Developer: Serious Doubts About App Store, Does Apple Care?

Someone suggested ESRB ratings, but that has the problem of requiring the ESRB to issue them (for a fee and time delay, of course.)
One thing that the ESRB does is require games to clearly indicate that the rating does not apply when you use online multiplayer.
Apple should do the same thing.

"They're being served with lawsuits."
That wording suggests they have already been sued on this front. Have they, ever?

I dont see the big deal about all this. so the app has to have a 17+ rating, so? The article sounds like a Dev mad he cant give away free copies to his buddies, and his gripe is with the app submission software itself.
I agree with the 1st comment, this is lawsuit protection. Apple has deep pockets and people will go after them first.
And I know someone will ask, "well whats the difference between these apps and Safari." Well, from what I can tell legally, Safari requires YOU the user to go after the offending content. The app PROVIDES you with the content. So there's a difference with liability there and who initiated the material getting to the underage users.
Its kind of like asking were you just sitting there and got hit by a car, or were you chasing after someone at 100 mph and got hit by another car. One youre kind of bringing the results upon yourself by your own actions.
Same thing with the apps, the content comes to you when you may be unaware of its content without the rating system. On Safari, you know what youre going after to look at, theres no mistakes there really.

I don't know how to say this without angering all of the developers. But here's the thing. The developers are - as they have every right to - focusing on the 1% of the App store that is not working. And the developers affected represent 1% of all the people who care about the app store. So while I hope that all of the grievances are addressed quickly and satisfactorily, I also want to point out that the developers have lost perspective. Overall the App Store is the biggest, greatest winner of the past two years in tech and may have set Apple up to dominate the mobile OS market for the next decade. So keep on complaining, and keep on making the App store better. But keep things in context.

What I don't understand is why nobody has sued Apple over the rejections yet. Microsoft was sued over restricting programs to a much lesser extent than Apple. And the lost... Big time.
If amyone wants sexual content on the iPhone they just open Safari and search "iPhone porn". Lots of sites out there specifically designed for the iPhone.

The fact is, it isn't a big deal. What you have is a small, very small, fraction of developers who don't understand/accept/agree with the approval process. They use their websites to fire off missives to the Mac community voicing their annoyance with the App Store process. Many are experienced shareware developers who have always had free rein in selling their creations and now simply don't like having to follow rules they find either constraining or inexplicable. Because websites like this report their rants, they mistakenly assume their opinion matters, not only to the public, but Apple as well. It doesn't.

@stulaw11
The problem is that Apple is not just putting this label on apps that push unsolicited content to the user. I do not think anybody has a problem with age restrictions for apps that are clearly intended for a separate audience.
However, Apple is also forcing the restriction on neutral-purpose apps that require the user to go fetch content, and they are doing so inconsistently. In the Kama Sutra/ereader example, the app was rejected because a user could search for the Kama Sutra, download it, and read it. This made the ereader a purveyor of objectionable content in Apple's eyes, despite the fact that it only provides content a user directly and specifically requests, and using the same series of steps that Safari would require. Safari, and for that matter Stanza and the Kindle app could also download books just as "racy," and yet they are happily available on the iPhone.
It is the arbitrary nature and inconsistent application of the standards that infuriate developers, not the existence of standards themselves.

Good response fassy. stulaw was a little misguided there. Maybe this is Apple's way of standardizing these apps that offer this functionality. So perhaps, and hopefully, we won't see so many random app denials like the ereader example above. Theyd put an age verification on everything rather than outright denying apps.

@fassy
Oh no, I totally hear you. Im just trying to give a best guess answer.
For something like e-books, we dont know if Apple would share the liability for something like this for the other company providing the offensive content to a minor if all Apple provided was the reader and way to get to toe e-books. Its still a case of Apple doing a "cover your ass" move.
There is still a big difference though with a browser. Apple simply cant control the internet or what is on it, nor what people go view on it. I dont think such a case would every fly with any judge I know to censor a web browser because someone went to a naughty website. You cant control what people go view.
But in the case of ANY app, Apple essentially puts their stamp on it that it was approved by them to be content appropriate, thus shifting at least some liability onto Apple once it passes approval.
This really is a cover your ass move by Apple. But really who can blame them? Theyre the ones with their butts on the line if they get sued for millions of dollars, not us and not the complaining Devs.

and I agree the previous approval or denials dont make sense, but this is about doing it for all apps. So were talking a little different situation now.

Am I nuts or does this all seem very Orwellian?!?!?! I don't care one way or the other if porn/nudity apps are restricted on the App Store, but there is a lot of reference in general to kids getting access to inappropriate content. Where are their parents in all this??? What am I missing? If you don't want your children to have access to just about anything on the internet, then don't give them or allow them to have an internet-phone. Please somebody pinch me (for the all the Apple censors, I don't mean that in an inappropriate way ;-) and help me understand why parents are somehow permitted to do whatever they want in decision-making with their kids but then Apple is somehow responsible if something slips through the cracks of their review process? I'm more than happy to hear counter-arguments because there has to be something I'm missing here. It just seems that even the tone of these articles seems to suggest a raging lack of personal responsibility and accountability on the end user in this whole process.

