DISQUS

Name · 3 months ago

The Apple iPhone is a far worse violation of anti-trust law then Microsoft Windows ever was. Imagine if Microsoft not only tightly coupled Internet Explorer with Windows, but also prevented other browsers from even being installed on a Windows PC. This is exactly what Apple is doing. Maybe the iPhone doesn't yet have a large enough market share to be considered a monopoly, but it will be soon enough.

For those apps which conflict with the iPhone's installed defaults (phone dialer), this is a serious violation. On the trivial rejections like this one, it's just silliness, but similarly stifling innovation.

sherman · 3 months ago

@Name: not sure how antitrust issues apply here - how are you defining the monopolistic market? What agreements have been made that are in restraint of free competition? Apple has no clear monopoly in the smartphone market, whereas Microsoft clearly had a monopolistic market share in the PC OS market. Discriminatory and inconsistent business practices, perhaps, but antitrust? Doubt it.

Anon · 3 months ago

It may not be considered a monopoly yet, but give just a bit more time.

JamesGecko · 3 months ago

You seem to be confusing a "mindshare" monopoly with a structural monopoly. Apple isn't a structural monopoly because there's really no good reason preventing you from switching to another phone. They're simply making a superior product than that of competitors right now; there's not much of a barrier to entry for an entity who has a better product to step out and compete. It's just mindshare. Add to that how the iPhone is only (officially) available on one network and the claims of structural monopoly look even weaker.

As for stifling innovation, if someone really gets that tired of the iPhone's limitations, they'll go out and develop neat software for another phone. This would actually be better for the market as it would increase consumers options.

alain94040 · 3 months ago

"bitwise" is not a great keyword to begin with, but you got to let the Apple reviewers have some fun, with all the heat they are taking.

Maybe someone else is trying to get a bit wise (some kind of smart app for bits) through and you are piggy-backing on their (future) app :-)

tedcranmore · 3 months ago

Man , you are 100% right on this one. However wrong apple is here, I
must admit I thInk it is just a process that is stressed beyond stressed and is making some very poor decisions. They need to fix this, but ithink it's just plain poor execution vs pure evil.

chadakirby · 3 months ago

You may be right. It's entirely possible that one of the 40 app reviewers simply doesn't have a clue what that keyword means and thinks that I must be trying to ride the coattails of this IM client. But I'm not sure that reflects any better on the review process.

To be clear, I don't think Apple is evil. Personally, I think they are trying to do the right thing--but they are failing spectacularly a lot of the time, either because the reviewers are completely overwhelmed, their system is fatally flawed... or both.

Kenneth Reitz · 3 months ago

Sometimes I wonder if apple's really in charge of all that. They have such a GREAT brand name – it's a marketer's dream.
They wouldn't let ANYTHING tarnish that.
It *must* be because of AT&T.

firewallender · 3 months ago

LOL

hater · 3 months ago

This lawyer should accept his true nature and start a new life as a developer. Would Adam L.K. Philipp agree? Not sure.

chadakirby · 3 months ago

I was a computer dude for a lotta years before law school. Being a lawyer *is* my new life. But after a few years away, I did start to miss being a developer. Hence the troublesome little iPhone habit I've picked up over the past few months.

Ian Eure · 3 months ago

A quick search of the app store shows two companies, "Bitwise Designs" and "Bitwise Studios."

They're probably trying to keep you from posting an app that shows up when you look for apps by those companies. I'm not defending their actions, just presenting an alternative explanation.

Why they allowed two companies with such similar names is an exercise left to the reader.

@CascadeRam · 3 months ago

While this particular case doesn't seem to warrant rejection, I think Apple is *attempting* to do the right thing in terms of helping app-store users and cutting down on spam.

Too many publishers use unethical methods to mislead users and promote their apps. I've seen publishers list the names of multiple top-ranked apps in their app-description, even though the apps have little or no relation to their apps.
Some apps even change their names to match the names of more-popular apps. In most (though not necessarily all) of these cases, the keywords/names are spam

None of this helps app-store users. So given that the app-store is a regulated marketplace anyway, it makes sense for Apple to *try* to curb some unethical moves by app publishers.
(As an aside, Google, Bing etc. address the issue of spammy keywords by excluding the relevant websites from top-search results. Not addressing spam is bad for business. Period.)

I'm assuming that this rejection was triggered by an automated spam check (that matched bitwise with some other app or company name). So (with human intervention) it is possible that Apple may make an exception to allow the usage of this keyword.

While I understand Chad's frustration (and my comments represent an unpopular view within the tech community), I think the guest post could have made an attempt to consider Apple's prespective and why users may benefit from Apple's overall policy (even though, this particular rejection doesn't benefit users)

Name · 3 months ago

You've got no information about other apps in the store that may be pending release and named whatever.

Perhaps Apple has info that you don't and is acting reasonably. Someone beat you to the bell and you simply don't realize it...

chadakirby · 3 months ago

Actually, my point is that Apple is treating a generic, descriptive term as if it were someone's property. For example, at the moment, the #2 selling app in the App Store is named "Convert." However, there are dozens of other apps that also function to "convert" one unit to another unit. These other apps need to be able to use the term "convert" in their search criteria because the term "convert" is a descriptive term that a user would commonly use to refer to the action of changing a value in one unit to its equivalent value in another unit. It would be a huge disservice to all if Apple granted a monopoly on use of the term "convert" in the App Store to just one developer.

I essentially argue above that the term "bitwise" fills the same function as the term "convert." "Bitwise" is the descriptive word that a user would commonly use to refer to bitwise operations, and Apple is off base to attempt to restrict its use in search criteria.

As a developer, I am all for the theory of enforcing a policy that keywords be accurate and non-spammy. However, in practice, Apple has also got to make sure that its policy always allows the free use of descriptive, accurate terms. I'll even go so far as to say that there is no case in which the users' interests are served by forbidding the use of an accurate, generically descriptive keyword.

me · 4 weeks ago

Nice reply. Obviously the guy you just replied to has the same lack of understanding that the reviewer at Apple has.
People that can't understand this shouldn't have a job in that position.
Apple should also have a method for an appeal.
I wonder if you can submit a recipe for Apple Pie, or if that would get rejected too?

Mike Bentley · 3 months ago

Your writeup is excellent.

I note that the reviewer had approximately 8 minutes to look at and punt your hex calculator app, allegedly due to a perceived bad word "bitwise", but you only have the reviewer's word.

Resubmit the app with a different keyword list.

jj · 3 months ago

I think both you and Apple should work on something else.

Jim H. · 2 months ago

I barely qualify as geek let alone ubergeek, but, I followed your logic. I think one of the app checkers just did a search on Bitwise and reacted within the guidance he/she had been given.

Don't give up. Move further up the food chain.