Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mentioning Android Is a No-No In iPhone App Store

Posted by kdawson on from the wash-your-mouth-out dept.

donberryman writes "Apple has told a software developer that its application cannot be included in the iPhone App Store if it mentions Google Android. The developer just wanted to mention that the app was a finalist in Google's Android Developer's Challenge." The developer complied with apparent good humor. Here is their blog post, which includes the text of the iPhone store's not-quite-rejection.

20 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. We're all mind readers by SQLz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow the list of magical things you can't do with your iPhone app sure is growing.

    1. Re:We're all mind readers by Buelldozer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My mother gave my son a 32G iPod touch for Christmas. The iPod itself is a fantastic piece of gear but every time I have to launch iTunes to sync music into it I go on a 15 minute profanity riddled rant. iTunes is buggy, slow, and generally the biggest pile of shit software that I am forced to use. To say that I hate it with the intensity of a thousand burning stars would be an _understatement_.

      Why, oh why, won't Apple let me push music to it like every other, non-Apple, media player that we own?

      Steve Jobs deserves to be kicked in the DICK for this, hard.

    2. Re:We're all mind readers by ircmaxell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it's a selling point for the app. Take "Bump" for example... Simply stating it's compatible with Android and iPhone is a huge selling point (if they charged for the app). Especially as more and more apps are letting you interact with other people, it's definitely a good selling point that you can interact with non iPhone users.

      Is this type of advertising hurting Apple? Not in the least. In fact, I'd argue that it's doing the exact opposite. With the rejection of an app because it said "Android" in it, it makes me wonder if there's any commitment on their part to support device interoperability (even if just on the app level)... And that question COULD hurt them on the business end (and the power users who are on the fence)...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    3. Re:We're all mind readers by Buelldozer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know, replying to an AC and all that, but I hate iTunes so bad I'm going to do it anyway.

      I like the iPod touch and would like to have one for myself but I absolutely, positively, 100% WILL NOT buy an iPod as long as I'm forced to use iTunes. It's just not going to fucking happen. I am advising my friends and family not to buy them either, based SOLELY on how terrible iTunes is.

      Once I'm forced to use iTunes a few more times my hatred will probably reach the level of a holy war.

    4. Re:We're all mind readers by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I do have to ask, because it works fine for me. So well that I have never considered using anything else. But then again, I am running it under OS X.

    5. Re:We're all mind readers by Jesus_666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It'll continue with the users. Those, such as yourself, who buy Apple products expecting a useful product will become dismayed, never buy another Apple product, and will suggest to other people that they also avoid Apple.

      Except for those Apple users who have actually ever used an Apple product and will probably keep doing so because most Apple products are actually fairly good. As are most Microsoft products, for the record, even if I dislike them.

      Yes, my iPod touch doesn't multitask. Doesn't mean it's not still a decent MP3 player with a PDA built in, which I got for a extremely good price (35 EUR through the Back to School rebate offer); multitasking would occasionally be nice but I don't miss it enough to care. Yes, it needs iTunes, which apprently sucks big time on Windows. This doesn't faze me either as iTunes is a pretty good program on Mac OS and I use it anyway.

      Yes, Macs are expensive. Until you require a certain feature set (like anything involving FireWire 800) that puts Mac prices on equal footing with those of comparable devices. That might even happen if you're shopping for a decent notebook; the Apple tax is above zero mainly for desktop systems.

      It's easy to find things to hate about the company but it's not like they consistently produce useless junk that people pay pay at 500% market value for no reason at all. Most consumers do use their brain when making purchases and they have (often valid) reasons for their decision. Yes, even those who buy products you personally dislike.

      Hell, I was in the mall last week and overheard a group of teens making fun of Apple products as being for "queerfags".

      Just like Modern Warfare 2, every video game but Modern Warfare 2, Win7, every OS but Win7, rap, every music genre but rap (and especially metal), metal, every music genre but metal (and especially rap), motorcycles, everything but motorcycles... If we assume the failure of everything some teenager has described as "for fags" we are looking at the end of human culture within the next twenty years.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  2. The wording of Apple's reply by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The wording of Apple's reply is a gem in and of itself:

    While your application has not been rejected, it would be appropriate to remove “Finalist in Google’s Android Developer’s Challenge!” from the Application Description.

