Three months ago, I submitted an update to iLaugh and iLaugh Lite, numbered 1.1.1 that fixed many bugs but didn’t change anything to the functionality of the app.

Today, after three whole months in review (seriously, I’m not making this up!), they decided to finally tackle the issue and issue me a rejection for no other reason other than “because we said so.”

See for yourself.

Please note, this is for iLaugh 1.1.1. iLaugh 2.0 is still in review, as a new application, and there’s no reason it should be rejected. In fact, the premium edition has already been approved and is already live on the App Store.

Speaking of iLaugh 2.0 – the first public screenshot ever:


This entry was posted on Friday, June 12th, 2009 at 1:40 am and is filed under Apple, Business, English, Rants, iPhone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Tweets 46 Other Comments


Add your thoughts!
90 Comments
kob murmurs
June 12th, 2009 at 1:42 am

@fuckingappstore The best / worst rejection reason: “because we said so!” – http://bit.ly/si2mB

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

kob murmurs
June 12th, 2009 at 2:00 am

Apple’s Increasingly Ridiculous Rejections: http://bit.ly/si2mB

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

pixelsage states baldly
June 12th, 2009 at 2:10 am

Apple’s Increasingly Ridiculous Rejections: http://bit.ly/si2mB (via @kob)

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

awmyhr pronounces
June 12th, 2009 at 2:11 am

RT @kob: Apple’s Increasingly Ridiculous Rejections: http://bit.ly/si2mB
WTF?? Apple, please, this HAS to stop! The bad press alone…

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

June 12th, 2009 at 2:15 am

Apple’s Increasingly Ridiculous Rejections: http://bit.ly/si2mB (via @kob)

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

June 12th, 2009 at 6:06 pm

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

Lars pronounces
June 12th, 2009 at 6:09 pm

I’d be hard pressed to write a more douchier worded rejection note.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Mystic screams
June 12th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

So, people complain that there is too much junk in the store for the great programs to stand out, then they complain when Apple tries to filter out the junk?

Personally, I wish they would reject A LOT more apps!

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

Jesse thinks aloud
June 12th, 2009 at 6:16 pm

Why? It’s easy enough to filter out the crappy apps from the good ones.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Mike says
June 12th, 2009 at 6:17 pm

This is such bullshit. Damn. There’s just no reason behind these rejections.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Matthew speaks of
June 12th, 2009 at 6:18 pm

This is most likely naive, but I’ll ask anyway. Sure, Apple reserves the right to refuse an application for any reason. That’s fine, but the application developers should be informed what the reasons are. Is there any way for the developers to require Apple to disclose the reasons? I assume Apple is not responsible for that.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh application. This kind of rejection is a gamechanger. Devs have complained that […]

Tony Bowman screams
June 12th, 2009 at 6:22 pm

didn’t chuck norris win a lawsuit against the guy who published a book of chuck norris jokes? i could be wrong about who won the case, but there definitely was a lawsuit against the book.

could that be a factor? it’s certainly relevant. by publishing trademarked or copyrighted materials, or those in dispute, apple opens itself up to a whole mess of legal trouble.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Johnny murmurs
June 12th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

I haven’t heard about the lawsuit and you may be right about that reasoning, although it seems like it would be easy enough for Apple to say if that is the reason. However, I remember seeing an interview with Chuck Norris not too long ago where he said that he liked the jokes and thought they were funny. I could see how he might object to publishing such a book without his permission all the same.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

iWyre spews
June 12th, 2009 at 6:34 pm

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

C surmises
June 12th, 2009 at 6:38 pm

Apple really needs to crack down more on these crap-apps. Who the hell needs a portable joke teller? Maybe the reviewer found their common sense during this new round of approval and rejected this useless app like they should have in the first place.

50,000 apps – 220 of them useful.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Mark asks
June 12th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

Could this be a sign that Apple is looking to quash "lite" version of apps, thus reducing some of the noise in the app store?

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

June 12th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

it would be a heavy-handed way of going about it, but i could see it as that.

i mean, if they are opening up in-app purchases, there’s no need to have a lite version of anything anymore. you could have an app with partial content or functionality, then buy the rest through the app. it would definitely cut down on the total number of apps in the store, which cuts down on overhead for storage, delivery, and all that.

but more importantly, it would streamline the app review process. they would only have to review an app once, rather than twice. by reviewing the full monty, they’ve also reviewed the version without everything unlocked.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Martin mouthes
June 12th, 2009 at 6:49 pm

Funny thing though, individuals can determine on their own what apps are or are not useful.

