Is Apple about to announce a 'Broadcast' App?

AppleInsider · March 20, 2023 8:55PM

Apple has just denied an update to years-old internet radio and live streaming app "Broadcasts," based on a name-likeness rule that is used to prevent developers from copying Apple app names.

'Broadcasts' denied for Apple name collision

Longtime developer, code sleuth, and Apple commentator Steve Troughton-Smith has just been denied a routine update to a Mac version of his app, "Broadcasts." The app is more than two years old, according to the App Store listing, and it hasn't encountered a naming issue before.

On Monday, the developer received a notice that the macOS version of his app was denied after review for invalid binary. The specific issue number Apple provided was ITMS-90129.

Apple listed the issue as "The bundle uses a bundle name or display name that is already taken." However, that code is nearly always used when a submitted app comes too close to an Apple app name.

Apps have had this happen before, and it is a regular occurrence since Apple tends to choose single-word names that describe exactly what the app is for. Apple's Home, Messages, Contacts, and Calendar apps are good examples of this naming convention.

"Broadcasts" is a utility that enables users to listen to internet-hosted radio shows and compatible live streams. Among the Apple fan community, it is also popularly used to live stream podcasts like those from Relay.fm.

AppleInsider reached out to Apple and Steve Troughton-Smith for comment. Apple hasn't provided a response.

Steve Troughton-Smith shared with us that this whole thing could be a bug, but he's resubmitted the app for review in the meantime.

There are a handful of obvious reasons why Apple would release an app called "Broadcast." It could be used for Apple TV+ sports-related broadcasts or act as a dedicated app for streaming Apple Music Radio.

Another possible explanation is that Apple's app review team denied the app by mistake -- which has been known to occur. The iOS version of "Broadcasts" is still being reviewed, and if it is denied for the same reason, it might indicate an impending Apple app.

Update: Apple has approved the "Broadcast" app update after resubmitting it. No additional reasoning behind the initial denial or later approval was provided.

Read on AppleInsider

davidmalcolm · March 20, 2023 9:17PM

Is nobody going to point out that the app icon looks a lot like the podcasts app? It was probably somebody being over zealous.

chutzpah · March 20, 2023 9:30PM

Dick move if true. Apple should be the one to find a different name.

AppleZulu · March 20, 2023 10:04PM

Boy, howdy, that's a lot of conjecture.

Apple's podcast app is called "Apple Podcasts." If they wanted to create their own broadcasts app, they could just as easily call it "Apple Broadcasts." Searching the app store for the term "podcasts" yields, among others, a "Podcasts App," and a "Podcast Player App," which would lead one to think that Apple probably isn't taking away this guy's app name just to use it. They could create an "Apple Broadcasts" app with few problems.

I get that this is a rumor site, but surely we're basing our predictions about things on more than this.

Wesley Hilliard · March 20, 2023 10:17PM

AppleZulu said:

I get that this is a rumor site, but surely we're basing our predictions about things on more than this.

This wasn't a prediction. Just news. This has happened before and could easily happen again. While App Store search might return similar results to Apple's naming, none are just "Podcasts." A similar thing happened to Home+, and the developer had to fight to keep the name.

The same could be happening here, and we pointed out that this could also just be a mistake by Apple in the article. No one said this is happening. But, there is also the possibility that App Review just accidentally revealed an upcoming app or project from Apple. Is that not enough to point it out to our readers, even if it is tenuous, as we've pointed out?

Stabitha_Christie · March 20, 2023 10:27PM

Wesley Hilliard said:

AppleZulu said:

I get that this is a rumor site, but surely we're basing our predictions about things on more than this.

This wasn't a prediction. Just news. This has happened before and could easily happen again. While App Store search might return similar results to Apple's naming, none are just "Podcasts." A similar thing happened to Home+, and the developer had to fight to keep the name.

The same could be happening here, and we pointed out that this could also just be a mistake by Apple in the article. No one said this is happening. But, there is also the possibility that App Review just accidentally revealed an upcoming app or project from Apple. Is that not enough to point it out to our readers, even if it is tenuous, as we've pointed out?

No, it's not "just news", the title of the article is "Is Apple about to announce a 'Broadcast' App?". If you were reporting "just news" the title would be "Broadcast App update rejected by Apple". Of course that is a touch on the boring side so y'all spiced it up by making it sound like Apple could be launching a new app despite any actual evidence. It's straight up clickbait in the form of conjecture. At least be honest about what you are doing.

