Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Invites Pulitzer Prize-Winning Cartoonist to Resubmit Rejected iPhone Application
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My impression is that Apple does not want to tell you what to watch on your iPhone. If Apple had built tools into Safari that prevented you from visiting x-rated sites or somehow made it impossible to for you to transfer adult content from your computer to your iPhone, then you definitely could accuse them of trying to control what you watch on your phone. My sense is that Apple cares about the reputation of their app store. They don't want it to be known for pornography. I can envision a situation in which pornography could dominate the top paid and free apps list. I can easily understand why Apple would not want that. Another important thing to consider is that in today's world it doesn't take much for a media frenzy to develop if your product is linked to some kind of sensational crime or scandal. That could undo all of their years of working to create a certain image. You can certainly watch pornography or other sexual content on your iPhone. Apple simply does not want you to use the apps in the app store to do it.
What does ANY of this have to do to Apple rejecting a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist from the App Store?
Nothing, directly. I was responding to a previous comment as you can see. There is an indirect connection to the cartoonist issue. My feeling is that there's a general failure to understand why Apple has a restrictive policy regarding what types of apps can appear in the app store. My post addressed the issue regarding the prohibition of pornography, instead of the issue of what defines an app with defamatory content as was the case with the cartoonist. There's also, in my opinion, a failure to appreciate that the lack of consistency in the app approval process is a result of Apple being unable to anticipate every scenario and nuance that is presented by certain apps, and the fact that Apple hires people to review apps. You can't realistically expect different people to always agree on situations that are slightly different. In order to respond to the explosion of submitted apps, Apple must have had to hire a lot of new reviewers. That means that you may have less control over the quality and experience level of the people that you have working as reviewers.
This is a whole lot of excuses, for a policy which is simply inexcusable.
There are many other companies which sell applications and content, which don't resort to such draconian measures. When I download a new version of Firefox on my desktop, I don't get a warning that it may provide access to inappropriate content. Neither Apple, nor MS arbitrarily ban desktop applications from being purchased or distributed.
Apple wants to be a publishing distributor. If they can object to and ban the cartoon today, why not object to and ban an article in The Economist tomorrow?
Apple has become Big Brother. It wants to control every purchase and every download, so it doesn't miss a single dollar you may otherwise spend outside the walled garden. And these are the predictable consequences.
This makes me wonder...and I apologize if this info is out there somewhere that I haven't seen yet....but do we know exactly what process Apple uses to approve apps? How many people see/try/evaluate the app during the approval process? The way it sounds it's as though there's a ton of apps in a large queue and an intern grabs one, tries it, thinks "this looks good" or "this can't pass", puts a stamp on it and goes to the next.
That may, but at least code submissions are possible. When was the last time you heard of Apple accepting community-submitted iPhone OS code? Oh, right. Not possible. Someone still needs to oversee core code submissions, and that's how ALL software works. In this case, Google is the lead developer so they oversee those submissions.
Valid point. They have updated it pretty quickly, but it seems to be a bit slower now.
There are language packs available, and as a user, you can translate core apps if you need to and submit them to be added.
Wrong.. Unlike the iPhone, on Android you can install any application you want from any source you want. Does the Market make things easier? Yes. Is it required for app installation and distribution? No.
Little is known about a lot of stuff. But in this case, if it hasn't negatively affected users or developers in any noticeable way, what's the problem with the higher-up business deals/agreements?
It'd be nice to see what's coming up, but
And said approval has already been given: http://www.android.com/branding.html
I'll take the 10 sq mi garden over the 10 sq ft garden any day.
This can be done today on Android. In fact, you could make your own marketplace-like app for specialized distributions on Android if you wanted (like those scary things that Apple won't allow -- political commentary, "offensive" things, etc)
Probably the same reason "what does the original post have to do with the Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist getting his app rejected." This person was merely commenting on another posters post.
I am waiting to see if the app gets rejected a second time before I lay judgment.