apr 11

Apple rejects PopCap's Unpleasant Horse for mature content

Apple has rejected the first game out of PopCaps’ new 4th and Battery studio, Unpleasant Horse, for mature content. It’s unclear exactly what content Apple objected to but apparently it involved meat grinders. According to the New York Times:

The company went public with its rejection on Twitter with a tweet that read: “WTF? Apple rejected Unpleasant Horse cuz of ‘mature content?’ We thought horses dying in meat grinders was wholesome family entertainment!” The tweet was later removed. Since then, the studio has taken a more upbeat approach saying it would appeal the ruling and resubmit with a higher rating.

Plants vs. Zombies is currently rated at 9+ and is unliving happily in the App Store. If PopCap resubmits with a higher age rating, is it possible Apple will approve Unpleasant Horse?

[NYT via TUAW]

Apple rejects PopCap’s Unpleasant Horse for mature content is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

TiPb - The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog


Tagged with:
feb 21

New Apple subscription service making software-as-service unfeasible on iPhone, iPad?

Readability, the service that takes the cruft out of online articles and gives you pure, gloriously legible text, has been rejected from the iPhone and iPad App Store due to Apple’s new subscription service and its policies. If you’re not familiar with Readbility, think Instapaper or the Reader button in the latest version of Safari (which ironically uses Readability’s technology!) However, this has far wider ramifications as it suggests all iOS software-as-a-service (SaaS) front ends might likewise be rejected. SalesForce anyone?

Readability, like the App Store’s own business model, takes 30% of subscription fees to pay their bills and gives 70% to publishers in payment for the content read. (Because Readability strips out ads, this still allows publishers to make money off their content). Since Apple requires a 30% cut of subscription revenue… well, you do the math. Readability would have to reduce the publisher’s cut to 40% or reduce their own cut to near zero. Neither is a workable solution for them.

To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. But to impose this course on any web service or web application that delivers any value outside of iOS will only discourage smaller ventures like ours to invest in iOS apps for our services. As far as Readability is concerned, our response is fairly straight-forward: go the other way… towards the web.

Part of the problem here is that Apple, no doubt purposefully, hasn’t clarified what’s subject to in-app subscription policies and what’s not. If everything is subject to them than Apple needs the rate to remain 30%, same as app and in-app purchases. If subscriptions are only 10%, for example, almost every app will simply become free and offer a low-share subscription option instead (subscription Smurfberries, as we discussed on the podcast last night).

What this shows, however, are that there are clearly flaws in the current system that either Apple has to address or the market will with more apps like Readability abandoning native iOS apps for the web or other platforms. (Unless a new business model emerges that better leverages iOS’ distribution system). Bottom-line content creators, content distributors, and platforms all need to remain financially viable. Readability thinks Apple should split their own 30%, giving content creators 70% of that as well. (Sharing the pain, so to speak.)

What’s your solution?

[Readability blog via TechCrunch]

New Apple subscription service making software-as-service unfeasible on iPhone, iPad? is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

TiPb - The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog


Tagged with:
mar 08

app_store_church_lady

TechCrunch is reporting that companies who mass produce (or provide tools and templates for the mass production of) “cookie cutter” apps are hearing that they need to add differentiation and functionality or risk Apple not allowing them into the iTunes App Store. Jason Kincaid says:

Between the developers I spoke to, the consensus was this: Apple doesn’t appear to be opposed to ‘app generators’ and templates per se, but in the last month or so it has started cracking down on basic applications that are little more than RSS feeds or glorified business cards. In short, Apple doesn’t want people using native applications for things that a basic web app could accomplish. For some of these services that’s bad news, because that’s exactly the sort of application they produce; any new applications they submit are going to get rejected. But all hope isn’t lost for them, provided they can make their apps more useful.

Kincaid says Appmakr for one has taken suggestions from Apple to improve things like in-app purchases, instant notifications, offline access, and landscape viewing modes and describe the process as positive. Other services apparently haven’t had as much luck.

The move seems to be part of Apple’s ongoing efforts to increase the quality of the App Store experience and protect the brand. Much like the removal of sex-based apps last month, “cookie cutter” apps could seen as low value, sometimes verging on spam. For consumers it could result in a cleaner App Store and ultimately better apps (more than just re-packaged RSS feeds) but at the expense of quantity and choice. For developers, it’s likely another in a list of things they’ll consider before building on Apple’s platform.

If Apple is indeed working on revamping the mass produced app, what think you?

Apple Cracking Down on Mass Produced, Low Functionality Apps? is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

TiPb - The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog


Tagged with:
dic 08

NightCam Pro1

Apple, on orders from Senior VP of Marketing Phil Schiller, has removed all 1000 Molinker-developed iPhone apps from the App Store for allegedly astroturfing the iTunes review system with fake 5-star reviews. Says iPhone camera and video site, iPhoneography, which reprinted an email from a friend named SCW, and jointly followed up with Apple:

Please investigate for I have just looked at 44 of the reviewers who posted reviews for this Molinker Inc app “NightCam Pro” & EVERY Review except 2 of the 44+ are ALL FAKE 5 ★★★★★ reviews. (on my iPhone I could view more reviews but on my computer only 35 were visible & of the 35 visible 34 ARE fake). If you investigate ALL have ONLY reviewed ONLY Molinker apps. A little odd that 42 of 44 US reviews are poorly written & that all users have only written reviews for either All Molinker photography apps (giving 5 star reviews to 6-7 Molinker apps ONLY no other apps by any other developer) or the same 2 apps. 10 Reviewers who only reviewed NightCam Pro & ColorMagic (5 Stars), 24+ Reviewers have ONLY written reviews for 6-7 other Molinker photography apps (5 Stars) & 1-2 are real Reviews giving a 1 Star review

Schiller’s response:

“Yes, this developer’s apps have been removed from the App Store and their ratings no longer appear either.”

So, was this one of the rare positive uses of Apple’s rejection hammer? Any negatives that could come from it?

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

This is a story by the iPhone Blog. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

Apple Removes 1000 Molinker iPhone Apps for Alleged Astroturfing of Fake Reviews


Tagged with:
preload preload preload