Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Apple starts rejecting iPhone apps that require registration to work
Just when we thought Apple's weird and arbitrary App Store rejections were at an end, they've invented a new reason to keep iPhone apps out of the store. Apparently, Apple doesn't like apps that require you to register for an account before they'll work. Wait, WHAT? The app that was reportedly rejected is Read It Later, which needs a user account for you to save articles in so you can ... you know, read it later. Apple's rejection notice implied that Read It Later shouldn't be requiring customer registration, because it doesn't provide any "account-based features." Bullpucky!
Here's what Apple said:
"Applications cannot require user registration prior to allowing access to app features and content; such user registration must be optional and tied to account-based functionality."
As TheNextWeb points out, that sentence is a confusing mess of contradictions. You can't require registration for your app to function, unless the registration is required for your app to function? I can't even begin to untangle that Mobius strip of a statement.
The funny thing is that Read It Later doesn't even need personal information beyond a username and password. What about apps like Facebook, Twitter, and the like? You can't use those without an account, but I hardly see Apple rejecting them. Read It Later appears to be the first app rejected using this rationale (if you can call it a rationale), and the developers don't have anything to go on in figuring out what it would take to get it back into the store.
I'll follow this post up if Apple responds to Read It Later or rejects any more apps for the same reasons.
Comments
15
Subscribe to comments216Aug 23rd 2010 3:18PM
I really dont see how Facebook, Twitter, etc can exist given that logic.
As nice as the iPhone 4 is, and as polished as iOS is, Apple just seems to give customers more and more reasons to jump to Android every day.
KarlWAug 23rd 2010 5:02PM
Their wording seems to suggest Read it Later was using accounts to lock all functionality, where Apple would prefer them to enable whatever parts can function without an account, without an account.
Apps like Facebook are entirely useless without an account, and I believe Twitter still lets you browse without one (by this logic, it should). Another example would be the built-in YouTube app, which only needs an account for uploading/commenting.
Still, even though I understand their logic, I don't really agree with it. That sort of implementation detail should be left to the developer. Obviously, most developers will want to follow that logic for the convenience of their users, but Apple shouldn't make it mandatory.
robert34Aug 23rd 2010 5:53PM
And developers are really pissed off, insulted everyday by the megalomaniac random decissions. We will see the day they'll be begging for somebody to write a program for them.
CharlesAug 23rd 2010 3:43PM
You can't even use itunes on the phone without registering.
David LevineAug 23rd 2010 3:46PM
Apple needs to get it together when reviewing and rejecting apps. This type of stuff is nonsense. This is especially true since that part of Read It Later wasn't even changed.
ragtagAug 23rd 2010 4:05PM
Apple is just getting worse and worse by the day. Add this new http://www.patentvest.com/console/reports/docs/app/20100207721.html patent application they've made, that can be used to track down jailbroken iPhones, and even take pictures of the owner.
TimothyAug 23rd 2010 4:46PM
It makes sense to me. WSJ app for example; you can use it (ie. read some full articles, other partial) however to get added functionality such as customized headlines and full access, you must register.
BrandonAug 23rd 2010 5:01PM
Wouldn't Ibooks be in this category??
VitaminCMAug 23rd 2010 5:55PM
Does anybody suck more than Apple's legal department?
AshwinAug 23rd 2010 8:14PM
You know, maybe Steve shouldn't keep a guy that publishes Animal Fart and piss apps in charge of the app store approval process. I mean stupid apps like his get through, but legit apps like ReadItLater get rejected.
ChuckAug 23rd 2010 9:57PM
I recently got CalcMoolator based on good reviews and was put off that it required my e-mail address to function. There was no warning that this was the case. I would hope that the focus is on this type of use (why do they need my e-mail address to use a calculator?).
In the Read It Later situation, that HAS to be an error or overstep; I hope.
mikeschrAug 24th 2010 11:51AM
Exactly. Despite the comments of the torches-and-pitchforks gang here, including the author, this looks to me like a simple mistake.
The policy itself is sound, as in the case Chuck describes. It looks like it was misapplied here, and the title "Apple starts rejecting apps based that require registration to work" is hyperbole, until more examples occur.
koo3erAug 24th 2010 3:31AM
I don't get why one has to register/provide data unnecessarily. If a program can function without input of personal data, why require it? Seems strangely inappropriate. I'm behind Apple on this one.
Kasper JensenAug 24th 2010 4:16AM
http://readitlaterlist.com/blog/2010/08/version-2-2-approved/
GIJeffAug 24th 2010 12:39PM
Looks like it was a mistake, but even if it wasn't, here's what it could've meant:
They would've had to allow you to save items locally to read later WITHOUT an account, and make the account optional which would allow you to sync between devices and your computer, etc.