That's an utterly idiotic reason for the app to be rejected. Some of the first-tier Apple reviewers really don't engage their brains when reviewing apps.
My advice to the app developer would be to escalate the bogus rejection. Apple do listen if you state clearly why the app shouldn't have been rejected.
Usually when the developer makes a stink in the media, Apple becomes more intransigent, not less.
If the media picks up on it without prodding by the developer, different story. If it's embarrassing enough, Apple relents.
<S>
This would never have happened when Michael Spindler was CEO, because Apple would have gone out of business.
</S>
Sorry, this is totally ridiculous. What's more, Apple doesn't hold themselves up to this standard.
I'm certain Keynote, Pages, and Numbers iOS Apps all openly advertise their interoperability with and support for Microsoft applications and file types on their listings and in metadata.
But I think that [as Rickers pointed out] seeing as Apple actually offers a Pebble app in the app store, this should pretty much close the case.
And as people have said already, it's basically a non-issue that will be easily resolved. I know, it doesn't count until a certified non-fanboy apologist says it.
Hard to keep going when you haven't really started. This is just the developer complaining, which we already know about (not that AI even bothered to quote them). The claim from AI was Apple is "under fire once again," when no single other instance is cited, and your claim that "quite number of journalists" are on this, none of whom you cite either.
What the developer is doing (if they even are) is what we call "whining". Irrelevant whether it's enforced 100% or sporadically (for multitude of reasons). Don't flout a competitor's product. Period.
I break speed limits every day on the highway. Should I now complain that I'm "under fire" by the CHP because of their inconsistent enforcement of speed laws?
I thought the app was the product on sale. Not the pebble
That's an utterly idiotic reason for the app to be rejected. Some of the first-tier Apple reviewers really don't engage their brains when reviewing apps.
My advice to the app developer would be to escalate the bogus rejection. Apple do listen if you state clearly why the app shouldn't have been rejected.
How can you claim it is bogus when it is the rules (as mentioned in the article). If they don't like it then sure, appeal, but don't call something bogus cause you decide now that they are enforcing it is bogus.
Hmm...app reviews doesn't seem to have a problem approving ?Watch apps. Apparently there's over 3K in the AppStore now. No way can there possibly be 3K good apps for the Watch right now. It seems like Apple is just proving things to jack up that number.
Me thinks you are not very informed as to developing ?Watch apps. The App's heavy lifting is done on the iPhone -- if you have an iPhone app then you can extend it to do stuff while interacting with the watch. This means that the vast majority of those apps already existed as Apps and available as AppStore purchasable (or are now).
If in fact it was a case where there were 3000 standalone apps I would have my doubts also, but it is not. The only one Jacking here is you and I think you should get off it (didn't anybody tell you it would grow hair on your palms?).
How can you claim it is bogus when it is the rules (as mentioned in the article). If they don't like it then sure, appeal, but don't call something bogus cause you decide now that they are enforcing it is bogus.
The app conforms to the spirit of the rules even if doesn't conform to the exact wording. The rejection was bogus.
...The problem as I understand it stems from fact that the app itself has been around for two years without issue and now that Apple is coming out with the Apple Watch it's suddenly an issue that it mentions Pebble compatibility.
Not saying it's right or wrong but that's what I understand to be the main point of contention
I think you (and a lot of people) have assumed that "…two years without issue and now that Apple is coming out with the Apple Watch it's suddenly an issue…". It may indeed be the issue, it may not. I have seen nothing but inuindo for the ?Watch being the problem.
Either way it is Apple's storefront and the developers are bound by the rules. They supposedly read before they signed and acquiescence by does not negate an agreement that was and is legal.
Apple has the right to advertise its products and any others it chooses to. It does not grant the right for 3rd parties to mention other products and thus bring attention to them -- this is clearly stated in the rules.
If 3rd parties want to appeal they can, or they can simple go away (which would be silly), but the enforcement of a rule that has existed since the AppStore has, is enforceable and doing so is neither arbitrary or capricious, its just good business.
How can you claim it is bogus when it is the rules (as mentioned in the article). If they don't like it then sure, appeal, but don't call something bogus cause you decide now that they are enforcing it is bogus.
The app conforms to the spirit of the rules even if doesn't conform to the exact wording. The rejection was bogus.
Really? The spirit of the rules?
In the famous words of the late Emily Litilla (Gilda Radner): "Never mind".
I don't have a dog in this hunt and don't care one way or another how or if a minor dispute between a developer and Apple is resolved. What bugs me is that hardly anybody notices the total astroturf quality of the "controversy." All that's needed is one developer to make one public complaint for it to be uncritically repeated by a bunch of online sites. The echo-chamber takes over, and suddenly Apple is "under fire once again" for some puny issue hardly anybody really knows or cares about, and will probably be resolved in a few days, at most, in real-world time.
Comments
Except, if you'd read, it violates Apple's policies. So the reviewer did engage their brain just fine.
kthxbai
It violates Apple's policies on a technicality - Pebble are happy for this app developer to use their trademark.
If the developer escalated the issue, I'm sure Apple would accept their evidence. I speak as a developer who's been through this process before.
Cant have any kind of fair competition now can we.
Don't flout a competitor's product. Period.
[You might ant to look that word up.] :-)
Usually when the developer makes a stink in the media, Apple becomes more intransigent, not less.
If the media picks up on it without prodding by the developer, different story. If it's embarrassing enough, Apple relents.
<S>
This would never have happened when Michael Spindler was CEO, because Apple would have gone out of business.
</S>
Sorry, this is totally ridiculous. What's more, Apple doesn't hold themselves up to this standard.
