Apple’s notorious App Store approval process has claimed its latest victim, this time for a ‘Refresh’ button gone mad. Except it hasn’t. So nobody is really sure why it got rejected.
The button in question belongs to an application called Read It Later, a bookmarking app that makes it easy to save interesting websites you stumble across for when you have time to read through them (it’s similar to Instapaper, which incidentally has also had App Store troubles of its own). Read It Later has been available on the App Store for over a month, and developer Nathan Weiner recently submitted a new update that included some speed and feature enhancements.
But for some reason, Apple has rejected the latest update for using a button that it has deemed to be misleading:
“The refresh button is to be used to Refresh contents. Implementing standard buttons to perform other tasks will lead to user confusion. We recommend using a custom icon.”
Apparently someone at Apple has unlocked a hidden function for the button (or perhaps they hit the wrong one), because Weiner doesn’t know what they’re talking about. In fact, the application has been accepted twice before while using the exact same icon.
From the Read It Later blog:
The icon in question however, does exactly that, it refreshes. When the user taps the icon, it refreshes the users reading list. This same icon is used by many apps that do similar functions, including rss readers, and other offline readers. Additionally, this icon has been used by the app since version 1.0 and version 1.1 and was accepted without question.
Now, I can see why the tester may have been a little confused – the refresh button syncs any updated pages to your phone, and the first time you press it the app displays a popup telling you how it works. But as Weiner points out, there are countless apps that use a ‘Refresh’ button for the exact same kind of syncing functionality. So what gives?
You may have noticed a trend here: we like to point out when Apple’s App Store approval process screws up. Not because we think the people at Apple are incompetent – on the contrary, they do an admirable job given the huge volume of application submissions they have to deal with. But the approval process is stopping some legitimate applications from getting through, and it isn’t stopping all of the distasteful applications, which sort of defeats the point. It’s clear that things need to change, especially since these problems are only going to become more common as the store continues to grow in size.
So techcrunch does know the problem with app stores needing company blessing and yet they want a similar thing for facebook?
I think people that are in charge of rejecting shit just enjoy rejecting shit. They probably think to themselves “hell I have the power so why not use it?.” I once had the displeasure of working with this douchebag in the human resources department at a big bank, he threw away applications simply because he didn’t like somebody’s name, they probably have a very similar criteria at Apple.
I had 2 apps rejected today, TWO!!! Apple review is a real asshole ya know?
Thanks, Jonah Grant. In the future, we’ll be sure to give your apps the ‘extra’ treatment.
Signed,
Apple “asshole” AppStore Reviewer
User interface based rejections are a good thing in my opinion (not talking about this specific case) because it ensures that users are not confused. Microsoft used to have their UI interface guidelines that developers had to follow in order to get their “designed for” certification.
The issue here is that it seems that the people testing the apps do not have an idea as to how the app is supposed to work? Is it Apple’s fault, I am not so sure. Many apps do not have a user manual or help attached to them and that can lead to some confusion. I have used some apps that are very confusing and I had to check the author’s site to figure out how to use them.
Apple should make changes that will allow Apps to embed instructions or documentation with the app and accessible by the user. It could, for example, deliver a PDF containing the documentation and then have it opened from within the application. The issue there is that the app closes when another app is opened (the viewer in this case) so you have to go back and forth and restart your work. Perhaps allowing applications to place their documentation in a general shared folder?
I wonder how apple does its approval process though? Not meaning it in a sarcastic manner, but as a real question. Someone, or something (automated system?), has to be doing the job, of which there’s a loophole somewhere.
But if the people testing the apps, as you say, really don’t have an idea how the app is supposed to work and that’s the reason it’s causing the approval process to seem to be failing, perhaps apple can have a submissions criteria e.g. description of the app, its usage etc.
But then, it still doesn’t explain why and how distasteful apps like the shaking baby one could be approved. I mean, how difficult can it be to know how to use an app that just requires shaking?
Okay so we all know that the approval process at Apple is b0rked. It’s no longer news.
Call me a libertarian, but we should not have to get anyone’s approval to make apps available for any platform. If you don’t like the content, don’t install it. Period. End of story.
