UPDATE! (It’s IN)
After watching Steve Jobs’ iOS4/iPhone4 keynote from WWDC, I was moved to try once again. I sent an email to Apple, and received a timely and personal response from Phillip Shoemaker suggesting that I resubmit the application and keep him posted. We refined a few things and added a feature and a target (iPad), then resubmitted. It is now, happily, available in the App Store. Thanks, Apple, for the return to rationality for us. We’ve got a lot more in the plan…
Check it out: http://eyestreet.com/s/speedtouch
—————————————————————–
So, after having been an Apple fan (converted the company of 40 people from ThinkPad to MBP), an avid iPhone user and evangelist since the original hardware was available, a repeat customer of numerous iPod Touch devices for the wife and kids, and an attendee of some top shelf iPhone development training, I decided to write an application for distribution via the App Store. This application wasn’t to be more faux flatulence, but an application that scratched an itch that I and my fellow iPhone OS users had while providing functionality that is still not available on the iPhone (without an application like ours; more on that later) and that improves upon a number of similar applications that are already available (more on that later also).
In short, our application SpeedTouch allows users to place home screen shortcuts to place phone calls, initiate text messages, and author email messages with one click to a previously selected contact. Simple as that. While there are a number of applications of varying quality and utility in the store, we felt that ours was more versatile and better looking than those alternatives. Besides, Given the number of functionally equivalent applications in the store, it seemed clear that Apple wasn’t picking winners, just enforcing general rules. So we felt sure that barring an inadvertent technical violation of some sort that our application would be approved so we went ahead and acquired the domain name, built a website, built the requisite server code, and such. Apparently our optimism was very misplaced.
Here’s the description in our “SpeedTouch” submission:
This is the Speed Dial you’ve been waiting for.
SpeedTouch allows you to add shortcuts to your home screen for phone calls, text messages, and email messages. You select a phone number or email address for any contact in your address book, pick the desired interaction, and a home screen shortcut for it is added with the contact’s picture.
An Internet connection is required when creating the shortcut, but not when using the shortcut later. Contact information passes through our server only once when the shortcut is created. We do not and will not ever store your information.
Exciting new features are coming soon!
The initial application didn’t have email message shortcut support, but that is beside the point for this discussion. Now, ignoring for a moment the long period of time between the submission and the [first] rejection, and the absurd opacity of the process that has been covered ad nauseum elsewhere, here is what we received in our rejection from Apple (8 April):
Follow-up: 7156XXXX
Dear Eye Street Software,
Thank you for submitting SpeedTouch to the App Store. We’ve reviewed SpeedTouch and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because the submitted iPhone application is a web clipping. The functionality of the submitted application currently exists on the iPhone. A user can navigate to the website in Safari, select the “+” button, and select the option “Add To Home Screen”.
If you would like to share it with friends and family, we recommend you review the Ad Hoc method on the Distribution tab of the iPhone Developer Portal for details on distributing this application among a small group of people of your choosing or if you believe that you can add additional user functionality to SpeedTouch, we encourage you to do so and resubmit it for review.
Regards,
iPhone Developer Program
********************************
Though I believed strongly (still do) in Apple’s prerogative to both set the rules and enforce them with respect to their App Store, I felt that their response was unjust, incorrect, and, downright insulting. So, being the eternal (well, almost) optimist that I was, I replied to that rejection with the following (9 April, and again on 20 April, having received not so much as an acknowledgement):
Folks,
Thanks for the feedback.
I believe that you based your rejection on an incomplete assessment of SpeedTouch.
While it is true that we take advantage of the “web clipping” functionality available within Safari, that is certainly not the only thing the application does, it’s merely one step in several. A more complete representation of how SpeedTouch is used:
– Application is started
– The PeoplePicker UI is used within the application to select a phone number (*)
– The type of action (phone call or SMS message) is chosen
– The chosen phone number and action, as well as any associated contact picture, are encoded and reflected through our server so our SpeedTouch-schemed URL for the action can be web clipped and placed on the home screen within Safari
– A shortcut for the SpeedTouch-schemed URL is placed on home screen with contact picture
– (Sometime Later…) The user can then initiate the previously specified action with the designated contact via a home screen icon
(Note that the * above is used because we have additional functionality for other contact information types in the near-term pipeline.)
We believe your rejection to be incorrect because:
– The functionality is NOT duplicative of functionality available on the iPhone (without a third-party application), and the actions cited in the rejection cannot and would not provide the specific functionality available in SpeedTouch (e.g. home screen icon for a call or SMS).
– You’ve already approved and currently offer what we believe to be several inferior alternatives to SpeedTouch in the App Store (e.g. “One Tap Dial” [http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=295990153&mt=8], “Call Mike” et al. [http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist?id=284946032], and likely others).