You go ahead and enjoy those 220 apps that are quality to you. In the meantime, I’d like to enjoy the freedom to peruse the other 49,780 to see if maybe something strikes my fancy.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

Martin exclaims
June 12th, 2009 at 6:52 pm

Actually that still won’t work. As far as I understand under 3.0, anything that begins free must remain free.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Matt shrieks
June 12th, 2009 at 6:53 pm

There’s no problem in rejecting an app. That’s what developers sign up for and agree to. The problem is they do not say WHY the app was rejected. Apple HAS to start giving reasons, or they’ll just end up pissing developers off.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

David surmises
June 12th, 2009 at 6:54 pm

Wow! TUAW needs to change their name to ‘TUDW – The Unofficial Developer’s Whineblog’.

We get it, you think Apple is unfair but does every third article have to be about app rejections?

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

June 12th, 2009 at 6:56 pm

it turns our that the norris suit was filed in december of 2007 and then dropped sometime in 2008.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1706865/chuck_norris_facts_spawn_a_dropped.html

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

June 12th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

it was my understanding that the original app itself would have to remain free, but they could charge for extra content all they wanted.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

C asks
June 12th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

You might have a point if this was about subjectivity. But this app has no practicality or real entertainment value outside of becoming the douche at the bar who tells jokes by reading them from his iPhone. How many people do you see carrying around joke books in real life? You may say "Well, that’s because they’re not practical to carry around." but the real answer is because jokes are best delivered from memory and when the teller isn’t awkwardly reading them from a phone. So what is the value of this app? 2% of the population enjoying this type of garbage is not representative of the 98% who find it to be trash, and that my friend, is why it doesn’t belong in the store.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Luke shouts
June 12th, 2009 at 6:59 pm

Apple rejecting apps, because they are against official app store rules, is one thing and ok. Approval actually depending on taste of the current reviewer is unprofessional. While a joke app might be useless to most, it can be entertaining to others. I wish to make my own decisions and since noone forces me to buy any apps, I’d like to keep seeing the variety of apps on the store. Do you really want Apple to make your taste decisions? I don’t!

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

June 12th, 2009 at 6:59 pm

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

June 12th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

June 12th, 2009 at 7:01 pm

I agree… this sort of thing is what SAVED the video game industry from an early death… i think the only issue we see here at all is that there are still some reviewers who let crap through and not doing there job! Does it suck for developers? yes. will we be better for it as consumers? YES! just look at all the crap in the android market…
Now before you call me an apple fanboy im not. I am thinking about leaving my iphone for a pre.
I just think that keeping the crap out of all app stores def needs to happen.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

Franz yells
June 12th, 2009 at 7:03 pm

I totally agree Matt.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

June 12th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

June 12th, 2009 at 7:16 pm

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

SpinThis! shouts
June 12th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

@ C: I agree completely. These apps are ridiculous. People are missing the point about these rejections: the app store wasn’t set up for developers to publish anything they wanted—it was set up to provide developers a way to use the *native* SDK. An app that just lists a bunch of jokes doesn’t even come 1/100 to using the full native SDK functionality, like a full game—there’s hardly any programming at all at couldn’t be done as a web app for example.

To put it another way, would you have this app on your computer? Why or why not? I think most people would agree if they needed jokes, that’s what the internet is for. You don’t need a separate iPhone app for every little task. Good grief.

Better yet, reject native apps and tell the developers to put publish these kinds of things as web apps. Maybe Apple needs a place inside the app store to list iPhone-formatted web content and let the treasure trove of misc crap there.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

PSM screams
June 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm

If there was another store where it could go, I might agree. But Apple leaves developers (and consumers) no other legal alternative for getting apps, and I don’t like the idea that they prevent apps from being distributed just based on their opinion of whether someone else would find it enjoyable or useful.

Admittedly, the App Store needs a very robust way of categorizing and searching apps so that people don’t get fed a bunch of apps they have no interest in, but I don’t think it’s fair that they offer no legitimate way for those 2% of people to buy and sell apps they want (provided the apps break no laws, are not porn, and don’t harm the device in any way).

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

kf9z sings
June 12th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

That is just plain ignorant. You wish they would reject more applications? Really? I might find some of the applications you currently have extraneous and superfluous but I would never arbitrarily reject apps because they offer no real benefit to most users OR take away the rights of Devs to make and profit from applications. Given the fact that this app was already in the app store in a lite and premium version is egregious one the part of Apple and a subjective policy as such – will prompt many Devs to go the way of Andriod or Pre. Apple if smacking many Devs in the face who put hard work and countless hours into apps that are free or very inexpensive with the hopes to make a buck or two – if Apple allowed for Devs to sell their own Apps in a fashion of their choosing, the MARKET would ultimately chose winners and losers – NOT Apple.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Drakhul mouthes
June 12th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

I think you are missing the point of the article… it’s not THAT the app was rejected, it’s that the app was rejected and no reason was given. How are developers supposed to grow if Apple just says "No, we don’t want your ap here" and gives no reason why?

