MSA Remote for iPhone from Memo Akten on Vimeo.

Since the dawn of computing, developers have been free to create whatever software they can imagine for computers. Windows, Mac, UNIX, Linux, Atari, Amiga, Apple II, Commodore 64 – it doesn’t matter. Come up with an idea, and short of doing something destructive on the system, you can make it work on a computer. It’s this freedom that has made the computer age possible. Game consoles have been different, a relic of the days when cartridges were physical objects you put in the machine. But mobile devices have generally acted more or less like computer platforms – look at Windows Mobile, Symbian, Linux, Android, Palm OS, Palm’s Web OS, and so on. It wouldn’t be odd to expect the same of the iPhone or iPod touch, which is essentially a Mac running on a low-power platform with a mobile-optimized set of libraries. The iPod doesn’t even connect to a wireless phone network; it uses WiFi just like your computer.

As musicians and artists, this sort of freedom has given us the freedom to make expressive music and art using powerful tools. That same freedom hasn’t applied to comparatively restrictive game platforms, which is why music apps for platforms like PSP and Nintendo DS require hacking hardware and software.

But then there’s the iPhone / iPod touch. Apple claims that they create a superior user experience by controlling quality, and they use that control to pick and choose which applications they think are appropriate for their phone. Never mind that a whole lot of what’s available on the iTunes store is simply worthless crap. And, frankly, that’s okay – users pick and choose the good stuff, and a lot of it’s really great.

But far from simply protecting mobile carriers like AT&T from abusive apps, it’s clear from developer experiences that Apple has extended that supposedly superior judgment to second-guessing developers on design and application purpose.

The latest victim: a fully free wireless multitouch server that would empower iPod touch and iPhone users to control live art and perform, created by one of the world’s leading interactive artists, Memo Akten. It seems Apple’s powers that be rejected the app because they simply don’t understand what the heck it is.

The story so far:

I received the following response from Apple: “Thank you for submitting your application “MSA Remote”. We need clarification in regards to the functionality of the application as we do not have access to the interactive installations that the application controls. If possible, please provide login information for a server application we can use to review your application.”

So I sent them 3 desktop apps: a standard TUIO client, a MSATouch client (multiple devices can control a single client without interference), and an OSC Dumper so they could see all the messages being sent in detail.

Even after receiving that documentation, Apple decided that they knew better than their users and developers. Result: no app.

Apple’s response to this app is “We’ve reviewed your application, MSA Remote, and we have determined that this application contains minimal user functionality and will not be appropriate for the App Store.”

I find it hard to believe that a FREE TUIO SERVER for iPhone and iPod touch is not suitable for the App Store!! Please leave comments below if you think it is suitable and I will get back to them to try and sort it out.

MSA Remote for iPhone

TUIO, for the record, is the open multitouch platform employed in the powerful, expressive reacTable tangible interface that has been used by the likes of (Mac user) Bjork.

Let’s be clear. The point here is not just to rant. Memo is looking for comments from users. I’m hopeful that an upswell of support could show Apple the error of their ways and get them to correct course on this one, and I’ll applaud them if they do that.

But let’s also be clear: restrictive platforms are bad for artists. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent, and I’m frankly tired of the conventional assumption that they’re always right. I think the restrictiveness of the platform – well beyond what is “safe” for users or what might endanger Apple’s relationship with carriers like AT&T – is simply wrong-headed. The reason we love platforms like the Mac is that they have empowered us to express ourselves freely. And having seen the power of the Mac as a platform over the years, I’d be disingenuous not to point out that the iPhone has lost a big part of that soul.

The good news is, complaining and whining and griping can be productive. Tweetie, a powerful Twitter app that was censored because it might expose users to profanity on the open Web service, did make its way to the store after massive public outcry.

So, as I say, I don’t rant just because I like the sound of my own typing. I hope that the rest of you will join in, and it’ll make a difference.

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Power to the TUIO! Time to free the shackles... Come on Apple show your face!!!

