AAPL Stock: 118.03 ( -0.85 )

Printed from

iAd Gallery copying rejected app, claims suggest

updated 03:30 pm EDT, Wed April 6, 2011

Ads Tube rejected for 'lack of functionality'

Apple's newly-released iAd Gallery app may be a copy of an earlier, rejected third-party title, reports say. Several months ago a developer submitted Ads Tube, which like Gallery collects iAds into a single place for easy viewing. The app was denied from the App Store however, based on what Apple explained was a "lack of functionality."

If the rejection was not purely coincidental, Apple either deliberately copied Ads Tube or blocked it because it was already working on iAd Gallery. The company has frequently blocked apps that compete with its own; for some time for example alternate web browsers were not allowed, Opera Mini being the first major entry. Apple also initially denied Google Voice, which can potentially offer cheaper alternatives to the voice plans sold by Apple's iPhone carrier partners.

by MacNN Staff



  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969



    I give up. Why would anyone want an iAd Gallery viewer regardless of who wrote it?

    "Oh boy! Ads! I don't get enough of them! I wish there were a way that I could have an app which just showed me ads!"

  1. Zwilnik

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Logical enough

    Apple's reasoning seems pretty logical. This app is specifically useful for Apple to give to potential iAds clients to show them the types of ads and their quality before they fork over $500,000 a go, so it has functionality because it's being used by the people providing the ad service.

    However a 3rd party developer isn't selling the iAds service to anyone and is only using it to try and gain revenue by displaying iAds. Because they aren't in the business of selling iAds to clients, it's limited functionality for anyone who would have downloaded it.

    Not really as big a news item as it's being made out to be.

  1. davidlfoster

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Talking out both ends

    >Zwilnik< Apple's policy never stated who the 'functionality' had to favor. You yourself admit that such an app would serve a useful function for prospective advertisers, enabling them to scope out previous campaign productions. That sounds functional to me. For Apple to deny accepting an app as lacking functionality, only to subsequently release an app with similar (non?)functionality, is dishonest, at best!

    It could be a bigger news item if only someone would dig deeper to expose all the facts around it. Perhaps the alleged developer could post video of their denied app online, on You Tube for example.

    I am with testudo though. I hate ads no matter what their source and secretly hope there is a level in h*** reserved for those who create and market them. And of course, those who write apps to serve them.

  1. imNat-imadouche

    Joined: Dec 1969


    What else do you expect from Apple?

    They're just like any company. They copy the competitions ideas. Except this is different. They actually rejected it, pulled the app apart and released it to the public as their own.

    For shame Apple!

  1. Perception

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Wrong Move Apple

    If details are true then said developer has an opportunity to sue. Apple really needs to get their heads out of their rear ends and realize they can't arbitraly continue to treat users of their platform this way - not when lots of competition is on the horizon.

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Re: wrong move apple

    They probably can't sue. I'm sure on page 513 of the developer's contract that you click through in order to start developing an app, or to submit an app, implicitly gives apple the right to copy anything they want.

    Plus, you can't be sued for stealing ideas. Only for stealing company secrets.

  1. charlituna

    Joined: Dec 1969


    three basic facts

    1. Apple never claimed they had to or would follow the same rules
    2. Sticking a bunch of ads together as an app is hardly a major idea to be copied
    3. The original app was very likely nothing more than ad spam slapped together to make this girl some money from the guaranteed hits. Which is not original and is not cool. Which is why Apple rejected it as lacking any value to the user and then added a clear cut rule against such things since it was obvious that the assumed clear cut rule wasn't so clear cut.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented