How To Get Rejected From the App Store

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister catalogs 12 sure-fire ways to get your app rejected from Apple's notoriously fickle App Store. From executing interpreted code, to using Apple's APIs without permission, to designing your UI, each transgression has been abstracted from real-life rejections — for the most part because Apple seems to be making up the rules as it goes along. 'It'd be nice for Apple to make conditions for rejection clear,' McAllister writes. 'Apple has been tinkering with the language of its iPhone SDK license agreement lately, but that hasn't done much to clarify the rules — unless you're Adobe. For everyone else, the App Store's requirements seem as vague and capricious as ever.'"

Comments

this book can't be a complete set

[Michael Kristopeit]

with the current open ended terms, there is no way this book could be a complete set... "just 'cause" will always still be an option for apple.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[The Qube]

It's not about being democratic or not. I can look at it from their point of view - they probably received legal threats from the other party and they went down the path of least resistance - it was easier to pull my app then to argue about it.

It's about communication. They are marketing themselves as being developer friendly etc, but don't actually look after the developers or even communicate with them.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[getNewNickName]

So like you said, regardless they lose, so why not just keep quiet? You've already established that they stand less of a chance of being litigated by a small developer. If it makes you feel any better, from one developer to another, I feel for you. Being bullied out by big corporations would be more than frustrating. If you're looking for an apology, might I suggest you try to email Jobs directly; the MyFrame developer got one.

Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[elrous0]

No one is making anyone buy an iPhone. No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone.

This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS. They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them. You want to compete so bad? Go make your own phone or pad.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[bigstrat2003]

You know, the fact that there are other options is not a valid reason to simply shut up and accept Apple's capriciousness. Merely taking other options is worthless as a force for change unless you also make it known why you took the alternative.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[gad_zuki!]

>This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS

No, its the 2000s and one of the largest smartphone OSs is iPhone (50 million units sold). Lets not forget their near perfect monopoly on music players, which are little more than smartphones sans phone and are binary compatible with ipod/ipad.

Also, in the 1990s no one made you buy Microsoft. You could always have bought a Mac or run a maturing Linux, like today. Harmful monopolies are funny things. In retrospect they are easy to spot, but when you in the midst of one its easy to justify them.

>They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them.

I dont think anyone is suggesting that, but pointing out Apple's rotten policies is a social good, at least in my book. It keeps the consumers informed and the bad publicity will hurt them enough in the long run. We're pretty much witnessing Steve Jobs circa 1980s all over again. He's going to fight for closed and expensive while his competitors will fight for open and cheap(er). Closed and expensive has early advantages but not much staying power.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[arth1]

No one is making anyone buy an iPhone. No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone.

This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS. They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them.

You may be wrong there. Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products.
And the share of the smartphone market that Apple holds might just be big enough, especially when seen in the context of their market share of the music player market.

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[nomadic]

And by that logic movie critics should never write bad reviews, because nobody's forcing them to watch those movies. If Apple is acting immorally, what is wrong with calling them out on it?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Tiresome argument is tiresome.

Repeating like a parrot that "nobody's forcing to buy something" is simply flawed logic aiming at dismissing any kind of critics on no grounds. Yes we are not forced to buy it, yes we still have all rights to point out sleazy practices.

Anyway, nobody's forcing you to share a point of view against your cult...

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Bobfrankly1]

Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products. And the share of the smartphone market that Apple holds might just be big enough, especially when seen in the context of their market share of the music player market.

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

This is what has been floating in my head, but I've been unable to put into words. Excellent comment!

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

"Near perfect monopoly on music players"???? WTF? Between my friends and I, we use ten different portable devices to play music (not counting CD players, just digital files). NOT ONE OF THEM WAS MADE BY APPLE. And we don't feel the lack AT ALL.

You just want to play music, there's no need to suck Apple's dick. There are plenty of alternatives. GOOD ONES.

You don't have to have a lack of alternatives to have a monopoly market power (there was always alternatives to Windows as well), and there isn't necessary anything wrong with that as long as it isn't abused. Example of such abuse would be if Apple is using their totally dominant position in the online music business to pressure labels away from doing daily deals with much smaller competitor Amazon (which is being antitrust investigated right now, google it).