I think it's blatantly obvious that this app is extremely useful and I don't believe for a single minute that anyone at Apple is incapable of seeing that: look at the video! It seems more likely that they may have something like this in the works already and don't want to get a 3rd party involved. Or they realized they should do it themselves *after* checking out the app.

This is silly. There's already a TUIO app in the store, but it's paid.

It would be a huge asset to the DIY MT community if we could get a better tool for free!

i'm with you memo.

i'm also a developer and i think apple should definetively change its way of working about this matter.

they should just *let the users decide* whether they want to install apps that weren't approved by apple.

we want to be free to choose.

p.s. today i bought pears.

You have seen how "community driven" projects all of a sudden get strange license agreements.

The Ipod has been chained to itunes for a

while now...

YES WE CAN!

Apple is not the only market leader taking full advantage of their leadership.

They'd rightfully be criticized by their shareholders if they didn't.

The only solution is:

Take your software to a competitor.

This market will be open until said

company gains leadership. Then...

go somewhere else.

@Greg

I was even more disheartened to hear that 96% of all apps were approved. Fail. :)

Yeah there's ad hoc distribution and a new store for apps for jailbroken phones I hear. But neither of these will reach the wild popularity of the app store.

Would it be going too far to start a website devoted to rejected iPhone apps? I was thinking of just a place where people could post the app that got rejected along with the reason and maybe some kind of voting system. Maybe if people see how arbitrary this is then apple will get the hint. We could also sell "app store reject" t-shirts for developers to wear to the next WWDC or Google I/O conference ;^).

@jordan314

Me too! Now I feel like I'm in some kind of club. My app was a simple button that makes a flushing sound when you press it. Sounds like one of those "crap apps" no? Well, yes except that in Japan there are devices (called "Otohime") installed in the bathrooms that do this exact thing and no more and that is just how I was positioning this app - as a novelty version of a real product. When I explained this to Apple, they stood their ground saying I could add more sounds or more user interaction, but that just struck me as adding features with no reasonable justification. Clearly something needs to be done to open the app store kimono beyond case by case appeals here.

So what can we do? Where do we send our complaints... maybe I skimmed too fast, but I totally agree that Apple shouldn't be restricting the Apps in the iStore or at the least should create a separate section in the store for experimental or beta apps. How do we as users petition that Apple provides this?

This case seems to be typical in these kind of companys (I worked for one similar). Is too large, too many people in management, too many individual interests.. Left hand forgets the rigth hand.. it's quite funny. System control is for almost everything, but what a human factor? .. I mean the chain is weak as the weakest point.

As an old-school lover, user of Amiga, C64, Atari loved all these wonderfull machines, I remeber much more enthusiast people (coders, musicians, graphics..) and much more freedom stuff. Remeber demoscene which was often very innovative..

Todays bizz is the capitalism in extreme. Small company are fused under bigger. It's killing the diversity. Hope somebody understand me..

Apple is the typical example.

i do agree with you - it puts us on a slippery slope. Apple is quite obviously a leader when it comes to creating a viable market for distribution of mobile apps and it's just as likely that their model will be followed by other possibly even more closed off vendors unless there's a strong contender for an open platform. that said, i support the hue and cry, both for and against the issue. it shows that the viability of more open source options (and less arbitrary regulation) is a very real and tangible need on the part of typical readers of CDM, and even though this market is small, it is emerging, and its needs should be taken into account. overall i don't have any fear that open distribution methods could be going away anytime soon, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease...

Wait, why is it entitlement and fanboyism for me to say one position but not entitlement and fanboyism to say the exact opposite? Okay, obviously, there's a difference of opinion. But name calling doesn't strengthen your argument. I don't think it's entitlement; I think we both feel passionately about different asepcts of this issue.

I keep hearing the same argument over and over again, and then the examples is signed Java apps.

Windows Mobile, Palm, and now this growing Google Android don't work that way. And those devices connect to mobile networks.

Add to that additional restrictions on third-party hardware, and the fact that there's STILL no sync API, and that everything still runs through iTunes.

