iOS app Read it Later‘s latest update was rejected by Apple’s App Store team for what is apparently a new (and confusing/troubling) reason: that, “Applications cannot require user registration prior to allowing access to app features and content”.
In a blog post, Read it Later developer Nate Weiner said that his minor update to the app was rejected, and that, “The reason for the rejection was one I have not seen before and have not been able to find a single reported instance of after searching around on the web and within the developer forums.” Weiner posted the full email (below) on his blog and also forward it to us:
“Hello Nathan,
Thank you for submitting Read It Later Free & Read It Later to the App Store. We’ve reviewed your apps, but cannot post these versions to the App Store because they require customers to register with personal information without providing account-based features. We have included additional details below to help explain the issue, and hope you’ll consider revising and resubmitting your application.
Applications cannot require user registration prior to allowing access to app features and content; such user registration must be optional and tied to account-based functionality. If you have any questions about this response, or would like to discuss it further, please feel free to reply to this email. We look forward to reviewing your revised apps.
Best Regards,
App Review Team
iPhone Developer Program”
As Weiner correctly points out in his post, this email is confusing at best. In one sentence, Apple says that it rejected the submission, “because they require customers to register with personal information without providing account-based features,” and then seemingly contradicts that by saying, “Applications cannot require user registration prior to allowing access to app features and content; such user registration must be optional and tied to account-based functionality.” How can an app be both?
Also, Weiner says that Read it Later does not “collect personal information” – the app just asks for a username and password to create an account.
If this is indeed a new policy from Apple, then Weiner would also be correct in saying that, “If that is true, then outside of games, almost every single popular application in the app store would be affected. The Facebook app, Twitter app, Evernote app, Google Reader apps, and any other application for a web-based service that requires an account would be rejected.”
Could Apple really be saying that all app developers now have to offer their apps with the option of features that are accessible without users registering first? Again, the email is seemingly contradictory on this point – it’s almost as if Apple is saying, we’ll reject Read it Later regardless. We also did some digging on Google and couldn’t find these rejection reasons mentioned, and we would certainly like to hear from any developers that have also received a similar email from Apple.
We’ve emailed Apple for comment/confirmation, but as it is Sunday, we might not hear back from them until tomorrow, if at all. For the conspiracy theorists out there, we have no reason whatsoever to doubt that Weiner received this email from Apple (see the screenshot below) and are with Weiner on hoping that he is right in guessing that this email is just a glitch/mistake and that this doesn’t point to what would be a far-reaching policy change in how Apple approves apps.
Can anybody explain this? We’ll update with whatever info comes in.
This is really sad and so expected from Apple
As you’ve pointed out, that’s inconsistent. Without even browsing my phone I’m pretty sure both Instapaper and Remember the Milk are apps that require registration. Both of these apps are ones I use regularly.
Completely inconsistent – hopefully for everyone’s sake it’s just a mistake on Apple’s part.
Brizzly requires registration before use.
Yeah, a bizillion apps require it. Totally strange email from Apple.
Nothing contradicts anything. It says the apple store doesn’t accept apps that require registration of the user, they have to give him the option to register not force him to. That’s what it says in both sentences: it was rejected because the app required user registration. They should not be forcing registration. I know I might be wrong but that is what I understood from it.
Ok, so how does one use the Facebook App then? You need to register a Facebook account to use it – Facebook is completely unusable on any platform without an account. What “app features and content” do you get with the Facebook app if you don’t register an account with Facebook? (just using Facebook because it is big – nothing against Facebook).
You can view public content without registering on Facebook.
Yeah, if people haven’t protected their profiles, sure, but not really any utility in that – I mean you can’t upload photos to Facebook without an account. Almost everything has a website saying what it is, and App Store pages certainly function as that as well, but people download apps for the utility – if Apple starts rejecting apps because they function with through an account (and already seemingly have in this case) it’s a big change.
But I agree on it being rejected since a lot of apps have it.
It seems Apple is pushing small developers it can bully, to create dummy accounts based on UDID that can later on be assigned to a real account or transformed into a real account… weird.
Does it mean the app makes you give personal information and there’s no features in the app that NEEDS this info perhaps?
Weiner made it clear that Read it Later only requires a username and password – nothing else. Any account on any service that needs an account to function (again, bizillions of services) needs this.
I’d like to note this new policy would indeed have an effect on games. Many of the popular titles released on the app store require user regristration with the game developer before you are able to access the game. So many apps require registration. That is a strange new policy if it was not a mistake.
Agreed.
If you’re going to fake post with lots of names I wouldn’t use gravatar, kinda gives you away beardy man ;)
This does seem daft, like you say; any email client, last.fm, spotify, Twitter, they can’t defend that surely?