I would appreciate a second look at the application and your consideration in light of this more specific information. I would be happy to discuss the application further, either via email or via phone, and/or help in any other way necessary.
Thank you,
Dave Atherton
Eye Street Software
Based on some internal discussion, we also replied to the rejection using a slightly different approach (also 20 April):
Greetings. We believe our application was rejected in error.
Our application is not a web clipping. Our application is quite streamlined, so we can understand how it might be perceived to be as simple as a web clipping, but it facilitates the creation of a home screen shortcut using one’s private Address Book information with private images. The resulting shortcut icon that is added to the home screen is not possible without our application.
There is another application called “One Tap Dial” that has nearly the exact behavior, so we are confused why it was approved, but our application was not. One Tap Dial:http://tinyurl.com/8vvsjr
We would really appreciate it if you could please re-evaluate and reconsider this application. We’d really like to release this application, because we think it adds a lot of value to the iPhone.
Regards,
Dave Atherton
http://speedtouchapp.com/
We received this response on 20 April, so I am willing to concede that there may have been mail problems (.mac account, of course) that led to the delay between 9 April and 20 April:
Follow-up: 7156XXXX
Dear Mr. Atherton,
Thank you for your feedback. As noted in previous correspondences, we’ve determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because the submitted iPhone application is a web clipping.
If you would like to share it with friends and family, we recommend you review the Ad Hoc method on the Distribution tab of the iPhone Developer Portal for details on distributing this application among a small group of people of your choosing.
Regards,
iPhone Developer Program
********************************
At this point in the process, we were really beginning to wonder what the issue really was. The application is clearly not “a web clipping”, but merely uses the web clipping functionality that Apple provides, in a similar fashion to the other applications similar to ours that are already in the app store. Again, clearly, the application had not been adequately assessed by someone who understands the platform and its native capabilities.
So I tried a different approach. Since the problem seemed to be, at least in part, that the application was not assessed correctly from a technical perspective, I attempted to use one of the technical support requests that was included in the developer program purchase (6 July):
Subject: Technical Issue with Erroneous App Store Rejection Regarding SpeedTouch 1.0
Folks,
We submitted an application, SpeedTouch (http://speedtouchapp.com), for distribution via the App Store. In a nutshell, our application allows the user to put a shortcut with a nice picture on the home screen for either a call or SMS (more interaction types are implemented already but not submitted). SpeedTouch was rejected because “… the submitted iPhone application is a web clipping”. (See IDP Follow-up ID 7156XXXX if you can).
Our application is not a web clipping. It required the implementation of software both on the iPhone and our server to make what it does possible. Conversely, without our application (or something like it), it is not possible to do what we do on the iPhone. We believe these facts support our assertion that the application was rejected improperly and that it should be approved for distribution through the App Store.
We are frustrated with the process because while our application offers a better user experience than the numerous other applications (already) approved for the App Store such as “One Tap Dial” and “Call Mike”, our application has been rejected both using inconsistent standards (vis-a-vis those other applications) and for what we believe to be technically incorrect reasons. We have responded to those rejections using several different explanations, but have made no progress. It is my sincere hope that by consuming one of our technical support incidents and working with an actual technical resource at Apple that we can resolve this issue more correctly and satisfactorily.
We’d love to continue with our release schedule (and release the new features we’ve already implemented), but prior to resolving this issue, investing more time and effort doesn’t make much sense.
I am available at any time to discuss this further, and can provide any further information you require.
Thank you very much,
Dave Atherton
Eye Street Software Corporation
It was a long shot, but given the responses we were getting from the other channel, I figured it couldn’t hurt. Apparently it couldn’t help, either (14 July):
Follow-up: 7796XXXX
Hello Dave,
My apologies for the delay in responding to you. Unfortunately, DTS is unable to provide guidance on App Review decisions. Please contact the App Review team directly at <appreview@apple.com>.
It might be unclear to the App Review team (as it is to me) how you’re implementing your functionality, as there are no APIs for placing (new) icons on the Home screen from within an application; the only mechanism for doing so is by creating a web clipping after visiting a web site and tapping the “+”.
Jason.
We weren’t really sure how to proceed at this point. We had explained the application several ways, and even included links to other applications, already in the App Store, providing similar functionality. I found the process amazing, frustrating, insulting, and above all Kafkaesque. Given that we had a pipeline of features designed (and implemented, actually), I decided to try an approach that seemed fitting for a crazy process: ignore previous rejections and correspondence and resubmit an updated version. Well, I found out today via essentially a carbon-copy of the first rejection from 8 April that such an approach naturally didn’t work (14 September):
Follow-up: 7156XXXX
Dear Mr. Atherton,
Thank you for submitting SpeedTouch to the App Store. We’ve reviewed SpeedTouch and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because the submitted iPhone application is a web clipping. The functionality of the submitted application currently exists on the iPhone. A user can navigate to the website in Safari, select the “+” button, and select the option “Add To Home Screen”.
