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's App Store Review Guidelines Offer Remarkably Candid View of App Store Philosophy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
re: everyone else should be limited?
Nope.... not quite what I said! What I was pointing out is simply that Apple made a correct assessment of the current overall situation when it comes to using "content restriction tools" to ensure the tools are safe for kids' use.
Again, I largely blame Microsoft for the lack of effective use of such tools on computers today. Time and time again, they promised they had "solutions" on various versions of the Windows platform for all of this, when in reality, they only offered broken, half-baked answers that gave people a false sense of security, or caused grief and added expense with no good results.
But since their platform is what 90%+ of the computer-using public is familiar with and uses/owns? That poses a problem for ALL players in the technology game!
And again, Apple (and all of us in the original topic of this message thread!) were talking about how this relates to the iPhone/iPad, and NOT to home computers. I maintain that, again, Apple is correct in realizing that a smartphone or iPad tablet is really a device you buy/use for certain tasks and not ALL computer-related needs. It's NOT a full-blown desktop or even notebook PC! That being said, the next step is to look at your target market. WHAT are people REALLY doing with these products? More and more, you're seeing iPads getting used in EDUCATION and iPhones getting used for both corporate communications and as devices shared by a whole family. All of these uses mean content filtered apps (no hard-core porn or extreme violence/gore or promotion of "hate crimes") would be a net benefit!
So in that light, Apple is offering what the majority of their customer-base for the product finds beneficial. Good for them! They know their customer! You can stand around all day pointing out why you dislike it on principle, or because you want to use the device in a different manner... but Apple shouldn't really care. It's not about "pleasing all of the people, all of the time". It's about successful marketing to the majority of potential buyers. I think they realize that if these devices become the "new standard" to replace textbooks in education, that market alone DWARFS concerns you have about not being able to see some nudie app on your iPhone.
Nope.... not quite what I said! What I was pointing out is simply that Apple made a correct assessment of the current overall situation when it comes to using "content restriction tools" to ensure the tools are safe for kids' use.
Again, I largely blame Microsoft for the lack of effective use of such tools on computers today. Time and time again, they promised they had "solutions" on various versions of the Windows platform for all of this, when in reality, they only offered broken, half-baked answers that gave people a false sense of security, or caused grief and added expense with no good results.
But since their platform is what 90%+ of the computer-using public is familiar with and uses/owns? That poses a problem for ALL players in the technology game!
And again, Apple (and all of us in the original topic of this message thread!) were talking about how this relates to the iPhone/iPad, and NOT to home computers. I maintain that, again, Apple is correct in realizing that a smartphone or iPad tablet is really a device you buy/use for certain tasks and not ALL computer-related needs. It's NOT a full-blown desktop or even notebook PC! That being said, the next step is to look at your target market. WHAT are people REALLY doing with these products? More and more, you're seeing iPads getting used in EDUCATION and iPhones getting used for both corporate communications and as devices shared by a whole family. All of these uses mean content filtered apps (no hard-core porn or extreme violence/gore or promotion of "hate crimes") would be a net benefit!
So in that light, Apple is offering what the majority of their customer-base for the product finds beneficial. Good for them! They know their customer! You can stand around all day pointing out why you dislike it on principle, or because you want to use the device in a different manner... but Apple shouldn't really care. It's not about "pleasing all of the people, all of the time". It's about successful marketing to the majority of potential buyers. I think they realize that if these devices become the "new standard" to replace textbooks in education, that market alone DWARFS concerns you have about not being able to see some nudie app on your iPhone.
Ok, how about games like Grand Theft Auto (which I notice, Apple does allow on their phone)?
Or any game deemed too violent for kids (which is a lot of them. Funny once again how violence is ok but porn isn't. And I'll even say, I'm more likely to buy a violent game than a porn app, so I'm not saying this cause I prefer porn. But I can easily see where a game like Grand Theft Auto is something I would much less like my kid to be playing, at least without supervision, than a porn app).
Yeah, sure, maybe porn there isn't a point. But it also eliminates a lot of games really. Well, except for some reason at least in the US we have some sort of standard that killing and murdering people is fine for kids to watch but not a naked body.
Point. But let me point out, it's not just the nudie apps. At least I would hope a parent would also care about all hte violent games. That... well, Apple does allow. I can name two off the top of my head I'd be concerned about a kid playing, Grand Theft Auto and 5 seconds to kill yourself. I'm sure we can find more violent games for kids to play on the iphone.
Kiddy safing the device will totally kill a lot of its gaming market. And yes, here I will say that effects me cause I don't want a Nintendo device for a phone. I do like the fact it is becoming somewhat of a serious gaming device. But they'd have to pretty much become like Nintendo if they seriously want it to be kid safe (and Nintendo is fine for kids, but eliminates a lot of more interesting games for older kids/adults).
