It's ironic that the company that commissioned the 1984 ad ended up seemingly irrevocably drawn towards centralized authority and secretive hierarchical decision-making. (They were always at war with Google. Always.)

Apple's beef with Google started when they counterfeited iOS, which occurred while the Google chairman was on the Apple board of directors. (Something I would think would be pretty actionable.)

Apple is not a centralized authority because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones. The decision making is neither hierarchical or secretive, as they have published the rules, and will cite chapter and verse when they reject you.

I got rejected. I didn't cry, but I was pretty pissed for about 4 hours. It sucks and it's hard not to take it personally. But once I was objective, I realized they were right, I fixed the problem, and got published.

Like OP, I realize they were right.

Given the number of apps I've submitted to the Appstore and the few rejections I've gotten, it's clear Apple is playing fair.

But it is ironic that google fans who never submit apps to the store generate so much grief and noise over Apple's rejections while being mum about googles actively shaping the the entire web to be lower quality.

And unlike Apple, google does have an effective monopoly.

A large number of common rejection reasons are completely subjective and enforced purely at the discretion of the reviewer you get. That sort of rejection is fairly common - I personally had an app that I'd been using daily for months and had people waiting to pay me money for rejected for being "too simple". It's pretty widely known that if you're rejected for one of those stupid reasons, you're better off resubmitting rather than appealing the rejection, since re-rolling the dice is more likely to get you a different reviewer who doesn't care.

Apple's system is better than the alternative (at least in my opinion), but it's far from perfect or "fair".

Imagine this: A designer walks into corporate headquarters of Macy's with his sample garments that he wishes to sell there. He is given the opportunity to talk to a Macy's buyer (the person who selects garments to sell).

The shirt the man shows says "So sO seKsy" on the right sleeve, there is what looks like a mustard stain on the collar (he defends that it is "the beautiful sun", and the construction is terrible- a button falls off while the buyer is looking at it.

  Buyer: "I'm sorry sir, this shirt is grotesque in my view. Best of luck to you."
  Designer: "Screw you! I'm going to sell it to Target! I'll never shop here again!!"

Note: Not an Apple fanboy, see previous comments, but i do use some of their products

Being in the android camp for 4 years I would have loved it if there was some high level review to educate the devs on what's horrible design- the reality is that most terrible looking apps never get any feedback, they are simply ignored.

Outright rejection for subjective stuff is just nonsense.

< This whole thing reminds me of the various labels (Your drink is very hot - well duh, I just ordered it!) on things sold to you in the USA which I found very amusing when I first landed! Apple is taking similar approach with their customers whereas Google relies on its customers being somewhat competent and responsible.>

All of this is clearly laid out in their submission guidelines. As is what they expect in a user interface.

They want you to put forward polished apps, not almost-finished apps. As they say in one of the first points in their submission guidelines:

"If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your first practice App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour"

Yes, this raises the bar for developers, but by doing so it also cuts out a lot of the crap.

The AppStore is already overflowing with apps in every category, and the overcrowding would be even worse if they lowered their submission standards.

Yes it's subjective, but the bar is not set impossibly high, it's set just high enough to maintain a minimum of quality.

Honestly speaking, the changes the OP made aren't exactly the pinnacle of great design either, but they are a huge improvement.

Apple is focusing on the user's needs by ensuring some degree of quality in the apps they use.

There's enough diversity in apps and app design on the AppStore to show that Apple isn't enforcing a single ideology/design style on developers, just trying to maintain a modicum of quality.

Some people like curation. They prefer a central authority like Macy's, or Slate, or Trader Joe's, or DNSBL make decisions for them.

Apple is providing a curated shopping center for their customers, many of whom chose Apple because it provides a curated experience.

Can you convince me that people who want a curated experience are better served only when all stores (remember that Google, Amazon, and Blackberry approved the app) have no curation?

I can understand how your view will be better for some app developers. But if Apple's review has no stick, only carrot, can you convince me that it will overall be better for its customers? If they follow your suggestion, what would make their products different from the other stores?

For one, it costs Macy's money and opportunity to put something on the shelf. It costs Apple barely anything.

Web portals have been around for a long time with Flash games (Newgrounds, Kongregate, etc). The best games get voted to the top by customer feedback (ratings and reviews).

Slate, like most other online magazines, provides a curated experience determined by the editors. These have also been around for a long time, even though it costs the magazine "barely anything" to acquire a bunch of SEO dreck and put it on the shelves as well.

Planet Python aggregates blogs from people who mostly talk about Python. The selection is hand-picked, which makes it another curated experience - even though it could aggregate many more blogs for "barely anything."

I picked TJ's for a reason - where most grocery stores might have 5-10 brands for a given product, TJ's might have 1-3, and likely a store brand. This works because they do more curatation work to find something close to the Pareto frontier. I believe some people go to TJ precisely because it limits the effect of the paradox of choice. This also means customers switch from item brand loyalty to store brand loyalty, which is "bad" for producers of nationwide brands, but "good" for TJ and presumably its customers.

MCRed in this thread makes the brilliant observation that Google's GMail curates the email experience by removing spam - even though it costs "barely anything" for them to include the spam in the main mailbox. People love that curated experience, even though it doesn't help the scammers improve their operations.

Can you convince me that Apple would do better without curation? Not that it could work, but that it would be better?

It doesn't answer the question, if Apple switched to a more open model, would it be good for their customers? I for one, like that there is some level of curation.

> The beautiful thing about an open policy like the Google Play store is that you can not just get actual customer (Apple reviewers are probably not your customers) feedback and actually REACT to the feedback by uploading a new version right away... [emphasis added]

I'm guessing you probably meant it without that not, is that right?

> The beautiful thing about an open policy like the Google Play store is that you can just get actual customer (Apple reviewers are probably not your customers) feedback and actually REACT to the feedback by uploading a new version right away...