Apple is sending out refund notices to iPhone users who purchased GameStore, the bizarre Apple app that briefly appeared in the App Store over the weekend.

You recently purchase the GameStore app. The app was made available for sale prematurely. We apologize for the problem and have refunded the purchase amount back to your account. These funds will be applied to your original payment method within 5 business days.

While GameStore showed a release date of Dec. 31, 2011 in iTunes deskstop, the on-device App Store showed a date of June 9, 2009, which suggested it might have been a beta app used to test the iOS 3 in-app purchases feature.

The refund language, however, clearly says “premature”, which would suggest it will be properly released at a later date.

Whether or not that’s accurate, whether or not a new app with the same name but more current functionality, or whether there’s a different explanation remains unknown.

While some carriers in some countries allow for free tethering on the more expensive data plans, many countries, including the US do not. That means those carriers make extra money charging for tethering plans, and apps like Netshare and iTether threaten that extra money (or double-dipping, as you may wish to call it.)

I don’t know if Apple has carrier agreements in place to prevent tethering apps and protect revenue streams, the way they once did to prevent VoIP over 3G, but should that really be the users problem? Should it be Apple’s to police? If you get a tethering app and stay beneath your data cap, shouldn’t that be between you and your carrier? And if you’re on an unlimited plan, aren’t they already sending nastygrams if you go over a certain amount anyway?

TiPb Nation, what do you think? Should Apple allow tethering apps in the App Store?

iTether is currently showing up as unavailable in the iTunes App Store. iTether, which was approved and released yesterday, let users tether their laptops to their iPhones without having to pay any additional fees to carriers. Another tethering app, Netshare, was approved and then later removed in 2008.

Whether iTether has actually been removed by Apple or the developer, temporarily or permanently, remains to be seen but the developer has claimed they were in communication with Apple throughout the app approval process. If Apple couldn’t have, or simply didn’t want iTether in the App Store, it’s strange they’d approve it at all.

UPDATE: Tether just let us know they’ve released a statement, and confirmed Apple pulled the iTether app from the App Store. Their site is currently getting hammered so we’re reproducing it here. Please do click through and give them a comment with your thoughts. Tether.com:

Around 12PM EST, Apple called our head office to let us know they were going to go ahead and pull our app iTether from the App Store. They stated it was because the app itself burdens the carrier network, however they offered us no way to remedy the solution… We were very clear when listing the app what the primary function was and they even followed up with several questions and requested a video demo then they approved the application.

We strongly disagree that it burdens a carrier’s network, as from our own data history on more than 500,000 users we know the average user consumes less than 200 MBs of data per month on Tether. In comparison, one TV show streamed from Netflix, an approved Apple App, could easily be in the 300-400 MBs range. Sure, there are some users that will consume way more than the average however that’s the case with any of these types of products.

Our team is very disappointed in Apple’s decision; as we strongly believe we help carriers better monetize their data stream by pushing customers into new data tiers further increasing their bottom-line. It is very anti-competitive to not allow any Tethering application to enter into this space to innovate. Our team has created a lot of innovative solutions for the BlackBerry product, which we were hoping to port over to the iPhone like end-to-end encryption, compression, website filtering and port filtering.

According to Apple, users who purchase iTether before it was pulled will continue to be able to use the product.

Our team is evaluating all of our options… Stay tuned.

Apple has rejected the first game out of PopCaps’ new 4th and Battery studio, Unpleasant Horse, for mature content. It’s unclear exactly what content Apple objected to but apparently it involved meat grinders. According to the New York Times:

The company went public with its rejection on Twitter with a tweet that read: “WTF? Apple rejected Unpleasant Horse cuz of ‘mature content?’ We thought horses dying in meat grinders was wholesome family entertainment!” The tweet was later removed. Since then, the studio has taken a more upbeat approach saying it would appeal the ruling and resubmit with a higher rating.

Plants vs. Zombies is currently rated at 9+ and is unliving happily in the App Store. If PopCap resubmits with a higher age rating, is it possible Apple will approve Unpleasant Horse?

[NYT via TUAW]

Readability, the service that takes the cruft out of online articles and gives you pure, gloriously legible text, has been rejected from the iPhone and iPad App Store due to Apple’s new subscription service and its policies. If you’re not familiar with Readbility, think Instapaper or the Reader button in the latest version of Safari (which ironically uses Readability’s technology!) However, this has far wider ramifications as it suggests all iOS software-as-a-service (SaaS) front ends might likewise be rejected. SalesForce anyone?

Readability, like the App Store’s own business model, takes 30% of subscription fees to pay their bills and gives 70% to publishers in payment for the content read. (Because Readability strips out ads, this still allows publishers to make money off their content). Since Apple requires a 30% cut of subscription revenue… well, you do the math. Readability would have to reduce the publisher’s cut to 40% or reduce their own cut to near zero. Neither is a workable solution for them.