You've been pretty close in the Casino category. Depending on how you're defining your costs, sure. If you're talking about recouping the $99 annual fee, that's one thing. If you're talking about that plus paying yourself minimum wage off it, that's entirely something else.
If you're talking about running an app development company that has a couple employees that take a reasonable annual salary, that's entirely something else altogether. And that's not going to happen without a MAJOR hit app. That's the risk I'm talking about.
Viable for hobbyist vs. viable for indie vs. viable for corporate are very different things.
No, I think it's you. You seem to want absolute guidelines, but unfortunately the world is not black and white but many shades of gray. Laws, for instance, are usually excruciatingly well defined, but justice is not, because we have judges to make evaluations as to the applicability of laws and determination of outcome. I'd rather have judges than rigidity. Judges can have biases, but overall the whole system works much better than the alternatives.
He did not develop apps during his employment according to Apple. You are talking about the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. How mundane the apps are does matter. If he is not making significant amounts of money from the apps, what is his incentive? What makes you think that he was part of the decision to highlight fart apps? What makes you think he has anything to do with reviews? Do you have any evidence to support an actual conflict of interest?
I am actually aware of what I wrote. It is not a perfect analogy, but I'm pretty sure the point that I was trying to make is clear.
Last I checked, to be able to install apps on your iDevice, you need a credit card linked to your iTunes account. How many "kids" do you know with their own credit cards?
I think apple has already "saved our children" from inappropriate ads. Plus, if you do allow your child to use your CC, so long as the account is linked to YOUR email, you will be getting receipts of what's downloaded/purchased and will know if your child is abusing their privileges. Simple and effective.
I'm not advocating for or against Porn apps, but should such apps be allowed, they would very quickly dominate the app store by numbers. Look at the internet as a whole and you'll get the picture.
I believe Apple wants to protect their image of a company that cares about "family values". It is certainly not blocking porn and violence because these markets are invaluable. Contrary. They make up the biggest revenues in the internet.
I think apple has already "saved our children" from inappropriate ads. Plus, if you do allow your child to use your CC, so long as the account is linked to YOUR email, you will be getting receipts of what's downloaded/purchased and will know if your child is abusing their privileges. Simple and effective.
I'm not advocating for or against Porn apps, but should such apps be allowed, they would very quickly dominate the app store by numbers. Look at the internet as a whole and you'll get the picture.
I believe Apple wants to protect their image of a company that cares about "family values". It is certainly not blocking porn and violence because these markets are invaluable. Contrary. They make up the biggest revenues in the internet.
While at first read I agreed that we don't need more fart apps and then store has become amateur hour, I am starting to realize it is more about search filtering and the review process. Many good apps get lousy reviews since they initially have a few bugs.
I think Apple should create a professional review committee in addition to user reviews as a start. I'll look more closely at a 2 star app that has a 4 star pro review and can filter my results to ignore any app with lower than a 2 star pro review.
Developers would scream if their app got a low pro review but they could actually read the review and try and make it better and resubmit an update to get a higher pro review.
Thoughts?
I think Apple should create a professional review committee in addition to user reviews as a start. I'll look more closely at a 2 star app that has a 4 star pro review and can filter my results to ignore any app with lower than a 2 star pro review.
Developers would scream if their app got a low pro review but they could actually read the review and try and make it better and resubmit an update to get a higher pro review.
Thoughts?
How does one define "crapware" and "me too apps"? Your view of crapware is much different than someone else's.
As an app developer I *welcome* more apps in the store - the market will decide what is successful and what is not. If people buy an app, the app is not crapware to them, nor to the developer who made the app. I happen to think SimpleNote is crapware and I'd love it banned from the AppStore, but that's *my* opinion. Many others like it, so obviously it shouldn't be banned.
If an app violates a policy that Apple has put in place, then yes, dump the app from the AppStore. But using the excuse that "there are already plenty of apps that do X" as a reason to not allow an app in the AppStore is insanely near sighted of them [and you].
/vjl/
Sheer genius. By declaring earlier in no uncertain terms that their standards for the User Experience are too high to allow third-party tools to muck it
up, Apple simply strengthened the integrity of their brand, thereby increasing consumer demand for a platinum-class experience. And now, due to the same increasing demand, Apple consolidates their position by letting in that "other" group of devs who might have wanted to go to Android.
Timing. Apple is a master of it.
up, Apple simply strengthened the integrity of their brand, thereby increasing consumer demand for a platinum-class experience. And now, due to the same increasing demand, Apple consolidates their position by letting in that "other" group of devs who might have wanted to go to Android.
Timing. Apple is a master of it.
It's Apple's definition of crapware that matters here. They may make the right or wrong decision. They can be Walmart or they can be Nieman Marcus or something in between.
