What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
77 Comments
- gaymathman, on 11/03/2009, -6/+34This is sorta reasonable; they're using Apple's trademark in the name of their App. That said, it is rather rude to approve one Iphone book but not approve another one.
- Darthozzan, on 11/03/2009, -6/+29INCONSISTENCY, HO!
- akeldama, on 11/03/2009, -9/+29This is ridiculous, and has been for some time now. Isn't anyone sick and tired of Apple's inconsistency, draconian policies and artificially limiting walled garden?
- syntaxgs, on 11/04/2009, -1/+17it jsut more prof that crapple don,t make th a approval,,, app
- 37prime, on 11/04/2009, -2/+13This news is so late, because here's the update:
http://twitter.com/jsnell/status/5403612545 - JohnnySoftware, on 11/03/2009, -12/+22Everyone rejects those names.
It is a trademark violation.
It dilutes the trademark.
It implies a product endorsement where there is none.
Even children know this.
If I name my $49 spreadsheet program The New, Improved Microsoft Spreadsheet don't you think that Microsoft might have a problem selling that on their store?
That is just a humorous example. There have been so many trademark lawsuits in the news in recent years that anyone old enough to drive should have heard of similar trademark cases before. If not, um - time to go look up what a trademark is? - codelogic, on 11/04/2009, -1/+9That's exactly what Apple did (RTFA).
- fireashes, on 11/04/2009, -0/+8What you have said is correct but thats not what we the author is discussing. He is mad because apple is not as intelligent as you are.
Mr. David Pogue's iPhone app "iPhone: The Missing Manual" was approved with title and icon intact.
BUT
Jason Snell's iPhone app "iPhone reference manual" was rejected.
CONSISTENCY - codelogic, on 11/04/2009, -2/+9"I mean, this rejection will have no effect on my life, because I would have never used it in the first place."
Might not affect your life, but it affects the lives of developers who spend tens or hundreds of hours on an app, only to have their creation shot down by Apple's ridiculous unpredictable "policies". - Zique, on 11/04/2009, -1/+8So does it make PERFECT sense to reject one app and approve another app with iPhone in the title?
- Yage2006, on 11/04/2009, -3/+8Nice of apple to help mentally handicapped people find work by employing them on their application approval board.
- Locastus, on 11/04/2009, -1/+6Yes.. we know what a trademark is, but that's not really the point here, is it?
The grown-ups are talking about the app stores notoriously unreliable approval process. Its a real thorn in the side for software developers.
Now run along child, your mother is calling... - djhash, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5Aaand its released.. with the same title. The one with the iPhone word, with the icon that has iPhone in it. So.. yeah.. inconsistencies.. :-)
- MikeGalos, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5Inconsistancy. There's an app for that.
No, there isn't.
Yes, there is.
No, there isn't.
Yes, there is. - Chakat, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5Be nice here. Mentally handicapped people would be able to handle this intelligently. This was clearly the work of manatees.
- gerryk, on 11/04/2009, -5/+10Why is this even news? I often take issue with Apple's app store rejections, but this is just obvious trademark violation.
- sp33dyf33t, on 11/03/2009, -6/+11Wtf? Who does Apple think they are? If you want to reject an App for using the word iPhone, at least keep it an even playing field and reject all apps containing "that word".
- j035u5, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5You mean PERFRECT
- TyrelVnne, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4What the ***** are you talking about?
- inactive, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5give me a ***** break..using your silly "what ifs" doesn't even matter in this situation, even if it were true. You REALLY have to be a ***** idiot to think that you can have iPhone in your app name when it is not an official Apple app. This is not a case of everry single posssible word being trademarked. He tried to use the NAME of the device in his app! Which is stupid to begin with. Since the app is for the iPhone, no need to put iPhone in the app. IT is like saying someone scored a football touchdown.
- Alienkid, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5There are a bunch of apps that have the word "iPhone" in the title! Do a search. Apple is just being a bitch
- dagamer34, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4Except there's another app that has the word "iPhone" in it's title. It'd be ok if they applied their "rules" universally, but they don't. And that's what pisses developers off.