To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. But to impose this course on any web service or web application that delivers any value outside of iOS will only discourage smaller ventures like ours to invest in iOS apps for our services. As far as Readability is concerned, our response is fairly straight-forward: go the other way… towards the web.

Part of the problem here is that Apple, no doubt purposefully, hasn’t clarified what’s subject to in-app subscription policies and what’s not. If everything is subject to them than Apple needs the rate to remain 30%, same as app and in-app purchases. If subscriptions are only 10%, for example, almost every app will simply become free and offer a low-share subscription option instead (subscription Smurfberries, as we discussed on the podcast last night).

What this shows, however, are that there are clearly flaws in the current system that either Apple has to address or the market will with more apps like Readability abandoning native iOS apps for the web or other platforms. (Unless a new business model emerges that better leverages iOS’ distribution system). Bottom-line content creators, content distributors, and platforms all need to remain financially viable. Readability thinks Apple should split their own 30%, giving content creators 70% of that as well. (Sharing the pain, so to speak.)

What’s your solution?

[Readability blog via TechCrunch]

Looks like VLC for iPhone and iPad is about to be pulled from the App Store because the Open Source Powers That Be don’t believe Apple’s iTunes App Store is compatible with the GPL components of the app.

Basically, anything under the GPL has to be freely transferable to anyone without restriction. Since the App Store places FairPlay DRM even on free apps like VLC, even though anyone can still download them, that’s considered a restriction.

The long and the short of it is this — if you want VLC for iPhone or iPad, go get it now.

UPDATE: Ars has a great write up on why the issue may not be as cut and dried, and whether or not VLC really will be pulled.

[iLounge, iTunes link]

Tech Crunch‘s Jason Kinkaid reminds us that it’s been a year since Apple responded to the FCC about Google Voice’s rejection (or perpetual non-acceptance) from the iPhone App Store.

Apple denying the app to those who want it, especially when it allows similar apps such as Line2 into the App Store, means it’s almost certainly what we thought it was last year — less to do with what the app does than what it represents.

Before the Google Voice rejection story broke Apple and Google still seemed to have a love affair going on. Apple provided beautiful devices and Google supplied incredible services. It was a match made in heaven.

Following the Google Voice rejection it became clear that those two goals were becoming less cooperative and more competitive. Apple wants their beautiful devices to be the focus, and to be able to swap in and out different services behind the scenes without affecting the UI or being noticeable to end users. Google on the other hand wants their incredible services to be the focus regardless of device, and to be able to easily swap users from iPhone or Pre to Google’s own, growing, Android platform.

Apple’s exclusionary control over the iPhone is a huge problem for Google, just as Google’s predatory control over their services is a huge problem for Apple.

What if Apple pulled Google from the iPhone? Google could lose a huge percentage of revenue to Microsoft (or whomever Apple swaps in) in the blink of an eye. What if Google pulled their services from the iPhone? Apple could lose a ton of users to Android just as fast. (Whether Apple or Google would ever do that is besides the point — it could happen, therefor strategically planning for the eventuality has to take place.)

Google transformed their original Android-as-BlackBerry competitor to an Android-as-iPhone competitor. Apple began building data centers, acquiring PlaceBase and Siri. And generally the move from friends to fremies to enemies progressed.

Since the Google Voice rejection, Google has continued to leverage their services and Android has surged in popularity thanks to Verizon’s Droid line, HTC‘s Evo 4G, and Samsung‘s Galaxy S.

Apple has continued to tightly control their user experience, creating controversies with Adobe but also introducing new features like FaceTime which depend on Apple owning the phone UI, not Google.

Has the Google Voice rejection cost Apple customers? Probably. Given that a) Google Voice is still only available in the US means its absence only effects US users and b) it’s still a mostly geek-centric service, further reducing the pool of potentially affected users. Of those affected, it’s perhaps further split between those who really want the functionality of Android over the user experience of iPhone, and those who wanted to grab headlines (and in some cases quickly came back to that user experience). Google’s also had their own set of controversies, especially concerning privacy, net-neutrality, some of the content that’s ended up in their app market, and that their much vaunted openness applies primarily to manufacturers and carriers, not necessarily users. Whether or not that has cost them any users is equally hard to tell.

Kinkaid says:

Most of Apple’s ardent defenders will simply tell people like me to go use another, more open platform if they have a problem with the App Store and Apple’s policies. Fair enough. But the time and uncertainty involved in having to switch to a new computer platform are far from trivial, and eventually we may have kids who are raised on iOS — getting them to switch platforms so they can use an innovative new browser or FaceTime competitor or whatever else Apple is quietly blocking from the App Store will be no easy task. It is this inertia, which is only going to become more difficult to overcome as iOS becomes more successful, that troubles me most. Apple will be able to get away with even more egregious behavior, because its users will want to stick with what they know.

