Apple’s idiot App Store reviewer strikes again (with video)

A reviewer at the iTunes app store recently rejected a simple application Joel Comm had submitted due to “limited functionality.”

In this video, Comm appeals directly to Steve Jobs to make the review process more transparent and consistent:


Direct link via YouTube here.

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Yeah, that’s right, we said “idiot.” Where’s the consistency, Apple?

Once again: We don’t know if Apple’s problem is: (a) the quality of the staff they’ve hired to flip the coins they use to determine app approvals; (b) if said staff is totally overwhelmed; (c) if said “staff” is really just that lone not-so-smart MobileMe launch guy whom the new, more mellow Steve didn’t have the heart to fire; or (e) all of the above, but they really ought to have worked it out by now.

Apple’s only considerations should be to make sure apps do not harm the device and/or encourage physically harming others, directly or indirectly. That’s why we immediately condemned that despicable “Baby Shaker” app and applauded Apple for nixing it. Of course, it never should have been approved in the first place, but we already knew that Apple’s app approval process had major issues long before that particular SNAFU. (And, by the way,” for those that want to bring up FPS or similarly violent games: A defenseless infant is actually different than an armed soldier. If you’re ever in an actual war, you’re supposed to fight the enemy; if you’re ever holding a real baby, you’re never, ever to shake him or her.)

74 Comments

  1. No UNDUE offense intended, but isn’t it conceivable that Joel Comm is an idiot too?

    Seriously, Comm’s stupid novelty apps are an insult to Apple and its users. I think it’s great that Apple is deciding to clean up the App Store by beginning to reject apps that don’t do anything. To point out that this change is inconsistent with past behavior is irrelevant. ALL change is inconsistent with the past.

    I also commend Apple for not retroactively yanking already-approved apps from the store just to preserve consistency. Grandfathering in all of those stupid apps that Comm gratuitously demonstrated was the right thing to do.

    “Move along ya lookie loos, there’s nothing to see here.”
    — Chief Wiggins

  2. It’s an easy solution. Every app gets approved provided it isn’t illegal, damaging to the operation of the ipone or changing/replacing core functionality of the phone. Then apps are split into two categories by reviewers: Useful functionality/No useful functionality.

    They could go back through all the apps. Then they might find that the app store only has about 2000 useful apps rather than 100,000 apps most of which are useless. Then when I’m looking for apps I can completely avoid apps like iFart and ‘Cha-ching’.

    I need this feature. I can’t find anything in the app store because of these stupid apps.

  3. Sum Jung Gai,
    If someone wants buy an app that does nothing that’s their business. That’s the beauty of capitalism. People wouldn’t create these apps if people didn’t buy them. It should NOT be Apple’s call if an app is worth it or not, just if it violates its rules and terms.

  4. Apple is absolutely right – stop spamming the app store with “5 lines of code” applications. Its already hard to find good applications because of this useless spam… I went to Joel’s website. I can’t believe his app submission was anything more than a ploy to get publicity for him or his farting app. ICK.

    Nowhere do you say what this app supposedly does.

    Apple owes it to us to prevent bloating the App Store with juvenile, worthless crap that just distracts us from the better stuff. “Total app freedom” means dealing with acres of spam, crap that does not do what it says it will, and wasting good money on it, too.

    Analogy: not having a spam filter on your email, would you prefer that?

    I thank you, Apple, for being my first tier firewall against app spam.

Leave a Reply to chris f Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.