I agree that there are TONS of crappy, useless apps in the App Store, and I do hope Apple can find a way to thin the junk out some, but they should at least tell a guy WHY his app was not approved.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

Drahliana affirms
June 12th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

If this application is the torchbearer for all those suffering from silent rejection slips, it may be part of the unwritten rule o the iStore that Apple simply won’t tell a developer that his ware is a tasteless piece of crap unfit for thier shiny white futuristic virtual store.

Perhaps if an application is truly of the sort where nothing nice can be said about it, Apple may take the position that nothing should be said at all.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

June 12th, 2009 at 8:07 pm

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

Brandon affirms
June 12th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

I’m not even a developer and I feel the same way. When will devs be pushed to their breaking point?

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

oliver hart surmises
June 12th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

How about:

Dear sir, no dice, fuck off.

Mucho douchier in my el booko.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Lars exclaims
June 12th, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Good sir, I stand corrected! ;)

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

June 12th, 2009 at 9:43 pm

[…] a hint as to the reason. One particularly absurd instance of this was rejecting version 1.1.1 of Kenneth Ballenegger’s iLaugh — a minor bug fix upgrade of an app already in the store.  ?  Read the whole […]

June 12th, 2009 at 9:44 pm

[…] a hint as to the reason. One particularly absurd instance of this was rejecting version 1.1.1 of Kenneth Ballenegger’s iLaugh — a minor bug fix upgrade of an app already in the store. […]

Cowicide yells
June 12th, 2009 at 10:00 pm

As a long time Apple user, I’m considering get a Palm Pre or Android, etc. Between dragging their feet on a Flash option for the iPhone and this crap… I’m not sure I want to deal with the iPhone.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

June 12th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

That’s dickier, but not douchier

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

LKM asks
June 12th, 2009 at 10:56 pm

If Apple has the power to reject apps, they need to provide a service where you can get your idea approved before you invest half a year of development time, similar to how Console publishers do.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

puhsitch states baldly
June 12th, 2009 at 11:21 pm

Yeah, a douche response will usually have to include some sort of self-righteous rationalization.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

daycoder yells
June 13th, 2009 at 12:15 am

App store rejection madness continues : http://bit.ly/si2mB

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

jasonterhorst exclaims
June 13th, 2009 at 12:50 am

Apple, we already hate AT&T enough to send killbots. You want to fucking die, too? http://tinyurl.com/mh4bq2

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

[…] providing some essential think or feedback. TUAW reverend Kenneth Ballenegger conventional the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

[…] The letter posted in image form above, was published from a TUAW reader by the name of Kenneth Ballenegger. […]

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

Hortense mouthes
June 13th, 2009 at 2:07 pm

Your selling an interface to other peoples content you’ve collected and junking up the app store with lite versions of that interface. I wish apple would have the balls to reject more of this crap, just because your crap has a nicer looking interface than the other app store crap doesn’t mean it smells better it’s still crap

Kelmon asks
June 13th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

Disagree – not only must the reasons for the rejection be provided but they must also be consistent with stated policies that were available to developers, preferably before they even start thinking about an application (it’s too late now for that, however). I have no issue with Apple rejecting applications as long as the reasons are reasonable (i.e. malware or pornographic content) and they are applied in a sensible and consistent manner. Right now it seems as though Apple can reject an application simply because the reviewer is having a "bad day" and they feel like being a capricious bastard.

This comment was originally posted on http://www.tuaw.com/)">The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

June 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

[…] without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh […]

[…] That is just my thoughts on the issue, whether or not that is the *real* reason that Apple is rejecting PhoneGap apps we may never know but that is certainly one reason that they would do it I think. It could just be because they feel like it… […]

lar3ry pronounces
June 14th, 2009 at 9:12 pm

It’s interesting that some people will just say “this is just a collection of jokes, so it obviously should be rejected.” That’s all well and good, IF THAT WAS THE REASON. We have no idea why this person at Apple rejected the application, and if you can really read the mind of the person that rejected the app, then all power to you.

If, on the other hand, you cannot read the mind of that person, then you are simply standing on your own little holier-than-thou soapbox, espousing your own interpretations of things you have no knowledge about, making noise no more useful than that produced by objects hitting an empty barrel.