And maybe so, but would moving from iPhone to Android really be any harder than moving from Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Contacts, Google Docs, Google Talk, Google Reader, Google Voice, Google Navigation, Blogger, and all their other services to Apple’s, Microsoft’s, or anyone else’s? Probably not. (Personally, it’s far, far easier for me to pick up a Nexus One, stick in my Google ID, and go than it ever would be to transfer all my Google stuff over to Microsoft or someone else if I had to — even the thought of the work involved makes me wince.)

At the end of the day — or of the next year — Apple and Google have both become devils we know. Apple will reject another app for annoying, intolerable reasons and Google will allow in a Nazi theme or malware app. Apple will block a competing service and Google will abuse our privacy. What troubles me is the mistaken belief one is essentially better than the other. What assuages me is that we have both — and potentially a resurgent and more open Palm webOS, and equally controlled Windows Phone on the horizon.

[TechCrunch]

Wired did some poking around and discovered Phillip Shoemaker, Apple’s director of App Store — the man purportedly in charge of App Store approval and rejection — was or is the developer of fart and urination apps.

Shoemaker apparently had or has a company named Gray Noodle, whose titles include Animal Farts and iWiz. Although the social networking profiles and posts that led Wired to the discovery have subsequently been removed, they’ve retained archive copies. An Apple spokeswoman gave them the following comment:

“Phillip’s apps were written, submitted and approved before he became an Apple employee,” an Apple spokeswoman said in a statement. “His experience and perspective as a developer is one of the valuable things he brings to Apple’s developer relations team. Apple’s policy allows for employees to have apps on the App Store if they’re developed and published prior to their start at Apple.”

Other former Apple employees confirmed that special, executive level permission was required in order for an Apple employee to publish on the App Store, though if the apps predated Apple employment permission for them to remain on the App Store might be easier to obtain.

So is it reassuring for developers to have someone with experience getting controversial apps approved inside the App Store? Does it mean if you were rejected, you didn’t even meet the Animal Farts sniff test?

[Wired, thanks Luke!]

Grooveshark’s iPhone app has been pulled from the App Store following a complaint by Universal Music Group UK. According to their blog, Grooveshark is at a loss to explain it:

This comes as an absolute surprise to us, and we are not sleeping until we figure out exactly how to fix this—and get Grooveshark for iPhone back in the App Store. Above all, our biggest concern is damaging the service we provide to all of you guys—our loyal (awesome) users.

Mashable‘s Christina Warren has an idea, however:

Grooveshark is an easy lawsuit target because of its approach to music licensing and distribution. Unlike competing services like Rdio, MOG and Rhapsody, Grooveshark’s database of songs is uploaded and cataloged by end users. Grooveshark doesn’t police these uploads for copyright violations, instead relying on license holders to file takedown requests. To date, EMI is the only company that has entered into a licensing agreement with Grooveshark.

If you already have the app, you can continue using it. If not, you might just have to wait for Grooveshark to get their licenses in order with UMG and potentially the other 2 big record labels.

Apprently, new media is still a work in progress…

[Grooveshark via Mashable]

Camera+ is no longer in the iTunes App Store following a bizarre week that rejection, revelation, feature requests, and possible take down.

Here’s the short version — Camera+ pushed out an update that would let users take photos via the hardware volume buttons. Apple rejected the update because it does not currently allow that functionality. Camera+ developers TapTapTap posted about the rejection and said they’d filed a feature request with Apple to change the policy and allow volume buttons to be re-assigned. They also let slip on twitter that a little easter egg would allow the volume buttons to be re-assigned in the current version of TapTapTap. Then they deleted the tweet, but the internet had already picked it up and propagated it.

Apple has a policy on easter eggs. If they’re disclosed and innocuous they’re fine. If they’re undisclosed and used as a way to circumvent the review process and App Store policies, they’ll get you removed. Basically, if the feature wouldn’t get approved out in the open, don’t try to sneak it in as an easter egg.

So now either Apple has pulled Camera+ or TapTapTap has taken it down themselves to proactively remove the easter egg. We’ll likely have to wait until they let us know.

And that’s where I start to wonder if it’s really a story, or media manipulation as marketing? They’ve already made a reported $500,000 in sales, and this little round of publicity — should they get back into the App Store — won’t hurt. Except, of course, when the press starts to feel played, it will eventually backfire.

Maybe that’s the real easter egg?

[9to5Mac, thanks maj0!]

Developer tap tap tap submitted an update for their app Camera+ which included a new feature called VolumeSnap. VolumeSnap allowed users to use the volume controls to take a photo, a feature that many iPhone users have asked for. Apple, however, does not approve of using the iPhone’s hardware in this manner. Here’s what they had to say to tap tap tap:

Your application cannot be added to the App Store because it uses iPhone volume buttons in a non-standard way, potentially resulting in user confusion. Changing the behavior of iPhone external hardware buttons is a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. Applications must adhere to the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines as outlined in the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement section 3.3.7

The iPhone Human Interface Guidelines states:

Users use the device’s volume buttons to adjust the volume of all sounds their devices can play, including songs, application sounds, and device sounds. Users can always use the volume buttons to quiet any sound, regardless of the position of the Ring/Silent switch.

