Last week, controversy erupted when Apple took down an application from the iPhone App Store and, according to reports at TechCrunch, told the developer the app was being removed because it contained “objectionable material.”
The company has been forced to deal with criticism since the store’s inception over how it approves or rejects different applications. In several cases, those watching the approval process were left scratching their heads.
For its part, Apple said that it has been receiving complaints over some of the applications in the store and it felt that it had a responsibility to minimise the number of people being offended at any time.
Admittedly, it’s a tough balance. And Apple’s position on not wanting to offend others makes some sense. But what doesn’t make sense is exactly how its App Store works. What constitutes an “objectionable” app? What sorts of apps are more likely to be accepted than others? We might think we know the answer, but as the past week has shown, we probably don’t.
So here are 10 reasons why Apple’s App Store policies just don’t make sense.
Apple is notorious for allowing an application into its store, only to inform the developer at some point in the future that, as it turns out, the app should never have been in the store, after all. Apple’s decision to remove sexual content from its App Store is not an isolated incident. It has been allowing applications in and removing them at a later time since the launch of its marketplace. And chances are, it won’t stop that practice anytime soon.
At the same time, Apple has, on several occasions, rejected an application only to allow it in after feeling a significant amount of public and private pressure. One of the most notable rejections was a Nine Inch Nails app. Originally, Apple decided to reject it due to objectionable content that might have been accessed from within the app. After the band’s front man, Trent Reznor, made it known that he was more than a little upset over the rejection, Apple backtracked and allowed it in.
One of the main issues many critics have with Apple’s most recent removal of over 5,000 applications from its store is that it didn’t remove “big-name” brands, like Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit app. Apple contends that it allows those apps to stay in its store because they come from well-known companies. But should size and notoriety really play a role in the approval of applications in Apple’s store?
A common complaint with Apple’s App Store is that the company is far too secretive over what it will allow and what it will reject. Apple can’t be expected to outline every kind of application it will allow, but when an app is denied access, the company needs to do more to explain to developers why their applications were rejected. Enough secrecy, Apple
Page: 1 2
Targetting AWS, Microsoft? British competition regulator soon to announce “behavioural” remedies for cloud sector
Move to Elon Musk rival. Former senior executive at X joins Sam Altman's venture formerly…
Bitcoin price rises towards $100,000, amid investor optimism of friendlier US regulatory landscape under Donald…
Judge Kaplan praises former FTX CTO Gary Wang for his co-operation against Sam Bankman-Fried during…
Explore the future of work with the Silicon In Focus Podcast. Discover how AI is…
Executive hits out at the DoJ's “staggering proposal” to force Google to sell off its…
View Comments
With all this talk of offending this person or that person, I'm actually, quite literally, offended. I'm guessing they do this, because they don't want to loose customers, or business. Well, by continuing their practices, I think they're going to offend enough other people, who may or may not take their business elsewhere, that it's not going to matter if they kept the original clients that were origninally offended. One other thought, perhaps this is a smart business move. I can't help but think where a lot of the money comes from to buy Apple's products . . . Mom & Dad. Apple is seen as a cool young brand. I wouldn't think very many people, oh say 19 or so to 24, or somewhere around there would be able to afford the products, with school and not being established and all. So you have a large population of teens, that say to Mom and Dad, I want that, it's cool. 9 times out of 10 they get it. Idk, perhaps it does make good business sense to operate how they do.