iPhone App Review Team Rejects Application For "Minimal User Functionality"
iPhone App Review Team Rejects Application For "Minimal User Functionality"
The Apple iPhone app review team has raked up a lot of negative publicity over the years. However, for a brief while during the end of 2009, it appeared as though Apple was looking for a make-over and was ready to embrace the app developers. But the company is haunted...
Comments
-
FINALLY they reject an app in this category! Why didn't they do this with all of the fart apps?
I think Apple has finally realized that their App store is way overcrowded with useless apps. It's about time they started doing something about it.
-
I have to agree with apple on this one, the App store is full of useless novelty apps. I would like to see a store with only truly useful apps on it and it would make surfing the store a little less hassle.
-
Yes..filter out all the crap so we don't get stuck buying stuff that is junk or wasting our time on it. I'm sure Apple didn't reject it anyway. It is probably one of 10,000 apps some employee of theirs reviewed and in this case rejected and this one just caught attention. They can't review thousands and thousands of apps and come to the right decision on every one. Overall, they make good decisions that make it a respectable platform. Developers that follow the policies and create decent respectable apps are generally not the ones complaining.
-
Maybe they need a category called "Useless crap for retards" and keep its debitage out of the top apps categories. They can tell developers of crapware, fartware, and sexware that its that category or nothing.
They may need to add a validation to access that category requiring the user to have an IQ under 50. -
How about a category called "Silly" apps?
Plus more filtering/search capability is badly needed.
-
Now there you go. Create that category now, and dump all the silly stuff in there. Just doing that would clean up a lot.
-
Agreed,
I think instead of trying to limit the number of apps, they need a better way to categorize them.
It'd be like asking google to only index certain, useful sites.
I doubt it costs apple very little in resources to host 'useless' apps.
-
They have been filtering apps and movies off iTunes. Just look up iMario or Parking Lot on the app store and the Dark Knight on the movie store. They were number one on the charts for months and just dropped off the top 100 and then disappeared (about 2 months ago). I have been saying this for months and the author of this site hasn't listened!
Also, Sonic at the olympic winter games (Sega app) disappeared from the store BEFORE the Olympics??? What happened there?
-
I agree' crap like that shouldn't be there at all.
-
I Agree. Don't put crap apps on the App Store. They give the credibility of the App Store a bad name and open themselves up to more ridicule from other companies on the useless of so many Apps.
-
"... this will in turn lead to talented people moving on to more open platforms."
How much talent does it take to make a quacking app?
-
ok yes, that app is a useless piece of crap that just crouds the app market BUT!!! they still have the right to publish it as some ppl like that stuff. How are they going to deny this app but approve that one app that all it did was show a red diamond on your phone and cost $1000?? They should have a "novely" or other named cateragory in which to dump theese. If some one thought it was a good idea to make the app then there has to be some one else out there that thinks they want the app, hence let it thru, just filter them appropriatly.
-
Yep, I think apps which basically offer very little to the end user should be blocked. Likewise apps which appear amateurish in design. For sure it can be argued many ways, 'just add better filtering' etc. Yet it's not just about the ability to search. It crowds the app namespace, depriving decent apps of names because something close to useless already consumes the name.For the reasons stated in the article the AppStore is a respectable place for people to shop. The cost of entry has perhaps been too low for too long (i'm not suggesting raise the barrier to entry so high as to block the indie guys, just enough to block the crap).0.02c
