

Apple Rejects EFF Updates App, because it links "objectionable" youtube video - evdawg
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/oh-come-apple-reject

======
tocomment
Has anyone seen this one before?

"We cannot post this iPhone application to the App Store at this time because
it encourages a physical activity that could result in a customer damaging
their iPhone."

That's what they told me for my beloved Falling Man app
<http://www.blendedtechnologies.com/iphone-applications/> :-(

I guess it's one of the more reasonable rejecting reasons, eh? I'm not
worried, it was my first project, just playing with the accelerometer.

------
axod
I know it's in the rules not to post comments moaning, but do we really need a
live feed of every single app store rejection on here? Is it useful or
interesting? It's linkbait + spam IMHO.

If you don't want the risk of developing for a closed platform, don't do it!
But please please please stop whining about it.

~~~
billymeltdown
Axod, I don't think it's that bad (linkbait, wise), and:

I like to know about such things because I'm also an app developer. I also
think it should be publicized because it's outrageous bull.

Even if I wasn't an app developer, I'd think this was interesting on grounds
of knowing how people get content, and who can/does censor that access.

Also, there wasn't any whining in the EFF article.

~~~
axod
How many people on here are not aware that:

* Apple censors stuff * Apple aren't consistent * Apple take random time to approve/deny apps.

I'd be surprised if many people aren't aware of those facts by now. It'd be
news IMHO if any of the above changed.

I personally don't find it outrageous in the least. It's their platform to do
with what they wish. Developing on top of someone else is a big risk. Just as
if you build something on top of twitter, they could and might cut off access
if they decide to.

~~~
xenophanes
I'm aware _because_ these stories get posted here. I like them.

~~~
axod
So you enjoy news saying "Yup, Apple still reject random stuff, nothings
changed"?

We have different definitions of 'news' ;)

~~~
alexandros
Well in that sense, try to figure out what percentage of HN gets invalidated
by the following 'news items':

"PG Still writes articles, nothing's changed"

"Big Companies still acquire Startups, nothings changed"

"VCs still fund startups, nothings changed

"Startups still want feedback for their apps, nothings changed"

Sometimes details matter.

------
DenisM
I see the pitfals of a non-scalable business model.

Apple has a few parts of their business that do not scale well: retail stores
and app vetting process. In either case the per-employee marginal revenue is
small in these sectors and so the cost has to be managed.

Same is not true for scalable businesses such Mac OS X development where per-
employee marginal revenue is very high and you can actualy afford to hire the
brightestand and train them well.

~~~
froo
_I see the pitfals of a non-scalable business model._

And yet only recently Techcrunch did a piece on just how profitable Apple's
mobile phone business actually is.

[http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/01/the-spoils-go-to-the-
sm...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/01/the-spoils-go-to-the-smartest-
apple-and-rim-take-majority-of-cell-phone-industry-profits/)

They have a large chunk of the mindshare when it comes to mobile phones,
they're making a bucketload in sales, not only in phone but with apps... just
how is that not a scalable business model? Do you have any data to backup your
claim?

~~~
DenisM
Firstly, Wal-Mart is hugely successful and their business does not scale at
all. If you find yourself in such business you have to be very good at
controlling costs, but you can still be very profitable.

In the case of Apple I perhaps should be more accurate - their business has
parts that do not scale well and parts that do scale well. The stores and the
app review parts do not scale, therefore Apple must be super-diligent in
controlling costs there. Result of cost-control is of course less trained and
less well paid personnel. Hence the gaffes with review process are to be
expected. Apple's fault is in not designing a proper escalation process (other
than the "Techcrunch PR egg-on-face channel") .

By the way, the jury is still out on how much the app sales are bringing to
Apple and what are the costs of the review process. I've seen analysis (can't
find it now) that has shown Apple is barely breaking even on the apps
themselves and make all their money on hardware. Which is nothing new - they
used to make next to nothing from iTunes music store and make a lot of money
with iPods. So the more reasons to control costs.

------
joel_feather
On a small tangent, getting rejected by the app store probably made the
Eucalyptus Reader a few thousand extra dollars.

~~~
pstinnett
This is a great point. I wish there was some stat on how many people heard of
Eucalyptus Reader via the press around its rejection.

~~~
calambrac
How is this a great point? How does this 'fact' (serious question: does anyone
actually know if this is true?) at all inform how we should feel about Apple's
app approval process?

It's not like every app that gets unfairly rejected gets this kind of
publicity - Eucalyptus did because it caught Gruber's attention and he blogged
about it; this one did because it's coming right on the heels of the
Eucalyptus incident and it's the EFF.

So, seriously, what, exactly, are we supposed to take from this point?

~~~
pstinnett
Maybe I misused the word "point". I do think it would be interesting to see
some sort of analysis on how press attention regarding rejected apps affects
sales.

------
ube
Couldn't Apple just leverage facebook's 150+ porn patrol employees?

All kidding aside - how could you systematically enforce guidelines on
applications when the universe of applications is wide open? In other words,
there's no baseline so how could you create test case?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a group of iphone users (i.e. folks that
like to play with anything on the iphone) and have them vote on the app?
(apple could reward these users with the app for free or some other random
goodies - itouch, ipods, etc...)

------
swixmix
You guys are funny.

One post talks about not wanting Apple Rejects on HackerNews, and another
talks about how Apple is censoring applications.

First Apple, then HackerNews, next we'll be claiming that our own mother's try
to influence us! I won't believe it.

------
obvioustroll
Isn't the EFF just guessing at what Apple found "objectionable"? I mean, Apple
doesn't usually tell you....

------
crabl
Funny video! I watched it on my iPhone using the built-in YouTube app...

------
st3fan
Dear EFF, please sue Apple.

~~~
axod
For what??? Seriously. What would they sue Apple for? Apple don't have to let
you onto their app store. They don't even have to be fair or consistent.

~~~
jrockway
Intel thought the same about their treatment of AMD. Now Intel is out several
billion dollars.

Turns out that anti-competitive business practices are not legal.

~~~
zimbabwe
Since when was the EFF competing with Apple? You're mental.

~~~
jrockway
_Since when was the EFF competing with Apple? You're mental._

I would be if I said anything remotely resembling that.

When Apple arbitrarily rejects applications, it can be construed as being
anti-competitive. While at this point, it's not overt (like saying, if your
company makes an Android app, we will never approve your iPhone app), the
infrastructure is in place for implementing this system. Maybe it's happening
now, and we just don't notice.

Anyway, just saying that this might not actually be OK. Or, it might be. (Try
writing software for your favorite video game system.)

~~~
zimbabwe
That's pretty damned paranoid. I've read no stories of anything similar to
that.

The system is fucked up, obviously, but there's a difference between fucked up
and totalitarian, and it's pretty huge leap from one to the other.

Last I heard, lots of developers were releasing video games cross-platform;
not quite sure I understand you.

