• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Tablets and e-Readers
Apple ridiculos app rejection!
Hutchy_Muse
30-08-2009
Apple reject Convertbot update- because of the clock.


I'm not a hardcore Apple hater, but Jesus, do they own 3.00????
CoolboyA
31-08-2009
Apple are well known for rejecting stuff on the most ridiculous grounds. This, however, takes 1st prize.

However, I feel it is more to do with the fact that the icons look extremely similar. Maybe Apple think it's a copyright infringement?
IvanIV
31-08-2009
I think their problem is that the same icon is used for different functionality and can be thus misleading. Although I find the icon more appropriate for Convertbot time conversions than for recent calls list They should change it to 9.00 and the apples will be happy.
Matt-08
01-09-2009
What's even worse though is that it was only when they updated to v1.4 that Apple realised, it's been there all along!
PrinceGaz
01-09-2009
I've got Convertbot installed, I know Apple reject apps for ridiculous and imo wrong reasons (I want to install Flash, and Opera, and Java, but all three are against well known AppStore rules), but rejecting an app because a small icon used within it looks like an official Apple one is madness.
Matt-08
01-09-2009
Originally Posted by PrinceGaz:
“I've got Convertbot installed, I know Apple reject apps for ridiculous and imo wrong reasons (I want to install Flash, and Opera, and Java, but all three are against well known AppStore rules), but rejecting an app because a small icon used within it looks like an official Apple one is madness.”

Flash is a different ballgame actually, it's basically very hard to implement and would kill battery life. It's not a case of Apple rejecting it, more a cause of Adobe never developing it (they did say however a few months back that they were working on a Flash 'lite' version. Why would you want Flash anyway? Just to see some adverts? Play games?
IvanIV
02-09-2009
Flash would be a competition to Apple store. You could write applications for ipod and Apple would have no say in it. Something tells me it's not going to happen.
PrinceGaz
03-09-2009
The only reason they disallow Flash is the same reason that they disallow any other "general-purpose application", which is that it can be used to do almost anything; the primary reason of having a computer in the good old days.

I'm surprised they even allow Javascript given what is possible with that, but given that the CPU in every iPhone and iTouch has specific hardware designed for Java acceleration, it is crazy that Apple refuse to allow Sun to enable that functionality in the software. And whilst I know Flash is mainly used for ads, being able to enable/disable it wouldn't be very easy to implement and if it was disabled by default, would make no difference to anyone except those visiting websites or pages that require Flash for a link to work (like some videos posted here which aren't on YouTube).

The standard iPhone is quite capable of running most normal Flash (you probably wouldn't want to though for battery life/CPU usage reasons), but it should be available as an option. As should an alternative browser like Opera. And emulators of old computer game systems (they all fall foul of the providing alternative programming rule).

Hell, even app developers who play by Apple's rules are bing rejected, which is why I am seriously considering jailbreaking to install those apps which the developers want to provide for free, but Apple doesn't want as it goes against their agenda.
moisie
04-09-2009
Apple have a difficult line to follow. The success of the iPod and then their touch based products has been the simplicity of them. They offer features that people are actually able to use, and do.

They could have allowed apps to be a free for all but then you would have even more shitty apps available which would damage the market and their product image. By controlling the store the way they do they get to guarantee some level of quality/consistency. With such a new market that has grown so quickly I think it's understandable that there will be problems in scaling to accommodate that growth and problems will arise. I'm not saying the decisions they have made are the right ones, but I think that at least partially some of these issues are understandable.

Much as I like being able to tinker with my devices and do what I want, I do appreciate the quality of a device like the iPhone in that it does what it does and does it well. I new that there would be restrictions when I bought one and accepted that in exchange for the many advantages that I think their approach gives.
DotNetWill
04-09-2009
Originally Posted by moisie:
“Apple have a difficult line to follow. The success of the iPod and then their touch based products has been the simplicity of them. They offer features that people are actually able to use, and do.

They could have allowed apps to be a free for all but then you would have even more shitty apps available which would damage the market and their product image. By controlling the store the way they do they get to guarantee some level of quality/consistency. With such a new market that has grown so quickly I think it's understandable that there will be problems in scaling to accommodate that growth and problems will arise. I'm not saying the decisions they have made are the right ones, but I think that at least partially some of these issues are understandable.

Much as I like being able to tinker with my devices and do what I want, I do appreciate the quality of a device like the iPhone in that it does what it does and does it well. I new that there would be restrictions when I bought one and accepted that in exchange for the many advantages that I think their approach gives.”


I can see your point about reducing the overall UX so keeping the control of the App store in that respect is good and if that's all it was about i would agree. But there process is less than transparent and they will not allow competition for what they do and as we all know competition on and innovation normally go hand in hand.

I've got an iPhone 3G and I knew what I was getting into when I got it and, ironicaly, when my contract is up I will being getting an Android based phone. The iPhone has wetted my appetite for good apps delivered directly to the phone but their silly rules and draconian approach has left me wanting.
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map