Wesley Hilliard · March 20, 2023 11:30PM

Stabitha_Christie said:

It's straight up clickbait in the form of conjecture. At least be honest about what you are doing.

An app being rejected by Apple isn't the news, though, so your title wouldn't reflect the story we've written. The app rejection and reason for rejection indicate that Apple could be planning a Broadcasts app based on past evidence. It isn't clickbait if the premise of the entire article is the question posed in the title.

We discuss the question and provide multiple possibilities. That's how news of this nature is covered.

Clickbait is defined as misleading the reader using a title that doesn't relate to the content. If we said "Here's when Apple is launching its Broadcast app" that would be considered clickbait. Or, "Apple reveals Broadcasts as its next app name." But no, we posed a question that could be asked based on the events that unfolded and provided guidance about why we're asking such a question.

Remember, disliking something doesn't make it clickbait, and not everything on this website will appeal to every reader.

The key here is this: what if Apple does announce a Broadcast app and we didn't cover this? We'd have missed a big scoop! Better to cover it and be wrong than know about it and do nothing. That's just how this industry works. And I reiterate, there's nothing misleading about the headline -- we didn't say this was absolute and we explain the title in the first sentence.

chutzpah · March 20, 2023 11:36PM

Stabitha_Christie said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

AppleZulu said:

I get that this is a rumor site, but surely we're basing our predictions about things on more than this.

This wasn't a prediction. Just news. This has happened before and could easily happen again. While App Store search might return similar results to Apple's naming, none are just "Podcasts." A similar thing happened to Home+, and the developer had to fight to keep the name.

The same could be happening here, and we pointed out that this could also just be a mistake by Apple in the article. No one said this is happening. But, there is also the possibility that App Review just accidentally revealed an upcoming app or project from Apple. Is that not enough to point it out to our readers, even if it is tenuous, as we've pointed out?

No, it's not "just news", the title of the article is "Is Apple about to announce a 'Broadcast' App?". If you were reporting "just news" the title would be "Broadcast App update rejected by Apple". Of course that is a touch on the boring side so y'all spiced it up by making it sound like Apple could be launching a new app despite any actual evidence. It's straight up clickbait in the form of conjecture. At least be honest about what you are doing.

"Apple rejects update to Broadcasts app" isn't newsworthy though, its mundane; it's what it may be suggesting that makes it of any interest. The conjecture is the news.

AppleZulu · March 21, 2023 12:12AM

Wesley Hilliard said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

It's straight up clickbait in the form of conjecture. At least be honest about what you are doing.

An app being rejected by Apple isn't the news, though, so your title wouldn't reflect the story we've written. The app rejection and reason for rejection indicate that Apple could be planning a Broadcasts app based on past evidence. It isn't clickbait if the premise of the entire article is the question posed in the title.

We discuss the question and provide multiple possibilities. That's how news of this nature is covered.

Clickbait is defined as misleading the reader using a title that doesn't relate to the content. If we said "Here's when Apple is launching its Broadcast app" that would be considered clickbait. Or, "Apple reveals Broadcasts as its next app name." But no, we posed a question that could be asked based on the events that unfolded and provided guidance about why we're asking such a question.

Remember, disliking something doesn't make it clickbait, and not everything on this website will appeal to every reader.

The key here is this: what if Apple does announce a Broadcast app and we didn't cover this? We'd have missed a big scoop! Better to cover it and be wrong than know about it and do nothing. That's just how this industry works. And I reiterate, there's nothing misleading about the headline -- we didn't say this was absolute and we explain the title in the first sentence.

Ah, the old “we’re just asking questions” game. They do that a lot on Ancient Aliens, too, that great bastion of high editorial standards. Could asking leading questions that strongly imply a thing not supported by the evidence really be a form of click-bait designed to also offer deniability? We’re just asking questions.

darkvader · March 21, 2023 12:18AM

Ugh.

Developers: THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT RELEASE ON THE APPLE APP STORE - or at the very least not exclusively there.

Get a website, they're cheap. Collect money with something like Square or PayPal, they're expensive at 2.7-ish % but nowhere close to Apple's 30% highway robbery.

And people like me who WILL NOT support Apple's extortion and DRM might buy your app instead of looking for alternatives that we don't have to install through that stupid app store.

Wesley Hilliard · March 21, 2023 1:16AM

AppleZulu said:

Ah, the old “we’re just asking questions” game.