Using the volume buttons to adjust an application’s currently playing audio also adjusts the overall system volume, with the exception of the ringer volume. (Using the volume buttons when no audio is currently playing adjusts the ringer volume.)

Although tap tap tap is disappointed that their app got reject, they are appreciative of the fact that Apple was very informative regarding the reason behind the rejection.

Flashlight apps that use the iPhone 4′s LED flash were originally in violation of Apple’s policy, but it got changed after a developer encouraged Apple to review it. So tap tap tap is encouraging developers and users alike to submit a feature request to Apple to get this policy changed.

So there you go, if the ability to use the volume buttons to snap a photo is something you desire, make your voice heard!

UPDATE: Flo from shimanke.com just let us know that there is way to enable VolumeSnap on the current version of Camera+. Just visit camplus://enablevolumesnap in mobile Safari. Doing so will launch Camera+ and VolumeSnap just works. There is a possibility that doing this will disable the volume control to your iPhone, but closing Camera+ from the multitasking dock quickly fixes it. To disable VolumeSnap, visit camplus://disablevolumesnap in mobile Safari.

I’ve tried it and it works flawlessly. In fact, I didn’t even lose volume control. If you try it out, let us know how it works for you!

[tap tap tap via @justin_horn]

MediaMemo is saying Time Inc. is having trouble setting up their own subscription service for a Sports Illustrated iPad magazine app:

Last month, the publisher was set to launch a subscription version of its Sports Illustrated iPad app, where consumers would download the magazines via Apple’s iTunes, but would pay Time Inc. directly. But Apple rejected the app at the last minute, forcing the Time Warner (TWX) unit to sell single copies, using iTunes as a middleman, multiple sources tell me.

First, at the iPhone 3.0 event in 2009, Apple showed off App Store subscriptions for magazines alongside in-app purchase, but while in-app purchases are now fairly common, I’m hard pressed to find a showcase example for App Store subscriptions. What happened to them? Are publishers not eager to embrace them or has Apple not provided the mechanism?

Second, it looks like Time is trying to go around the App Store for subscriptions, kind of like what Amazon and Audible do for users who buy books via Mobile Safari on the web but can then download their library in-app. Is Time trying to do something similar to that but not getting their app approved?

So what happened? The Time Inc. insiders I talked to don’t have a clear answer, presumably because they can’t get one from Apple itself. One theory: Apple is concerned about the publisher’s plans for the consumer data it would collect with each subscription. A darker one: Steve Jobs loves the idea of digital magazines and wants to control the market for himself.

“Darker” certainly scores the melodramatic points, but Apple had no problem rolling out iBooks while still allowing the aforementioned Amazon Kindle app and a host of other competitors. They’ve let streaming music and video apps in to vie for music money against iTunes.

Due to the opaque nature of the App Store approval process, and Apple’s secrecy surrounding unannounced features and technology, there’s never an easy way to tell if a delay is political, business related, or because Steve Jobs will be announcing some new magazine-focused API for subscriptions in September.

These are huge companies, there’s a lot of money on the table, and a critical amount of personal user data behind it. I’m sure we’ll see a lot of foot stomping and fist shaking, and press leaks to spin the story. I’m sure we’ll hear cries that evil Apple is denying big publishers their control, and big publishers are gouging users for digital copies. Fine. At the end of the day I want what I think most end users want — an easy, secure, privacy-protecting way to get my magazines (and comics!) on my iPhone and iPad at a fair price. Apple wins. Publishers win. We win.

Let’s figure that out, shall we?

[MediaMemo, thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

Apple has yanked iChatr — the chat-roulette-style app for iPhone 4 — from the iTunes App Store.

If you’re familiar with what goes on in these kinds of apps, the (predominantly male) nudity and sexual activity, then this probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise. If you’re not familiar, you probably downloaded it, became familiar quickly, and near instantly complained to Apple prompting the removal.

According to the developers, SKJM:

“The iChatr application has currently been removed from the App Store due to reports of a number of users exposing themselves during the random video chat sessions. We are currently discussing possible solutions to the problem with Apple.”

Jeff Scott from 148.apps adds:

you might as well stop now unless you have some wicked automatic genital recognition technology built in.

Good luck with that. And as to Apple’s second, open development platform, HTML5, we’re not sure that supports the porn-cam yet…

[148apps]

The Pulse RSS reader for iPad, featured just yesterday during Steve Jobs’ WWDC 2010 keynote, is reportedly being removed from the iTunes App Store following a copyright complaint from the New York Times/The Boston Globe.

The gist of their demand letter is that Pulse comes pre-loaded with the NYTimes.com RSS feed and features it in screen shots, is a paid app, and thus commercially using their RSS feeds, and that it reframes the NYTimes.com and Boston.com websites, both of which the New York Times Company says is in violation of their copyright.