@stulaw11 ANY application which has an embedded browser (any Twitter application, 1Password, any alternative browser) automatically has 17+ rating and because of that are forbidden to have promo codes.
My God, it's so absurd.
I think I will move to Android

Ah, from an Spanish point of view, I think it's so absurd thinking about lawsuit for finding f*** word in a search or to forbid something for shoing nipples (we see that in many comercials that we don't care)

I agree with Gwydion, Android is the way to go, lets pour our money into the next superpower cooperation. jk :P I think that google has the right idea, I frekin hate that apple charges developers just to wear the title of a apple developer and just to download their frekin sdks + the 30% off the top of each app, (bastards) I think android will have many better and better functioning apps. There already is an arsenal. open source is the way to go.

@Desmond You mean to tell me that you actually enjoy at&t? Why wait for Android on at&t and not on any other carrier? at&t= major suck!

First Apple and Google are technically the same company. A major corporation with such active lawyers does not accidently share board members. It's an obvious pinching manuver.
Second the system Apple has in place for the App Store can be summed up thus way.
Let's say I built a mall. I charged store owners rent and utilities. Well that woukd be all fine and dandy, but in Apples mall you have to pay them rent and untilities their 30% off the top. That would be fine and dandy, but to reside in Apples mall you also have to pay Apple for your production of your product, the hardware. You also have to pay Apple to just be considered to enter the mall. You also are forced to upgrade your production equipment. Doubt that Apple is aiming to force devs to upgrade their production equipment? Well the SDK only works onintel based machines, and is in a steady inclinationof requirements that next year will require any dev to have a new model of iPhone/iPod and desktop unit. You see Apple isn't just charging tenants for the rent and utilities, they are charging for the cool air pumped in to keep customers comfortable, and the light used to ensure the customers are able to see what you have to offer. Apple is also charging for music and video your using to entertainand, and motivate your customers with. Even though they have already charged the tenant for the electricity to produce the cool air, light, music, video, and music.
You can't sell someone a product , and then tax them for how much they use it.
Apple is actively persuing a monopoly. They have control of the market from preproduction , production, distribution, sales, and maintenance. The standard arguement to this will be, but Apple doesn't make and control all computer and smartphone products. That's a kin to sayng all modes of transportation are exactly the same. A manufacturer could easily have a monopoly over one if those divisions, while having no part of another division.
Apple might seem to only have a strangle hold on one corner of a market, but it's a completely self contained market. That is so far apart from other markets in the same catergory (transportation, computers/smartphones). It's all perspective and Apple wants you to miss the forest for the trees. It's great for Apple to have products, it's great for Apple to open a market place, but it's not great for Apple to rule over said market with an iron glove and malice towards those contained with in it.
Sure In this current subject Apple may be pulling a cover our rear first manuver, but that's like perminantly placing the moonbetween the sun and earth to slow global warming. Sure it would work, but it would be the direct cause if global freezing. Apples is behaving like a bouncer only letting the people he wants into the club. While he makes others wait continually telling them there's no room left inside. You can see him letting others in, but you have to stand there while he lies to you that he can't let anyone else in.

@moe
I have At&t and in the ten years I've been with them I've only had a few service issues. I've only had a handful of dropped calls. So At&t's ability to pull a vacume is subjective. I see no reason at all to leave At&t because I get an upgrade every year not every two. I've always had a fully unlimited package, and I pay for way minutes than I can use, because it's actaully cheaper than being charged overages in the long run.
What you ate doing with your comment is trying to say that Desmond=moron because he stays with AT&T that you say =suck. So the real equation is {Desmond=moron}={Moe=d-bag}

Don't blame Apple blame the sickening litigious society we have all propagated. Take responsibility for yourself and your own actions. It's time for us all to take a teaspoon of cement and harden up.

Here’s the the thing, though: Apple is not only serving developers. They’re being served with lawsuits. And their hyper-vigilant legal departments are no doubt saying — perhaps rightly — that if someone uses a Twitter client that embeds a WebView and happens to see the f-word or a nipple, they’ll sue Apple.
Apple made their bed and they can lie in it. Every other platform in the universe (prior to the advent of the app store) separated app distribution from the sale of the system itself. But Steve had to get his share of the sales... therfore the App Store. It's time to face up to the fact that the app store model of software distribution is a shitty deal for customers. It inevitably leads to increased prices and decreased choice.

the sooner all this shit moves to the browser the better; apple is just anti-competitive wrapped in cool

All of this due to whiney libral parents who think their precious children are too special to see a nipple. Sorry to break it to those people but your children have already seen much worse on tv, at friend's houses, on the Internet, etc. And the reality of it is they won't melt away to nothing because of it. Please let your children out of the bubble!

