PDA

View Full Version : Apple Rejects eBook App Over Access to Kama Sutra




MacRumors
May 22, 2009, 10:56 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/05/22/apple-rejects-ebook-app-over-access-to-kama-sutra/)

In an extensive blog entry (http://www.blog.montgomerie.net/whither-eucalyptus), James Montgomerie reveals that Apple has repeatedly rejected his eBook reader iPhone application, Eucalyptus (http://th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus/), due to its ability to access a version of the ancient Indian text Kama Sutra, which Apple considers to contain objectionable content.

As Montgomerie describes, the Eucalyptus application does not contain the "objectionable" text, as it merely serves as an interface to Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/), a well-known distributor of free eBooks based on content that is in the public domain. Moreover, translations of the Kama Sutra are readily available on the iPhone via a host of other sources.The exact book (the Kama Sutra) that Apple considers the ability to read 'objectionable' is freely available on the iPhone in many ways already. You can find it through Safari or the Google app of course, but it is also easily available via other book reading apps. You can get it easily via eReader, though the search process is handled by launching a third-party site in Safari, with the download and viewing taking place in eReader. Stanza offers up multiple versions, some with illustrated covers. Amazonís Kindle app, the latest version of which was approved by Apple this week, offers multiple versions too - although it does charge from 80Ę to $10 per book - and you again purchase via Safari before Kindle downloads the book.

I am at a loss to explain why Eucalyptus is being treated differently than these applications by Apple. Iím also frankly amazed that they would suggest I should be manually censoring content that is being downloaded from the public Internet - classic, even ancient, books, no less.While Apple's rejection of Eucalyptus could very well have been a result of an overzealous reviewer, Montgomerie proceeds to document his numerous attempts to contact Apple to have his case reviewed, only to be met with silence, automated e-mail responses, and in the responses that actually address his submission, tersely worded messages that provide little assistance.

Montgomerie has resubmitted for Apple's consideration a version of Eucalyptus that manually blocks access to the version of the Kama Sutra available through Project Gutenberg.

Article Link: Apple Rejects eBook App Over Access to Kama Sutra (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/05/22/apple-rejects-ebook-app-over-access-to-kama-sutra/)



wavelayer
May 22, 2009, 11:02 AM
Why is Apple afraid of the sacred art of lovemaking?:confused:

themoonisdown09
May 22, 2009, 11:03 AM
Why is Apple afraid of the sacred art of lovemaking?:confused:

Because they want to be the best at it.

iPie
May 22, 2009, 11:07 AM
Actually, I think it's because Apple wants to be the only one doing any screwing of its flock.:eek:

Apple joins the religious right in this quest.

ltcol266845
May 22, 2009, 11:19 AM
Stanza provides access to Project Gutenberg, among others... I would guess that there is even a version of that text (or maybe even "worse") trough the Kindle Store.

Rootman
May 22, 2009, 11:30 AM
Bad karma for Apple.

ipoppy
May 22, 2009, 11:38 AM
Come on Apple!!! Internet is for PORN:cool:

QCassidy352
May 22, 2009, 11:38 AM
This has to be a mistake (an over-zealous reviewer). As the developer points out, this book can be downloaded and read in several other already-approved applications.

whistler222
May 22, 2009, 11:43 AM
this clear shows the tech geek reviewing the app doesn't even know what sex is..nor ever participated in such feats..

SpitzerCR
May 22, 2009, 11:44 AM
i want love making technique on my i phone........:rolleyes:;)

DotComCTO
May 22, 2009, 11:51 AM
The author is 100% right, and Apple is 100% wrong in this case. The eBook reader does not contain the "objectionable" information - just like Safari doesn't contain objectionable content. Perhaps Apple should put all sorts of filters into Safari so anytime a "bad" image or word showed up, it would just block that content?! For that matter, maybe Apple shouldn't allow "explicit" music in iTunes. I might download that to my iPhone...oh noes!!!!!

Apple is getting insane over this. The author is right in comparing his app to the Kindle app, Stanza or any other reader.

I feel badly for the Eucalyptus author. What a crock.

:(

--DotComCTO

Abstract
May 22, 2009, 11:51 AM
That's why I'd never buy an iPhone. Blackberrys make me better in bed.

srl7741
May 22, 2009, 11:51 AM
These type of things are getting pretty sad. Does anyone have any common sense anymore?

BoyBach
May 22, 2009, 11:57 AM
That's why I'd never buy an iPhone. Blackberrys make me better in bed.


I think you might have just stumbled upon the Microsoft ad campaigns next line of attack!

Unspoken Demise
May 22, 2009, 11:58 AM
I think you might have just stumbled upon the Microsoft ad campaigns next line of attack!

I'm a PC, and I can pleasure your girlfriend in ways you could never imagine.

damnyooneek
May 22, 2009, 12:00 PM
they should look into that safari app it contains all sorts of evil

EgbertAttrick
May 22, 2009, 12:05 PM
If this kind of rejection continues to happen after 3.0's parental controls are released... Well, I won't do anything, but it will seriously piss me off. Apple's reviewers really need to lighten up and learn the difference between art and porn.

And once they learn that difference, they should lighten up even more.

kas23
May 22, 2009, 12:15 PM
Stanza provides access to Project Gutenberg, among others... I would guess that there is even a version of that text (or maybe even "worse") trough the Kindle Store.

Shhhh! Don't let Apple know about this. This may cause them to pull their most popular eBook reader.

Anyways, thank you Mommy and Daddy Apple for looking out for me and letting me know what could possibly corrupt my feeble mind. For God's sake, Apple is acting like the Catholic church in the Middle Ages!

kdarling
May 22, 2009, 12:17 PM
Apple doesn't always seem to employ the brightest crayons in the box.

I remember someone posting a link on the Apple support forums to a legal document, which happened to be titled "Petition to the FCC".

The word "petition" in that case, of course, had nothing to do with collecting signatures. It's a legal term simply meaning "formal request".

The uneducated Apple forum managers repeatedly deleted the link because their forum rules said "no petitions allowed".

So... kudos to Apple for giving their people power and responsibility. They just need to pick different people to give those to.

tk421
May 22, 2009, 12:21 PM
This one seems pretty out there. Even if OS 3.0 provides app parental controls (allowing mature content in apps) it would be pretty weird to have this app rated such.

This also implies that reviewers of ebook apps have to read every ebook available to screen them. That is insane.

Stanza provides access to Project Gutenberg, among others... I would guess that there is even a version of that text (or maybe even "worse") trough the Kindle Store.

Uh... did you read the article? It says exactly what you said, only without guessing.

mkrishnan
May 22, 2009, 12:31 PM
Very odd. One would have hoped that the Trent Reznor business would have taught Apple a lesson. If the Kama Sutra is banned, then the Song of Solomon should be banned too. :rolleyes:

ChrisA
May 22, 2009, 12:46 PM
Apple would by their own standards need to remove Safari. As it too can access this same ebook.

Porco
May 22, 2009, 01:08 PM
Very odd. One would have hoped that the Trent Reznor business would have taught Apple a lesson. If the Kama Sutra is banned, then the Song of Solomon should be banned too. :rolleyes:

Apple would by their own standards need to remove Safari. As it too can access this same ebook.

Exactly. For crying out loud, how many times? Apple need to sort this approvals mess out, they're looking increasingly stupid over it every time we hear another of these stories.

Randman
May 22, 2009, 01:24 PM
Obviously, there are flaws in the approval process. And yes, Apple is being silly when they can just slap a 18+ warning on apps.

But at the same time, I am sick and tired of every developer with a rejected app blogging and creating threads in the hopes of gaining attention. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to get rejected on purpose so they can complain later for the free attention/publicity.

nagromme
May 22, 2009, 01:27 PM
An absurd decision on many levels, and surely to be reversed--but the decision should never have been made in the first place.

I take the silent treatment as a good sign in a sense: it's not a rejection of the issue; someone's deciding something. My own dealings with the dev program have always started with me sending an email, and getting a live call--not an email--back (in a week or two) with helpful answers. So if that's not happening, I take it as an indication that gears are slowly turning. (An upcoming content-ratings system could complicate the decision too.)

This is a side-effect of the sheer scale of their app-approval process. I think Apple does pretty well considering the tidal wave, and they keep improving--but they do have a ways to go yet!

These type of things are getting pretty sad. Does anyone have any common sense anymore?

Yes. Everyone--with the exception of the one-in-a-thousand bad call that one-in-a-thousand Apple employees sometimes makes. Which then gets a lot of attention. (As it should!) But it's hardly a trend of any kind: we're looking at a few bad calls out of THOUSANDS of decisions. Still bad--still in need of correction of course. And Apple has, in the past, reversed their bad calls. I'm sure they will in this case too. (And in the meantime, I feel the developer's pain! Very frustrating to be one guy dealing with such a massive operation.)

jb510
May 22, 2009, 02:04 PM
It's very disturbing that the review process keeps rejecting sex and drugs, but keeps rewarding violence.

Dope Wars? No
Mafia Wars? Yes

Baby Maker (ie. Kama Sutra)? No
Baby Shaker? Yes (although they later pulled it)

srl7741
May 22, 2009, 02:30 PM
I have Stanza on my iPhone and I see that book is available to download.

kas23
May 22, 2009, 02:33 PM
Obviously, there are flaws in the approval process. And yes, Apple is being silly when they can just slap a 18+ warning on apps.

But at the same time, I am sick and tired of every developer with a rejected app blogging and creating threads in the hopes of gaining attention. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to get rejected on purpose so they can complain later for the free attention/publicity.

Ah, the first Apple Apologist response. Just as you are getting sick of reading developers complaining about their rejected apps, don't you think people are a bit sick of the "the Apple approval process is not flawless" response? Why not just fix it already and you won't have to actively make the decision to click and read such threads.

alphaod
May 22, 2009, 03:48 PM
Apple needs to monitor the store, but they also need to have a straightforward guide to their approval process.

Stibble
May 22, 2009, 04:05 PM
Apple is the new Microsoft ?

Too much control....ubuntu here i come (after 17 years - first mac classic w a 2800 baud dial up)

mklos
May 22, 2009, 04:46 PM
I bet once iPhone 3.0 ships these types of apps will get approval as iPhone 3.0 has parental controls built in. Apple is only trying to cover their arse. These days any one and everyone is looking for a stupid reason to sue Apple.

Apple is the new Microsoft ?

Too much control....ubuntu here i come (after 17 years - first mac classic w a 2800 baud dial up)

What does this have to do with the Mac? As far as the Mac goes, its extremely open. Apple doesn't control what you do and don't do with your Mac or the OS. Don't confuse the iPhone OS and Mac OS X. Two different animals.

Peter Maurer
May 22, 2009, 04:54 PM
As a fellow developer, all I can say is this: Good for James! This kind of rejection is like winning the publicity lottery. :)

sk8er982
May 22, 2009, 05:00 PM
I SAY REJECT SAFARI! type in sex in safari and its more then enough to reject safari. I say reject apple for rejecting applications like that.

HyperZboy
May 22, 2009, 05:04 PM
Doesn't Steve Jobs have a bastard child himself that he ignored and didn't support for like over a decade?

Kinda both ironic & funny, when ya think about it, the content craziness on iPhone apps.

It's the internet stupid.

Why should a device block it ???

That's what PARENTS are FOR!


PS: I hope i don't get banned again by MacRumors for this post. :(

sushi
May 22, 2009, 05:15 PM
If the Kama Sutra is banned, then the Song of Solomon should be banned too. :rolleyes:
Among other songs...

As a fellow developer, all I can say is this: Good for James! This kind of rejection is like winning the publicity lottery. :)
Interesting perspective. :)

rockosmodurnlif
May 22, 2009, 05:31 PM
Mr Montgomerie just needs to take a page out of the Trent Reznor playbook and write another post flippin' cursing and ******. I'm sure apple will then have a change of heart.

inkswamp
May 22, 2009, 05:35 PM
Anyone on Twitter want to start some noise about this, get Apple's attention? I think this is stunningly idiotic behavior on Apple's part, especially considering how tame the Kama Sutra is by today's standards. And you know, since I can access porn via Safari, shouldn't Apple ban Safari too? Isn't that pretty much the same as what this app is doing, giving access to third-party content?

I just posted a link to the story with the #applepornfail hash tag on Twitter. Anyone else game? Spread the word.

djdole
May 22, 2009, 05:42 PM
We all knew they lacked the confidence in OSX to release it into the wild (general PC hardware wild, that is).
But who knew that they're also lacking confidence in the common sense of their customers (iPhone users)?!
That's a serious trust issue there Apple!