"We're just asking questions" is a euphemism used when discussing concern trolls, fake news coverage, or a disguise of willful ignorance.

We demonstrated an understanding of the topic and posed a question based on the facts provided. Which is the base tenet of the scientific method.

I don't understand your critique here. Apple is the one who told the developer it was using a name that is associated with an Apple app or property. That isn't implication, it is reality.

It is ok that you didn't care about the topic. Obviously, we're going to cover things you don't care about. But don't confuse that lack of care with our poor judgment. You've not exactly provided any good reason for us not to cover the story other than your dislike for it.

Anyway, happy to chat here as always. Believe it or not, I do read the comments.

narwhal · March 21, 2023 4:00AM

AppleZulu said:

I get that this is a rumor site, but surely we're basing our predictions about things on more than this.

I've probably submitted apps to the App Store 1000 times now. Occasionally, I'll get a bogus rejection from an overzealous reviewer. I just re-submit it, stating my case, and generally the next reviewer approves it. I agree with you, this is not a big deal.

Ofer · March 21, 2023 4:06AM

darkvader said:

Ugh.

Developers: THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT RELEASE ON THE APPLE APP STORE - or at the very least not exclusively there.

Get a website, they're cheap. Collect money with something like Square or PayPal, they're expensive at 2.7-ish % but nowhere close to Apple's 30% highway robbery.

And people like me who WILL NOT support Apple's extortion and DRM might buy your app instead of looking for alternatives that we don't have to install through that stupid app store.

Yup!

And we know this is the real reason why Apple won’t open up the iPhone to alternative app stores unless forced to by law. They’re making too much money off it.

JFC_PA · March 21, 2023 5:14AM

With the volume they process glitches are to be expected.

michelb76 · March 21, 2023 7:01AM

davidmalcolm said:

Is nobody going to point out that the app icon looks a lot like the podcasts app? It was probably somebody being over zealous.

There are tons of apps in the store with an icon like that, some even more similar to the podcasts app.

longfang · March 21, 2023 8:45AM

darkvader said:

Ugh.

Developers: THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT RELEASE ON THE APPLE APP STORE - or at the very least not exclusively there.

Get a website, they're cheap. Collect money with something like Square or PayPal, they're expensive at 2.7-ish % but nowhere close to Apple's 30% highway robbery.

And people like me who WILL NOT support Apple's extortion and DRM might buy your app instead of looking for alternatives that we don't have to install through that stupid app store.

Luckily enough people like me who use the App store exclusively outnumber people like you.

Stabitha_Christie · March 21, 2023 10:57AM

Wesley Hilliard said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

It's straight up clickbait in the form of conjecture. At least be honest about what you are doing.

An app being rejected by Apple isn't the news, though, so your title wouldn't reflect the story we've written. The app rejection and reason for rejection indicate that Apple could be planning a Broadcasts app based on past evidence. It isn't clickbait if the premise of the entire article is the question posed in the title.

We discuss the question and provide multiple possibilities. That's how news of this nature is covered.

Clickbait is defined as misleading the reader using a title that doesn't relate to the content. If we said "Here's when Apple is launching its Broadcast app" that would be considered clickbait. Or, "Apple reveals Broadcasts as its next app name." But no, we posed a question that could be asked based on the events that unfolded and provided guidance about why we're asking such a question.

Remember, disliking something doesn't make it clickbait, and not everything on this website will appeal to every reader.

The key here is this: what if Apple does announce a Broadcast app and we didn't cover this? We'd have missed a big scoop! Better to cover it and be wrong than know about it and do nothing. That's just how this industry works. And I reiterate, there's nothing misleading about the headline -- we didn't say this was absolute and we explain the title in the first sentence.

“ That's just how this industry works.”
Making up news isn’t how journalism works, well at FOX News it is but that’s a different story.

Remember when Steve Jobs said “I don’t want to be a nation of bloggers”, this is what he was talking about. The only fact here is that the app was rejected. The rest is just speculation … at best.

Again, be honest about what you are doing.

AppleZulu · March 21, 2023 12:04PM

Wesley Hilliard said:

AppleZulu said:

Ah, the old “we’re just asking questions” game.
"We're just asking questions" is a euphemism used when discussing concern trolls, fake news coverage, or a disguise of willful ignorance.

We demonstrated an understanding of the topic and posed a question based on the facts provided. Which is the base tenet of the scientific method.

