As if the waters surrounding the App Store approval process weren't murky enough, one developer has just hit an unprecedented wall. Apple rejected his app, iKaraoke, citing that it duplicated functionality of the iPod application. Of course, the "duplicate functionality" reason is nothing new, but Apple's next step is: just a few weeks after rejecting the application, they have filed a patent for including karaoke functionality into the iPod app.

A brief look at the demo iKaraoke's website will quickly tell you that, while the app does bear a light resemblance to some of the menus found in the iPod application, the actual interface that the user interacts with to select and download a song is far from duplicating the iPod's polished interface. Another key point is that the file format used by iKaraoke is known as the .kar format -- an unofficial extension of the MIDI specification that enables lyrics to appear in time with music. The lyrics are then displayed on the screen, and highlighted as the song is played. Does any of this sound like functionality found in the iPod app? We didn't think so.

So what exactly was duplicated then? According to apple, iKaraoke "duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application, iPod, without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality." But they didn't just stop there. The reviewer went on to say that the application "downloads media files that are not managed by the iTunes application, which also manages media files, we believe this would be confusing to the user." Now, hold on a minute here... it's fine for several other apps to stream and download media files that are supported by the iPod without being managed by iTunes, but it's not OK for an app to download media that isn't natively supported, and provide functionality that isn't natively provided by the iPod?

This wouldn't be much different from your typical app rejection if the story stopped there, but it doesn't. This morning, Apple filed a patent [application here] which details built-in Karaoke functionality being added as part of the iPod application, with some additional bells and whistles such as monitoring the pitch of the user's voice. So it seems the functionality that was duplicated is functionality that Apple has not yet released, and possibly not yet even begun to develop. Maybe the $99 iPhone Developer Program fee should include a crystal ball for testing apps before submitting them.

As with the many other patents Apple has filed, this feature may never see the light of day. But is it really acceptable to reject an application, based solely on what appears to be a duplication of a feature that may or may not even be released in the future? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Update: As a few of you have pointed out in the comments, although the patent application was published today, it actually was originally filed back in April of 2008. While this does indicate that the patent was indeed filed long before the SDK was even released, questions still remain about whether or not Apple may choose to reject applications based on functionality found in unreleased features.

Similar rejections have occurred with apps that offered podcast downloads prior to the inclusion of podcasting functionality in iTunes, for example. Essentially, what needs to happen is that Apple needs to clear the air on what exactly is considered a duplication of functionality, and to be clear with the developer on exactly what aspects of their application are in violation of this requirement, rather than sending a vague form letter and ignoring inquiries for additional information from the developer.

Well, we're still not sure our iPhones are safe to use, and now comes word from Australia that our brand spanking new glossy screens might be hurting us as well, through bad ergonomics.

An HR advisory from Queensland University of Technology suggests that:

"Reflections and glare on high gloss monitor screens and their relation to the angle of the monitor screen, could cause the operator to adopt awkward postures when viewing the monitor screen and using related equipment. These reflections on the screen can be from internal and external sources such as the overhead lighting and/or position of windows.

Awkward postures adopted by the operator may in turn lead to an injury."

Of course Apple has moved to high gloss screens on every laptop except the 17" MacBook Pro, and the matte screen option on that laptop costs an extra fifty bucks. The iMacs are also only available with glossy screens.

Of course there are other health hazards associated with having Apple equipment, such as a tendency to have panic attacks or heart palpitations when you learn you can't update your iPhone cheaply through AT&T. At any rate, there is one advantage to those glossy screens. You'll be able to clearly see your pained face as you try to stretch into position to avoid those reflections on those mirror-like screens. So there.

Thanks to one of our readers who tipped us to this happy news via this web site

A new kind of App Store rejection is making the rounds in the iPhone World. It's not about violating the SDK. It's not about objectionable content. It's about Apple empowering its reviewers to reject software without providing any substantive reason or feedback. TUAW reader Kenneth Ballenegger received the following rejection notice for his iLaugh application.

This kind of rejection is a gamechanger. Devs have complained that Apple's review policies to date have been inconsistent and arbitrary, since it was relatively easy to compare rejections and demonstrate the multiple standards in play. This rejection shields Apple's internal processes even further. Instead of moving towards transparency and responding to developer concerns, Apple has pointed itself in the opposite direction.

