Okay, Podcaster Wasn’t a Weird Aberration

By  |  Sunday, September 21, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Here’s an apparent second example (this was the first) of an iPhone application I’d like to use–one which makes it easier to use multiple Gmail accounts in Web-based form, rather than in Apple’s Mail app–being refused access to Apple’s App Store on the grounds that it duplicates functionality in an Apple product. To quote the rejection letter MailWrangler developer Angelo DiNardi received:

“… Your application duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application Mail without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion. …”

Confusion? As a Gmail user, I understood DiNardi’s explanation the moment I skimmed it. Wouldn’t it make sense to let real people determine whether they’re confused by the purpose of his program?

In addition, Apple apparently criticized DiNardi’s app because there’s no way to edit a Gmail account once it’s been entered; you have to delete it and start over again. Possibly a fair point that would be reasonable to bring up in a review of said application. But Apple has okayed more than its share of schlock for the App Store, so it’s not entirely clear why it’s suddenly playing design critic with an app that serves a clear and useful purpose.

Let’s recap Steve Jobs’ explanation of why Apple might reject an iPhone app from last March:

No mention of there being anything offensive about doing something similar to Apple; nothing about apps being nixed because they’re not the most fully realized incarnation possible of an idea.

I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again: An App Store in which third parties aren’t allowed to tread too closely to Apple’s own programs is one that’s vastly less interesting–and one that’s likely to stunt the development of what can be and should be the most exciting mobile platform to date.



1 Comments For This Post

  1. Svetlana Gladkova Says:

    What will be particularly interesting to see is if Google chooses to learn from Apple’s mistakes and will avoid any preferences to its own apps or apps monetized with AdSense in the Android marketplace. I only hope they will as I don’t want developers to be quickly disappointed in Google’s mobile platform.

5 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. The Geekinator » Blog Archive » The Geekinator Podcast Episode #0020 Says:

    […] Okay, Podcaster Wasn’t a Weird Aberration […]

  2. Technogeekanerd » Blog Archive » The Geekinator Podcast Episode #0020 Says:

    […] Okay, Podcaster Wasn’t a Weird Aberration […]

  3. Rhapsody is Coming to the iPhone. Let’s Hope! | Technologizer Says:

    […] certainly imagine a scenario in which it declines to do so: After all, Rhapsody would definitey duplicate some features provided in the iPhone’s built-in iPod and iTunes applications. And like Google Voice, it […]

  4. A Second Look at Nook Says:

    […] The “more to come” will surely include a presence on the iPad, expanding on the current Barnes & Noble e-reader for the iPhone. The iPad’s built-in reader looks basic enough that I think both B&N and Amazon.com have a shot at building a better iPad e-reader than Apple has created. (That’s assuming that Apple doesn’t go out of its way to make it difficult for its competitors, which isn’t a given–even before the Google Voice fiasco, the company was rejecting apps for being insufficiently different from built-in iPhone programs.) […]

  5. the-t-list-rip-iphone-nda « eonly.us Says:

    […] iPhone-related policies: As far as anyone can tell, it still maintains that it’s wrong for anyone to develop iPhone apps that are sort of like Apple’s own. But Apple hasn’t explained such reasoning publicly, let alone convinced anyone of its […]