Image Source: TheFreeDictionary.com
Now this is ridiculous. Not only did Apple pull all the unofficial Google Voice apps out of the App Store for an absurd reason, now they expect the developers of those apps to fund refunds out of their own pockets.
Yikes. If this is accurate, it really seems an outrageous decision. Apple originally allowed these apps into the App Store. The apps have not changed their core functionality (that has now got them banned), so they’ve certainly help up their end of the App Store deal. Why on earth should any potential refund requests not be Apple’s responsibility?
For more details on this see Gizmodo’s post HERE.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
The indignation being expressed throughout the internet over Apple not allowing Goggle Voice on the iPhone borders on the absurd.
IMO of course.
I think there's been some outcry over the rejection of the official Google app (and that's being looked into by the FCC) but most of the real outrage and indignation is not about that decision, but rather the removal of a couple of Google Voice apps that have already been in the store for some time. As I've said in the post, that seems way out of order. The apps were accepted into the store and have been there for some time. People have paid for them. The apps have not been changed in any fundamental way, and they get yanked with no logical (or consistent) reason given. I think that's well worth some indignation.
For me it's more of Apple's poor handling of the app store period. How did GV even get in at all? How could it make it through the approval process without apple knowing the nature of the program? For them to turn right around 2 days later and say "OOPs, we didn't mean to let you guys put that on our phone. Sorry about that."
To me that is the idiocy of it all. It's like they have a monkey for a judge on approvals, and he just hits the yes or no button. Then later on an actual person comes behind and checks the results.
The way they're handling the app store is what's getting them so much bad pub… IMO lol
It's not just a couple days – GV Mobile was in the App Store since April. It cost $2.99. I agree with you though that one of the biggest issues here is the sheer inconsistency – coupled nicely with Apple's habit of rarely explaining anything – of App Store decisions.
The way I remember it, they were not accepted into the AppStore at first, then Phil Schiller was the one that overturned the initial rejection. It seems that not even Apples senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing has any final say on what is acceptable. You would think he, of all people, would have a good idea about guidelines for App Store approval. I guess it really is entirely subjective and no guidelines for objectivity exist. At any time someone can simply decide to pull apps without any valid reason whatsoever.
I think that nicely sums up 'the process' – as in, there is not one.
It's not ridiculous. Nowhere in the developer contract does it say that Apple will cover the entire cost of a refund for apps that have been rejected from the App Store. It seems ridiculous to me that any developer would expect that from Apple or any publisher.
I would agree if the app was rejected for a valid reason. If the app had changed its functionality in a major way since it was accepted into the store months ago for example. But for an app to be in the store one day, approved by Apple, and to remain that way for several months with users paying for it and Apple taking their 70% cut of sales, and then just banished one day with no legitimate / sensible reason – and then to throw the refund responsibility back on the dev does seem ridiculous to me.
Apple's cut is 30%, not 70%, and they give that 30% back with each refund, as well. It sucks that the app was rejected but you can't expect Apple to suddenly come up with all new refund rules out of the blue for a rejected app.
Oh, brain fart – of course it's 30% that Apple takes. On the second point, again I would agree with you if this was 'just' an app rejection. But an app rejection after being approved and in the store for months and then being kicked when nothing changed in the app, and when a myriad of other apps remain in the store that are guilty of the same thing that is the stated reason for the rejection – that's way out of order. As has been pointed out all over the web, there are lots of apps that 'duplicate functionality' as much and moreso than the two GV apps that were pulled. VOIP apps, dialer apps, browser apps, and so on.
The contract states that they keep the 30% regardless (for hosting and providing billing services). They do not give it back for refunds. That is why this article came about. Normally, for refunds of a few purchases here and there because of buyer's remorse or unexpected issues, this would not be that bad. But to have to come out of pocket on a large scale with more money than was actually earned because Apple decided to pull it without any known valid reason really puts the developer in a tough position.
And potentially drives other devs away, which we're already seeing some of this week. Sad.
Just a guess, but I think Apple's contract with AT&T stipulates that these types of apps can't be allowed in the store. Someone at Apple spotted that and rejected it, Schiller overturned that decision, but the corporate counsel had the last say. Blame AT&T.
The WSJ reports this morning that Google's CEO has resigned from Apple's board. Quite a shot across the bow.
You must log in to post a comment.