Throwing away such “noise,” the matter remains. If a developer isn’t told why his or her app is rejected, then how can that developer make changes to make the app better? How can the developer appeal such a ruling if the content of the ruling is beyond the developer’s “need to know?”

How do we know that the App Store approver didn’t just flip a coin and say, “Heads, I’ll allow it; tails, I’ll reject it?”

[…] it the bad press the App Store had gotten here or here or here that turned it around? I guess we’ll never […]

Dave Howell states baldly
July 19th, 2009 at 10:16 am

The parental controls issue is especially problematic because Apple is so reckless and inconsistent about its acceptance of developers’ app ratings. For example, they rejected our new Medical Reference app because it had line illustrations of human bodies but was not rated 17+ for INTENSE NUDITY.

Seriously. A medical reference app. 17+.

I wrote a blog post about it at http://dshowell.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/warning-“intense-nudity”

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

July 19th, 2009 at 11:19 pm

Honestly, I find all of the fuss about the App Store a bit of a mystery, after having dealt with Brew, Symbian and J2ME development. Apple only takes 30% and you don’t have to pay them for testing or certification of your app.

Yep, sometimes the wait times are long, and while a lot of people have complained of the rejects they get I have yet to read one that I could not see Apple’s perspective on. It could, however, be more consistent but that’s if you don’t consider that they have approved over 50,000 apps… keeping consistency in that is extremely hard!

I also can’t see how in-app purchases can be considered a "broken" business model, and the link you gave gives, imho, no legit reason to consider it so. Just because free apps can’t have purchases in them and subscriptions are not available doesn’t mean it’s broken, just limited. And, I can easily see why Apple would not want either case: from a customer support angle, keeping free apps free makes total sense, I can guarantee that if this wasn’t the case most apps would be "free" until a required point and then Apple gets flooded with angry customers wondering why their "free" app is not actually free. And subscriptions have basically the same issue; customer support nightmare on Apple’s part when a 12 month subscription stops at 2 months (ie, 1000 people pay for 12 months, but the developer decides it’s not enough to cover 12 months cost and just quits .. that’s 1000 angry customers Apple has to deal with).

Having dealt with the majority of other mobile development platforms, both phone and gaming, I find Apple’s system incredibly easy, accessible, reasonable and open, not to mention at a comparatively great split (we only got 30% from our XBox live titles for example, and Nokia’s 70% developer split silently fails to mention that that’s _after_ the carrier split, which ranges from 25% to 75%, meaning a developer actually gets somewhere between 15% and 50%.

The only part I can agree with is that Apple has encourage negative ratings for apps and that really should change. But I also can not agree that it’s totally in Apple’s court, I’d consider it part of the marketing of your app to encourage good reviews/ratings.

Anyway, I think that the App Store and related processes could certainly use some improvement, which will always be the case. But while Apple seems to be ignoring these concerns, I certainly believe that they are and will continue to work to improve them. And if anything, I think Apple feels good about it’s system not because of the sales #s but because they know what the competition is.

If you really want Apple to improve things, work on getting the rest of the mobile platforms to offer something competitive. Not only will that encourage Apple to improve their systems, but you will benefit from having other platforms on which to generate sales.

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

Bryan hums
July 20th, 2009 at 1:32 am

Its worth a try. Keep us posted on the iphonesdk group.

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

Louis mutters
July 20th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Sounds like a neat idea, but tell Wired and all the tech blogs (engadget, etc) about it, including Apple specific ones… it will be one way of spreading the word to other devs, and perhaps the threat of a shutdown will be enough to get Apple’s attention.

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

Mostly Torn mutters
July 20th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

I’ve been thinking along these same lines for a while – that some organized movement by developers really needs to get Apple’s attention.

As for those who say they don’t see what the fuss is about, we aren’t complaining about the monetary split. It’s the approval process that is broken. I’d gladly pay extra for a better process.

Sure, the process is great when an app gets approved without a problem. It’s when there is a problem that the process totally breaks down.

I rant about it a bit more here:

http://blog.stormyprods.com/2009/07/apples-iphone-app-approval-process.html

For an even more thorough detailing of the problems and frustrations developers face, readhttp://tech.yahoo.com/news/infoworld/20090720/tc_infoworld/83773_1 by Peter Wayner.

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

Louis speaks of
July 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

Well, I posted a comment on your post, when I saw the post again you’ve updated it with the 8-points ideas. I gotta say for me some of those things aren’t/have not yet been a problem to me, and I think if people get the impression those are the 8 points you want to obtain from the "strike" (though you do write they’re just suggestions, but people can’t read :) ), they might not be so willing to support the cause.