Considering the strong popularity of the iPhone, I don't see why they don't they just acknowledge in their user agreement that they can't control the content that users may encounter during normal use of their products.
Are they REALLY that afraid that some idiot user is going to sue them for content they neither created nor can control?

I mean, if anyone clues them in that the internet has porn, will they stop bundling Safari with their OSs? :rolleyes:

Why is Apple so xenophobic!?

djdole
May 22, 2009, 05:48 PM
PS: I hope i don't get banned again by MacRumors for this post. :(

Censoring for an opposing view or for content they don't like?
Is that an Apple trend MacRumors is trying to emulate?

I seriously hope not! :rolleyes:

MacJoe
May 22, 2009, 10:02 PM
I object to the racism, incest, murder, rape, slavery, violence, and mysogyny in the Bible so Apple should not approve any app that accesses the Bible. To whom at Apple should I direct my outrage?

designgeek
May 22, 2009, 11:28 PM
I object to the racism, incest, murder, rape, slavery, violence, and mysogyny in the Bible so Apple should not approve any app that accesses the Bible. To whom at Apple should I direct my outrage?

No kidding, I'm with you. I thought they were going to stop doing this. iGirl is ok but the Karma Sutra is not? What the hell?

iphones4evry1
May 23, 2009, 12:45 AM
I believe this comes back to the same argument that Metallica and numerous other App makers have made ... iPhone users can access any of this using the Safari browser. All this is is simply an piece of software that allows them to access it slighly more efficiently than using Safari. The people will have access to the content one way or another. Why hinder efficiency by forcing them to use Safari ?

macUser2007
May 23, 2009, 02:05 AM
LOL, most likely another example of the increasing religious idiocy taking over the country....

But then, didn't naked Eve make Adam bite into the forbidden fruit, which many think was an Apple... :D

NewSc2
May 23, 2009, 02:29 AM
But at the same time, I am sick and tired of every developer with a rejected app blogging and creating threads in the hopes of gaining attention. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to get rejected on purpose so they can complain later for the free attention/publicity.

What would be your natural response if you'd worked hard during your time off work, wrote an app that you thought would generate some revenue, and to have Apple say, "too bad, sucks for you"? I'm sure you'd be pretty pissed, and would want to bitch about it.

str1f3
May 23, 2009, 02:36 AM
LOL, most likely another example of the increasing religious idiocy taking over the country....

But then, didn't naked Eve make Adam bite into the forbidden fruit, which many think was an Apple... :D

I agree. You would think that apple is being run by Pat Robertson. The parental controls on 3.0 are essentially broken because of this. How do you slap a mature rating on a book reading app? It's amazing how the app store rewards violence and censors a natural biological function. Not only that but this book is a classic and is hundreds of years old.

So I guess naked Greek statues and Renaissance artwork of bare-chested women deserve a mature rating? This is censorship at it's worst. Why doesn't apple just sponsor a bill in Congress to burn books!

This app store process is such garbage. How do they let Baby Shaker though and say no to a book app? This is so much worse because it is potentially the best book reading app now. How many gun apps are there on the store?

Peter Maurer
May 23, 2009, 02:56 AM
... seriously though, here's what I think is wrong with the app store submission process: It's not that Apple is xenophobic, ivory-tower, or otherwise stupid. They just lack staff, they've always lacked staff, and they're in constant damage control mode. So they never get around to both establish and check effectively for compliance with any kind of reasonable standard with regard to these non-technical issues. (They tend to be very good at finding bugs and pointing you towards interface guidelines violations.)

So if the engineer who's reviewing your app doesn't like it, you have a problem. If only you had submitted it six hours later, you'd be selling it by now.

Cybbe
May 23, 2009, 06:05 AM
Apple should block all these Bible apps. Tons of explicit references, lots of gore, violence etc. I think most of them even present a mass-murderer of kids in a favourable light.

barkmonster
May 23, 2009, 06:38 AM
Apple should block all these Bible apps. Tons of explicit references, lots of gore, violence etc. I think most of them even present a mass-murderer of kids in a favourable light.

Not to mention they perpetuate mental illness by encouraging people over 5 to have an imaginary friend. :p

vaughntreco
May 23, 2009, 09:03 AM
Apple is prudent to reject this app. This holds true even though the same material can be accessed via other means through the iPod Touch and iPhone.

