My website app isn’t App Store worthy, according to Apple

Posted on by

I rarely write on this blog technical stuff and in english, on this special occasion I’m going to do both.

For a while I’ve been experimenting (as a hobby) with the idea of developing for the iOS platform, currently I have two apps on it (click here), so far so good, niche applications. As a third app I wanted to experiment with the idea of building a universal app (for the iPhone and iPad), so what I thought was to make a simple web browser to this site in order to offer yet another option to my spanish speaking readers :-). The app is composed of only three buttons: Atras, Adelante, refrescar (Back, Froward, refresh). Here is it for the iPhone and iPad:

 

 

No big deal, simple enough. Why I did it? Well first Amazon has something called Kindle Blogs, which its name speaks for itself. I did submit my blog on it, however due to Canadian vendor platform not being available, the site its not published yet, therefore I said to myself: Why not do something like that to my blog but for the iPhone?

That’s what I did. Initially the application was rejected (email sent from Apple) because it didn’t support the Autorotate feature. Fine! I spent like three days scratching my head about it and 5 min implementing it 🙂 Re-submitted to then find that the application was rejected again because it didn’t offer ‘commercial value to the app store’. What I don’t understand about this statement is:

  1. The proposed app was free, say no more
  2. There’s already quite a lot of questionable quality apps on the App Store, so while this is a bare bones simple app, it wouldn’t be the first one.
  3. I can understand the Apple doesn’t want their shelf polluted, however the current and only approved method for distributing ann iOS app is through the App Store. There’s no way around it, well … there is, but I don’t want to use it. Under this distribution limitation imposed by Apple itself, there’s a thin line between being a host, and being a disco gatekeeper. Disco’s gatekeepers allow people to enter the place based on fashion looks, not personality.
  4. Two sites that I frequently read (Mashable & DIGG, among many) also have Apps available on the App Store. I by far I’m not comparing my site to those websites, my site its not int the same league in any measure. However, both, mobile versions of their websites and their apps differ little (that’s the idea, BTW). Great for them to make it that way! Why can’t I? Apple was suggesting me that users could add my site to the springboard instead of them allowing the app on the on the Apps Store. If that’s the case, the IMDB, DIGG, Mashable, etc. should have been suggested the same, we know that this didn’t happen. Again, I’m just using those sites as comparison of: If they could do it, well, so can I! 🙂 Unless there’s another requirement (relevancy -> worthy) that’s not mentioned anywhere.

Its note worthy that the second rejection was via phone call, so no trace is left by them, specially since there’re really no official reasons to reject this app.

The only known rules to reject an App in the store are:

  • The app doesn’t function as advertised by the developer
  • Use of private APIs
  • The app crashes

I’m adding another one:

  • Not worthy of the App Store

I would like to thank David Perez for doing the icon, which I like it a lot! Thanks dude! 🙂

Life too short to deal with Apple.