This speaks of someone who is not an app developer. Right now it is very EASY to justify the time/effort in developing an app. It is a HUGE opportunity that other mobile platforms still haven't got right. The cost of developing an app is a lot less for the iOS platform than it is for other platforms that require licensing deals with carriers, etc, etc. Yes, with Android and WebOS that started to change, but only after iOS had the AppStore. For $100 or $200 a year, one can sell an app on the AppStore. Before 2008, that entry fee was a couple of zeros higher on other platforms.
Right now there are apps that one could write and publish/sell that take an afternoon or a week to develop. The return for the developer is *usually* proportionate to the effort put into the app, but then there are apps that have made many developers rich that took less than a day. [one of those interactive dot screensaver type apps for iPad is a perfect example - the guy charged 99 cents for an app that took him an afternoon to write and it has made a lot of money for him].
Defining "crapware" is subjective. Defining "usefulness" is subjective. Why allow someone's *opinion* on what is crap and useful dictate what apps get approved and which ones don't?
And no, you don't have to be in the Top 100 of any category to make a fair amount of money with your app. Remember, the AppStore is a Store first, with very little promotion. It is up to the developer to do marketing outside the AppStore. If a program is crap, but marketed well, it can see a big boost in revenue [example in the Mac world - MR recently posted a front page story ad for a Mac app made by RealMac Software - many thought/think the app is crap, but due to the marketing folks at RealMac, they got a lot of people trying and buying the software due to the MR ad, e.mail marketing messages, and Twitter postings].
/vjl/
Yes. Isn't it remarkable that developers have managed to make money on so many other "un-curated" platforms? If you are so concerned about developers, how about allowing developers to have access to buyers (at least having some way to contact them if they opt-in), allowing developers to offer upgrade pricing, allowing developers to offer bundle pricing, allowing developers to offer cross-platform pricing, etc.? Only by the most distorted of logic does censoring apps based on content help developers.
You're describing the exact problem with the App Store. Virtually nothing that can be developed in an afternoon is of any value - but they'll get a few impulse buys no matter how bad they are when they hit New Releases. The problem is, good apps that take a few months to develop perform about the same. So the incentive is to make a lot of really bad "in an afternoon" apps, and that's what a lot of people do.
I don't know where you people are getting your expectations from. I'm sure it varies by category, but without naming names, there is an app in Games/Puzzle that is hanging around 600 today in the US. It is a 99 cent app and it gets _one_ sale about every other week. With the current payout minimums, that's a check about every two years.
Altho this post is off topic... Here are things Apple just cant get right that android has OTB.
1. Over the air updates
2. Settings menu is self contained in each app, Iphone you have to exit to get to most settings for indvidual app... like messaging.. email.. etc.
3. Widgets, anyone who says they arent useful is lying to themselve, or have never used one.
4. Google Nav... Nuff said
5. Location based weather updates(with Sense its very very clean)
6. Access to file system(may not matter to non techies, but to me gold)
7. Ablity to install .apk file from any source I want outside android market.
8. Ablity to apps to interact with each other, apps are not sand boxed. If I take a picture and click "share" It bring up EVERY APP that has an ablity to upload to a server.... Flickr, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter(any and all variations), email, etc.
9. Ablity to change any stock app I want... different messagin client? ok i can get one and try it... different calendar? yep I can try it too..
I can go on on and on...
Back on topic, I do wish Android Market was a little bit cleaner... but like some other posters said.. I dont care, because if I want an app ill search for it.. if its there great, if not I move on... the amount of content doesnt matter at that point.
NOT ONLY THAT, but android allows 24 to 48 hours to try apps... if you do not like the app simply unistall and you get a refund. APPLE NEEDS THIS... its annoy az hell on my Ipad.
This is where android wins, allow developer to reach buyers of there apps directly. whether it be download from their webpage or offering incentive for upgradings and such.
Welcome to America my friend. Violence has always been ok here even on TV but yet we still do not see porn on public TV. Look how people freaked out over the Janet Jackson half time show issue but yet they are all watching a sport of violence and that is ok. We can watch movie trailers during the Superbowl of things blowing up and people dying but in no way should people have to see a boob. We have some very messed up standards here. We praise something unnatural like death and destruction and shy away from any talk about Sex which is natural.
Like porn or not but I just don't understand why people get so worked up over the topic of sex. I mean we all do it at some point in our lives but yet most of us will never hurt or kill somebody. Personally I would be a bit more disturbed if somebody fantasized about killing me. (Which I'm sure some PC users do)
There's a difference. We see simulated violence on TV. We also see simulated sex on TV. They are used for dramatic effect and to tell a story. Porn is not simulated. You won't find any shows on television where people line people against the wall and shoot them in the back of the head with real bullets for laughs.
And when violence as entertainment does approach the level of porn - such as cage fighting - you WILL find plenty of people who don't want their kids to see it.