App Store Rejections: Apple rejects iKaraoke app, patent filed published for a karaoke player
July 2nd, 2009 | 
Author: >
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion , Bad Apple , Apple , iPhone iPod touch rejection App Store: Apple Rejects iKaraoke app, patent Filed ver? published f? r a karaoke player
Michael Jones on 2 July 2009 
As if the weight? sser to the App Store authorization not tr? be enough, a developer has click on “an unprecedented wall . Apple opposes his app, iKaraoke, cited that there is twice functionality? t the iPod application . Nat? of course is the “dual functionality? t” reason is nothing new, but the Apple n? next step is: Only a few weeks after the rejection of the application, they have filed a patent f? r inclusion in the karaoke function iPod App. A brief look at the demo iKaraoke's website will quickly say that, w while the program is not a slight ? hnlichkeit to some of the Men's in the iPod application that the TATS? chliche interface, which interacts with the user to select and download a song is far away from duplication of the iPod interface polished. Another important point is that the file format, which iKaraoke is known as the . Kar-format - a unofficial extension of MIDI specification, with the texts, which in time with music. The texts are then displayed on the screen and highlighted how the song is played. If one of the sound like functionality? t see the iPod app? We do not think so. What exactly was twice? After Apple, iKaraoke “duplicates the functionality ? t built the iPhone application, iPod, without sufficient differentiation or extra features. “But they have not only there. The expert went on to say that the application” downloads media files that are not from the iTunes application, which includes the management of media files, we believe it w? re f? r confusing the user. “Well, keep to one minute here … It is good f? R several other applications, to stream and download media files from your iPod without the iTunes , but it is not okay, f? r an application to download media, which are not natively supported? tzt, and functionality? t are not native to the iPod? This w? re not much different from your typical around to? ckweisung if the story ended, but it does not. This morning, Apple filed a patent [ application here ], the details of built-in karaoke functionality? t add, like the iPod application, with some extra bells and whistles like? monitoring the Tonh? he the voice of the user. So it seems that functionality? t, the dual functionality? t is that Apple has not yet been released, and m? might not even begun to to develop. Perhaps the $ 99 iPhone Developer Program fee? hr should have a crystal ball f? r test the applications before them. As with the many other patents Apple has this feature might never see the light of day . But is it really acceptable to reject an application, based solely on what a doubling of a function that can also not be released in the future, please let us know your thoughts in the comments. Update: As some of you have noted in the comments, also if the patent application was different today? published, it was TATS? chlich original? nglich Filed in April 2008. W while this does indicate that the patent was filed so long before the SDK was also released, questions remain represents over whether Apple or not, k? can be daf? r decide the appl? ge reject based on the functionality? t immediately? published functions. similar rejection came with applications the podcast downloads are offered prior to the start of podcasting feature in iTunes, for example. In essence, what has to happen is that Apple have? confirmed to air on what exactly is a duplication of functionality? t and clear to be with the developer to exactly what aspects of their applications infringe? to that provision, but rather than sending a vague form letter and to ignore requests f for extra information from the developer. Tweet this! < / a> Comments ( 49 ) / * Some of that is crap * / function iecheck (inc_seven) ( / / alert (navigator.platform); ? if (navigator.platform == “Win32″ & & navigator.appName == “Microsoft Internet Explorer” & & window.attachEvent) ( ???????? var rslt = navigator.appVersion.match (/ MSIE (\ d + \. \ d +) /,''); ???????? iever var = (inc_seven)? (rslt! = null & & Number (rslt [1])> = 5.5): (rslt! = null & & Number (rslt [1])> = 5.5 & & Number (rslt [1]) Iever = false; ) ? R? ckkehr iever; ) useFilter var = iecheck (false); ie6Brand var = '
Your Comment:
remember
email when someone replies to this comment
Please keep your comments on this blog entry. e-mail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to make your comments.
If your name and email address, you will find a link to confirm future, your comment, and a password. To another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link f? r you. You can up to 3 URLs in your comments. Zeilenumbr cuisine and Abs sets are automatically converted - no need to
or tags.
tabTo (current_tab);
language=”JavaScript” function getUserInfo () (var anchor = document.getElementById ( 'addCommentButton'); var SID = document.createElement ( 'input'); sID.type = 'hidden'; sID.id = 'SID'; sID.name = 'SID'; sID.value ='1 c75d1f8884350db0f9ad323c184649b “; var UID = document.createElement ( 'input'); uID.type = 'hidden'; uID.id = 'uid'; uID.name = 'UID'; uID.value = 'c7a5d6e4cff335bdd1265154127e8ced “; var tStamp = document.createElement (' input '); tStamp.type =' hidden '; tStamp.id =' tStamp '; tStamp. name = “tStamp'; tStamp.value ='49130 '; var CacheID = document.createElement (' input '); cacheId.type =' hidden '; cacheId.id =' CacheID '; cacheId.name = 'CacheID'; cacheId.value ='5926232896052059 '; anchor.parentNode.insertBefore (SID, anchor); anchor.parentNode.insertBefore (uid, anchor); anchor.parentNode.insertBefore (tStamp, anchor); anchor.parentNode.insertBefore (CacheID, anchor); var divArray = document.getElementsByTagName ( 'div'); for (var i = 0; i
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.