I don't understand your critique here. Apple is the one who told the developer it was using a name that is associated with an Apple app or property. That isn't implication, it is reality.

It is ok that you didn't care about the topic. Obviously, we're going to cover things you don't care about. But don't confuse that lack of care with our poor judgment. You've not exactly provided any good reason for us not to cover the story other than your dislike for it.

Anyway, happy to chat here as always. Believe it or not, I do read the comments.

My critique is that your headline-in-the-form-of-a-question was a speculative conclusion not supported by the evidence. Your update to the article indicates that the re-submitted app update has now been approved. So the app’s original rejection was most likely just a mundane error.

I criticized the article’s headline above, and you responded by saying “we posed a question that could be asked based on the events that unfolded.” More succinctly, ‘we’re just asking questions.’ And you’re right, that is a euphemism for fake news, etc.

In the end, your question-headline inferred a conclusion far more interesting than “Developer Gets Aberrant App Renewal Rejection.” That would’ve been the honest headline, with the speculation buried in the article that one possible reason for the rejection might be that Apple is interested in the app’s name. That wouldn’t have generated much attention, though, so you ran with the speculative headline and buried the possibility that it could be nothing in the article. That gets us back to wondering about the definition of click-bait. (Merriam-Webster: “something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest.”)

Or, you could’ve waited a day or two before publishing anything, in order to first find out if Apple actually stuck with the rejection. That’s what those crusty old-guard editorial standards would’ve required, since Apple sticking with the rejection should have seemed unlikely, as the app in question was previously updated only two weeks ago. A day later, and you did find out, and the much less interesting thing seems to be the answer. The problem is that waiting to confirm with more information might’ve led to no article being published at all.

I’m not sure where you get the idea that I don’t care about the topic. That also seems to be an unsubstantiated speculation. I’m actually interested enough in the topic that I find it disappointing that a headline referring to that topic leads to a nothing-burger article, now including an ‘oh, never mind’ update.

Wesley Hilliard · March 21, 2023 2:12PM

In the end, we choose what we cover here. You choose what you read. That’s our relationship.

I appreciate the depth and emotional reaction to a simple post about an app name creates. It means I’ve done my job anyway.

Thanks for the advice on how to run our website though. But I will say, if a website like ours was run that way we’d be closed in a week.

Anyway, I’m tired of this thread. Feel free to yell into the abyss some more if you need, I’ll be back in other threads.

I do wonder though, how would you react if Apple does announce a Broadcast app? It seems you’re so confident that you’re right that you’ve forgotten that you could also be wrong. Never forget to be humble on the internet.

AppleZulu · March 21, 2023 4:53PM

Wesley Hilliard said:

In the end, we choose what we cover here. You choose what you read. That’s our relationship.

I appreciate the depth and emotional reaction to a simple post about an app name creates. It means I’ve done my job anyway.

Thanks for the advice on how to run our website though. But I will say, if a website like ours was run that way we’d be closed in a week.

Anyway, I’m tired of this thread. Feel free to yell into the abyss some more if you need, I’ll be back in other threads.

I do wonder though, how would you react if Apple does announce a Broadcast app? It seems you’re so confident that you’re right that you’ve forgotten that you could also be wrong. Never forget to be humble on the internet.

I’ve admitted I was wrong on this very website. (I was sure Apple wouldn’t get out of the router business, and I was very wrong about that.) Humility is indeed a good attribute and comes across as sincere when it’s not offered defensively.

The concern here isn’t about being right or wrong, however. It’s about qualitative standards for the information being presented.

I’d preferred this site because its name suggests an insider perspective, rather than a rumor perspective. One is qualitatively better than the other. It’s worrisome, then, to read here that you think you wouldn’t last a week if you took reasonable steps to verify information upon which you base speculative conclusions.

Seems like maybe maintaining standards that build credibility and a regular audience would be worth more in the long run than running with “scoops” that have a high probability of not panning out, just to attract attention and clicks from a more transient audience, but hey, I could be wrong about that.

maltz · April 9, 2023 5:35PM

The main suggestion I have is that updates should generally be placed ABOVE the original article, not at the end. Since this entire article has now been rendered moot, it saves a lot of the reader's time. (I do agree that it's debatable whether this rises to the level that should be reported, even as a rumor, before the appeal had even gone through, though, especially since, as the article even mentions, this seems to be an error that happens sometimes.)

Is Apple about to announce a 'Broadcast' App?

Comments