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[DragonWriter]

You know, the fact that there are other options is not a valid reason to simply shut up and accept Apple's capriciousness.

No, its a reason to vote with your dollars (whether as an end-user or someone investing in app development) and reject Apple's capriciousness.

Whining while rewarding Apple's capriciousness has counterproductive effects.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[obarthelemy]

1- Does that make them right ?
2- Does that invalidate attempts at trying to try and understand their logic (if any) and not be banned from their store ?
3- Does that make efforts to publicize their behaviour superfluous ?

Apple isn't MS: MS never treated their devs this badly.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[PopeRatzo]

this is a story about a guy who was stealing content from a source

It's not so cut and dried.

It is not universally accepted that sports scores are the property of the sport any more than I can charge people for looking at a tree that grows on my front lawn. Or charge them for taking pictures of that tree and selling those pictures. Google makes money by providing a map that shows my address. Do they owe me something or do they need my permission to do so?

I can learn the score of today's baseball game without having anything to do with any Major League Baseball property. I could have heard them from a friend. I could have heard them on TV, on the radio or seen them on the front page of the newspaper sitting in the paybox on my streetcorner. I could have been at the game myself.

So, if I post here on Slashdot that the Chicago Black Hawks are now leading the Philadelphia Flyers in the Stanley Cup series by 2 games to 1, can the NHL come after me? Can they come after Slashdot? How about if I mention that my White Sox beat Tampa Bay 8-5 Sunday night? Can MLB come after me?

"Stealing content from a source"my ass. Do you believe newspapers should have to pay Major League Baseball to print last night's box score? The guy was selling an application that displayed the same information that was available in hundreds of other sources for free. How can the cricket association now claim that it is proprietary information?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[bigstrat2003]

At what point did I ever suggest one should do otherwise? Indeed, I have done as you said, and voted with my dollars. However, I also don't see that as a reason not to complain as well.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[PopeRatzo]

but they paid for the right to do that.

Do you think newspapers pay for the right to list MLB scores?

ESPN has to get rights to show highlights from games, yes, but you can't copyright facts. If I use an MLB logo, or a team logo, or footage from the game, I have to pay or get permission. But I don't need permission to write, on my blog, that the Flyers beat the Black Hawks 3 to 2 in game three of the Stanley Cup finals. I don't need permission to say that a certain ballplayer is hitting .283 or that a different ballplayer got a hit in last night's game.

Innovate too well, Apple kills it.

[sethstorm]

Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

It probably would be better to have a plan to offer it to jailbroken iPhones to at least reduce losses.

using vendor API's !welcome?

[TheLevelHeadedOne]

...to using Apple's APIs without permission...
Didn't Micro$oft have API's that they used and didn't want anyone else to use? Didn't they get lambasted for that?

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[TheoCryst]

The problem with using Apple's private APIs is that they tend to be unstable, and there are no guarantees that they won't change. Apple would very much rather that half the apps in their store didn't break because of an OS update that changes an undocumented API. And they've always been good about making private APIs public once they stabilize, so it's not as big a deal as this guy makes it sound.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[twidarkling]

My question is, why should they be allowed to? Just slap a warning on it, and let it go. Last I checked, image management wasn't a valid reason to restrict other peoples' actions.

Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[Kabuthunk]

Could we PLEASE try to go even a single day without some apple-based story? My god, there's more to the world of science and technology than a single company!

Canada attempting to pass a bill to put filesharing along the same lines as in the USA?
Info on the oil leak?
Hewlett-Packard cutting 9000 jobs?

To hell with all of that, someone somewhere posted something about Apple!

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[shutdown -p now]

Could we PLEASE try to go even a single day without some apple-based story?

Would you prefer Microsoft-based story?

There will always be a flamebaity topic for articles on Slashdot, if only to drive visitors to the site. Like it or not, but most are here for the comments, not the stories. It just so happens that, these days, Apple generates most controversy, and its user demographic is somewhat specific in that any Apple-related story is a virtually guaranteed 500+ comment flamewar.