    Please log into iTunes Connect to make appropriate changes to the Application Description now to avoid an interruption in the availability of Flash of Genius: SAT Vocab 2.2 on the iPhone App Store.

    That's a nice app you have there; would be a shame if anything happened to it...

  3. When is this ever false? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if beginning with the best of intentions, a censor will always, eventually, come to use his power to censor to benefit himself.

    1. Re:When is this ever false? by bhartman34 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except, in this case, Apple didn't even start with the best of intentions.

  4. Makes sense by Flavio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple can't have Android inside Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field.

  5. Re:Flash of stupidity... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lots of books have their review list, etc. shown on the back. Do you think the Washington Post wouldn't review a book that has "#4 NYT Best Seller" on the cover?

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  6. Uuuuh wrong? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think everyone's going to dogpile on Apple for this, but I think they're missing the point, the point of the removal isn't the word Android, or Google, but the whole phrase of Google Android Developer Contest. They want to be disassociated with that contest. Given that Apple hasn't delisted apps that claim compatibility with other phones, and they even list a whole crap load of Android podcasts and other Android content in the iTunes store, I don't think Apple's paranoid about just the Apple or Google part.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  7. No, but... by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anybody think Barnes and Noble would be willing to post a sign saying your book was #38 in its category on Amazon?

    No, but then Barnes and Noble isn't the only place you can sell your book. If you don't like their policies, you can also put it up for sale on Amazon, Books-A-Million, any number of local bookstores, and probably even stores like Wal-Mart, Target, etc.

    On the other hand, Apple's app store is the only place to offer applications for iPhones, iTouches, and now iPads. The author of this application can't simply go through some alternate means of distributing his application without asking people to jailbreak their device, something that is at best iffy to do if they want to maintain service.

    If Apple would let developers put their apps up for download from their own web site or alternate app stores, then I wouldn't complain. Apple has the right to accept, deny, or place any conditions on apps in its app store that they want. However, that's only half the story. My problem with their attitude is that they have set themselves up so that their store is the only store in town; they have a monopoly over distribution of iDevice applications. They have final authority over what I can and can't run on a device that I own, and as this story illustrates, they are grossly misusing that authority.

    Personally, I can't understand why anyone would want to by an iPad, given that it is going to maintain this paradigm. With phones, people are somewhat used to this. With the iPad pushing into the netbook and ultraportable laptop market, though, it is completely unacceptable. Imagine if you bought, for example, an HP laptop, and they told you the following: "Congratulations on your new HP laptop! To obtain applications, visit apps.hp.com. Oh, and we're sorry if it causes any inconvenience, but that is the only way you may install applications on this new laptop. Everything else is blocked, and if we find out that you're trying to install apps from anywhere except hp.com, your laptop could be deactivated. Congratulations again!" Well, that's Apple, and it boggles my mind that anyone would tolerate it.

    These shenanigans are precisely why I, as a developer, got a refund on my developer program application and told them that I will be not be developing for the iDevices. It's also why I, who used to be an advocate for Apple devices, am strongly urging people to not buy their products these days.

    1. Re:No, but... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was going to mod the parent, but decided to correct you instead.

      No, but then Barnes and Noble isn't the only place you can sell your book. If you don't like their policies, you can also put it up for sale on Amazon, Books-A-Million, any number of local bookstores, and probably even stores like Wal-Mart, Target, etc.

      Here, let me fix that for you:

      No, but then iPhone App Store isn't the only place you can sell your software. If you don't like their policies, you can also put it up for sale in the Android Market, on the internet, any number of websites, and probably even stores like Wal-Mart, Target, etc.

      That the software can not be sold on Apple's proprietary web site if it's description mentions Apple's competitor does not prevent the author from selling it for use on non-Apple devices.