SourcePrint thisWith HP wireless printers, you could have printed this from any room in the house.Live wirelessly. Print wirelesslyEmail this addthis_pub = 'weblogsinc'; addthis_options = 'digg, facebook, delicious, myspace, aolfav, propeller, google, live, stumbleupon, reddit, favorites, technorati, aim, more'; Share Tweet this!Comments (49) /* some ie crap */ function iecheck(inc_seven) { // alert(navigator.platform); if (navigator.platform == “Win32″ && navigator.appName == “Microsoft Internet Explorer” && window.attachEvent) { var rslt = navigator.appVersion.match(/MSIE (\d+\.\d+)/, ''); var iever = (inc_seven)?(rslt != null && Number(rslt[1]) >= 5.5):(rslt != null && Number(rslt[1]) >= 5.5 && Number(rslt[1]) < 7 ); } else { iever=false; } return iever; } var useFilter=iecheck(false); var ie6Brand='
'; var normalBrand='
'; var brand=''; if(useFilter==false) { brand=normalBrand; } else { brand=ie6Brand; }
Related Articles From The Unofficial Apple WeblogSlingPlayer for iPhone: A ray of hope?
Crackulous is released, chaos imminent
Apple rejects another app for duplicating functionality
Related Articles From Our Tech NetworkApple patent applications offer glimpses of haptic screens, RFID readers, f…
Apple behind removal of Hottest Girls iPhone app after all
40+ awesome free Windows apps you can download in 2 seconds
See More Related Articles and Blog Posts
document.getElementById('spherePoweredBy').innerHTML=brand; Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
1ToddFSU said 3:06PM on 7-02-2009
Huh? That's terrible Apple. Don't make the 2010 iPhone… the 3G[k]
Reply
↓↑report
2Andre said 3:09PM on 7-02-2009
Lawsuit.
Reply
↓↑report
3dig said 3:12PM on 7-02-2009
Isn't it about time the practice of rejecting apps that are “duplicating functionality” is tried and tested in court?
Reply
↓↑report
4Hobbes said 3:40PM on 7-02-2009
It's Apple's store. When you sign up to be a developer you're bound to their terms and that's as good as any contractual obligation. I don't believe there is anything left to be decided in court. The only option the developer has is to not develop for the iPhone or go the jailbreak route.
↓↑report
5LB said 5:12PM on 7-02-2009
I think a good IP/Anti-Trust lawyer could probably make a case that apple is using it's monopoly power in the small player space to strong arm developers. There is also an argument that could be made that the iPhone/iPod Touch are actually computers and they should have to provide some for of third party app loading.Can you imagine how quickly apple would have died off if they had this kind of restriction on their main OS platform. Really all this process seems to do is generate bad press for apple.
↓↑report
6SSteve said 3:18PM on 7-02-2009
Apple's technology is so far advanced that the app approval process is actually handled by reviewers in the future where the iPod Karaoke functionality has already been implemented.
Reply
↓↑report
7owenmhv said 3:18PM on 7-02-2009
What came first, the chicken or the egg. What asssurance do I have that submittting an app won't be rejected then copied and patented by apple.
Reply
↓↑report
8Swimatm said 5:32PM on 7-02-2009
Easy, the chicken.
↓↑report
9Rackham Hoke said 3:20PM on 7-02-2009
This is not nearly as shady as it seems. Patent application 12/107,931 was filed on April 23, 2008. It just happens to have been published (made available for public viewing) today.
Reply
↓↑report
10gib said 5:03PM on 7-02-2009
This is a point that Michael Jones failed to make when he stated “his morning, Apple filed a patent…” Sensational, check. Exaggerated, check. Written only to try to attract readers, check. What is “Yellow Journalism” called if you are talking about a blog instead of a newspaper? “Journalism”.
↓↑report
11Michael Jones said 5:09PM on 7-02-2009
Thanks for pointing that out. I had mistakenly noted the published date and not realized the filing was that old. I have updated the post accordingly.I agree that, even if the filing had taken place today, it may not have been directly related to the rejection. But from the standpoint of the developer having their app rejected, and then seeing Apple patent a similar application just weeks later, it really doesn't look good on Apple, no matter what the actual motive behind the rejection was.