Obviously, all this energy everybody spent on open platforms and open standards was a waste of time.

Sure, if it were *one app*, I'd be nuts and you'd be right to call me out on it. But we're talking the whole model for applications, third-party hardware, sync, and the desktop client here, and there's a pattern of arbitrary rejections for software.

And heck, yes, there's a huge market. In case it isn't evident, that's part of what worries me -- because I believe in open standards and open platforms, and I think there's a real danger they could go down the drain. There was a reason we liked them in the first place, and it wasn't just some sort of religious fervor; there is practical reasoning behind this. Obviously, you can argue the tradeoffs are worth it. What I'm saying is, I don't see how the restrictions in this case benefit anyone other than the vendor making the device. (And maybe that's the point.)

As always: "We are Apple, we rule the world"...stupid company really..megalomaniacs

"I don’t see the position that developers are getting the short end of the stick as being some kind of fanboyism or entitlement."

But I think you do.

Sure, people can develop applications for Linux, OS X, BeOS, Windows, whatever. The rules are different for the mobile market. Carriers are scared of rogue applications taking down their services. Apple is scared of making carriers unhappy. Mobile application lockdown of this sort has been going on for almost a decade. Clearly nobody here remembers how one once had to develop Java mobile applications. They had to be submitted to the carrier (in the same way Apple requires, mind you) and could also be rejected or accepted.

Yet, all of the sudden, we're complaining that they won't let someone submit their app to the store. Boo hoo. Even in a system that's hundreds of times more open than any other in the past for the mobile market, we'll find the two cases where there's a hole in the system and make a huge stink about it. Sounds like entitlement to me. Thousands of apps have been made and distributed, creating a market that everyone (yes, including you Peter) will continue to follow and support simply because of this massive user base in the future.

For those of you that "want" this app so badly, here's my suggestion. Buy/borrow a developer license and program it yourself. He's just sending finger coordinates over a friggin' socket for goodness sake. I swear that can't be more than 200 lines of code.

If that's not a good solution, I'd tell Memo to suck it up and try again. If someone puts an obstacle in your way, go around it. Stop whining.

something wrong at the core here...

Hope apple reconsiders this because it seems like a great devlopment. They have had very limited apps like the ones for individual bands so reconsider apple.

Strange story.

The ipod applications hits the number >20000 and this one was rejected?! I guess it's because they don't know who to use it.

Let it in tyhe app store APPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE all want this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Limited use is a stupid reason for denial!!!!

Paul,

This is an open comment thread, not a moderated discussion. There's nothing to derail, because anyone can post anything they want whenever they want.

I'm not telling anyone this is Orwellian; I think I was pretty reasoned in my argument. You're welcome to disagree with it, but I don't see the position that developers are getting the short end of the stick as being some kind of fanboyism or entitlement.

Actually, frankly, developers *are* entitled to freely distribute apps for other platforms. It's not an imagined entitlement; it's real.

I can't advocate direct-to-customer models for business and then turn around and say, wow, Apple, brilliant job going the opposite direction.

And, look, that has always been my interest and something I've talked about on CDM:

* direct publishing of music and books

* on-demand content

* direct, open developer-to-customer models

If all I did was rant about Apple, that'd be one thing. But the whole reason I bring this is up is I think there are alternatives.

Peter

Peter-

I think the above Orwellian bit is a nice way of pointing out exactly what I am talking about- Apple have not changed as a company for running their itunes store a certain way. Apple are not issuing uniforms and barcodes to some dystopian citizen/prisoners. They are running a successful business that they built and a distribution system they maintain and developed in the first place.

The kind of reaching and conspiracy theorizing being done here is the kind one sees from PC fanboys on digg. This discussion has derailed itself and all you are doing here is furthering a sense of cynicism and derision in the process as opposed to encouraging developers to deal with common setbacks in development.

Apple have the right to sell whatever they want in THEIR store and if you follow the above links instead of taking (Peter's) reactionary word for it you can clearly see Apple asked them to improve and resubmit and even instructed them how to share it with others as it is.