So I thought, it’s probably best to build an issue tracker, where people can post the problems they have with the whole process, discuss about it, and have votes to see which issues are annoying people most, and then do the "strike", saying "we want you to take a look at the issues posted on this issue tracker, and do something about them!". The next email you’ll get is probably from the Legal Dept, talking about violations to the NDA, etc.

I wonder what percentage of iPhone developers are on this list anyway? If I were unscrupulous, I’d publish my new app *on* the 16th of August, and waheey, no competition!

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

Gregory shouts
July 20th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

@Louis

I want people to discuss these suggestions. It’s a first draft, not a manifesto. If you take issue with one of them, or if you’d like to reword something, or you especially like one, or you think I missed something, say so.

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

LunaticRaving pronounces
July 20th, 2009 at 5:54 pm

So I thought, it’s probably best to build an issue tracker, where people can post the problems they have with the whole process, discuss about it, and have votes to see which issues are annoying people most

This actually seems like a really good idea. I’d be happy to host the issue tracker. I prefer to use Redmine, any objectsions?

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

Gregory affirms
July 20th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

@LunaticRaving

As long as I can deep link to specific issues, sounds good.

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

LunaticRaving proclaims
July 20th, 2009 at 6:03 pm

Good update by the way, providing Apple with clear indications of your major issues and possible solutions to those issues is much more likely to get serious consideration.

I can agree with all of them except #7, for two reasons:

1. There is a try before you buy model already; use a "free" lite version that promotes the full version (although you have to be careful on how you do this in order to ensure acceptance). In addition, if you target iPhone OS 3.0 and above you can have in-app purchases that essentially make an app a try-before-you buy experience by having the paid app sell for .99 for a week or two, then lower the price to free and add the ability to purchase extra levels, etc. Basically the "get 3 levels free, purchase a registration to get access to the full 100 levels" type try-before-you-buy model.

2. The average iPhone user is not smart enough to understand that a "free" application is not actually free, but a teaser, this will lead to a nightmare of support on Apple’s side and I believe an general loss of good will toward the entire App Store by the public and press.

3. OK, I lied, there’s another objection as well; unscrupulous developers will abuse such a system and make issue #2 even more of an issue.

Given that the store already has at least two ways to give a free version of an app away to promote the full version (essentially try before you buy), making this an issue in tandem with the rest of the otherwise good points may not be a good idea.

Just my thoughts on the subject :)

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

zwaugh surmises
July 20th, 2009 at 7:04 pm

I think this is a great idea. The app store has been around for over a year, and things have only gotten worse. First step, how about creating a site like fixtheappstore.com (which is available) to clearly list all the issues and allow developers to sign the petition. Also, as others suggested, I definitely think you need some way for devs to submit issues and vote so you can get the biggest 10 or so front and center. I’m sure there are thousands of complaints about the system, but I think it’s important to make a focused list of the primary issues we want to see resolved.

For me, the biggest issues are the arbitrary rejections, the unknown time frame for if/when apps are approved, and the total lack of communication between Apple and the developer. Makes it very difficult to be confident about making a living on the platform. I think Apple is making enough money from the app store to hire some more people and guarantee some level of service. I think 5 business days for an update and 10 business days for new app approval/rejection is reasonable.

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

July 20th, 2009 at 7:04 pm

OK, should be up and running at:

http://redmine.roathe.com

The only project is "iPhone Dev Program" at this point.

Let me know if you run into any issues.

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

mike3k moans
July 21st, 2009 at 4:53 pm

I’m in. I’ve had I Can Has Cheezburger app in review hell for almost a month. My latest update was rejected simply because it allows access to internet content so it must have a 17+ rating. Since the first rejection I added filtering of g-rated items only, but Apple didn’t say anything and rejected the update immediately.

I won’t allow it to get a 17+ rating because I want to be able to give out promo codes, which isn’t allowed for 17+ apps.

I haven’t resubmitted it since this rejection and I don’t intend to do so until there’s some movement by Apple.

This comment was originally posted on http://redcorundum.blogspot.com/)">Ruby Discoveries and Idioms

AppleRejectionProccess states baldly
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:22 am

Apple’s Rejection Process is what it should be called, not approval process. I am so sick of my hard work and time getting rejected over and over.

Im ditching ios, going over to the Android platform, and im taking my friends, family, customers and clients with me.

You have wasted my time, taken my money, insulted me and now you have lost another developer for your platform. I wont ever code for another apple product ever again.

Good luck with that jobs.


Have something to say?
Name (required)
Mail (won't be published, required)
Website

Additional comments powered by BackType