Canada attempting to pass a bill to put filesharing along the same lines as in the USA?

There was a /. story for that, actually.

Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes

[retardpicnic]

They used to have a game called Calvinball where the rules were made up as they played the game and ever changing. Dealing with Apple (or even thier bedmate ATT) is a lot like playing CB....sigh

Just don't coopt the Brand

[GodfatherofSoul]

If your app does anything that might make it bigger than The Phone, then you screwed up. Apple wants their customers to always have in mind that they're using an iPhone; not your apps on an iPhone. Same reason Valentino Rossi won't get to race on a Ducati.

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand

[Fantastic Lad]

Thank-you!

Now I don't need to spend ten minutes trying to think of a clever way to word what you just explained.

Not that I technically needed to say anything. But this iPhone thing is like an obsessive itch; It bugs me because it's a major piece of social engineering in progress and it's being run by a control freak dick whose dream of reality just pisses me off. The fact that Apple calls its lead tech PR staff, "Evangelists" is creepy on so many levels. . !

-FL

Re:Apple is Evil

[bky1701]

The reality distortion field that Jobs invented works well. Too bad Microsoft never got one.

Re:Streaming

[Lunix Nutcase]

*gasp* You mean a an article by McAllister might twists facts around in an article for nothing more than to drive hits to his blog? Say it ain't so!!!!

Re:let's look at each one.

[shutdown -p now]

Look and feel is why we buy Apple. We expect to do certain things in certain ways. There are some things that will always be wanted. It is like cup holders. Just because some consumers buy cars based on cup holders does not mean that we should all have to drive car with 23 cup holders.

It is a flawed analogy. No-one is asking for that. What people want is the ability to add extra cupholders to their car in case they need them (and apparently many people do!). But Apple only lets you install anything into your machine in its own service centers, and they only offer a limited range of options.

Also, "iTunes sync over WiFi" = "cupholder", seriously?

This has been discussed ad infintum. I think battery life should take precedence over developers wanting to take the easy way out. I pay for code to be good.

The Flash aspect has been discussed ad infinitum. However, there isn't any good reason why a user cannot run an application which is an interpreter (and advertised as such), rather than uses an interpreter internally (and does not advertise it).

I mean, seriously, what does a HyperCard implementation - which the user would have to explicitly feed code to run - have to do with battery life?

I have no idea on this one. I think if people had not felt they had a god given right to infinite bandwidth ATT would still be selling unlimited plans.

Bandwidth usage is something that should be strictly between the user and his mobile provider. Then, of course, if Internet radio is a serious network strain, then iPhone "3G" is a misnomer.

When Apple posted GPL content and then removed it, the general rational EFF cried foul, even though Apple really did nothing wrong. People assume that if it is in the Apple store, then Apple can be blamed.

A GPL violation is a definite copyright infringement, though; there's no shady ground here. But a BitTorrent client? They're not illegal. And the app in question isn't even that - it's simply an UI to control a BitTorrent client running on a computer remotely.

Still...

[joh]

I certainly totally hate it when some useful app vanishes or new rules pop up out of nothing, but on the other hand I can somehow understand that Apple has to make the rules as it goes along. I mean, if they'd put up clear rules and would stick to these, developers would instantly start to find loopholes and to work around them, naturally. And for Apple the iPhone/iPad platform is what they bet their future on. And this platform is still at a very early stage. They do not want to be the dog with which the tail waggles.

Apple (and the Mac and OS X) has more than once suffered from others having too much control over things. Like Adobe with taking ages to port their apps to Intel Macs because they did not use XCode in the first place. Imagine Apple allowing Flash and any kind of programming language and compilers and middleware and then, 4 or 6 years on, they try to go to a totally different hardware platform (which *will* happen sooner or later, be assured). Suddenly they'd have a large amount of apps they couldn't offer any migration tools for then and be at the whim of some third party (or worse, hundreds of them). Look at Microsoft -- Windows and all its apps are married to Intel and the flood of ARM platforms for tablets is totally out of bounds for MS here. There is absolutely no way to port Windows and all applications to another platform. Trapped.