Making this rejection sting more, the app already was in the App Store; this submission was a bug-fix update. The premium edition of the same app, submitted at the same time, was approved without issue. It seems that previous and current approvals for the same application would argue in favor of letting this version through, or at a minimum providing an explanation of what's wrong with this one. As Christina posted yesterday, developers aren't getting straight answers about App Store rejections, even at WWDC.

"Sole discretion" hides a lot of possible review errors, both subjective and accidental. It makes it harder than ever for smaller companies to appeal rejections and denies them a factual basis on which to evaluate whether their rejection was issued in error. It also gives a firm answer to those who have been hoping for a transparent ticketing system and a open appeal process. Apple isn't interested; it's their store, their rules, and Caveat Developer to anyone whose business plan depends solely on Apple's beneficence.

An app full of admittedly lame jokes might be an appropriate candidate for App Store rejection, but the combination of veto power, the opaque review/appeal process, and inconsistent and capricious application of Apple's ax adds up to a troublesome situation in the developer ecosystem and in the App Store.

Postscript: Kenneth writes in to clarify that the 1.1.1 bug-fix update submitted 3 months ago was rejected. This will not affect his 2.0 Lite version, which was just submitted.

This is just becoming stupid. For the past year, we've heard from developers who have had their apps rejected from the App Store for the silliest of reasons. You know, the app might allow someone to access content that could also be accessed through Mobile Safari, it might display an Old-English translation of the Kama Sutra, or include potentially adult language; but this rejection wins the "most asinine rejection ever" award: Because we said so.

Meet Craig Robinson. Craig is an artist and illustrator. For the last ten years, he's been creating these extremely cool Minipops, tiny pixelated renditions of celebrities and musicians. Check out Radiohead and The Office (UK). These creations have built up a nice fanbase, and Craig even published a book, aptly titled Minipops, in several countries. When Yahoo! Music launched a few years ago, Minipops were featured.

So Craig and his friend Matt decided to create a Minipops iPhone app -- essentially a portable version of the Minipops collection, along with some clever commentary for each illustration and the chance to "guess" what each image represents. The app was rejected from the store under the guise of being potentially offensive. This was shocking, but the guys persevered and resubmitted the app. Once again, rejected. Originally, Craig thought it might have been his sometimes sarcastic commentary that was the offensive part, but the second e-mail made it clear that they found the pixelated illustrations themselves offensive.

Keep in mind, these illustrations are very, very cute -- and if anything, flatter the people they represent more than anything else. Plus, these illustrations have been published not only in Craig's own Minipops book, but used in various other media as well. A book about Michelle Obama will even feature the Minipops of the Obama family.

Yeah, I know we haven't seen it yet, but based on what we do know, here's some things I'll bet Apple missed that I'd like to see ASAP.

• Unified mailbox as an option: This works great in OS X. I sure am getting tired of checking 3 email accounts with hundreds of extra finger swipes every day. Even an icon to get me to any inbox I want to see would be an improvement. Some people don't want this. A simple software switch would be fine.
• Louder speakerphone: I have no idea why this as been such a problem since day 1. The volume of this phone is just not loud enough in a noisy environment. Maybe this is a hardware thing, maybe it's software. Whatever. Just fix this!
• Getting to Bluetooth and location manager: These settings are just buried too deep. How about a switch in the top level of settings? Once again, save me all that tapping.
• Consistency of app settings: Sometimes they appear in settings, sometimes within the app. I shouldn't have to scrounge around trying to guess which app works which way.
• Moving icons around on the desktop: Have you ever tried to organize icons by type, or popularity? Gee whiz, what a nightmare. Maybe this could be done by dragging apps in iTunes, or some easy method on the phone itself would be even better. As it is now, it's like one of those old plastic puzzles where you had to get things in order. Every drag of an icon on the iPhone often has unexpected or at least unwanted results. This is not one of those 'it just works' things on the iPhone.
  

Apple might surprise me and sneak some of this stuff in. Or not. You probably have your own list. Let's hear it. C'mon Apple, we're counting on you to get these things right. For the rest of us.

Apple, Google, Yahoo! and Genentech are subjects of a fresh antitrust investigation surrounding hiring and recruiting practices among companies in the tech industry, according to Washington Post staff writer Cecilia Kang.

"By agreeing not to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly," antitrust experts said in the article. Hiring and recruiting can sometimes be a touchy affair, as Apple found out late last year when trying to hire Mark Papermaster. The investigation may suggest some kind of written agreement among large tech firms to not hire away each other's top talent.

According to the New York Times, Justice has only requested documents for the ongoing investigation. Neither the Justice Department nor any of the companies mentioned in the story had any comment.