Come on kids. Calling "no fair" and picking up your ball and going home isn't gonna get that app in people's hands.

Go to Android or don't- but entitlement issues are for teenagers, not developers. Maybe jumping through Apple's hoops now will teach you a thing or two for later on when you deal with far more complicated and less open models- which, most scenarios for product distribution are.

great app, i would like to have it.

Every time I see Apple do another faux-pas, I can't help but mentally compare what Apple was in the 80's, vs now:

Remember the "1984" ad where the hammer thrower was a burst of creative color in an otherwise gray Orwellian dystopian nightmare? Seems back then they were the "freedom fighters for all thats good and true" in a banal IBM world.

And now they have apparently become what they detested - the open-ended creativity and "free thinking" model has been replaced by conformity and censorship.

Don't get me wrong, I really feel that Apple pushes the envelope of technology by their elegant simplicity of design and form. Without them, computers and gadgets today would be different and for the worse. But their practices of late makes me really rethink all the dishing we did/do about Microsoft. Really.

So when do we get their company-issued gray uniform, complete with barcode forehead tattoo? Required wearing in order to use an Apple product. Oh, but everyone must have one to be cool.

I find myself sticking up for Apple a lot lately, but this is just ridiculous.

I really dont see why Apple wont just let this one by... it seems like the community wants it...

I would probably not use MSA Remote, but I think it would be a great tool for many and would like to see Apple make it available.

I think Apple made a mistake on this one either out of lack of understanding or because they perceived a conflict with some upcoming feature that they plan to offer themselves. The latter seems rather unlikely.

This is the kind of creative, novel use of their products that Apple has always boasted about.

By the way, I don't think that the "…conventional assumption that [Apple is] always right…" has been true for some time, if it ever was.

It's time to make some music. :-)

This would be a great app to have around. I wonder whether Apple are being actually deliberately antagonistic to the developers, and are simply being obtuse. Maybe they need to see a concrete example of what this would bring to /users/ (rather than developers).

Of course that's unlikely to happen without the app in place! For framework-extending apps like this - they initially only support the development community, and go on to be of use to all developers only after a tiimelag (when developers take this up, and integrate into their interactive installations)...

This may be hard to see when you're approving thousands of applications - I presume they want to make everything of 'immediate-use' to end-users, and stop people hijacking the app store for closed-purpose ends (e.g. to install something that only works in a particular closed wifi network)...

I really need this application to learn... please release it!

Probably they just don't want people design their own multitouch applications. They are slow in developing those and need to make time so they can sell last year's ideas during next year.

Or even more probably: They just didn't get it. Happens all the time.

So, has anyone emailed this post to Mr. Jobs yet?

Well, that's ascribing a great deal of higher intelligence to Apple's review process without any real evidence. Did they go to the project sites? Did they spend the time everyone on this comment thread just has? Doubtful.

I think it's incredibly generous to have to sit hear and *guess* what the heck Apple's policy even *is* and think that it's a sound policy.

This has gone on long enough. Developers have fumed for months about the lack of a clear policy.

1. Apple asked for clarification on the app.

2. Developer gave Apple clarification.

3. Apple decided they know better than the developer and potential users what the functionality was and killed it.

Now, there's a remedy, and the responsibility is Apple's, not the developer's. It's Apple's responsibility to clarify their terms or have some sort of reasonable appeal process.

Alternatively, the conclusion I've reached:

4. Switch to a different platform.

If, as some have eloquently put it, it's the relationship you have with the vendor that makes the platform, then, well, Apple, it's not you, it's me.