Pulse was written by two Stanford grad students, whom we’re guessing have far fewer legal resources than the New York Times Company, but are now in a position where they have to answer the copyright violation charge and/or modify their app to no longer violate the copyright.

Now, Pulse wasn’t scraping or stealing RSS content in the traditionally frowned-upon way — they’re an RSS reader like many, many others both on the desktop and on mobile devices. Was the only difference it’s high profile thanks to WWDC and a previous feature in the New York Times itself? If so, what does this mean for other RSS readers?

[Boom Town, image via New York Times]

Since the iPad launch on April 3, TiPb’s been getting tips about desktop/dashboard/widget-style apps being removed first from the iPad App Store, then from the iPhone App Store as well. There are a number of examples, some well known by now, some relatively unknown. The commonality between all of them is that they’ve tried to somehow make the iPad or iPhone into a Mac- or PC-like screen filled with mini-apps like browsers, email clients, calculators, weather, etc.

Some look almost exactly like Apple’s Mac Dashboard, other like Windows of various flavors. Others don’t look like desktops at all but rather place widgets on top of photos or other, more specific backgrounds.

Devs have worked around this by using a much more restricted metaphor, like a double tiled display, or by going the Jailbreak route, or they haven’t worked through it and just gotten frustrated at the opacity of the App Store review process and not known how to proceed.

I can’t claim any special insight or information on this, but my best guess is that Apple is removing (or advising they will be removing since not all of them have been pulled yet) the apps for the same reason they originally didn’t include cursor (arrow) keys on the Mac. It’s a pretty well known story and one that’s been used a few times in different commentaries on the iPhone and iPad and Apple’s direction thereof, but it bears repeating.

The Mac was the mainstream transition from CLI (command-line interface) to GUI (graphical user interface). People had to become comfortable using a mouse to drive the new interface, and Apple felt that if they gave them arrow keys users would just launch text windows, abandon the mouse, and revert to what they were comfortable with at the first opportunity. They’d never learn the new paradigm because they wouldn’t have to. So, like the metaphorical bird, they pushed us out the CLI nest and made us madly flap our GUI wings (or risk crashing).

The iPhone and now iPad mark a similar mainstream transition from GUI to multitouch user interface (I’m not calling it MUI). The iPad’s display is bigger, but Apple doesn’t want it treated like an old-fashion PC or Mac desktop, and they don’t want apps in the App Store that encourage users to treat the iPhone or iPad like desktops.

Developers who have invested time and money into building those apps get crushed, of course, and Apple really has to figure out a better way of advising people which apps are on the “unforeseen” list as soon as they can possibly foresee them. I’m not defending Apple’s process or policy here — as I said I have no idea if I’m even right about the reason — I’m just trying to figure it out. Curation isn’t bad, but bad curation is chilling.

Users also will no doubt be upset they can’t get these apps, just as users were probably upset Apple didn’t include arrow keys on the original Mac. I don’t know if Apple realizes that and just banks on having enough momentum and cool tech that users will once again forgive an App Store removal in light of what still remains and is coming. (That bank of user good-will isn’t limitless, however, and I certainly hope Apple realizes that).

[Yes, or Apple could be getting ready to announce their own widget platform for iPhone OS as a special feature for that large-resolution iPhone HD/iPhone 4G at WWDC 2010. Those types of things are always possible.]

No shock: Apple has rejected that nifty Wi-Fi sync application that was submitted for the App Store. Good news is, it’s now available via Cydia for any jailbroken iPhone for $9.99. Engadget contacted the developer by phone and here is his rejection explanation.

“While he agreed that the app doesn’t technically break the rules, he said that it does encroach upon the boundaries of what they can and cannot allow on their store. He also cited security concerns.”

If you need to have this app and don’t know a thing about jailbreaking be sure to stop by our jailbreaking forum for all of the information you will need.

[Engadget]

Go to the iTunes App Store, search for an app you want, and get your results flooded with spam-apps. Its a growing problem as unscrupulous developers keep finding new and annoying ways to try and game Apple’s approval process and scam users.

Marco.org highlights some of the worst offenders, but more importantly offers legitimate developers a way to take action:

When an app is infringing on your copyright or trademark, the proper procedure is to send a clear notice to appstorenotices@apple.com citing your intellectual property and which apps are infringing it (provide their iTunes URLs to eliminate ambiguity). As part of this notice for trademark infringements, you can request that apps not be allowed to use your trademark to market themselves in search results (keyword spam).

Hopefully Apple will save developers the frustration and wasted time it takes to complain and take that App Store rejection hammer out of a spin. For a good cause this time.

[Marco.org]

Frasier Speirs, one of several well-publicized developers to leave the iPhone over objections to Apple’s App Store policies and controversy surrounding app rejections, has decided to return, post iPad, and his reasons are intriguing:

I suspect that the days of everyone buying a MacBook to get online are soon to be over. I’ve already written about how I see our three-Mac family turning into a one-Mac, three-iPad family over the next hardware cycle and I imagine that scenario repeated industry-wide over time. Already the ratio of iPhone OS devices to Macs is 5:2.

