Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Sep 2008 07:50 UTC
Apple The situation regarding Apple's App Store for the iPhone is getting weirder by the day. Several applications have been rejected from the App Store based on seemingly dubious claims such as duplication of functionality (even though they didn't duplicate anything), or alikeness to default applications. Two such cases made headline news over the past few days; Podcaster and MailWrangler. The developers of these applications openly protested against these rejections, and apparently, Apple doesn't really like that. Apple now reiterates that rejections fall under the NDA, prohibiting developers from speaking up about rejections.
Thread beginning with comment 331231
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
First rule
by zdzichu on Wed 24th Sep 2008 08:09 UTC
zdzichu
Member since:
2006-11-07

The first rule of rejections: you don't talk about rejections?

Apple AppStore becomes more and more hostile, won't the scare developers?

Reply Score: 12

RE: First rule
by _txf_ on Wed 24th Sep 2008 08:58 in reply to "First rule"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I would say the majority of of iphone developers have either been pretty spineless or just don't care.

The fact that everything so far related to programming for the iphone has been nda and developers just suck it up and continue developing (despite complaining about it) says a lot.

However as android starts ramping up, the iphone will bleed lots of developers if this state remains the same...

Reply Parent Score: 5

v RE: First rule
by tyrione on Wed 24th Sep 2008 10:43 in reply to "First rule"
RE[2]: First rule
by Soulbender on Wed 24th Sep 2008 11:00 in reply to "RE: First rule"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's not about wether it was there or not, the questions is wether it's even valid.
Just because a clause is in a contract or license and you have agreed to it doesn't mean it's necessary valid.
What's the natural connection between licensing an SDK and not being able to talk about why your app was rejected from a store entirely unrelated to the SDK?
This is a stretch at best (perhaps even a violation of free speech) and a great example of how companies tries to avoid bad publicity by any means by putting insanely restricting clauses in contracts. Anyone else remember Oracle's license that stated that a review of their product could not be negative?

Reply Parent Score: 6