If you would like to share it with friends and family, we recommend you review the Ad Hoc method on the Distribution tab of the iPhone Developer Portal for details on distributing this application among a small group of people of your choosing or if you believe that you can add additional user functionality to SpeedTouch, we encourage you to do so and resubmit it for review.
Regards,
iPhone Developer Program
****************************
Frustration abounds. The facts are these:
- I would very much like to use the application, as would nearly every other iPhone user with whom I’ve spoken
- Despite assertions to the contrary, the iPhone does not provide the functionality without a third-party application
- The application continues to be rejected for demonstrably erroneous reasons
- There are other applications in the App Store that provide analogous functionality
It’s been rejected once, so it seems now that the likelihood of it’s being given a real evaluation again is minimal. If anyone knows anyone or anything that helps me make sense of this, or represents a way forward, I’m all ears.

25 responses so far ↓
1 Dave Atherton // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Michael,
Unfortunately, I honestly don’t know. That is probably the most frustrating part of this story. The concept is clearly “allowed” by the App Store, since other similar applications have been approved. In addition, the application is pretty much “what you see is what you get”, without any additional (or latent) features, functionality, or purpose. My guess is the issue probably lies with a low-level reviewer who made a bad call, combined with a process that is designed (probably for the best, except in a case like ours) to produce repeatable results and internal guidelines that restrict the ability of other parties to override those calls, once made.
2 neekoid // Oct 13, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Its this entire process that puts me off the idea off developing apps for iphone. One may develop an app, come up with something awesome and it get refused arbitrarily…
Very infuriating to see this kinda thing happen.
3 Chris // Oct 13, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I have been an apple fan boy for some time now, and have had every iPhone in the lineup. I am also a bit of a phone geek, and before the iPhone I would jump to the latest and greatest every 6 months or so. The iPhone put a stop to this. (with much rejoicing from my wife)
That was then…
Examples like this one, combined with the those that received a bit more press (Google Voice), and the crap-tastic service of AT&T certainly have me questioning my allegiances.
Android on Verizon starts to look better and better by the day. (Yes, I understand all the GSM vs. CDMA arguments)
My MBP you will still have to pry from my cold dead hands, but if you want my 3GS, just keep an eye on ebay.
4 Túlio F. // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Next time, why don’t you develop for one of those chinese HiPhone? I bet there will be no refusals and people will get to use your program. Oh, and it dosen’t has handicaped hardware features.
5 Von Landfried // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Nicely written Dave. I hope this gains some traction.
6 Michael Ellis // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Wow, that is a really sorry tale. How frustrating.
So Apple can arbitrarily accept/reject applications without sound and public justification. That aint fair!
Out of curiosity, what do you feel is their real reason for rejecting your app?
7 Xaynie // Oct 13, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Maybe you can try resubmitting it without the “web clipping” portion of the application so that the user can only create SMS + phone call only shortcuts (similar to One Tap Dial or Call Mike).
Then, once it’s approved, add the “web clipping” portion to the application as an update
8 Dave Atherton // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Xaynie,
The “web clipping” portion of the application is the one that facilitates adding the shortcut to the home screen. The other applications in the App Store either use the same mechanism, or provide a more limited capability (like the old Call Mike). As far as we know, web clipping is the only sanctioned mechanism for third-party applications to add shortcuts to the home screen.
9 Jon // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Though the main problem here is rooted with an Application Review Process which remains unpublished, this one App’s story is perhaps most frustrating because the hard work of developers was initially dismissed with nothing more than what appears to be a generic form email.
It makes me believe that Apple, who takes a healthy 30% share of each application’s cost, has simply lined up a team of cursory application reviewers who rubber stamp applications as quickly as possible without any further investigation. Your persistence seemed to improve only the length of the response without giving the application any careful consideration. This customer service is rivaled by that of GoDaddy technical support. Quality applications will decline under such a regime.
10 Xaynie // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Gotcha. So then here would be my suggestion:
Submit it again with limited capability so it’s almost exactly like “Call Mike.”
Once they approve it, create an “update” with all the other functionality that your app offers.
I know this is a little like a slap in the face because your app is definitely different from “Call Mike” and the likes but maybe it’s worth a try?
11 Dave Atherton // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Xaynie,
First, thanks for taking the time to comment once again.
Since I have no idea why the application was rejected in the first place, I don’t have confidence that it would be approved if changed as you suggest. I’m especially doubtful because it appears that, at least for us, the initial rejection seems insurmountable regardless of resubmissions or explanations. If we resubmit the application as an entirely new (and renamed) package, given the circumstances of our rejections, I have no confidence it would be approved then either.
