Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Aug 2009 18:03 UTC
Permalink for comment 377656
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-14
But, it doesn't seem to be a "half-truth"; Schiller says they didn't censor it, but then he says they rejected it because it included uncommon-but-possibly-offensive words.
So, which way is it, Apple? Rejecting because of content, and then accepting it after the content is removed (and requiring a 17+ rating, wtf) sounds like censorship to me.
Still not willing to spend any time doing iPhone development, the review process is capricious and seems to take a completely random amount of time. Developers need to be able to make updates available quicker and easier.
- chrish