For Google, Android itself and its apps is still a minor thing. Google does not sell systems. As long as they get your data and your eyes, they can allow Android apps to go whereever they go. They don't actually care.

Really, I'm somewhat happy that there's more than one way. All of this is a large experiment and attacking the problems from more than one angle is good. Freedom is not when everyone does the same.

deal with the devil

[Weezul]

You got what you deserved for working with oligarchs. What did you expect?

A little life advice, you know that girl you call every 2-3 days for 2 weeks, but never actually meet? Well, she's just not that into you. Apple'a App store is a pretty similar situation. You should either (a) get a job writing an app for people who have the clout, like say a newspaper, or (b) just changing fucking platforms.

Maemo and MeeGo are kinda a moving target right now, but one might try expanding GnuSTEP to aid porting iPhone apps. Or, if your really crazy, try writing tools to help port iPhone apps to Qt. I'm sure many iPhone developers would love having their apps run natively on Symbian phones.

Btw, GnuSTEP was originally developed by SLAC to help port HippoDraw away from the dying NeXT platform, but they eventually gave up on Objective C and NeXTSTEP's, instead choosing Qt.

Re:deal with the devil

[Psaakyrn]

Microsoft's coming out with Windows Mobile 7 in a couple of months.

I know it's Microsoft, but considering we're talking about Apple here, I can't see how it'll be any worse.

Exaggerated?

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,
I have no doubt that there are issues with the way Apple handles this. However I consider this article as bad journalism. About much stuff I have a clue, and the article makes no attempt to give any explanations on how or what is going on and what is so bad about it.

However articles like this one: http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/how-get-rejected-the-app-store-854?page=0,0/ only lead to confusion and are not really helpful (as half the claims there are arguable wrong)

I work down the list as presented in said article.

1. we all agree that (crashing) software like that has nothing to do on my mobile device, I assume?
2. I agree with Apple. Why should they allow to have several Mail, SMS and what ever programs on the device that ruin the platform look and feel?
3. Well, neither the article, not the linked article make clear what this is about. So I would call this bad journalism. Again: what exactly is the Wi-Fi synch thing wee are talking about here? You want to tell me if I want to synch my iPhone with my Mac it wont work over Wi-Fi? Are you sure? And Apps that make this possible get rejected? Are you really sure? If that is the case, we have a point here, but if that is truly the case what is so hard in making this explicit for noobs like me?
4. Execute interpreted code. Your comments are wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with "interpreted" or "not interpreted". Apple considers the iPhone an End-User-Device. You can not program on it, and you should not. That is their stand of view. It has nothing to do with interpreted. Imagine a C64 Emulator that has access to the Mac OS X API and is able to "format" the "HD" of the iPhone. Nightmare!
5. Use too much bandwidth. The whole explanation makes no sense at all. First of all internet radio streams only us 2 or 3 times the bandwidth a phone call does. Secondly, a provider like AT&T perfectly knows which connections over his network do what. So instead of dropping a phone call because of network saturation the provider easily can drop a true bandwidth hogger. Blocking an App because it might use bandwidth makes no sense ... that sounds like bullshit to me.
6. No idea about this. All I can find about this is pretty weird. I had expected that the author of this article had worked on that so we as his readers get an ida what is really going on. However: The App Store is no democracy, which might be why Apple doesn't feel inclined to support free speech. First off all: Free speech or not free speech is something different. Supposed there is a ruler and some citizen says: "that ruler sucks." In a society honouring free speech that citizen can say this unharmed. In a society not honouring free speech the ruler might call for his head. Why do you want to imply that an App that does not get published, for what reason ever, is somehow violating "free speech principles"? Claims like that are a slap into the face of people all over the world that fight for free speech in their countries. You dare to compare a not published App in a Store that belongs to Apple, where Apple has all rights to do what they ever want (not rights: privileges even) with "free speech issues"? Hello, get a real live man!
7. Use Apple's APIs (without permission). Oh my god. The biggest bullshit in this article. First of all the (without permission) part. It implies that some Programmers have the permission to use those APIs. If you have an App on your iPhone, you expect it to continue to work after a system upgrade, or not? If that App uses a "secret API" and that API got changed during the upgrade, the App will likely crash, or not? Whom do you blame? The stupid moron who used secret/unofficial/undocumented APIs or the System Upgrade? Stuff like this bullshit only one who has no clue about programming can write.
8. Use someone else's stuff. No comment about this but I doubt the

Walled Garden & Owning the content

[protektor]

Apple is trying to create a walled garden and are desperate to own the content because they know that pretty soon everyone is going to catch up with OS X in terms of usability and then they will just be another also choice. I give it another 5 maybe 10 years at the outside until most OSes are pretty much the same in terms of look and feel and usability, baring anything stupid in terms of software patents.