↓↑report12gib said 5:32PM on 7-02-2009
@ Michael Jones — “I have updated the post accordingly.”Umm… not really. You still have a headline implying Apple is stealing the developers idea, you didn't fix the error in the body of the post, and your update at the bottom of the post talks more about functionality duplication than the error you made. The entire article is still has no purpose, except for t?aw looking for web hits by exaggerating a situation.I understand that you would want to inform the readers about what is going on in the world of Apple, that's fine. That's why I read t?aw posts multiple times per day… But this whole post was nothing more than an attempt to draw people to the site by distorting the truth.
↓↑report
13James Donevan said 3:21PM on 7-02-2009
Let's use just the faintest hint of common sense with a modest dose of reality. Apple has an in-house functionality planned for the iPhone in 2010. Meanwhile an independent developer submits an application with the same function beforehand. Pick one…Does Apple:a. approve the indie application knowing the developer will scream foul in 2010 and claim Apple stole his idea with all the media brouhaha that will generate.b. reject the indie application indicating it duplicates a functionality (be it still in development) thereby curtailing the developer's efforts and nipping an obvious problem in the bud. c. approve the indie application then pull it from the App Store in 2010 leaving a bad taste for everyone (think tethering).Every designer in the world has had a concept in development only to find someone, somewhere is doing something very similar. Indeed I would go so far as to say it commonly happens. While it is always disappointing for one of the parties involved, it happens.
Reply
↓↑report
14Gwydion said 3:25PM on 7-02-2009
d. Approve the application, that's all.Ups, there's a lot of browser apps, they have to be retired from App Store.Ups, there's mail apps, they have to be retired from App Store.
↓↑report
15Devon said 4:28PM on 7-02-2009
They should let the application in. If Apple doesn't want competition then they sure can block the application but that is kind of pathetic of them. Some people don't realize how much time it takes to put out an iPhone application. Yes the developer agreement says Apple can basically do whatever they want but that does not mean it's fair to the developer to pretty much waste their time developing something that can't be sold.
↓↑report
16Johnny said 4:44PM on 7-02-2009
They should allow developers to submit their ideas before they start for pre-screening. It shouldn't be required for those who like to gamble and there would still be the chance of it being rejected, but not based on the entire premise of the app. The developer could then remove the 'objectionable content' without having the whole thing thrown out completely.
↓↑report
17Travis Walls said 4:57PM on 7-02-2009
What about all of those voice recorder apps in the App Store? Most of them essentially duplicate the functionality of the new Voice Memos app in OS 3.0, but we didn't see them get rejected or pulled from the store before or even after the update was released.
↓↑report
18CaptSaltyJack said 5:03PM on 7-02-2009
How is this scenario different from Apple's new Voice Memo app? There were tons of voice recording apps submitted and approved, and I'm sure Apple had plans to create a voice memo application. Nothing was rejected. Now Apple is just competing with indie developers, that's all (I actually prefer “Recorder” because of the wifi sync feature).I just don't see how this is different, and why this time Apple rejected it. Maybe the iKaraoke app was too damn good and too big of a threat.
↓↑report
19LGgeek said 3:21PM on 7-02-2009
developer should go see a lawyer, Apple is just abusing it power of controlling the app store. And in this case to rip off a developer.
Reply
↓↑report
20digitalrift said 3:22PM on 7-02-2009
Please correct the article: while the rejection is pretty shady, Apple most certainly did not file the patent “this morning”; it was filed well over a year ago.