I'm certain Keynote, Pages, and Numbers iOS Apps all openly advertise their interoperability with and support for Microsoft applications and file types on their listings and in metadata.
Example: Keynote.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/keynote/id361285480?mt=8&ls=1
"• Access and edit your presentations from a Mac or PC browser" [competitor browser] . . .
• Export your presentation to Microsoft PowerPoint or PDF format" [competitor product] . . .
• Use “Open in Another App” to copy presentations to apps such as Dropbox" [competitor product]
But I think that [as Rickers pointed out] seeing as Apple actually offers a Pebble app in the app store, this should pretty much close the case.
But I think that [as Rickers pointed out] seeing as Apple actually offers a Pebble app in the app store, this should pretty much close the case.
And as people have said already, it's basically a non-issue that will be easily resolved. I know, it doesn't count until a certified non-fanboy apologist says it.
Hard to keep going when you haven't really started. This is just the developer complaining, which we already know about (not that AI even bothered to quote them). The claim from AI was Apple is "under fire once again," when no single other instance is cited, and your claim that "quite number of journalists" are on this, none of whom you cite either.
What are you, AI's cut-rate ombudsman?
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d4D6jZumn-vNQjMtFFeWvFgv4-kZM&q=apple+pebble&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CYQ5Vd-tF-GxmAXk8YGgBQ&ved=0CCYQqgIwAA
What are you, AI's cut-rate ombudsman?
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d4D6jZumn-vNQjMtFFeWvFgv4-kZM&q=apple+pebble&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CYQ5Vd-tF-GxmAXk8YGgBQ&ved=0CCYQqgIwAA
Yeah, that must be it. Did you even look at the results of your Google search?
I thought the app was the product on sale. Not the pebble
prohibit developers from mentioning "the name of any other mobile platform" in their app or app metadata.
Assuming that the complainers don't understand the meaning of "other" which pretty much singles out 1 thing and discards the rest.
Which is exactly what has happened. Sounds reasonable to me.
That's an utterly idiotic reason for the app to be rejected. Some of the first-tier Apple reviewers really don't engage their brains when reviewing apps.
My advice to the app developer would be to escalate the bogus rejection. Apple do listen if you state clearly why the app shouldn't have been rejected.
How can you claim it is bogus when it is the rules (as mentioned in the article). If they don't like it then sure, appeal, but don't call something bogus cause you decide now that they are enforcing it is bogus.
Hmm...app reviews doesn't seem to have a problem approving ?Watch apps. Apparently there's over 3K in the AppStore now. No way can there possibly be 3K good apps for the Watch right now. It seems like Apple is just proving things to jack up that number.
Me thinks you are not very informed as to developing ?Watch apps. The App's heavy lifting is done on the iPhone -- if you have an iPhone app then you can extend it to do stuff while interacting with the watch. This means that the vast majority of those apps already existed as Apps and available as AppStore purchasable (or are now).
If in fact it was a case where there were 3000 standalone apps I would have my doubts also, but it is not. The only one Jacking here is you and I think you should get off it (didn't anybody tell you it would grow hair on your palms?).
Don't flout a competitor's product. Period.
[You might ant to look that word up.] :-)
ROFL!
"…might [w]ant to look…". Glass house and stones and such
!
How can you claim it is bogus when it is the rules (as mentioned in the article). If they don't like it then sure, appeal, but don't call something bogus cause you decide now that they are enforcing it is bogus.
The app conforms to the spirit of the rules even if doesn't conform to the exact wording. The rejection was bogus.
Not saying it's right or wrong but that's what I understand to be the main point of contention
I think you (and a lot of people) have assumed that "…two years without issue and now that Apple is coming out with the Apple Watch it's suddenly an issue…". It may indeed be the issue, it may not. I have seen nothing but inuindo for the ?Watch being the problem.
Either way it is Apple's storefront and the developers are bound by the rules. They supposedly read before they signed and acquiescence by does not negate an agreement that was and is legal.
Apple has the right to advertise its products and any others it chooses to. It does not grant the right for 3rd parties to mention other products and thus bring attention to them -- this is clearly stated in the rules.
If 3rd parties want to appeal they can, or they can simple go away (which would be silly), but the enforcement of a rule that has existed since the AppStore has, is enforceable and doing so is neither arbitrary or capricious, its just good business.
How can you claim it is bogus when it is the rules (as mentioned in the article). If they don't like it then sure, appeal, but don't call something bogus cause you decide now that they are enforcing it is bogus.
The app conforms to the spirit of the rules even if doesn't conform to the exact wording. The rejection was bogus.
Really? The spirit of the rules?
In the famous words of the late Emily Litilla (Gilda Radner): "Never mind".
Emily Litella.
I don't have a dog in this hunt and don't care one way or another how or if a minor dispute between a developer and Apple is resolved. What bugs me is that hardly anybody notices the total astroturf quality of the "controversy." All that's needed is one developer to make one public complaint for it to be uncritically repeated by a bunch of online sites. The echo-chamber takes over, and suddenly Apple is "under fire once again" for some puny issue hardly anybody really knows or cares about, and will probably be resolved in a few days, at most, in real-world time.
Really? The spirit of the rules?
In the famous words of the late Emily Latilla (Gilda Radner): "Never mind".
Emily Litella.
Damn! I even looked it up on the internet but screwed the pouch typing it. Fixed it. Thanx.
ROFL!
"…might [w]ant to look…". Glass house and stones and such
!
Yeah, it never fails.
But I wasn't chiding him over a typo, but nudging him about using a word with a meaning exactly opposite of what he thought.
That usage is a tapestry [sic.] of justice but now the point is mute [sic.] and now we should probably take different tact [sic.] :-)