@ peter: all other questions aside regarding the right to post apps you want to an iphone (which i agree with in principle), the main issue im asking here, is, why did apps like TouchOSC and OSCemote get accepted while this one got rejected? they both do much the same thing, spitting out data to receiving devices via a client/server model. i think the biggest difference is: 1. providing a tangible real world style interface that users can see results - moving sliders, pressing buttons, etc. 2. providing many helpful videos showing the software controlling devices in real world settings (In TouchOSC it shows how someone hooked it up to Osculator thereby making it relevant to the MIDI based crowd).

i'm not sure if they had these videos and documentation in place when they were seeking approval to sell it on the app store - it'd be interesting to poll rob and joshua and see what they say about the approval process and how they fared.

my point is that Memo's app doesn't show anything at all visually when it's working - just a splash screen of sorts. we only got to see output at the desktop level on a separate app. do you know of any iPhone app which doesn't display much but a blank screen while it's working (OK, OK, maybe Flashlight). it's obvious from the video that it can be configured but while it's working there's no clue as to whats going on on the unit itself. joshua at least displayed the individual touches on the screen in OSCemote, and gave visual readouts of the accelerometer (rob however, did not do this on TouchOSC).

i think the answer is that the author simply did not provide a real world (or real world enough) nuts-and-bolts solution or demonstration of the app. apple is definitely in the wrong here, but i don't think they're being frivolous in setting their requirements. have some of the developer's friends submit videos of them controlling Live or Max/MSP and that should help.

I can think of a variety of ways to use this with various applications. If they wont approve the app because they 'don't get it' and that's their customer understanding then it is way off.

Only those that purchase an application without understanding what it's use is _is_ at fault. Allow the consumer to decide.

@Mar: But that's the thing -- it's not a store, it's a device *you* own. Apple are the ones who have decided they'll be the exclusive conduit for apps. The issue here is that means it's absolutely possible for Apple to do something that's contrary to the interests of users.

And I have to challenge the idea that it's "easier" to get an app on the App Store for iTunes than anywhere else. I think that's simply wrong. Look at the process for Android or Windows Mobile. Now, maybe the developer tools are better, maybe the market is better, maybe the device is shinier - I'd take any of those arguments. But it just isn't true that it's easier to sell an app via Apple's store arrangement.

The one place it is harder is on the mobile game devices and, with the exception of Microsoft's fairly good XNA, on the consoles.

I mean, that's not to say you can't make some very convincing pro-Apple arguments, but you just can't argue this is better. If Apple really wanted to make this convincing, they'd make the requirements clearer.

Anyway, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume we're troubleshooting some of the stuff that's following through the cracks -- I still say, in this case, I hope this can be corrected.

@Jobot

It's been those "fun"-apps that put Apple

under pressure to do something.

There are probably thousands of devs trying to

spam the store or make a fast buck.

They may be wrong about this particular

Software.

I don't want to defend apple and maybe the have

a bad team on the job but I think the developer

has to convince the shop-owner to get the spotlight.

It's still easier than anywhere else.

this is bull*hit

This is exactly the reason why Apple will parish... they are not truly open where as you can not freely create/develop or share on their platforms... control which is what they want and need.

Are you kidding me? Rejected on what real grounds?

I can pay 1000 dollars for a app that serves to be nothing more than a status symbol to say "I have too much money!" of a rotating red jewel, but something with usability such as this, where the uses are endless for motion, music, hell, anything you wanted... is rejected?

i'm sorry Mar, but I'm with Peter here, and you're so very wrong. Apple promotes and sells the apps, which has a very low cost since nothing physical is being sold out, it's all 1's and 0's transferred via the internet. They need to be careful and not bulk up their online store with bullshit like aforementioned red jewel app, or ibeer, or other dumb shit that is completely meaningless and contributes to nothing and no one. I would buy this apps for the ipod touch/iphone. It's a meaningful and useful application.

If apple is concerned about what Brendan stated, then they should give a real reason to reject the application. My thoughts are, there are still plenty of peple out there jailbreaking their iPod Touch/iPhones and plenty of them are on the in scene of OSC/MIDI control via external devices. I'd jailbreak mine for this alone. I have no issues with free apps, and Cydia is making it more possible for more and more devs to get their apps out there.

Come on Apple. Loosen up, we want this.

Apple please reconsider, we ant this!