Is that “beardy man” comment directed at me? I’m the author of the post and that is indeed my picture. :-)
I know why T thinks you’re faking comments. The mobile theme has a bug whereby all comments have the same avatar. Looks like one person is posting them all under different names :)
Beardy man will now forever be your name within TNW circles. :)
funny thing is – I’m actually clean-shaven right now ;-)
My mistake, looks like I’ve got beardy man for my avatar too. Bit odd.
Without an account, you can still view tweets, view public facebook pages, etc. It’s optional to have a Twitter account, with which then you can post tweets and use other account-based features. I suppose you can use TweetDeck logged out, w/o an account to view tweets and other limited functionality. And then for the account-based features (e.g. posting tweets), registration is fine. I think that fits with what Apple is saying.
Apple could clarify, of course, but think I understand and don’t think it contradicts what Twitter, Facebook, & other apps do.
Katie, you can’t – you need an account to view anything on Tweetdeck.
I hate apps that ask for registration, it should atleast have some functionality without user account. It should clearly state the registration is required and whats available without registration, and also web link for registration first. And apple should have a separate category for these kind of apps, so that users can decide before downloading
I dislike apps that have no real need for registration, but force it as well. But Read It Later’s main focus as an app is to sync web pages that you’ve marked on your browser (or other service) for reading. You can’t do anything if there isn’t an account to sync with.
Also this all seems to be saying that any third party IM / Email / Notification apps would not be allowed – as all of these services work by you having to sign up for an account before you can use them.
Some people probably agree with you about a separate category for apps that require registration, and if you download something – especially if you pay (Read it Later is free) – and then find you need to register an account, yeah, I could see why some people would be frustrated. However, all of that is different from Apple requiring that apps function without user registration – many, many apps would have to be completely redesigned for that to work.
or most likely couldn’t work at all…
Well nothing strange they have rights to do their own way ;)
People. Calm down. Anyone familiar with the approval process will know this is not a grand Jobs conspiracy. If the devs resubmit the app with a cosmetic change – say an editorial landing page of some interesting content – then they’ll get approved. It’s called the real world…
That’s an interesting read of the email. Even if that is true (if so it’s pretty cryptic, but that could just be Apple’s style), that still doesn’t explain the conflicting statements. Read it Later certainly provides “account-based features”, which is why it needs to have an account set up. Also, the second half says “app features and content” – an editorial splash page for an app that requires an account to function simply wouldn’t DO anything, so again, it could just be Apple asking for cosmetic enhancements, but I certainly don’t think that is clear from the email.
It’s not a new policy. The email doesn’t contradict itself. Just calm down. To clarify, for those of you that think this is some evil Apple conspiracy – if I write an application that displays a page asking for you name, age and email address and, when you’ve submitted that information, I show you a picture of a meerkat, I’m going to get this email. If I send you to a page that says “Thank you . You’ll receive an email 350 times a day containing a picture of a rodent, click here if you don’t want it” the app will be approved. Multiple countries – the UK for example – have laws that state that anyone collecting your personal data must state clearly what that data is going to be used for, how it’s going to be stored and how the subscriber can stop his data being used or stored. If Read It Later doesn’t make it clear what it’s doing with your info, it would be breaking the law if it was sold in the UK.
As of October 2009, Read it Later had 2 million registered users (of course, not all on iOS) – and Weiner has stated that he didn’t materially change the app in this update, i.e. it was a minor update – so comparing it to an app that asks for your info and then shows “you a picture of a meerkat” is kind of silly. Also, not calling this “some evil Apple conspiracy” – just trying to figure out what Apple means and if this is a change in direction.
So they have 2 million idiots who signed up to a service which doesn’t dispaly any kind of privacy policy.
You don’t think there is an issue with that?
Steve, that’s misrepresenting the Data Protection Act. Creating a username and password – which is all that RIL requires – is never an issue for the Act, because a username and password required to use a service isn’t regarded as “personal data’ under the act in the same way that, say, your address/date of birth would be.
I don’t understand this. Does this site have a magical effect that makes people not read? I didn’t compare RIL to Meerkat v1.0 – it was an example using an application I’ve made up. Ian – I expect better from you – Meerkat v1.0 does, as I stated, ask for your name and your age. This is information gathering that would elicit this email from Apple. I did not and do not say that RIL requests this data. My point, since everyone seems to be missing it, is that this isn’t new from Apple. It might be new for this application but people have been talking in the context of “a new direction for Apple” based on one email for one application. A very poor analogy because I can’t think of a good one would be going in to a shop and buying a carton of milk and finding a dead mouse in it and immediately thinking “Oh, this must be a new direction for the dairy industry” and then blogging “All milk now comes with dead mice!”. Most people would contact the dairy and ask what’s going on…
Yes Steve, we would also like to hear back from Apple. I understand your point – but let me ask you this? Is RIL a new app? Did they change it in a major way? No, and according to Weiner, no. So why has Apple (overall change of direction or not) sent this rejection letter? It seems to me to be a change of direction at least for one popular app, which – at least until Apple explains it (Apple may very well say that to them RIL made a significant change to the app, and we’ll certainly publish their response) it is troubling that Apple has started to use a reason/s (again seemingly contrictitory) to reject a new version of an established app. So yes, we – and Weiner – have contacted the Apple farm to ask what is going on.