This comes in addition to another Justice investigation into ties between the boards of directors of Apple and Google, and whether or not having Google CEO Eric Schmidt on both (and Genentech CEO Arthur Levinson on all three) constitutes antitrust violations. Some consider Apple and Google to be competitors in certain areas such as phone handsets.

The Obama administration is stepping up efforts to investigate anti-competitive activity among high-tech companies, and is already investigating Google's deal with book authors to republish their work via Google Books.

[Via AppleInsider]

After gathering in front of Apple's offices in Taiwan earlier this week, protesters are now demanding a substantive response from Apple by the end of the month regarding alleged workplace labor and safety violations at Wintek, one of Apple's display component suppliers.

Labor groups associated with the protesters claim that Wintek unlawfully fired 619 workers, cut salaries without negotiation, and forced employees to work overtime without pay to fulfill rush orders. The company has since re-hired 20 of those workers and says it is operating within the law. Wintek has also threatened legal action if "company and stakeholder interests" are jeopardized. Wintek further claims that labor groups are violating their agreements and encouraging workers to demand benefits illegally.

The protesters appear to be using the popularity of Apple's brand name to get attention to their cause. "We want to go through Apple to put pressure on Wintek," said Chu Wei-li, secretary-general of the Taipei-based National Federation of Independent Trade Unions.

Apple Asia released a tepid response after the protests. Spokeswoman Jill Tan said, "Apple conducts regular audits of suppliers to make sure they comply with Apple's code of conduct. We require corrective actions when we find violations."

An audit is exactly what aggrieved Wintek employees say they are demanding. MacNN says that rights groups associated with the protests are also asking the Electronics Industry Citizen Coalition to investigate Apple's delay in responding to the matter.

Wintek was recently rumored to be the winner of the display contract for Apple's "media pad" tablet device. Some analysts predict the tablet will go on sale next year.

Apple has previously found itself in the middle of other labor disputes. In 2006, Foxconn workers protested low pay and poor working conditions while assembling iPods. Apple conducted its own investigation and found that the company violated overtime rules and unreasonably punished workers. Since then, cute pictures of Foxconn employees have thawed the image of the supplier.

Eucalyptus [App Store] has been finally allowed to appear in the App Store after being rejected by Apple. The e-book reader for the iPhone and iPod touch was rejected because a person could get sexually oriented books like the Kama Sutra, even though the book is in the public domain and freely available on the web.

The program author let us know the US$9.99 app was approved late last night. He said, "Earlier today I received a phone call from an Apple representative. He was very complimentary about Eucalyptus. We talked about the confusion surrounding its App Store rejections, which I am happy to say is now fully resolved. He invited me to re-build and submit a version of Eucalyptus with no filters for immediate approval, and that full version is now available on the iPhone App Store."

"Since my previous post, I've been so pleased with the overwhelmingly positive articles, blog posts, comments and tweets - and also the emails from those of you who felt so strongly about the issue you wanted to contact me directly. They were all much appreciated. Thanks for all the support. It's been a roller coaster of a weekend!"

The controversy over this app once again points out how crazy the Apple standards for applications are. Dozens of fart apps are fine (not to mention apps that thoroughly infringe other companies' IP or steal their graphics) but an e-book reader that simply loads public domain books was verboten. It doesn't make any sense, and further, the situation doesn't seem to be improving. Developers are left to try and get publicity to embarrass Apple into being a bit more sensible.

It seems like only yesterday Apple was surprising us with its App Store rejection antics. You'll recall that just last Monday, Apple was seen flaunting its control over the App Store by rejecting a remote-control client for the BitTorrent desktop application "Transmission" called "Drivetrain." Of interesting note in that case is that there is a web version of this application that I have on my iPhone's home screen.

Today we received word of an application called Eucalyptus that provided access to free-for-all books from Project Gutenberg. John Gruber over at Daring Fireball writes,

"Eucalyptus has been rejected by Apple, for the absolutely outrageous reason that one of the books you can search for and download from Gutenberg is Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana. Not only can anyone load and read this exact same book on any iPhone using MobileSafari, but it's also available through other e-book readers already in the App Store."

In both the Drivetrain and Eucalyptus cases it seems that Apple is playing favorites in terms of who it will let violate its rules. The strange thing though, is that both of these applications' functionality can be accomplished from within MobileSafari. Clearly Apple wants MobileSafari to be your only access to any pornographic objectionable content.

