Apple withdraws objection, Eucalyptus now available on the App Store(blog.montgomerie.net)
blog.montgomerie.net
Apple withdraws objection, Eucalyptus now available on the App Store
http://www.blog.montgomerie.net/hither-eucalyptus
6 comments
Would enjoy seeing a popularity comparison between apps that follow the 5 step process vs apps that are approved immediately - does it affect app growth positively to get stuck at step 4?
Our app got accepted immediately, and was developed by someone who had never done an iPhone app before. It's pretty simple if your app isn't controversial and you are good at following directions.
I submitted 12 almost identical applications (code was identical, data was not). They were all approved.
Then, I submitted updates for all 12 of these applications. 2 were rejected.
These were city maps, so it's not like they were controversial. The process is just broken.
Then, I submitted updates for all 12 of these applications. 2 were rejected.
These were city maps, so it's not like they were controversial. The process is just broken.
An ebook reader that accesses Gutenberg is not controversial in the least.
Most apps aren't denied. But the ones that are denied aren't always denied for logical reasons. Baby Shaker was approved. Eucalyptus was denied. That's messed up.
Most apps aren't denied. But the ones that are denied aren't always denied for logical reasons. Baby Shaker was approved. Eucalyptus was denied. That's messed up.
The real problem is the definition of "controversial". How many people would've batted an eye at a plain-text version of the Kama Sutra if this was released when it was first submitted?
The catch is that Eucalyptus really isn't controversial.
On the flip side, this may have possibly been the most effective promotional strategy he could have hoped for.
Prior to all of the sound and fury being raised, what do you think the odds of me purchasing a $9.99 Book Reader for my iPhone was going to be?
But, I saw the video, read _tons_ of books on my iPhone, and am actually going to make my first $9.99 iPhone App Purchase.
And he has Apple to thank for my Purchase (or at least bringing the app to my attention.)
Prior to all of the sound and fury being raised, what do you think the odds of me purchasing a $9.99 Book Reader for my iPhone was going to be?
But, I saw the video, read _tons_ of books on my iPhone, and am actually going to make my first $9.99 iPhone App Purchase.
And he has Apple to thank for my Purchase (or at least bringing the app to my attention.)
I wonder how many developers get fucked over by Apple without being able to generate the press that this and other apps in the same situation were able to.
Probably not many, if any at all. Sites love to carry these stories because they almost always degrade into flame wars which is great for your hits & ad impressions. A developer merely needs to write a paragraph long e-mail and CC 4 or 5 popular tech tabloids.
Hopefully they are now developing for Android, Windows Mobile, or Blackberry, which have many more users, but many fewer hoops to jump through for developers.
Yet again, Apple allows an app after getting a black eye in the press. I'm shocked.
Quality Control via The Blogosphere. That's one way of crowd-sourcing, eh? :-)
This process could actually be formalized. Picture each app submission coming with "references", like on a resume: well-known beta testers that Apple will phone up or email and ask what they thought of the app.
It seems like this is how the reviewing effort should be balanced between the reviewer and the reviewee, actually: developers want to be "hired" (published), but Apple doesn't care much to "hire" (publish) a merely-mediocre developer. The developers should be tasked with providing Apple good reasons to "hire" them, or, more neutrally, good, hard customer data upon which to base their decisions.
It seems like this is how the reviewing effort should be balanced between the reviewer and the reviewee, actually: developers want to be "hired" (published), but Apple doesn't care much to "hire" (publish) a merely-mediocre developer. The developers should be tasked with providing Apple good reasons to "hire" them, or, more neutrally, good, hard customer data upon which to base their decisions.
Jamie worked at Apple. So did I. So did the guys who did the iReddit app. We've all had rejections, and it's not like nobody at Apple knows who we are.
Reminds me of a certain relationship between two entities in our government.
President suggests, Congress rejects, President gives a speech to the public masses, Congress reluctantly accepts.
