Now an iPhone app gets rejected for ‘minimal user functionality’
We’re still seeing all the repercussions from Apple’s recent ban on ‘overtly sexual’ apps, and they’re typically inconsistent application of the new policy. Now they appear to have made another, equally stupid, change of course on what is acceptable in the App Store – as they have rejected an app on the grounds that it ‘contains minimal user functionality’.
Now if this was July 2008 and that rejection came down, and that became the clear policy, well that would be one thing. Still a can of worms because of course one man’s useless app is another man’s funny novelty app. But this rejection comes 150,000 + apps later than July 2008. After hundreds of farting and belching apps have been accepted into the store. After the Werewolf Reminder (screenie above) app was accepted. After the Million Tap Challenge app was welcomed in.
Here’s a little more detail on the app rejected from Gizmodo’s article on this:
The app in question, DuckPhone, was developed by Nick Bonatsakis of Atlantia Software and had one simple purpose: To make your phone quack like a duck. For whatever reason, Apple didn’t think that was useful enough to an average user and wrote Nick this love letter:
"Dear Atlantia Software LLC,
We’ve reviewed your application DuckPhone and we have determined that this application contains minimal user functionality and will not be appropriate for the App Store.
If you would like to share it with friends and family, we recommend you review the Ad Hoc method on the Distribution tab of the iPhone Developer Portal for details on distributing this application among a small group of people of your choosing or if you believe that you can add additional user functionality to DuckPhone we encourage you to do so and resubmit it for review.
If this is an indicator of another new ‘policy’ for the App Store, and not just a rogue / idiot decision by another overworked, overstressed reviewer, then it shares a lot with the recent ‘sexy apps’ policy:
— It seems a heck of a grey line for Apple to try to try to tread. Duckphone is out but huge numbers of other soundboard apps are OK. Is a dog or cat phone app OK because more of us own dogs than ducks? Are Mr. T and Samuel L. Jackson soundboard apps OK because they are from well-known celebs, but non-celeb soundboards don’t make the grade? An app that reminds me when I may turn into a werewolf has got enough user functionality, but duck noises just don’t cut it.
— We will see tons of farcical rejections, reversals, and inconsistencies with this area as well. Just as with the new sexy apps policy, blogs will be full of examples of App A gets in, App B doesn’t. All good fodder for making fun of Apple and nice light entertainment; unless of course you’re a developer of a ‘minimal functionality’ app.
— Just as with sexy apps, why not just open a freakin Novelty section for the App Store?. Create an Adult (or Explicit or whatever) section and a Novelty section, and remove the need for making stupid, inconsistent and subjective decisions on what is ‘overtly sexual’ or what is of minimum use to App Store buyers.
I’d love to see both of these separate sections created, and have an ability to filter them out if I don’t want to see them. Much better than Apple continuing to make themselves the judge and jury of what is or is not tasteful, or sexual, or even of minimal use.
What do you all think? Is the App Store now your favorite soap opera?
Continue reading:
- Everything New Apple Just Announced (Septembe
- Apple Watch Pre-Order
- Apple Research Kit launches with 5 Apps
- Apple TV now only $69
TAGS: stupid App Store decisions