Before you get out your pitchforks however, there's more. If you have an application that has been approved twice, then guess what, the third time's the charm for you because you can expect the rejection hammer to come a'knockin'. At least that's the case for Yaniv Solnik's application "IsraelParty." When Yaniv submitted his app to resolve some routine bug fixes apparently the App Store royal guards decided they didn't like his marketing description of the application. The phrase that was so offensive as to warrant a rejection of an already-existing app that had been approved twice before? Adult content ahead, "Blow your iPhone's microphone to whistle."

Perhaps someone at Apple is bothered by the fact that they are not able to whistle themselves or perhaps they simply do not like the idea of an application that celebrates Israel's independence day. In any event the rejection is simply ludicrous; it brings me back to the late 90s when the over-zealous language filters in chat rooms would filter the phrase "the wind blows."

The clause that Apple cites in these cases refers to Apple's "reasonable judgment" (full text here). However, in my opinion, they are taking on a more overbearing role than they should. Not to say that I disagree with a filter on the App Store, on the contrary, I think a well-defined filter is absolutely necessary.

Because of Apple's unwillingness to firmly define and enforce the rules, I believe Apple is opening itself up to a "bag of hurt" by being the police of App Store city. It will not be long before advocacy groups will want Apple to provide the same filtering for Apple's own applications. I do not believe Apple wants to be in the business of filtering the web or our email, but by filtering applications based on availability of "inappropriate" content they are quickly headed down that path.

Hat tip to Peachfuzzy and Yaniv for the scoop.

You know, it's fine to make the argument that "Macs are safer than Windows-based PCs," because in real-world usage, this is generally true. Nothing does more to undermine that argument, however, like a five-month old unpatched Java vulnerability.

As Landon Fuller has pointed out, a potentially nasty Java exploit remains unpatched in Mac OS X, including last week's OS X 10.5.7 update. Essentially, this exploit can allow malicious code to run outside of the confines of Java, and run arbitrary commands with whatever user permissions the logged in user has. So just by visiting a website, you could be allowing malicious software access to running commands on your system. Not cool. Not cool at all.

Although the exploit was initially discovered and filed back in August of 2008, Sun issued its own fix addressing the exploit back in December.

So, five months, two point OS updates, one Java update in February and stil, Apple hasn't patched the exploit on their end.

Can I just say, "WTF?" I mean, seriously, get on the ball Apple. You only have $20 billion in cash, maybe investing in a bunch of full-time security patchers for your operating system would be a worthwhile investment!

Julien Tinnes has some excellent commentary on the exploit here. As Landon says on his blog, all users are advised to disable Java applets in their browsers and disable "open safe files after downloading" in Safari. You should also consider using a SSB (site-specific browser) for any Java-crucial web work (see below).

Of course, being forced to disable Java applets just so one can ensure safety kind of puts Mac users who, I don't know, use a web-based SSL VPN client to connect to work systems or e-mail in a bind.

And, let the flogging from the Apple-haters commence.

At 1:30am, Ken Brinkman awoke to the smell of burning plastic. His unibody MacBook Pro was on fire. As he details in his Mac-Forums post,

"Smoke was pouring out the seam between the unibody and bottom enclosure. I actually burned my hand pretty badly ripping the adapter out. Oh man. This is reallllly scary because what if I didn't wake up? It could of burned my house down."

Ken e-mailed us this morning, understandably freaking out. Two weeks ago, Mel reported on a San Jose lawsuit alleging that the MagSafe power cables Apple uses for its portable computers are a fire hazard. We've seen Flickr evidence of melted or scorched MagSafe adapters in the past, but Ken's pictures take that to another level.

Ken's primary concern, after his safety, of course, is what Apple will do about the problem. Personally, I think a new computer is a given -- though I would also want some sort of assurance that Apple is testing its MagSafe cables for consistency. No one wants to wake up to find this on their desk.

I really didn't have any complaints about the latest Mac OS update. It went smoothly on 3 Macs, and I didn't hear any complaints from friends or associates.

While many people moan about things that didn't get fixed, I'm somewhat concerned about the things that the 10.5.7 update DID fix that I didn't know about.

A bit of background: For about a year I've had a Logitech Webcam. It was designed for the Mac, and was meant to replace the iSight firewire webcam that Apple unceremoniously discontinued.

The Logitech unit, a Quickcam Vision Pro for Mac, has a wonderful crisp image and a nice wide angle view. It is plug and play. That's the problem. As some other users have seen, its internal aperture adjustment sometimes goes haywire, and you have to unplug it, and re-plug it in again to get a picture that is not really, really dark. It's kind of plug and play, then unplug or don't play. Then plug it in again.

