Just When You Thought App Store Decisions Couldn’t Get Any Stupider …
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?
I am an iPhone developer as well and I agree with your article on the subjectiveness of the new iTunes policies. No matter what rules are made, there will always be those who will agree or disagree with the rules. It would be nice to know what is acceptable and what is not before thousands of dollars are spent on development of these mobile applications.
Yup, there sure will always be room for plenty of complaints – but this is one of their real WTF moments.
I would like to see them crack down on the tons of spam apps in the app store. Though it is very subjective as to what is "pretty well useless" and what is not I think this is an attempt at doing it. They did remind him he can distribute it himself though that is not as easy.
Like I said it is subjective and something that would be hard to do well but really, they need to clean up the app store.
I think it would be far, far better to just have separate sections for Adult and Novelty content – rather than continuing to ban or eject apps from the App Store.
I agree, there is always going to be a demand for adult themed apps, so Apple are in a "win" "win" situation. I personally feel that Apple are going way too far on this particular occasion.