He believes Apple can and will reject apps, and that the frontier days of computing are giving way to the mainstream, appliance future.

iPhone OS is the first mass-market operating system where consumers are no longer afraid to install software on their computers (I’m not counting read-only media software platforms like games consoles here). In a conversation recently, a friend recounted a scene that he passed by in an airport. Four fifty-something women were sitting at a cafe table discussing the latest apps they had downloaded on their iPod touches. New software can’t break your iPhone OS device and, if you don’t like it, total removal is only a couple of taps away.

Speirs also thinks iPads are cheap enough you can buy each year’s new model and still save money compared to traditional computers. And he wants into that ecosystem.

[Frasier Speirs via Daring Fireball]

Apple CEO Steve Jobs is once again hitting the send button and lighting the internet on fire, this time telling someone who would prefer parental controls over outright bans that if he wants porn, he can go Android. (Is that what the kids are calling it these days?)

The email from Matthew Browing, who also expressed concern over the initial rejection of Mark Fiore’s political satire app:

I’m all for keeping porn out of kids hands. Heck – I’m all for ensuring that I don’t have to see it unless I want to. But… that’s what parental controls are for. Put these types of apps into categories and allow them to be blocked by their parents should they want to.

The response from Steve Jobs:

Fiore’s app will be in the store shortly. That was a mistake. However, we do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy and Android phone.

Or, as the cliche goes, just launch Mobile Safari on their iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad…

This isn’t the first time Jobs has linked Android to porn; he did so during the iPhone OS 4 sneak preview event‘s Q&A session in response to a question about why Apple doesn’t allow side-loading of apps:

You know, there’s a porn store for Android. You can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That’s a place we don’t want to go – so we’re not going to go there.

We’re shocked and appalled to find this out, of course, and if that’s the case, we wonder how our good buddy Phil from Android Central manages to get any reviews done…

[via Techcrunch]

UPDATE: According to the WSJ, Apple has contacted Fiore:

Apple called the cartoonist Thursday and suggested that he resubmit the app, Mr. Fiore said in an interview. “I feel kind of guilty,” he said. “I’m getting preferential treatment because I got the Pulitzer.”

Preferential perhaps but not uncommon. Several controversial app rejections have been reconsidered when publicity brought them to the attention of higher-ups at Apple. Unfortunately, the “review team rejects, executive team reconsiders” is not a scalable or likely desirable strategy for Apple.

ORIGINAL: Mark Fiore, the first online journalist to win a Pulitzer Prize (for editorial cartooning), has had his iPhone app, NewsToons rejected from the App Store because it violates Apple’s policy against “ridiculing public figures”.

This follows similar rejections of Bobble Rep, which contained political caricatures by Tom Richmond, and MSNBC.com Cartoons by Daryl Cage. Both of those apps eventually made it into the App Store, and it’s possible NewsToons will as well (though Fiore isn’t going to bother fighting on its behalf), but the situation highlights another problem with the highly regulated store model.

There will always be cases where legitimate artistic and/or social expression gets caught up in policies designed to exclude extreme, abusive, or otherwise inappropriate content for the general audience. Just as all nudity isn’t porn (or isn’t intended to titillate), political satire isn’t the same as political attack or public ridicule for partisan purposes.

And just like rejection can have a chilling effect on developers, it can have a chilling effect on the press that holds their editorial freedom near-sacred.

We’ve seen signs of Apple considering an Explicit category for the “sexy apps” removed from the App Store earlier in the year. A satire category sounds less wieldy, however and points out once again the types of problems Apple will have with both content creators and simple scale as the App Store continues to race towards 200,000 apps.

[via Niemanlab, thanks for the tip Fassy!]

Here are the first (to our knowledge) class of apps to get removed from the brand new iPad App Store: Dashboards.

Desktop, for example, no longer shows up via its iTunes link.

These apps leveraged the large iPad display to offer multiple windows and mini-apps/widgets to get around some of iPhone 3.2′s 3rd party multitasking constraints.

We’re waiting to hear a reason for the removal. Even if it duplicates the rumored functionality of the upcoming iPhone 4.0 software, that’ll be little comfort to the developers who invested time and resources into these apps.

TechCrunch is reporting that companies who mass produce (or provide tools and templates for the mass production of) “cookie cutter” apps are hearing that they need to add differentiation and functionality or risk Apple not allowing them into the iTunes App Store. Jason Kincaid says:

Between the developers I spoke to, the consensus was this: Apple doesn’t appear to be opposed to ‘app generators’ and templates per se, but in the last month or so it has started cracking down on basic applications that are little more than RSS feeds or glorified business cards. In short, Apple doesn’t want people using native applications for things that a basic web app could accomplish. For some of these services that’s bad news, because that’s exactly the sort of application they produce; any new applications they submit are going to get rejected. But all hope isn’t lost for them, provided they can make their apps more useful.