If it's Monday, there must be a few more stories of iPhone apps rejected for curious and spurious reasons. Today's contenders are up to the line... and away they go!

First, it's Maza's Drivetrain app, a remote control for the Transmission client for Bittorrent running on the user's computer. Rejected! In this case, the reason is that Bittorrent is sometimes used for the trading of third-party copyrighted material. Yeah, but... um... the iPhone app isn't a torrent client at all, it's just a UI for a client running elsewhere. How does that make any kind of sense? iLounge quotes the developer as saying the rejection is "ridiculous," and it's hard to disagree.

Second, if you've ever wanted to replace the face of Jesus with your own, well, you can't do it with an iPhone app. SAI reports that the developer of the previously-approved Animalyzer (which let you replace animal faces with your photos) has gotten a rejection notice for the Me So Holy app that extends the face-replacement to religious figures. Apple's justification for the rejection is the catch-all "objectionable content" clause 3.3.12 of the developer agreement, which states

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."

Could one reasonably judge that some iPhone or iPod touch users might object to an app that lets users replace a divine visage with a mugshot or LOLcat? Sure, they might... but when an app that lets you aim virtual urine at a toilet sails through to the store without a hiccup, 'reasonable judgement' doesn't seem to be a valid operating standard any longer. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of 'offensive' apps in the store already -- but offending religious sensibilities is clearly different than grading feces.

[via Engadget & Techmeme]

iPhone OS 3.0 beta 5 was only released for general consumption yesterday, and already Apple is rocking our collective faces off with big news. While a cool new feature being uncovered would be great, what Apple has in store for would-be iPhone application submitters is a bit more challenging.

Effective today, Apple will no longer be accepting any iPhone or iPod touch applications that are not compatible with iPhone OS 3.0. According to an email sent to developers,

"Beginning today, all submissions to the App Store will be reviewed on the latest beta of iPhone OS 3.0. If your app submission is not compatible with iPhone OS 3.0, it will not be approved."

While this may make sense at first glance, consider that OS 3.0 does not yet have a release date and developers might be pushed to spend time and energy tweaking apps against an unstable OS base. Also, any devs who only ship free apps will now have to pony up $99 to join the beta if they want to debug their apps against the new version.

Further, it seems that Apple might be removing existing applications from the App Store, once iPhone OS 3.0 is released, if it is found that they are not compatible with the new operating system. So grab your Twitter clients and flame-throwers, it's gripin' time!

Update: iPhone Developer Program enrollment is required for App Store application distribution; regardless of whether the application is free or paid, the enrollment fee applies, and any developers with apps in the store have already paid their $99 for access to the beta. Thanks goes to our intrepid commenters for reminding us.

Thanks to everyone who sent this in.

[via @razorianfly & the Loop Blog]

Another week, another App Store scandal. Over the weekend, Apple rejected an update to the NIN: Access app (reviewed here) because of "objectionable content." The objectionable content? 1994's The Downward Spiral (iTunes link, also available in a deluxe edition here). Needless to say, Trent Reznor is a little upset (TUAW disclaimer, Reznor uses adult language, if this bothers you, avert your eyes or don't click the link).

This latest incident allows us to revisit other incidents of non-sensical approval decisions. In the case of Tweetie, Apple backed off the potential objectionable content claim and let the update through. In the case of craigsphone, the developer re-routed potentially "adult" content to Mobile Safari. As for South Park, well, it's still not in the App Store.

With a tour in progress, the developer of the NIN app has removed what he believes to be the objectionable file, but we'll need to wait to see if this (or the ensuing outrage over this stupid decision) will change Apple's mind.

As it stands, I can't help but be flummoxed by the seemingly arbitrary nature of the App Store review process. When I reviewed NIN: Access, it was readily apparent that users had access to podcasts, remixes and music videos for the Nine Inch Nails catalog. I even thought to myself, "Well, I guess Apple got over the Craigslist-aphobia" and accepted that users who download the NIN: Access app know what they are getting into. Clearly, I was wrong.

So while apps that simulate killing an infant can actually make it into the store (and the PR nightmare is what ends up gettting it removed), apps that provide access to online content -- content that is available for sale via iTunes -- remains off-limits. Way to go!

[via TechCrunch]

UPDATE: The app has been approved despite the content issues, it would seem.