This is non-news. Please work on your reading comprehension.
Don’t require a user to provide you with personal information, if you don’t plan on providing them with account-based functionality.
Example: Facebook – You sign in… and gain access to your account and all of the features there-in.
Bad Example: New York Post – You sign in, and get to read the news… which is the same for everyone regardless of account. Meaning the account is meaningless except to collect information from users.
I think my reading comprehension is ok. First of all, I have to agree with Weiner that an email and password are hardly “personal information”. Second, if I’m comprehending your comment correctly, you’re saying that Read it Later equates to the “Bad Example” when in fact it is certainly much closer to the “Example” (that would be more comprehensible if you would have written ‘Correct Use’ or similar, btw).
It seems you don’t know RIL at all. The one and only function of this application is to provide “account-based” information.
You sign in, and get YOUR data. Not other people’s or general data, just yours.
This way Apple should reject Dropbox as well.
I think it’s a good move. Just signed up for My Fitness Pal and the darn thing put me through a painful account sign up process. Totally unacceptable. I want to use apps as apps exclusively and tying or forcing us into some other product or service, even if related to the provider, is bad form. The sooner they stamp this practice out the better.
Dick, I hate to say this, but that’s a really silly comment. The My Fitness Pal app is an integrated service, which stores your data on a web site and lets you access it there. It’s a nicer way of accessing a web-based service.
Complaining that it’s “forcing you to use some other product of service” is like complaining that the Facebook app makes you use Facebook, and doesn’t also work with Google Buzz.
Must disagree with you Ian. It should be optional. The app does NOT need all the account information that is provided to run so it is excessive in what it asks for. You need to better understand what is in the USER’S best interests and not the company’s.
But Dick, what information did it ask you for which wasn’t necessary? Your weight? I’ve just been through the registration process and couldn’t find anything which a site about health shouldn’t be asking you.
And again, I’d ask: how is what they’re doing different from what Facebook is doing? It’s an application which offers a convenient way of accessing their site – just as the Facebook app is. It’s not designed to be a standalone application.
What a bunch of jerks. Yet another reason to develop for Android.
There is nothing unclear or contradictory in this at all. If some other apps appear to violate this is a different subject completely. (I love people who try to change the subject to hide simple things they do not like.) Apple can enforce this however they feel like. If you do not like Apple products or want your ap on Apple products then buy something else and write your code for something else.
If you want everything to be free and open and for mommy and daddy to always take care of you then you have asked to be born on the wrong planet.
Sure, “Apple can enforce this however they feel like.” The point is: is that a good thing?
Yes. A very god thing. When I buy a device or application I own it. Not the company who sold it or some marketing department. Nobody needs another stupid account and password. We all have hundreds of them and they are a big pain. I have a blind email and one password I use for almost all of them.
As a Read It Later user on the PC, Mac and iPhone–without requiring my username and password, I wouldn’t be able to use the app at all (how would it know what I have saved to read later?). The fact that it was rejected for that reason is just weird. Seems like they don’t understand what the app is actually doing.
Well, if you don’t have a clue what “online data” means, then why argue? The application is yours, but what will you do without the “data”
With your logic, no 3rd party e-mail application will ever be accepted. They want and e-mail address as username, and a password.
Stooopid app, why zhe wahnt it?
Short thread summary (generic):
I like Apple
I don’t like Apple
They’re up to something
No they’re not
I understand this
I don’t understand this
You can’t read
Yes I can
I like you
I don’t like you
You should have done it differently
Why?
You are a jerk
You are rude
You are an Apple Fanboy
You are a PC droid
Apple charges too much
No they don’t
Sam, down the street, did it the same way
No he didn’t
The best policy on something that seems odd is to query it and wait for a response before jumping to a conclusion
This is funny, I just received feedback from apple to my app. It’s a signup only app. They downloaded it and startet it (I can see that on my server) but didn’t test it further. Than they waited and gave feedback regarding another issue just now that Nate got his on approved. But they seemed to have been waiting for an internal clarification on general procedere here :-)