First, we present Fracture. You tap the iPhone to “crack” the screen and then you tap again to cause the apps to explode, triggering the rest of the apps to explode in rapid succession. Next, we find SkyFart. You press a little man and he farts. Then you press him again and he farts and again and flies into space. Then you press him again and he farts and flies. Then you press him again…
So which app was accepted by the App store with open and which one was rejected?
This is a symbolic representation of the two apps fighting the app store.
The logical thing to say, based on the common understanding that the expression of gas and fecal matter as a mode of transport is considered by some to be offensive, is that SkyFart would be rejected out of hand. This is not true.
I’ve been hanging out with the lads from VisuaMobile, the creators of both apps and got to see firsthand some of the odd reasons given by the iPhone gatekeepers. For example, read this email exchange.
> Please include the line below in follow-up emails for this request.
>
> Follow-up: XXXX
>
> Dear Visuamobile Developer,
>
> Thank you for submitting your application to Apple’s App Store. Unfortunately, your application, Fracture, still cannot be added to the App Store because it uses standard iPhone screen images in a non-standard way, potentially resulting in user confusion. Changing the behavior of standard iPhone graphics, actions, and images, or simulating failures of those graphics, actions, or images is a violation of the iPhone Developer Program agreement which requires applications to abide by the Human Interface Guidelines.
>
> If you would like to share this app with friends and family, we recommend you review the Ad Hoc method on the Distribution tab of the iPhone Developer Portal for details. This will allow you to distribute your application to a small group of people of your choosing.
>
> Regards,
>
> iPhone Developer Program
>
Fair enough: they are using the iPhone home screen in a manner unbefitting of an iPhone home screen. It could potentially confuse and vex the mentally deficient to the point of tears. It dilutes the brand by allowing the user to feel that he or she has power over the home screen. It uses Apple IP in a way that is detrimental to good will.
But what about the fake calls app. This app simulates a call coming in, allowing the user to escape from dullards with ease. It uses the iPhone’s dialing screen and even shows you getting a call from Steve Jobs, not something I’d want folks to simulate if I were a member of the marketing or legal teams at Apple. They definitely don’t want some moron like me pretending to get calls from Steve. It dilutes the brand.
It’s not so much that Apple censors apps as it is that the situation is paternalistic and self-serving. Obviously VisuaMobile makes their money on iPhone apps and this is a brave new business model that, in a sense, uses Apple’s good will and popularity to boost the bottom lines of a number of successful programmers. As MG wrote, it’s not clear there’s a rhyme or reason to many of these gnomic responses that are essentially the result of a Kabbalahic and arbitrary reading of the terms of service.
Are VisuaMobile upset? A little, but they understand. Luc Veuillet, VisuaMobile’s marketing man, even notes there are no hard feelings. “It’s a business. We love them,” he said.
But when will devs say ‘Enough is enough?’ Ever? I doubt it.
misleaded is not a word, i think you mean mislead… dont know why that annoys me but it does :P
misleaded != mislead
misleaded == misled
:D
Thats fart of life!
Great
This is why the iPhone sucks balls, and I’ll never own it. I prefer to be in control of what I want to put on my phone, not some lame company. F*** you Apple.
And an ass-wipe like you, Igor, doesn’t deserve an iPhone and will never have one.
Have fun with your plastic fantastic wannabee toy phone.
dumbass!
iPhone nut-sucker! Get a life and buy and Android.
I think everyone here needs to get a life. Its just a gimmicky toy for adults. Hopefully not all phones go the way of the iPhone and still allow users to put their own crap on there – if Apple had their way you’d only be putting stuff on there you bought from their precious iTunes or App store. No thanks, not the world I wanna live in.
pretty sure your all just saying this because your to poor to afford an iphone, even if you had one your mind capacity is so small that you wouldnt be able to use it.
Well, we had a hot chick using a hammer to destroy the glass, got rejected, she also stole icons form a background image (which happens to be the iPhone main screen), gut rejected. Then we exchanged the background screen with a all black pic, got rejected … this is going on since October, for me the answer to your headline was very clear: Apple likes fart apps.
Apple’s in a hard position. There has to be some sort of review process for the App Store or you’d have mass mayhem. Yet, I’m almost positive the App Store reviewers aren’t in the legal department. They’re probably just normal people given a very technical legal agreement and left to muddle through the app review process the best they can.
More often than not, these rejections fall on the cautious side of the developer guidelines. Sure, there’s a Human Interface clause. Apple, doesn’t want you vastly altering the interface with your app such that a user might be unable to navigate it or use it with any degree of reliability.
Fracture is at a stretch “altering the human interface”, but obviously not in the way that clause was drafted to avoid. The reviewer simply erred on the side of caution and denied it.
The reason this is a tough spot for Apple is that there’s not much they can really do about it. They can’t really afford in both time or capital to do an extensive peer-review and possible involvement of legal just to approve an app, and since they can’t you’ll continue to get silly rejections like this.