- yourmightyruler, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5I don't know why you're getting dugg down. Blackberry App World rejects anything with "berry". That's why TetherBerry is still not on App World.
btw, I'm a Storm user. So no fanboyism here. - czarcasm, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4*"THE DOCTOR SAYS ITS NOT CONTAGIOUS!"*
- seltaeb4, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4*****. There goes all the time I spent developing a ChuckBerry application.
It really rocked, too. - LeroyJenkems, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5Yes it's all a misunderstanding now because of the bad press.
- spookyttws, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4I'd be fine with Apple's insane terms and scrutiny if it meant only the best iphone apps got through. But considering 95% of the apps are crap (most of which are PG-porn image galleries) I would much rather they get over themselves. Crap is crap, even when named "iPhone Crap". Either let it all through or actually test for quality.
- Barackalypse, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4So dump proprietary closed source models where one company insists on controlling the distribution chain and get Android, or hell, even go Windows Mobile since at least Microsoft doesn't restrict you to only applications they have approved.
- jeriqo, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3What if all the apps used iPhone in their name?
Redundancy is redundant. - mousky, on 11/04/2009, -5/+8Nothing to see here. Move along. RIM does the same. It doesn't allow Berry or BlackBerry in the names of apps offered via BlackBery App World.
- krisrm, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Your Billy Mays key is stuck...
- Alienkid, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3How the hell would it cause confusion? There are already a bunch of apps that have iPhone in the title
- djhash, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3SirBruce.. you came in too late.. as I just did.. the update happened after these posts. Since its been 16 hours since the posting of the link to digg.
- orbz, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3A GODSDAMNNED MORON!
- Giac, on 11/04/2009, -4/+7***** Apple
- ToxicTexan, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Blackberry App World has reject everything with "berry" since day one. No inconsistencies.
- djhash, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2"Maybe they decided they don't need more than one unoffiical manual"
If it ever comes to this.. there'll be a bigger outrage than just this. If apple stifles competition in its App store, they'll get into big trouble. - testore, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4BURIED. Shameless self promotion. Besides who the hell cares.
- johnred, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4Exactly.
Plus, if you look at the icon, it basically just says "iPhone 3rd Edition" with a retarded-looking dog in the middle. So it makes it seem like some sort of "official" iPhone app. WTF was Macworld thinking?!
On that note... what it should've got rejected for is for having the ugliest icon ever. - djhash, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2All app devs do.. because this "self promotion" could have been the cause of apple reversing its decision and approving the app.
(or it could be the work of an incompetent approval personnel who was following everything to the letter, then someone else saw it and corrected it)
I know it's all an assumption here, but this proves that apple doesn't have any consistencies. Which not only hurts developers, but also customers who somehow can't get an update to their favorite app because of such inconsistencies. - krisrm, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Yeah, it's definitely a violation, but why are there some applications that are also "trademark violations" in the same sense, but still approved? The only reason it's a story is the inconsistency of the approval process, which bother developers.
- seltaeb4, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Ni?
- Leopards, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2You have just entered the Twilight Zone! Apple is all about control! Way back the Mac didn't have a button to eject your floppy disk today they don't have one to eject your CDs and DVDs, they know best when you are allowed to handle your media!
- SteveMax, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2"Maybe they decided they don't need more than one unoffiical manual."
But they still need 10000 flashlight apps, 10000 farting apps and 10000 tip calculators, right? Yeah, they have their priorities set up straight. - Alienkid, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2and there are still apps that have iphone in the title
- krisrm, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Exactly, everyone posting here about "oh, it's a trademark violation and shouldn't have been accepted because of it" is perfectly correct, but they neglect to mention the apparent trademark violations of *other* "iPhone" named applications, which were approved. People want to know why they're being inconsistent, not why this application itself was rejected.
- kaosethema, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1douchbags do douchebaggery
- rpgmakr, on 11/04/2009, -2/+3Actually, this rejection is understandable.
- Brak710101, on 11/04/2009, -12/+13This makes PERFRECT sense to reject.
Do you think Apple wants non-Apple apps claiming to be "iPhone *application name*"? Of course not, they don't endorse the product at all, and if they allowed "iPhone" in the name, it seems like it's endorsed to the average user. - My571k, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Nopes
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is