Hack the planet!!! Hack the planet, hack the pla.... Get your ass in the car! Fight the power! I want/need this app!

Listen!

This is want I want you to do:

Instead of challenging the most brilliant minds apple could spare to judge the usability of software for the iphone, I want you to develop for a company which welcomes your contribution and appreciates your input.

Well...

AppStore is something different.

It's probably much harder to get a shiny box of your software on the shelves of a local store.

I think AppStore is flooded with things and I have a hard time finding something useful (but I know it's there - I know...) so they decided to do something about it.

But even the most wise and informed can be wrong. And the people in question are probably neither of both.

So there is another thing I want you to do.

If they've done you wrong, try six times over the course of at least 3 Months and then try again. If they still don't accept you can complain.

There are probably fourteen million bloggers downloading the iphone SDK at this very moment - just to prove that apple are a bunch of totalitarian dictators about their software.

Whats my point?

Peter Kirn wrote:

"And what the hell position is Apple in telling developers they have to justify *to Apple* writing software for the platform."

Well Apple promote and sell the apps - they should be very careful.

Are you not the hell in position to decide which ads are shown on your site?

Good luck distributing apps for psp and the like.

Fred, for once, we agree -- writing for Android instead sounds like a great idea. (I'm hopeful hardware multitouch will appear in a future update, ditto linking that would allow native synthesis libraries. Many other applications not using multitouch or synthesis are possible now.)

Still don't understand anything else you're saying and not sure you follow this whole "on blog, write opinions" concept, but at least we reached one of the same conclusions.

Paul, fair points. However:

* So far, it's been widespread outcry that has seemed to change opinions at Apple.

* Memo did accurately describe the app's function, and provided specific information Apple requested (that is, they wanted to see what the app would be controlling).

* Apple is, to my knowledge, the only non-game-specific mobile device vendor that places the responsibility with developers to justify that an application is useful enough to run on the device.

If you really want to avoid people wasting money on toys, then I'd say make those devices flexible as far as running applications with different purposes.

Peter-

Fair enough- my lack of distinction between apps and drivers noted- however, I think there is a huge amount of difference between the nature of the apps you listed and what seems to be more of a multitouch control surface utility to me. In other words- sure, I'd get hot and bothered about my bread and butter being stolen- but I'm not gonna kick the dog over a broken christmas ornament. I think your point somewhat marks the distinction in my mind between a significant concern and a trivial complaint. As I understand it, the iphone was designed for communication and entertainment; as opposed to our aluminum wrapped workhorses which were designed to function at such a level as to get us paid in return for our costly investment into them- and I regard that as a more than a significant difference in what I should expect them (apple) to regard as a priority for end users. I believe in the rights of consumers and developers to expect certain things- but I tend to have the same reaction to this sort of iphone controversy as I would a world of warcraft player demanding restitution/pro-rated service for short periods of server downtime.

Similarly- shrinkwrapped magazines of the 90s a shared joy between us- apple in the age of OS X is accountable to far more customers than they were in the 90s and these (ultimately hardware related) controls I mentioned have helped them triumph where certain os's have seemingly failed (and not without stumbles like the nvidia meltdown of the past year) in the eyes of this increased customer base. I don't think driver related technologies are unrelated to apps and development concerns- but with regards to what people were loving about their macs in the 90s, from what I remember there was lots of spew re: intel underwriting vs. throughput on motorola chips and the word "wintel" was synonymous w/ inadequacy in any mac user forum. I point this out as we now use intel chips quite happily- I am not sure if the concerns of the 90s would have much to do with why I and many others use apples now.

I am hardly espousing the iphone and find it a wholly absurd expense in an age where rampant consumerism has pushed our economy (the rest of the way) to the brink. My address was specifically to the fact that this phone + toyz has had some people calling foul and implying Apple are some kind of big brother figure for exerting control over their own product. The iphone IS a glorified toy at the end of the day and a lot of idiots own it along with all the geeks or whatever we want to call ourselves. Yes, some smart cookies can make it do backflips- but it is hardly the livelihood generating device I would raise my hackles over.