      If HP did as you state, people would not buy the HP device. Instead they would buy from someone else. HP does not make the processor, motherboard, BIOS, or operating system. WinTel components are a commodity. Apple hardware and the Apple OSes are not commodity.

      People tolerate it because they see value in Apple's name, reputation, and price. They want to play in Apple's sandbox.

      If you don't want to play by Apple's rules, don't play in Apple's sandbox. Don't whine about it like the little bitch your
      post makes you out to be.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  8. Re:Remember a time.. by zlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IPhone's app market definetly has a larger marketshare than Android. They're using this to silence developers mentioning other platforms, basically that's like Microsoft telling an app vendor that their app will be erased from all Windows users' PCs if the app's packaging contains a "compatible with Mac" logo. And a "best Mac app of the year" award.

  9. Re:Remember a time.. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The latter, of course.

    Apple could have come out with a phone that could not have any apps added to it at all. This would have been perfectly legal. Silly, perhaps, but legal.

    Taking this same phone that can't have apps added to it and allowing apps to be added from Apple's site is no more illegal than the previous situation.

    IOW, you are an idiot.

  10. Re:Objectively speaking... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because, 1) none their competitors do not have similar restrictions in place, and 2) they do not provide any venue for installing applications on one's iPhone apart from the App Store, so censoring that is effectively censoring the entire platform.

    Also, Apple does not "subsidize" anything here. The developer wrote application for their own money, and a cut of any sales of the app go to Apple, part of which is used for store maintenance. It is a very large stretch to call that "subsidizing" in any way.

    Well, I guess you're one of those guys who think that kicking people with t-shirts mentioning companies competing with Olympic sponsors out of Olympic venues was a grand idea. After all, the logic is exactly the same.

  11. Re:Hmmm by vtavares · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, of course he'll say that. He needs to sell his app. Would you say bad things about someone who just threatened you?

  12. Good for Apple. by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sick of seeing app descriptions like the one used for this app before the change.

    Telling people that its great for Android is of no value what so ever to an iPhone user.

    Its just a wasted fluff piece that takes up space for what should be a real app description.

    Listing off the reasons why other people think your app is awesome BEFORE you actually tell anyone what your app does is fucking annoying for those of us looking for apps.

    Most of us don't give a shit what awards you've one, awards are generally politically based and rarely a direct relation to how good something is, regardless of the award.

    I don't want to read about 10 different awards you got, I want to know what the app does and what features its got that make it worth my money and/or time.

    Everyone here is bitching about Apple being so controlling and 'censoring' and you guys STILL DON'T GET IT. You keep going on about how Apple is wrong all the while ignoring that they have a growth rate thats off the charts.

    I appreciate that Apple wants this pointless bit of information removed from the description, it does nothing useful to me. I don't use android, and if I'm buying a flashcard app for my iPhone I'm probably not also going to carry it around on my Android phone since having both would be retarded in and of itself.

    You might be wise to listen to their marketing department. They've always been the smaller company that could. People like Apple (outside of the fanboys of geekdom, we all have our own things that we love, we don't count) for a reason, maybe its cause they are trendy, but I think its more than that, and this is an example of one of those reasons.

    When you go to the store and buy a boxed application that runs on OS X and Windows, and it says so on the box, its because it runs on both. They don't put the OSX version in the box and advertise that you can go buy a Windows version if you want also. Nor do Windows only versions of software tell you about the Mac version. This App is sold in a store for software that when you buy/download it, it will only work on the iPhone (barring some hacked device that runs iPhone OS or a vm or simulator), so theres no reason to mention Android, it will just confuse all the people who have NO FREAKING IDEA what Android is, which is pretty much everyone outside this community. They may know that Google has the Nexus One, or that you can buy a Droid, but they have no clue what Android OS is.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Good for Apple. by Al+Dimond · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't like the way the developer advertises his app. I don't like the fact that Apple decides for him how he can do it.

      Why do people that don't own iPhones care? Because we don't want to own iPhones. We would rather that closed ecosystems lose mindshare and fail so we aren't economically compelled to write software for them.