Yeah but you know how much garbage there would be out there if that was the case? You’d never be able to find all the good apps.
Yeah, because it’s so easy to find a good app now right? Lots of innovation is being held back by Apple’s retarded rejection policies. No one is going to invest lots of money in an app if there’s a chance Apple will just arbitrarily reject it.
My app has been in the store since day 1, and I recently got rejected for not showing a proper error message when the network is not available. In the original version of my app, it would just crash! For some reason, Apple seems to be getting very strict with the HIG at the moment.
My app was rejected this week for “Objectionable Content” – it’s a Twitter app!
If my app got rejected then every other Twitter based app in the App Store should be rejected!
And it is a completely closed process – nobody to talk to, just an email address to send my response/questions into a black hole…
This is very frustrating…
Note to marketers – It’s pretty clear the way to get some press on TechCrunch is to get you app rejected. Do it at all costs!
we need better content..Man is there blog out there which can not over do info and write good articles…Techcrunch was better..but not anymore..
gigaom.com is nice, although the flow is much slower.
I think quantity is the problem with TC. It wants as many new articles as it can pipe through the system, as they believe that will bring people back more frequently. The end result is that its littered with crap. So, classic quantity over quality problem.
Curious: Why isn’t is a sync button, if it syncs? (Two arrows chasing each other in a circle.)
I agree that App approval randomly seems to be done by new hires who were raised by wolves, but I don’t totally disagree with this one.
Sync was the author’s word, not the developer’s, who used refresh. From the description it seems to fetch the current version of the content one has previously saved for later reading. A sync implies content in the app is compared to the online content, and if the content in the app is newer, it is sent out to the website. A unidirectional fetch is exactly what a web browser’s refresh button does.
My app was first rejected for the same reason as @Steven which in the end I was happy they rejected it because I was able to fix the problem and resubmit for approval. As far as @Victor’s comment. At first I felt the same way, why do we have to submit our application to the AppStore gods and hope they give us the thumbs up. But now having developed an app and using the iPod Touch more I think it is a good thing to ensure people are happy and get a consistent feel. From a consumer’s perspective they might blame Apple for their phone crashing when in fact it is jut a bad “app”le. :) Be interested though in how they will scale the approval process.
If that is an actual screenshot than it is very easy to see why it got rejected:
HIG say that blue background is for “active”-buttons only. e.g.: the moment you tap them, or you toggeled them for edit.
You are missing the point. Even if that is true the app had two previous versions accepted with the button.
The problem is that the rules are not being applied consistantly. If the rules that existed were applied in the same manner every time, these posts would not be needed.
Does anyone know Apples policy on sexual suggestive apps? I know they let igirl through, but do you think that was a slip through the crack?
We’ve developed a Movies app and were using an Icon for the ‘Cinemas’ tab that was similar to Now Playing’s Icon for Theatres. Apple rejected our app saying that this button was the MostViewed Button (used to show most popular items) even though Now Playing is using it for the same purpose we were supposed to use it.
If you check our the link below, you’ll notice that they do mention MostViewed button:
http://develope...006556-CH15-SW2
The odd thing is that we’ve used a ‘Star’ for something other than what is listed in the link above and they didn’t mention anything about that – (http://kodu.co....hots/poster.png)
I’m actually glad they are strict with approvals… otherwise we’d be littered with poorly developed apps. If you don’t like a challenge.. then don’t build a crappy app that nobody wants anyway. Most of the people that are complaining are the ones that just want to throw up an app and try to make a quick buck anyhow. Create something interesting and worthy and i’m almost positive it will get approved.
You’re wrong. People throwing up crap apps aren’t the ones being rejected (flashlights, fart apps, the list goes on). The ones complaining are the ones that want real innovation on the platform. That requires investment and no one is going to invest unless they have some reasonable assurance that they will get to market. Take a look at apps like NetFront, or some of the many other USEFUL and well thought out apps that have been rejected based on previously undisclosed criteria to see what people are really complaining about.
Looks like apple is attacking the PhoneGap framework. Pooh.
http://groups.g...ab8cc64b5d6ea35