The only way it becomes a problem is if Apple attempts to set standards for applications. If Apple say allowed the “stabbing” application, the fall-out would affect the developer, not Apple. Secondly, there are not enough developers out there to create the mayhem of choice you allude to. We would see more mediocre as well as more creative applications.
Apple is protecting Apple. Their process is straight from Kafka, and is frustrating as hell. Let the market decide what is appropriate outside of social standards.
Seriously, what is the deal with these ridiculous unrelated images associated with articles. Don’t put anything if it has nothing to do directly with the article.
I think that Visuamobile have underestimated some iPhone users, particlarly those on Twitter who ask “How do I turn it off” etc without even bothering to look at the user guide.
So I can quiet easily see someone ordering the app thinking that it’s Nick Lowe’s “I love the sound of breaking glass” and then finding themselves totally distraught when their screen appears to have cracked. For these users, Visuamobile could offer the free app of a Glazier, which when pressed repaired the glass and as an added bonus there would be no call out fee.
Sorry about the attempt at humour (English) but what else can you really say about this, other than Visuamobile could give a BandAid app with each purchase of the Breaking Glass app. But I think that the real solution is for the iPhone Developer Programme Team to lighten up a little.
Have fun guys – on both sides, and to John Biggs…..well done.
Unlike laptops, phones have helped save so many lives that it is important to ensure, as much as possible, that they can do so again when they are needed the most.
Someone in a state of extreme stress, e.g. involved in a dramatic accident, could be trying to dial 911 only to see the phone app icon explode. In such a situation, one would not necessarily think calmly and simply hit the home button to leave the current app; instead, the person would be highly confused, wondering what happened to the phone and its usual user interface. This is assuming that someone had downloaded and started the Fracture app without the owner’s knowledge (maybe a kid in the same car?). With the SkyFart app, it would be obvious that the home button should be hit first.
How about that for a freak scenario? But freak scenarios happen all the time.
I love apple fans…they think they are hip and expressive having all the freedom to whatever they want. What they don’t know is that they’re being lulled into a quiet submission…and they don’t care. SAD
Yes — this same type of stuff happened to me… check out my blog.
http://bobskid.wordpress.com/
Chris Pratt: I think that’s exactly the way the review process works, and its not working, clearly enough. There needs to be more exact guidelines as to what is ok, and what isn’t. Period.
I made an equivalent app back in August 2008 and got rejected for exactly the same reasons. While I disagree with Apple’s rejections in some cases I think they are making the right decision in this case.
They don’t want to confuse clueless users and they don’t want to have anyone mistakenly think the devices are malfunctioning. The odds for both are small but they are not zero.
My app was also potentially insulting to Apple. It could either crack the glass or throw a Win 95 BSOD :)
Perhaps we could have an iPhone commercial drivers license to protect the innocent victims of application overload! Mobile devices are going to be computers, and here we are agreeing with the limitations that the telecoms would have been so happy to place upon us developers. Sad, indeed!
It’s Apple’s device. If you don’t like it, jailbreak it, If that’s not good enough, don’t get one.
The only issue I have with Apple’s approval process is consistency. Apart from that, it’s their sandbox and they can do whatever they like in it.
What makes no sense to me is why people are accepting this & don’t even realize it, nor apparently care.
Apple is controlling what content you’re allowed to put on your iPhone…and really they have no business to say what you’re allowed & not allowed to put on your phone. Let me use some analogies:
It’s like your Laptop Manufacturer telling you what programs you’re allowed to put on your computer.
Your DVD manufacturer telling you what DVDs you’re allowed to play.
A country telling you the citizen what website you’re allowed to surf.
I mean what if a phone company started telling you that you can’t call your friend because they’re with a different company? Or you can’t e-mail certain e-mail address because you’re not allowed?
I find all this amazing, confusing, and terrifying at the same time. It’s your phone/computer, it’s your property….you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it.
@acoward
I don’t see why throwing a Win95 BSOD could be “insulting” to anyone other than fanatic Apple fanboys.
Worst case scenario, it is useless but “insulting” or even “potentially insulting” seems a bit out of line
Is Mac OSX running on a PC insulting for Windows ?
pete, it was a joke, relax.
lol
The fracture app looks quite cool and I would love to play with it. A solution which would definitely hurt their sales would be to allow the user to fracture any image in their photostream. Then a tech savvy user would be able to take a screen shot of the home page and get the same net result.
Apple needs to loosen up.
Doesn’t essentially eliminate the idea of the creation of a parody app? I know there are legal guidelines in visual and print media that allow for playful mocking, but are there guidelines that cover developers.
One of the biggest benefit of webapps is no installation required. There are thousand of webapps and I have made a webapp to search all iphone apps easily on iphone. The application list is updated daily from Apple website. It includes all apps approved and rejected by Apple. It is designed specially to use on the iphone so that you can get the application you want instantly.
If you are rejected by Apple to list your application, you can submit your iphone webapps at http://ipoh.blogdns.com/. It is 100% free and searchable. Please make an introduction to your work at the forum.
All are welcome!