Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Jun 2009 09:26 UTC, submitted by alcibiades
Apple We all know Apple's App Store policies are a bit willy-nilly, inconsistent, and completely unreliable. This issue has been going on for a while now, and it doesn't see like anything has changed. The latest interesting App Store rejection is especially interesting, as it involves Apple rejecting an application related to one of its detractors: the EFF.
Thread beginning with comment 367178
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Here's how it works
by whartung on Fri 5th Jun 2009 17:12 UTC
whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

There's an old saying, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

That, effectively, is one of the drivers in terms of evaluation of an App on the iPhone.

If an App on the iPhone leads to "objectionable material", then that material may just as well be bundled in within the App itself. At a minimum, the application is a gateway to objectionable material.

Now it's easy to say "I can surf the most heinous sites on the internet on Safari on the iPhone, what's the difference?"

Simple, the difference is that Apple doesn't know or care what you surf, and, specifically, it hasn't SEEN what you surf.

But if you create an app that acts as a portal to "heinous material", then the app is effectively that heinous material, and Apple isn't going to let that application through.

Apple tested this app and "saw" questionable content. If Apple had not see this content, the App would have likely passed. Because later, if someone complained that "I ran this app from the iPhone and got terrible content", Apple could justifiably say "well, it wasn't there when we reviewed the applications." They have reasonable deniability about the content.

But, here, Apple "saw" the content, now it "knows" it's there, so they're standing behind their content policy.

I think it's fair that Apple would allow a dedicated "disney.com" RSS reader rather than a dedicated "sexwithgoatsonfire.com" reader.

Perhaps later if they enable Parental Controls on the phone and app store, you can get your "sexwithgoatsonfire.com" RSS feedreader.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Here's how it works
by dindin on Fri 5th Jun 2009 17:56 in reply to "Here's how it works"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

I guess what your saying is that when Apple tested the Safari browser, they did not go to Playboy.com and hence it pass the test. I guess the same logic would be true for their YouTube application also - during all their tests they never tested against material that could have 'offended' anyone.

Apple New/SameOld Moto: Your right to express depends on what we think of it. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Here's how it works
by MamiyaOtaru on Fri 5th Jun 2009 19:22 in reply to "Here's how it works"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

But if you create an app that acts as a portal to "heinous material", then the app is effectively that heinous material, and Apple isn't going to let that application through.

Apple tested this app and "saw" questionable content. If Apple had not see this content, the App would have likely passed. Because later, if someone complained that "I ran this app from the iPhone and got terrible content", Apple could justifiably say "well, it wasn't there when we reviewed the applications." They have reasonable deniability about the content.


A: Apple changed their mind and unbanned the NIN app.

B: You really think someone is going to complain to Apple about "terrible content" from the EFF? You really think the EFF puts out content that is heinous and not worthy of being seen? OK fine you object to Downfall parodies. But srsly..

Reply Parent Score: 3