Apple's FCC Response Infuriates Google Voice App Developer
- From: "Rotten Apple" <rotten@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:03:56 -0500
http://www.maclife.com/article/news/apples_fcc_response_infuriates_google_voice_app_developer
Apple's FCC Response Infuriates Google Voice App Developer
Posted 08/24/2009 at 11:44:27am | by Michelle Delio
Apple's open letter to the FCC has left at least one iPhone app development
team "more frustrated than ever."
Kevin Duerr and his crew at Riverturn, a technology consulting firm that
built the VoiceCentral Google Voice app, have been hoping that Apple would
come clean about why their app, along with three other Google voice apps,
were suddenly removed from iTunes on June 27 with no warning, an action that
ultimately launched an FCC inquiry.
But Duerr was infuriated by Apple's response to the FCC, proudly posted on
Apple.com late Friday afternoon. Duerr described Apple's FCC letter as
"nothing but hot air for PR purposes." He also suspects Apple is being more
than a bit disingenuous with the FCC.
"Perhaps they are assuming no one at the FCC ever used VoiceCentral or the
other two Google Voice Apps that were available for months before they were
removed from the App store. Or maybe Apple is banking on the FCC not being
deeply familiar with either the iPhone or the Google Voice service. Because
anyone who knows the services in question, or anyone who ever used our app,
would be able to see the insincerity in many of Apple's statements."
Apple's response to the FCC's question about why the Google voice apps were
pulled from iTunes states that the apps weren't rejected, they just haven't
been approved because Apple is "still pondering" whether Google can be
trusted with iPhone user data.
Apple explains that the Google Voice apps transfer ".the iPhone user's
entire Contacts database . to Google's servers, and we have yet to obtain
any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate
ways." Apple is also ruminating over whether it's acceptable for these apps
to replace "the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user
interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging
and voicemail."
"In their entire description of how their review process works and why they
reject apps they did not mention one single item that could apply to our
app," says Duerr. "And none of the explanations offered come close to
explaining why our app was approved and selling for four months prior to
being pulled with no warning. Richard from Apple specifically told me that
our app was removed because it was not allowed by policy. He made absolutely
no mention of any 'pondering.'"
("Richard from Apple" contacted Duerr three days after VoiceCentral was
removed from the app store, but was unable to provide specific, useful
information to Duerr details beyond the fact that "VoiceCentral has been
removed from the App Store because it duplicates features of the iPhone. and
was causing confusion in the user community.")
Duerr says that he and his team are still waiting for responses to the
emails they directed towards both the App review team and App technical
support on July 27 requesting detailed information about why their app was
removed and how they could remediate any problems. In their desperation to
get some sort of concrete answer they even sent emails to Steve Jobs and
other Apple executives, which have also gone unanswered.
Apple cheerily wrote in its FCC letter that: "If we find that an application
has a problem, for example, a software bug that crashes the application, we
send the developer a note describing the reason why the application will not
be approved as submitted. In many cases we are able to provide specific
guidance about how the developer can fix the application. We also let them
know they can contact the app review team or technical support, or they can
write to us for further guidance."
"Where's our "specific guidance"? Phil Schiller, you've been the App Store
Angel lately. can we talk?" fumes Duerr. "When I spoke with Richard I begged
him to ask one of his superiors to at least have a legitimate conversation
with me about the situation. To date we have heard nothing. And I find it
telling that Apple never says who "us" is in the FCC statement. Who exactly
should we write to? Apple's a pretty big company so they might want to
narrow down that 'us'."?
Unsurprisingly, Duerr has done a lot of thinking about what Apple needs to
do to support its app developers more effectively. He thinks the following
is the absolute bare minimum:
Non-binding pre-approval: Developers should be able to outline a proposed
app's functions to Apple and get feedback on whether the app will be
approved before they invest time and money into actually building it. Apple
would have the right to reject pre-approved apps if they provably deviate
from the developer's approved proposal.
Complete overhaul of the approval process and team: Duerr says that
"developers often get a response that includes one esoteric section of the
Developers Agreement quoted to them. That's a far cry from the 'provide
specific guidance about how the developer can fix the application' that they
claimed in their response letter. Clearly a reviewer knows why, in layman's
terms (not Developer Agreement vague legalese), why they intend to say no.
What's the harm in just saying 'No, but if you do X then we will probably
say yes'?
Better communication: Duerr says that the emails that developers currently
receive "shed little to no light on the real issue. They almost always
require a hefty amount of interpretation, followed by a leap of faith that
the developer knows what Apple actually meant." He adds that emails to the
app review team result in canned responses 99.99% of the time.
Appeals process: Duerr thinks there should be a defined process of appeals
where a developer could speak with someone higher in the chain of command
that is capable of answering questions with specific information rather than
just reciting the rejection script. "Even if the answer remains no, coming
to an understanding on that answer would go a long way to convincing
developers that the iPhone is still a worthwhile platform. When you are
completely in the dark it's really hard to justify continued investment,"
says Duerr.
Fix the refunds Issue: "If Apple decides on a whim to change their mind and
remove an App from the store after it has already been for sale for any
length of time, then Apple has to foot the bill on refunds that they decide
to grant end users," Duerr says."This obviously hits close to home for us,
but it couldn't be more obvious that the party that made all of the
decisions leading up to the reason a refund is being requested should be
responsible for the cost of that refund."
Duerr says that Riverturn's own iPhone apps development effort is now on
hold until further notice but the company is still performing iPhone
development work for their clients. Riverturn has also begun developing for
other mobile development platforms, including Android, Palm Pre and "another
exciting idea that we will be announcing soon."
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Why No ExpressCard Slot On Mac Laptops?
- Next by Date: Re: BC Marijuana Party
- Previous by thread: Mail on Sunday angers Mac users with DVD giveaway
- Next by thread: 10 Convincing Reasons Why You SHOULDN'T Buy the MacBook Air
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