I must say, based on what we HAVE been provided with for the sake of discussion, that the developers have failed at the simple act of clarifying the product purpose in clear (to the uninitiated) terms and have also not clearly identified the user base for someone unfamiliar with the relevant technologies. It seems to me a little time spent clarifying communication of purpose would go a lot further than righteous indignation as far as securing the desired outcome. Had I been able to figure out what they were saying the app was without checking back a few times I might jump on the outrage train too... but that's just another moot point.

I appreciate your response and your passion for the development community- I just think a certain amount of care should be applied to any situation like this as too much fuss may actually cause more trouble for developers in the long run- where calm effective communication might ease relations.

@Neil: There are other applications that route multitouch input as controller data to other software, as others here have noticed. I seriously doubt that that's the problem.

You know, it's not necessarily that there's a conspiracy here or something. :) I'm assuming what happens is there's some sort of fairly bureaucratic process that goes through the massive number of submitted apps. This just seems to be a case when they screwed up. What I'm saying is, that demonstrates the need for either greater openness or, at the very least, clearer guidelines. But I think Apple is contented to shift responsibility to developers in a way that is unprecedented on this type of platform.

Apple should re-think their position on this app.

There's no way this app represents “minimal user functionality”, the functionality is awesome - no doubt it appeals to a relatively small number of users, but those users are creative pioneers... you know, the kind apple built it's reputation on.

Seems apple is more interested in putting drm chips into headphones these days anyways. (booo, hisssssss)

Apple is skirting around the real reason they rejected the application. It essentially provides their gimmicky multi-touch display to other computing platforms, effectively enabling a form of multi-touch on them easily.

Apple doesn't want this. They are sort of trying to 'own' the multi-touch space in the eyes of the consumer. Making the iPhone/iPod touch into a multi-touch server for non multi-touch platforms gives away some of what Apple is perceiving as their own domain. They are probably releasing larger touch tablets or devices soon that this work maybe cannibalize (in their minds).

Considering there are some iPhone apps that just make fart noises... there is even one that just puts virtual 'dust' on the screen you can repel with your finger drags... I doubt it has anything to do with their not understanding the app or actually finding it to be 'limited' in functionality.

If I was the developer, I would add some sort of frivolous visualization toy on the iphone itself that can be turned on or off. Drag your finger around and it creates simple waves of particles or ... repels dust balls... on the iphone screen. Bill it as interactive art that can also 'optionally' talk to other interactive art. When they reject it again they may have to actually tell the truth...

as a recently adopted android user i can honestly say that it should be ported to android and fast. I'm dying for a few good osc/midi controller apps.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Apple Rejects Free iPhone Tool For Artists Because of “Minimal User Functionality” [...]

  2. [...] can still block your app. And sometimes they do it for no apparent reason, not only as with a powerful, free multitouch tool the reviews folks didn’t understand, but also with Cycorder, a wonderful video recording app whose crime seems to be being better than [...]

  3. [...] what qualifies as useful in an iPhone app. You see, without Apple’s app review team and their superior wisdom, I might wrongfully assume this sort of app would be something I’d want. Now I know better – [...]

  4. [...] rejected an iPhone app that would have let you use your iPhone as a TUIO controller. There was a big discussion about the whole thing over at CreateDigitalMusic, with some people supporting Apple’s decision and others decrying it. Most of those who [...]

  5. [...] Apple Rejects Free iPhone Tool For Artists Because of “Minimal User Functionality” GA_googleFillSlot(“CDMU_interpost_rect”); MUTEK Line-Up, Showcases: Incredible Audiovisualism Coming, CDM Montreal-Bound [...]

  6. [...] Apple Rejects Free iPhone Tool For Artists Because of “Minimal User Functionality” [...]

  7. [...] But it’s especially good news to see MSA Remote available on the iTunes Store, where it was initially rejected. I still think that Apple’s one-store-only approach to distribution is a liability, and since [...]