Apple's Response To App Rejection Backlash? Ban Developers From Talking About It
from the digging-a-deeper-hole dept
As the backlash against Apple's arbitrary banning of apps it doesn't like (or which it feels competes) from the iPhone App Store continues, it appears that rather than come clean, Apple is going in the opposite direction. It's trying to impose its own monolithic tendency for silence on developers as well. That is, it's now imposing non-disclosure agreements on developer rejections -- telling them they cannot tell anyone that their apps have been rejected. Once again, Apple may discover that gagging developers on how Apple is screwing them probably isn't going to do much to endear those developers to the iPhone platform.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: app store, applications, competition, iphone, nda, podcasting
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Phhhtt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Phhhtt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Phhhtt
Agreed wholeheartedly.
You'd also have the advantage of jumping onto a new platform. As good as it looks, Android still needs third-party software to truly compete with other smartphone operating systems. Jumping on a new market with a solid product is a good way to rake in a lot of cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Phhhtt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Phhhtt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With Symbian going open source and Android now out Apple may not be the 'Big' thing any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Certainly if developers agree to such non-disclosure agreements they might be enforced, but the way this article is written it appears that Apple is just slipping these "agreements" onto their rejection letters. And that's not a binding contract by any means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Otherwise, they have to get you to sign it or else it's not binding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh
Save your money and buy something thats not overpriced, overhyped, overcontrolled, like Spore! Oooh no. Bad comparison...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Phhhtt
I really think Apple needs to realize that their obsession with control over everything they touch may have been a major contributing factor over why they seem to have this established track record of starting out as number 1 and then being pushed down to number 2 by someone less (note I say "less", not necessarily "not at all") heavy handed then they are. Granted Microsoft probably isn't THE best examples of supporters of open development, but don't you think that Microsoft would have much less dominance over the PC market if they tried to decide who could make computers with the the Windows operating system, or who could make software for the Windows operating system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Phhhtt
Your time and effort isn't worth much to you? Don't own your own business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they work for the competition
which of the decision makers was secretly working for the competition?
yo Apple dude, the Soviet Union was the ultimate in closed systems, central planning and law-by-decree, et al... look where they are... dustbin of history...
my preference: open source, wisdom of the crowd, Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and public discourse...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And we say Microsoft is bad...
They are the Greatest thing. They are So Easy to Use.
Oh, wait, but they are even more protective of their software and harder on independent developers than MS.
And they are fiercely protective of their OS software and only want it on Apple Machines, prevent outside manufacturers from building boxes. Complete control – they make the hardware, they make the OS. But they’ll consider letting their OS on a PC.
And we've all heard how they treat employees.
So is this the rise of the next Evil Empire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple and Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple is really going to pay for this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple is really going to pay for this...
Second, Apple has *always* crapped on (a small segment) of their customers. For the overwhelming majority of their target audience the issues we are discussing are not relevant. A very minor portion of the population are developers or hackers...whining about not being able to hack an Apple product isn't going to get much userbase sympathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple is really going to pay for this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple is really going to pay for this...
Apple builds an entire system that for the most part Just Works. Use Apple computer, peripherals and software and you have a *fantastic* system. It is rare that an all-Apple system runs into issues.
The majority of Apple users I know (the non-technical ones) stick to the default system quite closely. They rarely add anything new and when they do it usually comes from Apple themselves.
It is THAT userbase that has no sympathy for the cries in this thread. And THAT userbase is the majority of Apple owners.
I love the Apple platform. I love what a "pure" system can do. But I also like having control of my computers, so it is for this reason that as of today I do not own a Mac. I keep threatening to buy one, but I struggle between my desire for "cool" and my desire for "control".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny idea for Apple...
Nah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Phhhtt
If I were to piss off Apple it wouldn't matter for any future applications, it only costs a few dollars to register another legal entity which I could submit an application under.
Finally, any bad publicity that Apple would face would go hand in hand with publicity for my app. An app doesn't have to sit in the app store to make money, that's just the easiest way and then only if the app can float high enough to be seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Phhhtt
And now you are willing to try again?
For pete's sake...WHY? Let's say you end up with an application they do allow, and you get some users and start putting in more and more time fixing bugs, adding features, etc...
Nothing stops them from shutting you down yet again.
So how is this a smart business move? You are RISKING money in the GAMBLE that your app will be allowed, by them, and not get pulled down for whatever reason they so choose. If you do not have an intimate business relationship with them (ADP does not count), then you are simply GAMBLING.
That isn't a smart business decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not very binding/enforcable
1) Are they requiring you sign the NDA _before_ getting access to the SDK? In that case, existing developers can simply refuse.
2) Are they including the NDA as part of the rejection? In that case, they want developers to sign a statement agreeing not to talk about the rejection so the app can be rejected? The developer has nothing to lose by refusing- no one would sign it.
3) Are they trying to say it's already covered under the old NDA to get access to the SDK? That's a tough legal argument to make.
4) Are they now requiring this at the time of submission? If so, all you have to is make public that you have submitted an app, and then if it's not approved timely someone else can talk about that.
The only thing that's left is that you're prevented from ever mentioning you submitted an app at all under the terms of the NDA required to gain any access to the SDK. If this is the result of a new change, then anyone who got the SDK under the old agreement is still free to do what they want. And again, it's a real stretch to say the old agreement already covers this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple used to be cool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legal agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heresy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am the Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Phhhtt
Don't worry if you're in the United States. You cannot sign away your constitutional rights. (Freedom of the Press) NDA's are worthless. Let them waste their money sueing you in court. Then have them pay you for your costs when they lose. This will also set a precedence against them.
Soon(er) or later Apple will push people too far.
KUATO LIVES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: Phhhtt
The contract never deprives you of your constitutional right, just enforces an agreement between two parties.
The real question in this case is whether or not the contract was formed properly and *both* parties had the appropriate opportunity to agree to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Businesses Shouldn't Gamble?
" then you are simply GAMBLING. That isn't a smart business decision."
Dude, are you really saying that gambling is a bad business decision? Have you studied business? Done any? Studied stats?
Business is always a gamble. Risks are measured and taken. Investments placed, projects launched. Hires made. M&A. Not one of the above isn't a gamble.
The best you can do is measure your risk, take the best bets you can based on what you know, calculate expected results based on probabilities, and then hope.
Haven't you heard that 90% of new businesses fail! Yet those 10% end up creating all the jobs and wealth of our global economy. You don't think business should gamble?
If you take your emotion out of it, you will conclude the Apple situation is sub-optimal for a developer. But you will estimate that there is a ~95% chance that your app is accepted, and factor in that risk. That may push you to Symbian, Palm, etc. OR you may just choose to do the iPhone app anyway. In many cases, that IS a smart business decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And people wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Hack the phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple becomes Microsoft
The way Apple is treating developers, and consumers, is pushing me towards saying no on new Macs. I love OS X and the technology coming out of Apple. But I can't agree with the business practices. Regardless of whether I convince my wife, the next computer for myself will be strictly Linux.
Microsoft got slammed for years for releasing shoddy products and strong-arm tactics. Apple may have better products but it is just as much of a bully.
I was interested in the iPhone when it came out, though I wouldn't buy one due to the lock-in w/ AT&T. Now that Android is out, I will look into that. Or a Linux phone.
I just don't feel right giving Apple any more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]