I think I like both apple and AT&T more than the whinning developers I keep hearing. if you want to be an apple developer, you know what comes with it. If it sucks so bad, do something else. It's apple's situation to profit from or mess up, an they have some of the best people in the world running it. I doubt any of us know all their concerns and all the facts. Considering these things, you'd have to conclude that they are the one's most likely to make the best call for themselves. They are a large business, here to make money over the long term, that's their only goal, as it should be. They owe that to their stockholders. They only care about making customers and developers happy to the extent that it helps them achieve this goal. With that in mind, some of their calls are going to annoy some, but protect the bottom line. They can't make everybody happy. They've weighed their options, come to this conclusion, and you now get to do the same.
Comparing this to a mall btw, is baseless... This isn't a mall with utilities, this is the app store, with it's own set of rules. If you'd rather sell your software in a mall, try it. I think you'd quickly determine the app store is preferable.

I think Apple's legal dept might be influencing this but Apple does have a track record of taking measures to help families. The Parental Controls on the Mac and iPhone are awesome. Perhaps there is more than one motivation at play here?
Some of you sound like you think the App Store is a something like public entity rather than a private business venture. It is not like Apple is standing in a public park censoring what people say or do. It is their show and they can do what they want. If enough people don't like what is going on, then profits, sales, # of devs, # titles will drop. So far I don't see that happening. Most customers/devs must be quite happy as evidenced with the kids of growth occuring. Will this 17+ promo code thing affect growth/profits much? I suspect very, very little, if at all.
Just like HBO has the right to put whatever they want on their channel, Apple has the right to enact restrictions. It cuts both ways.
I agree that there is a vocal (blogging) minority that is unhappy. I suspect the vast majority of customers and devs are happy but less vocal.
As a consumer (I am not a dev) I like what I see. I came from the Palm world with $20-$40 apps. Now I pay less. There are 60000+ titles. Good. Apple takes 30% from devs rather than the higher cuts (50-60%?) that were taken in the past by sites like Handango. Good for growth. Nearly 100k devs? Again, good for growth.
I have kids and like them not running into illicit content when young. Some parents might not care. I do. I know I can't control everything but would not want to. It is nice to have some help as a parent, though. We spend a lot on Apple hardware (6 iphones, Touches, iPods to date, plus Macs, plus many apps) and I will continue to buy Apple as long as I like what is going on.
Some of you are unhappy. This is a business being conducted from the United States. Apple has freedoms and so do you. Voice your frustration and then make a choice. Carry on with Apple or not. Develop for iPhone or not. Vote with your dollars, time and effort. Let's hear it for free enterprise capitalism.

"if you want to be an apple developer, you know what comes with it."
No, developers do not know, and that is precisely the problem with iphone development. As a developer, you can read the SDK agreement, spend months developing your idea in good faith and in compliance with all written rules, and have it rejected at the 11th hour, without being told a how you violated those rules, or, worse, how to fix it. If you are a large company, you can often get around this. If you are a small shop or an independent, you are tapping your savings or a second mortgage, have an unsalable product, and still not know why. How on earth is a developer supposed to "do the same" and weigh their options, when Apple will not tell the developer the rules of the business game they play?
"If it sucks so bad, do something else."
I love my iphone, so that is precisely my worry -- that Apple, in an effort to protect a short-term bottom line, will drive talented developers to the competition. It happened in the PC market, where Apple kept developers at arms length during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Microsoft courted developers, and, as soon as Windows became less than a steaming pile of turds, developers flocked to it, in large part because they could do there what they could not with Apple. Eventually, despite the Mac's initial superiority, the apps produced by those developers gave Windows such a market edge, and such momentum, that Apple had to throw in the towel and completely reboot their comttuer operations with OSX.
Instead of learning that lesson from their own past, Apple has doubled down on developer restrictions, with arbitrary rules for iphone developers. I agree wholeheartedly with those that say Apple has the right to impose such restrictions, but it seems foolishly short-sighted.
As a developer, I want to know the rules before I spend 4 months of my life and risk several hundred thousand dollars of my money. I will do so for the iphone now only because the alternatives have less appealing technology and small markets for smart applications. But I will long for a business partnership where I can fairly judge my relationship before I sink my time and money into it.
The more developers long for a better partnership, the less the competition has to catch up to Apple for developers to jump ship. Someday, Android, webOS, BlackberryOS, or even WinMo or Symbian will be less than a steaming pile of turds, too -- Apple's competition will not screw up forever. When that day comes, Apple needs to be sure that their best developers want to develop for the iphone first and foremost. Rules are fine -- but arbitrary, after-the-fact rules are going to drive developers elsewhere, something that will hurt our phone platform over the long haul.

I was reading this because at the moment I'm bored out of my mind. I don't know about apple, but who gives a rat's ars. This post was BORING!!!

Ever heard of " Game Experience
May Change with online play "