Comments on: Apple is Rejecting Its Own Advice

By: Sherwin

Sherwin — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:23:55 +0000

This is horrible… I proposed weak-linking to my team so we can still support 2.X iPhone OSes, just without some of the advanced features like in-app purchases. If they’re going to reject it even though we followed their advice, that doesn’t make any sense! I hope this gets cleared up soon.

By: admin

admin — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:56:55 +0000

@Michael: As stated above, Spy Pix did get approved, but only when the minimum OS was changed to 3.1. A new version of 3D Camera Lite has been submitted for approval, and it requires OS 3.1 too. It hasn’t been approved yet, though we think that it will be.

As to “suspicions,” I don’t think they’re forcing upgrades. I simply believe that their processes are very inconsistent and unreliable, their documentation is misleading, their communication (when it exists) is terrible, and I’m sure they’re overwhelmed. But being overwhelmed is only a viable excuse for some period of time. Eventually, you’d think they would adapt to the situation.

It’s certainly not a realistic or long-term way to run a business for either the seller (us) or Apple.

By: Michael David

Michael David — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:26:18 +0000

So, it did get approved? What are you “suspicions” – that Apple is forcing people to upgrade to 3.1?

By: App Rejections » Blog Archive » REJECTED: (for using iPhone OS 3.1) 3D Camera Lite

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:04:37 +0000

[...] got it approved – situation explained, problem solved! Or … is it? It would seem that Apple reviewers are playing silly games again: we submitted an update to our existing free app, 3D Camera Lite, on November 20th. It’s a very [...]

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:37:43 +0000

@Erotsppa, you must be joking.

He IS “doing what Apple says” and that’s just the problem. Apple is rejecting it ignoring their own advice to developers. Read the article again if you don’t understand that. He is not using private API.

This is very legitimate and it’s documented (and recommended) by Apple how you should do that.

What about those developers that wish to support OS 2.x while taking advantage of 3.x features?

Consider that many iPod users still use 2.x and can not upgrade the OS without paying $10 to Apple. There are MANY iPod users who use apps but don’t want to upgrade and shouldn’t be forced to.

If a developer can support 2.x users they should be free to do so, following Apples own advice with “weak linking”.

Should a user be forced to pay $10 for an upgrade they don’t want so they can use an app that they like, which would normally work for them on 2.x following Apples advice on “weak linking”?

Developers are only asking Apple to be consistent with their own rules and advice. We are trying to run a business.

By: Erotsppa

Erotsppa — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:22:14 +0000

So require user to upgrade to 3.1, it’s not that hard. Do what Apple says or you’re just asking for it.