Kincaid says Appmakr for one has taken suggestions from Apple to improve things like in-app purchases, instant notifications, offline access, and landscape viewing modes and describe the process as positive. Other services apparently haven’t had as much luck.

The move seems to be part of Apple’s ongoing efforts to increase the quality of the App Store experience and protect the brand. Much like the removal of sex-based apps last month, “cookie cutter” apps could seen as low value, sometimes verging on spam. For consumers it could result in a cleaner App Store and ultimately better apps (more than just re-packaged RSS feeds) but at the expense of quantity and choice. For developers, it’s likely another in a list of things they’ll consider before building on Apple’s platform.

If Apple is indeed working on revamping the mass produced app, what think you?

Cult of Mac reports that Apple has begun removing apps from the iTunes App Store that scan for Wi-Fi access points. It looks like these apps are being removed due to their use of private APIs, which is prohibited by the iPhone SDK agreement. This would make it similar to the recent removal of apps that misused the iPhone camera DCIM folder to store and exchange documents.

There’s been some suggestion, however, that list reflects a policy change from Apple closer to the recent removal of sex-based apps.

Our speculation is that Apple has either added the Wi-Fi private APIs to their static analysis tool, or has just finally gotten around to checking for them. That would make it appear like a new policy when it’s actually the originally agreement finally being enforced.

Some developers believe long term lack of action by Apple equals tacit approval for private API use. Those beliefs likely have to start changing. When Apple makes an API public, they’re guaranteeing that developers can use them and have faith Apple won’t break them (and the apps built on them) in a future update. Private APIs are the opposite — Apple can and will change them at any point, breaking apps that try to use them when they shouldn’t. In some cases Apple is working on public versions of private APIs and will release them in future versions of the iPhone OS. In other cases they aren’t — sometimes for security, other times just for proprietary reasons.

In either case, this isn’t the first and likely won’t be last set of rejections. While we feel for developers, we feel more for users who may have come to depend on the functionality of these apps.

If you’re a developer who’s dealing with this and have a better take on the situation, please let us know!

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

Apple Senior VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller, was quoted by the New York Times in an article on the removal of 5000 sex-based app from the iTunes App Store:

“It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see.”

To developers who weren’t afforded any warning or options to pre-emptively make changes where such changes would have been possible:

“We obviously care about developers, but in the end have to put the needs of the kids and parents first.”

As to why Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit app, the Playboy app, and a few other publication-associated apps were allowed to remain:

“The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format.”

Key take aways:

1. Apple’s App Store ratings system doesn’t work, since Apple classifies anything with unfettered web access as 17+, parents can’t block sex-based apps without blocking Twitter apps, Wikipedia, and countless other non-sex-based apps. Apple needs to redo the ratings system and allow more granular parental control. (Though Safari again shows the ridiculousness of most ratings systems — anyone and everyone can and will find anything and everything in the ratings-free web).
2. This move seems entirely perception-based. Apple likely doesn’t believe people will complain about established corporate content like Sports Illustrated [Free/in-app purchase - iTunes link], FHM [$1.99 - iTunes link], and Playboy [$0.99 - iTunes link] where they will about the indie guy who floods the App Store with 3000 variants of the same underwear and swimsuit pics. (Or if someone does complain about SI, Apple can point to its mainstream profile as an easy out).
3. Since Apple has shown no signs of wanting to get out in front of these issues and give developers warning before taking major action in the App Store, developers have to come to terms with the reality that making any application that comes anywhere near a) areas Apple may consider their own or b) areas where Apple may consider their brand/image at stake, means constant uncertainty and the risk of being removed at any point. Or they have to consider Web Apps, or other platforms and give Apple feedback that way.

Stick to safe, friendly games and helpful utilities and you should be find. Push any boundaries corporate or familial and you could be gone. Which is kind of sad, because Apple seems like the one company who could champion as much creativity, innovation, and boundary-pushing in the App Store as they do in their technology.

Chillifresh, who first sent TiPb word of their Wobble iBoobs app being removed from the App Store due to what Apple termed its “sexual content” has followed up with another blog post, now claiming 5000 apps have been removed and presenting what they say are the new App Store rules:

1. No images of women in bikinis (Ice skating tights are not OK either)
2. No images of men in bikinis! (I didn’t ask about Ice Skating tights for men)
3. No skin (he seriously said this) (I asked if a Burqa was OK, and the Apple guy got angry)
4. No silhouettes that indicate that Wobble can be used for wobbling boobs (yes – I am serious, we have to remove the silhouette in this pic)
5. No sexual connotations or innuendo: boobs, babes, booty, sex – all banned
6. Nothing that can be sexually arousing!! (I doubt many people could get aroused with the pic above but those puritanical guys at Apple must get off on pretty mundane things to find Wobble “overtly sexual!)
7. No apps will be approved that in any way imply sexual content (not sure how Playboy is still in the store, but …)

Apple has already commented to TiPb that they took action following customer complaints over objectionable contents, and our readers have been split between “good on Apple, we don’t want to see that in the App Store” and “shame on Apple, we should be able to decide for ourselves” camp.