Reply
↓↑report var req; function getURL(url) { if(isWorking == true) { setTimeout(”getURL(\”"+url+”\”)”, “100″); return false; } isWorking = true; if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { req = new XMLHttpRequest(); req.onreadystatechange = handleHttpResponse; req.open(”GET”, url, true); req.send(null); } else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // IE try { req = new ActiveXObject(”Msxml2.XMLHTTP”); } catch (e) { req = new ActiveXObject(”Microsoft.XMLHTTP”); } if (req) { req.onreadystatechange = handleHttpResponse; req.open(”GET”, url, true); req.send(); } else { alert(”Your browser does not support ajax”); } } else { alert(”Your browser does not support ajax”); } return false; } function postURL(url,outbuf) { if(isWorking == true) { setTimeout(”postURL(\”"+url+”\”,\”"+outbuf+”\”)”, “100″); return false; } isWorking = true; var browser = navigator.appName; if(browser != “Microsoft Internet Explorer”) { req = new XMLHttpRequest(); req.onreadystatechange = handleHttpResponse; req.open(”POST”, url, true); req.setRequestHeader(”Content-Type”,”application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=UTF-8″); req.send(outbuf); } else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // IE req = new ActiveXObject(”Microsoft.XMLHTTP”); if (req) { req.onreadystatechange = handleHttpResponse; req.open(”POST”, url, true); req.setRequestHeader(”Content-Type”,”application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=UTF-8″); req.send(outbuf); } } return false; } function handleHttpResponse() { if (req.readyState == 4) { if(req.responseText.charAt(0) == ” TUAW flickr Pool www.flickr.com Tweet this! Kommentare ( 49 ) < / div> / * Einige dh crap * / Funktion iecheck (inc_seven) ( / / Alert (navigator.platform); ???? if (navigator.platform == “Win32″ & & navigator.appName == “Microsoft Internet Explorer” & & window.attachEvent) ( ???????? var rslt = navigator.appVersion.match (/ MSIE (\ d + \. \ d +) /,''); ???????? var iever = (inc_seven)? (rslt! = null & & Number (rslt [1])> = 5,5): (rslt! = null & & Number (rslt [1])> = 5.5 & & Number (rslt [1]) < 7); ) Else ( Iever = false; ) ???? R?ckkehr iever; ) var useFilter = iecheck (false); var ie6Brand = ' Ihr Kommentar: merken E-Mail, wenn mir jemand Antworten auf diesen Kommentar
Bitte halten Sie Ihre Kommentare zu diesem Blog-Eintrag. E-Mail-Adressen werden niemals angezeigt, aber sie sind erforderlich, um Ihre Kommentare.
Wenn Sie Ihren Namen und Ihre E-Mail-Adresse, werden Sie einen Link an, um zu best?tigen, Ihren Kommentar und ein Kennwort. Um einen anderen Kommentar, nutzen Sie bitte, dass Ihr Passwort ein.
So erstellen Sie eine Live-Link, geben Sie einfach die URL (einschlie?lich http://) oder E-Mail-Adresse ein und wir machen es zu einem Live-Link f?r Sie. Sie k?nnen bis zu 3 URLs in Ihre Kommentare. Zeilenumbr?che und Abs?tze werden automatisch konvertiert - keine Notwendigkeit,
oder Tags. tabTo (current_tab); getUserInfo Funktion () (var anchor = document.getElementById ( 'addCommentButton'); var SID = document.createElement ( 'input'); sID.type = 'hidden '; sID.id =' SID '; sID.name =' SID '; sID.value ='1 c75d1f8884350db0f9ad323c184649b “; var UID = document.createElement (' input '); uID.type =' hidden '; uID.id = 'uid'; uID.name = 'UID'; uID.value = 'c7a5d6e4cff335bdd1265154127e8ced “; var tStamp = document.createElement (' input '); tStamp.type =' hidden '; tStamp.id =' tStamp '; tStamp. name = “tStamp '; tStamp.value ='49130'; var CacheID = document.createElement ( 'input'); cacheId.type = 'hidden'; cacheId.id = 'CacheID'; cacheId.name = 'CacheID'; cacheId.value ='5926232896052059 '; anchor.parentNode.insertBefore (SID, Anker); anchor.parentNode.insertBefore (uid, Anker); anchor.parentNode.insertBefore (tStamp, Anker); anchor.parentNode.insertBefore (CacheID, Anker ); var divArray = document.getElementsByTagName ( 'div'); for (var i = 0; i $(document).ready(init); function init() ( $('.winblogrollcat').children('ul').hide(); $('.winblogrollcat .trigger').click(function(evt){ $(this.parentNode).children('ul').slideToggle('fast'); }); ???? $('.carousel ul').cycle({'prev':'.previous','next':'.next'}); ) if (top !== self && document.referrer.match(/digg\.com\/\w{1,8}/)) { ?? top.location.replace(self.location.href); ) document.write(''); // –> Detect language—AlbanianArabicBulgarianCatalanChineseCroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGermanGreekHebrewHindiHungarianIndonesianItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMalteseNorwegianPersian ALPHAPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianVietnamese > AlbanianArabicBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGermanGreekHebrewHindiHungarianIndonesianItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMalteseNorwegianPersian ALPHAPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianVietnamese swap window.jstiming.load.tick('br');h = new _History();ctr = new _TranslateForm(new _LanguageSelector('old_sl','sl_select','3'),new _LanguageSelector('old_tl','tl_select','3'),'old_submit','submit_button', h,'source','result_box','dict','autotrans','/translate','/translate_t',undefined,'http://209.85.225.132/translate_f', 'select_text','select_document', 'file_div', 'file',true,'search','clir');window.jstiming.load.tick('prt')
Contribute a better translationThank you for contributing your translation suggestion to Google Translate. TUAW flickr Pool www.flickr.com
Posted in iPhone News