So Apple knows that since its days are numbered they need to own or control the content. Which is why the do everything they do. They don't care about the OS any more, they care about owning and controlling the content now.

As for the walled garden, we all know how well that worked out for AOL and other similar companies. The walled garden approach almost never works because there ends up always being something outside of the walled garden that people want. Walled gardens will never work in the long term.

I think Apple is just scared to death of the future repeating itself and Apple being a nothing on it last legs in 5+ years, like it was 5-10 years ago. So they are willing to do anything to try and make that not happen, including doing stupid things that make it happen faster.

If it is all about the OS then Linux is going to eat Apple's lunch given enough time, and every time. There is very little that OS X has currently that isn't available in Linux. Plus Linux being open source and free means more and more companies who don't want to pay an OS tax are using it. Linux is showing up everywhere on every kind of device you can think of, and neither Apple or Microsoft can hire enough programmers to combat that level adoption or features being added by so many companies and developers. Is Linux perfect? No, but it gets better all the time, and what is clear is that Linux is good enough for a lot of things currently. Perhaps Linux isn't prefect for everything, at least not yet, but that will change in time.

Steve Jobs knows he won't be at the head of Apple forever and probably won't be around after another 10 years, so he has to do whatever he thinks he can to make Apple be able to survive when he is gone so they don't have a repeat of what he sees as the past failures while he was gone. In the end the more he or anyone else tries to put a tight grip on things to control them, the more they lose control of the very thing they want to control.

Microsoft learned long ago, you want your platform to succeed then you need to win the minds of developers. It seems Apple never really learned this, or at least not well. The more Apple pisses off developers the faster they will become an also or a has-been.
 

Re:Walled Garden & Owning the content

[walterbyrd]

If it is all about the OS then Linux is going to eat Apple's lunch given enough time, and every time. There is very little that OS X has currently that isn't available in Linux.

Not as long as Linux uses X11. I am a Linux user myself, I am using Ubuntu right now. But, the sad truth is: X11 graphics are substantially inferior to Apple's graphics.

Of course, on Android, that's not a problem.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wny should they clarify anything?

[hey!]

Developers are still writing apps for the platform, aren't they?

Here's the deal. You get access to the iPod and iPhone user base ... maybe ... for as long as it pleases Apple for you to have that. You take the calculated risk that Apple will accept your app, and continue accepting that app long enough for you to recoup your investment. There are no guarantees that it will please Apple to continuing doing so, any more than there are guarantees that users will buy your app.

I don't understand why people agonize over this like its some kind of betrayal, or like Apple owes them something. As far as Apple is concerned they own not only the platform, but the customers for that platform and every aspect of the user experience. What part of that hasn't been made abundantly clear yet? Oh, there are certain well known things you can do to avoid getting your app banned, but Apple could decide tomorrow to change the rules. They could even ban your app because they decide it's not consistent with the image they want to project.

As long as there are plenty of app developers who willing to develop on those terms (basically nothing is guaranteed), and Apple has never pretended otherwise, why should Apple do anything for you? It'd be different if they'd promised you anything like control over your own destiny, or openness, or transparency, or even a fair shake. But they haven't. They promised you a crapshoot, and that's what you get. It's their rules, and those rules are "what we say goes, and we don't owe you any explanation." The only people who might in some conceivable scenario have any cause for complaint are the stockholders, but those circumstances haven't arisen yet.

So, iPhone developers, if you don't like Apple's terms, eat it, or move on. Apple never forced you to develop for the platform, and they aren't forcing you to stay.