I know, I know. I’m growing a bit tired of having to sift through e-mails from iPhone app developers who have seen their fruits of labor (big or small) rejected by Apple’s team of mobile software scrutinizers myself too. But I keep being amazed by the reasons Cupertino puts forward for not allowing apps into the App Store, and this is another classic example: TweetPhoto, a TwitPic competitor that lets Twitter users share photos quickly and easily, saw its first ever iPhone app barred from entry because its logo is slightly reminiscent of a Polaroid photograph.
That’s right, this is what Apple told the small startup almost 4 weeks after they put the app up for approval: “We’ve reviewed TweetPhoto and determined that we cannot post your application because it appears to include features that resemble Polaroid photographs. Polaroid has previously objected to other applications that include features that resemble Polaroid photographs, and believes that such features infringe its rights.”
Okay, but how did an app like Polarize make it into the App Store then? As TweetPhoto points out, they use the trademark Polaroid shot in their app logo as well, and furthermore, they are all about giving your photos that ‘true Polaroid look’. Compare that to TweetPhoto, which only features a mild resemblance to a Polaroid shot in its logo, something I only noticed when they pointed it out specifically.
Either way you look at it, it’s ridiculous for Apple to block TweetPhoto’s iPhone app but not Polarize. Another testament to the company’s blatantly inconsistent policies, so here’s to hoping Phil Schiller manages to fix things over there.