President suggests, Congress rejects, President gives a speech to the public masses, Congress reluctantly accepts.
Thank God. It was nice app. It would have been a shame if apple hadn't corrected it.
Hopefully a day will come when develpers can get the attention of apple without a big hue and cry
Hopefully a day will come when develpers can get the attention of apple without a big hue and cry
Are the people who said Apple is "Evil" going to withdraw the insult now? Apple may be a little bit of a bumbling fool, but that's not evil. If Apple knew how to avoid these things happening, surely they'd do it.
Thousands of people saw Apple's bad move when this story made its way across the web. Apple doesn't think twice when it's someone small who can't make a fuss.
It's the same kind of deal we saw with the Google Checkout story a couple months ago. Honest people get caught up in overzealous protection methods and companies just take it as a loss.
Search for "iPhone app rejected" and you will see this isn't an isolated incident. A lot of the rejected apps probably broke the rules, but plenty have not, and Apple doesn't seem to care unless they have a big soapbox to shout from.
Textbook "evil", no. But, it wouldn't be hard to stop these things. Apple takes a calculated approach because they know the few wrongfully rejected apps won't cost them as much money as implementing a beefier review process across their whole app store. When this policy gets bad press by influential bloggers, like with this app, they can spend a minimal amount of resources to reevaluate the app. It's cold and calculated.
It's the same kind of deal we saw with the Google Checkout story a couple months ago. Honest people get caught up in overzealous protection methods and companies just take it as a loss.
Search for "iPhone app rejected" and you will see this isn't an isolated incident. A lot of the rejected apps probably broke the rules, but plenty have not, and Apple doesn't seem to care unless they have a big soapbox to shout from.
Textbook "evil", no. But, it wouldn't be hard to stop these things. Apple takes a calculated approach because they know the few wrongfully rejected apps won't cost them as much money as implementing a beefier review process across their whole app store. When this policy gets bad press by influential bloggers, like with this app, they can spend a minimal amount of resources to reevaluate the app. It's cold and calculated.
By "easy to stop" you mean "costs so much money (i.e. human effort) as to be even more costly than bad PR", in other words "takes TONS of effort to stop".
I have no idea where you are pulling these quotes from. I said none of those things.
I said said they could stop it if they wanted to. It might cost a little extra, but it also wouldn't completely screw over a bunch of small developers. Developers who already paid money to Apple and further invested their time and money into making an application.
Based of how prevalent iPhone app rejections are, you would think the least Apple could do would be to release a comprehensive list of things they do not like.
Would it really cost 'TONS' of effort just to create a set of guidelines and stick to them?
I said said they could stop it if they wanted to. It might cost a little extra, but it also wouldn't completely screw over a bunch of small developers. Developers who already paid money to Apple and further invested their time and money into making an application.
Based of how prevalent iPhone app rejections are, you would think the least Apple could do would be to release a comprehensive list of things they do not like.
Would it really cost 'TONS' of effort just to create a set of guidelines and stick to them?
you said
> Textbook "evil", no. But, it wouldn't be hard to stop these things. Apple takes a calculated approach because they know the few wrongfully rejected apps won't cost them as much money as implementing a beefier review process
in other words, you advocate spending more money on reviews. how much? an amount that costs more than the bad PR. you say this explicitly.
how much is "more than the bad PR"? quite a lot. you and i both agree the PR is a big deal.
> Textbook "evil", no. But, it wouldn't be hard to stop these things. Apple takes a calculated approach because they know the few wrongfully rejected apps won't cost them as much money as implementing a beefier review process
in other words, you advocate spending more money on reviews. how much? an amount that costs more than the bad PR. you say this explicitly.
how much is "more than the bad PR"? quite a lot. you and i both agree the PR is a big deal.
"Of course, it’s not all bad. As everyone knows, the iPhone app submission process works like this: Develop app / Submit app / App rejected / Blogs raise a stink / App approved. So, these guys are merely mired in step 4 and we can look forward to their app being approved within a week or two."