By approving this app without providing parents a means of protecting their children (i.e. the ability to block access to this kind of content), Apple would have been taking a position that both erodes parental rights and exposes children to sexually inappropriate material.

Thank you, Apple, for being respectful of the rights and responsibilities of parents, and the right of children not to be exposed to age-inappropriate sexual material.

I applaud your decision!

rw3
May 23, 2009, 09:24 AM
Apple should block all these Bible apps. Tons of explicit references, lots of gore, violence etc. I think most of them even present a mass-murderer of kids in a favourable light.

If this is true for you, then they should block all access to any type of literature. The fact of the matter is, if a kid has access to the internet or say even a library, they will have access to anything with explicit reference, gore, and violence. Saying that they should block all The Bible apps is lunacy, it is the #1 Best Seller of all time.

SpitzerCR
May 23, 2009, 11:25 AM
So there is purn stream sites set up for the iphone..
but kama sutra is just too much???:confused:

freediverdude
May 23, 2009, 11:29 AM
What I want to know is, how did they ever come up with knowing that it can download the Kama Sutra, among all the thousands of books on that service. How did they even know that one was available, without running huge keyword searches or something looking for it? It sounds like an excuse to me. I'm wondering what the real reason is.

Compile 'em all
May 23, 2009, 11:39 AM
Mobile Safari needs to be removed. you know, save the children!

ethen
May 23, 2009, 12:08 PM
I'm getting tired of Apple's treatment towards apps developer. Again, apple has too much power over dev apps distribution

grapefruitx
May 23, 2009, 12:16 PM
I think Apple have got plans (big) for Book readers of there own.

SpitzerCR
May 23, 2009, 12:41 PM
^^^^ very possible

Aron Peterson
May 23, 2009, 04:24 PM
A Hindu text on social etiquette and lovemaking is questionable content according to the Fruit Company's app reviewer. Will Apple remove the Bible and Quran from the App Store for recommending and condoning slavery, stoning, xenophobia and polygamy?

Benguitar
May 23, 2009, 07:15 PM
Why is Apple afraid of the sacred art of lovemaking?:confused:

Because they find it to be a private/personal thing that they do not want to promote, I respect them for that because it runs along side my beliefs. :)

SpitzerCR
May 23, 2009, 08:36 PM
if you dont want to read it...dont problem solved,just like movies.

fc4090
May 24, 2009, 12:03 AM
I just checked back, I can easily download and read kamasutra and other extreme erotic ebooks in Kindle, Stanza and Shortcovers apps. I don't believe there's any authenticity in this rumor.
Seems like subtle advertising is performed through this rumor.
I am no way going to purchase this $9.99 app. People who are interested to spend their hard-earned money for reading free books can now get this app in apple app store. Yes, it is released already and two fake reviews also been posted.

CharBroiled20s
May 24, 2009, 01:52 AM
Obviously, there are flaws in the approval process. And yes, Apple is being silly when they can just slap a 18+ warning on apps.

But at the same time, I am sick and tired of every developer with a rejected app blogging and creating threads in the hopes of gaining attention. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to get rejected on purpose so they can complain later for the free attention/publicity.

Good god, stop being so assy!

These developers pour anywhere from hundreds to thousands of hours into their apps! The least Apple can do is give them a concise reason for the rejection & adopt a balanced, fair & explicitly defined set of rejection terms. Instead they J. These developers off with meaningless form letters via email & leave virtually no recourse... If it weren't for their pesky blog posts you wouldn't hear anything about these rejections at all!

But here you sit poopooing the only only outlet for frustration they have.. Way to ignore the core problem & place the onus on the developers instead of acknowledging the core issue...

The approval process is too subjective

furi0usbee
May 24, 2009, 08:50 AM
I know he's busy pulling a vintage Dick Cheney (hidden in the bunker and all), but I'd like to know his take on these stupid censorship decisions. Does he approve? Does he even have any say? I'd think the big man at Apple would have some sway into what is going on.

This is all I have to say. I was a lifelong Windows user until I got so fed up with MS and Bill Gates and I switched to the Mac in 2005. I didn't ever think I would leave Windows. Now, I'm getting fed up with Apple. I don't think I could ever leave Apple because the software/hardware setup is just so much more superior than any PC with Windows I can buy. Having said that, Windows 7 looks pretty good and Apple keeps pissing me off.