In writing this entry (and taking other actions to be discussed later), I’m making an attempt to address the underlying problem versus merely trying to “patch” it. Let’s hope I make some progress…
12 Paul Chapel // Oct 14, 2009 at 8:42 am
Maybe you should make it so the short-cuts only appear in the application itself and not on the home screen. It seems as if that’s what they don’t like.
13 Eric Nemchik // Oct 15, 2009 at 12:04 am
here is an idea that you might like (it sucks that you got rejected, but so did google for quite a few apps and they are frick’n google)
anyway i’d like to see a web app come from this
in essence it would let me sign up for an account, associate (and verify) my email address to the account, and then let me email vcards in to the service. any vcard that comes from my associated email address would then be queued in my account (on the web app) and i could then login and select if i want to use the phone number or email address or whatever for calling texting or emailing purposes and you would then generate the appropriate home screen icon thing with instructions for how i could use it.
i think that would be a much more dynamic approach to your goal and could be more easily distributed (because apple cant say no to you making a web app)
anyway good luck and feel free to email me and maybe i can discuss the idea with you some more
14 Dave Atherton // Oct 15, 2009 at 10:05 am
Paul,
I don’t think I agree with you regarding the location of the short cuts. They didn’t mention that specifically, nor did they allege any use of private API’s (which we don’t use). We wanted to put the short cuts on the home screen versus in our application to keep the user experience simplified, and believe that “adding clicks” to the use case of those short cuts diminishes their utility. That being said, our application isn’t approved, so it may be time for fresh ideas…
15 Dave Atherton // Oct 15, 2009 at 10:10 am
Eric,
Yeah, I guess we in the “Rejected Application” crowd do have some company. Anyway, we thought of what you mention as an alternative during this rejection saga, but thought that the user experience was too complicated and the value added too small. We also thought that not storing any information on our server was a key feature of the system (both for us and users). That being said, as mentioned to Paul, since the application is rejected, it may be time for fresh ideas… Stand by.
16 Wes // Oct 17, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Apple will have to start thinking about a better appeal process or a more in-depth review process if they insist on reviewing each app (for quality and security?) in order to be competitive with the upcoming Google (Android) and Microsoft (WM7) alternatives or they will simply lose market share in the future. If simply by just frustrating developers.
It may be that rejected this app a fortiori, ie: they have a plan for a future iPhone version to add this as a core feature, but only the future will tell given the picayune form letter rejection.
17 Lucas von Mecheln // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Hello Dave
Unfortunately I have seen many useful apps rejected, yours is one I certainly want to have on my iPhone. It seems Apple only looks the new apps over and deduce it’s functionality without even trying it.
Is there any way you can call them to try to sort this out directly?
All I can say is good luck and don’t give up!
18 Dave Atherton // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:52 am
Lucas,
I don’t think there is a way to sort it out directly, but I’ve got a few last things I’m going to try. Stand by…
19 Isaac Waller // Oct 26, 2009 at 12:53 am
I went through the exact same process. And I really mean – exact same. My app did the exact same thing, using the exact same process (page in Safari that automatically redirected to a tel: url, I’m guessing?) and got rejected for *exactly the same reason!* Our app was called shortlinks, and it was exactly the same except ours did emailing and mapping also.
20 Brian // Nov 6, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I have a great solution for you – make it into a fart app and submit that. Once it gets rubber stamped you can add the actual functionality you wanted.
You can then add colorful audio clips like, “Apple says what?”, and “REEEEEE-JECTED!” and “Regards, iPhone Developer Program”.
My bit of wisdom for you is “You cannot logically argue OUT that which was not logically argued IN”. It isn’t reason involved, so give up hoping reason will prevail, it rarely does against bureaucracy.
21 Sparky // Nov 8, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I realize this may not be the way you want to go, but have you considered the Jailbreak community? This app would find a nice home on Cydia, along with the other unjustly-rejected ones.
22 Mark Underwood // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Your use of the word “opacity” said it all. Big IT doesn’t it (as I point out in my Technorati post today). -knowlengr
23 Chris Murphy // Jan 17, 2010 at 1:32 am
The saga continues: Apple’s “Adding a Contact to a Home Screen” patent.
http://is.gd/6qnuX
24 Mike // Jan 30, 2010 at 11:50 pm
Wow so regarding the patent, it looks like Apple stole your idea. My opinion of them has gone down! They are currently being sued by Nokia and Kodak for patent infringement so it must be a hobby of theirs to do this.
25 Dave Atherton // Feb 3, 2010 at 5:19 pm
The timing’s probably not right for that to be the case. A patent like this one is, IMHO, bogus. I’m with the growing chorus of patent reformers/abolishers.
In any event, this issue has no bearing on our rejection, since applications that provide this functionality were approved both before and after our rejection. If our rejection was on the basis of this patent, then a consistent application of that criterion would result in no applications being approved. That is clearly not the case.
So, unfortunately, the mystery remains.
Leave a Comment