course, there's the whole issue of lock-in, but that's a whole different topic. The last thing we should be doing is feeling some sense of entitlement. It's Apple's store and they can choose what products to carry. As consumers we can choose whether or not to buy their products.
"But why is it that so many people feel like they have a right to have their application sold in the iPhone App Store? Store owners do get to pick and choose what they're going to sell. You can't just come up with whatever lame product, show up at Best Buy or Amazon headquarters and demand that they start selling it in their stores. What in the world makes this guy or anyone else think the App Store is somehow an exception?"
Well, the problem is that Apple has made so that theirs is the only store in the world. If your store doesn't want to stock my book, it's not a problem, I can always go to the bookstore across the street and cut a deal with them. But if I write an app for the iPhone, the only place that I can sell it is the App Store.
That being the case, developers are going to see Apple being fickle about what apps are accepted/rejected, and they are going to start asking themselves is it worth the risk to spend 6 months developing an app just to discover that it can never even be put on the market.
Apple risks losing developers if they continue with this, and that doesn't help their cause.
This is what you get when you have a closed, totalitarian system. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Steve Jobs makes Bill Gates look like Richard Stallman.