What is Apple afraid of? Getting sued by some granny in Nebraska when she finds out her grandchild is having sex thanks to the Kama Sutra? Apple has $29 billion in the bank, let it put it's money where it's mouth is and pay for the risk and innovation that their technologies bring.

I don't want Apple to appeal to the masses. I want them to appeal to the small, strong, and loyal group that makes them who they are, that' buy's their products. I don't care who they offend with freedom of speech, and neither should Apple.

If this kind of stuff is happening when Steve Jobs is still there, just on leave, just think what will happen when he is no longer with Apple. This is pretty scary. Obviously, there are people in Apple who don't share Steve's views. These people are running the ship right now.

What's next, Apple is going to have control over 3rd party desktop software as well? Beware, this slippery slope can get messy. More people own Macs than iPhones, why not control the Mac too?

I think the worm is eating out the Apple from the inside. I only forsee bad things.

Bryan

mkrishnan
May 24, 2009, 11:47 AM
I think the worm is eating out the Apple from the inside. I only forsee bad things.

Incidentally, it appears Apple had already retracted its position and green-lighted the app while you were writing your diatribe. ;)

http://tinyurl.com/r5fghk
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=705762&highlight=eucalyptus

SpitzerCR
May 24, 2009, 12:24 PM
and see we had no hope .... they pull through everyone wins.. YAY :confused:

highmarcs
May 31, 2009, 08:04 PM
Why would Apple want to be in the business of determining what is "objectional content"?

I've always thought of Apple as a very liberal, progressive, modern California-esque company.

Actions like these are way...uncool and make Apple seem like it's run by a bunch of evangelical busybodies from Alabama or Mississippi, who want to regulate the "morals" of everyone else!

Apple has always stood out to me as "The Cool" California hipster company. Actions like this are anything but. Perhaps California is changing, I mean, they did manage to pass Prop 8 while the East Coast is busy granting marriage equality.

The Kama-Sutra is a CLASSIC piece of literature Apple. Please stop acting like some backwards Jesus Freak school marms from the deep South.

kas23
Jun 1, 2009, 04:33 AM
Why would Apple want to be in the business of determining what is "objectional content"?

I've always thought of Apple as a very liberal, progressive, modern California-esque company.

Actions like these are way...uncool and make Apple seem like it's run by a bunch of evangelical busybodies from Alabama or Mississippi, who want to regulate the "morals" of everyone else!

Apple has always stood out to me as "The Cool" California hipster company. Actions like this are anything but. Perhaps California is changing, I mean, they did manage to pass Prop 8 while the East Coast is busy granting marriage equality.

The Kama-Sutra is a CLASSIC piece of literature Apple. Please stop acting like some backwards Jesus Freak school marms from the deep South.

Apple wants to be the Moral Police lately. I agree their recent acts of censorship are very "un-californian" and non-progressive.

golden3159
Jun 5, 2009, 08:06 PM
Because they find it to be a private/personal thing that they do not want to promote, I respect them for that because it runs along side my beliefs. :)

Because that's the main purpose of the application, right?


Ugh...can people like you please go to a remote island and never have any contact with the rest of humanity? Seriously, you don't belong with normal people if you get offended so easily.

donbadman
Jun 10, 2009, 07:07 AM
Just read it online with Safari ;) Whilst using the ibrator...

InvalidUserID
Jun 11, 2009, 10:49 PM
Thanks for making the decision for us, Apple!

Now I'm off to go do as donbadman says!

read it online with Safari!

Oh no! The innuendo!

tjam
Jul 19, 2009, 12:06 AM
so if i use these free reader apps, where can i download the free books? are there newer books available for free download?

Divyesh
Jul 19, 2009, 12:52 AM
Come on Apple!!! Internet is for PORN:cool:

Heheheehe:D yeah but not for all actually it's all depend on application.

marshtric
Jul 20, 2009, 10:52 AM
If the rumor was true..??
It was a big disappoint to the KS lovers...
y apple prefers this doing


free movies (http://www.flixindex.com)

TAJones99
Aug 3, 2009, 02:07 PM
If you cant but stuff like that in the app store then what is the rating for again.