I'm really struggling to be offended that this guy is making money on a side business selling things that people buy, even if I wouldn't personally buy them and think they are kind of puerile.
I guess the article's author wants us to contrast the puerility of the director's apps with the fact that it's his job to decide which apps get rejected on the basis of content.
But maybe this is exactly the kind of person one would want in charge of the decision-making process? ...someone who knows that if the content bar is set too high, he would never have gotten into the app store -- and his current job.
Sadly no; I suspect that if he's lowering the bar here, he has to unreasonably raise it somewhere else to make him look like he's doing his job. Considering the infamous reasons apps have been rejected, I'm not sure I'm wrong on this.
He was embarrassed enough to try and purge all history connecting him to his company's apps. I think that says enough. I'm not offended, but I think that it is pretty low class.
That being said, I don't know if this character assassination by Wired is warranted. It is just some idiot selling fart apps. Not exactly newsworthy.
I don't know if you're pretending or if you really missed the point, but it isn't that Python would kill his apps. It's that his apps get special protection.
Fart apps are essentially the poster child for "crapware" in the App Store. Anytime someone wants to criticize the App Store, they will probably point to apps like the ones he's making. But while Apple constantly expands its list of unacceptable things (the programming language ban is merely the most ridiculous, not the only the thing on the list), fart apps remain the one genre that seems untouchable. It's a messed up state of affairs.
It's a pretty far leap (down right silly, really) from "man sells some silly apps prior to getting job curating App Store at Apple" to "fart apps would be banned if only he weren't giving them special protection!"
There is literally no evidence to support the latter interpretation.
Do people complain that they can't let their kids look at the App Store because of Scheme apps or apps that superimpose the time over an image? Don't see the relevance. Even for objectionable apps, you can just block them.