Apple does present parental controls for the App Store, but they currently lack sophistication enough to handle situations like this. For example, because Apple tags any app that provided unfettered access to the internet as 17+ (’cause there’s violence and porn on them there webs), enabling that parental control wouldn’t just kill sexy apps, it would kill any app with an embedded WebView (like all Twitter apps — see Tweetie 1.3 rejection).

This isn’t the first time Apple has removed apps for content first, figured out ways to re-introduce them later either — many developers went through this before, prior to parental controls in iPhone 3.0. (And after, when some nudity briefly slipped into the App Store, only to be promptly removed).

Again, it’s conceivable Apple will provide more granular parental controls in iPhone 4.0, perhaps even create an opt-in “adult-but-not-porn” category. It’s that or Web App-only land.

This is what happens when a company like Apple (or Walmart, or Blockbuster) chooses to curate content in their store — they become divided between serving the “family friendly” vs. “freedom to choose” customer bases, and the developers who get caught in between. (And we sympathize with those developers, who must feel trapped in a giant pit with a blind, startled T-Rex at times like these).

Let us know what you think of those guidelines above, and what you’d like to see Apple do to better serve all their customers and their developers.

Following up on last night’s story about the removal of apps with sexual content from the iTunes App Store, TiPb asked Apple for comment and they responded:

“Whenever we receive customer complaints about objectionable content we review them. If we find these apps contain inappropriate material we remove them and request the developer make any necessary changes in order to be distributed by Apple.”

Developer Frasier Spears blogged about the plethora of sexually-based apps a couple weeks ago after exploring the deployment of the iPod touch at his school:

After some research, preference-tweaking and so on, I have one conclusion to share with you. Despite Steve’s insistence that Apple wouldn’t carry porn in the App Store:

The App Store is so full of soft porn apps that I cannot provide access to the App Store and comply with our acceptable use policies.

He went so far as to file radar bugs with Apple over the inability to filter out inappropriate content.

Putting aside the argument over whether or not Apple changed their policy yesterday or merely began more closely enforcing the policies announced in March, 2008, if filters can be created and deployed by iTunes such that users could control whether or not they (or their children, or whomever) could see sexual or violent or any other age-restricted content on the App Store, that might provide an ideal solution for all involved.

That, or Web Apps again become the alternate, unrestricted App Store.

UPDATE 1: TiPb received a comment from Apple…

UPDATE 2: Reports now suggest Apple has removed 5000 sex-based apps and suggest new “rules” are in place…

Developer Chillifresh sent us a link to their blog post where they claim Apple is removing “all non-PG apps” (read: sex-based apps) from the App Store.

Here’s the email they received:

The App Store continues to evolve, and as such, we are constantly refining our guidelines. Your application, Wobble iBoobs (Premium Uncensored), contains content that we had originally believed to be suitable for distribution. However, we have recently received numerous complaints from our customers about this type of content, and have changed our guidelines appropriately.

We have decided to remove any overtly sexual content from the App Store, which includes your application.

First, we should point out Wobble has no sexual content in and of itself, it applies a “wobble” graphical distortion effects to any photo you choose to import — though the app name is certainly suggestive.

Second, it’s important to remember that users who’ve already downloaded the app can keep using it in its current state, although the developers can no longer provide updates (including updates to make it compatible with future iPhone OS releases).

Third, Apple’s already gotten negative press for rejecting apps and removing an entire range likely won’t sit well with the “let us decide for ourselves” crowd.

Fourth, sex-based apps have been spreading through several categories and there have been complaints from those who’d rather not see them side-by-side with non-sex-based apps.

So, is there a middle ground where Apple could create an “adult” category all its own, there for those who want the R-rated apps, easy for others to ignore? Or are they right to go the Blockbuster/Walmart family-friendly route, and leave the adult content to join the porn content as Web Apps?

Let us know what you think…

TechCrunch is reporting that Apple has started sending developers invitations to take a satisfaction survey with regards to the App Store in general, and the App Store approval process in specific.

Apple asks you to answer with: “Very dissatisfied,” “Somewhat dissatisfied,” “Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,” “Somewhat satisfied,” “Very satisfied,” or “Don’t know.”

They also ask, “What one thing could Apple do to make the iPhone Developer Program better?” and give you a text box to write anything you want. A few months ago they certainly would have gotten some interesting responses there.

Indeed and as we suspected, “wait for developers and bloggers to get really ticked off and then have Phil Schiller email them” wasn’t a scalable solution. TechCrunch speculates that the improvements in the App Store approval process starting 2010 involve more and better trained staff, since approval speed has improved and reportedly even communications between Apple and developers is better.

So, if you’re a developer, what will you be telling Apple? And if you’re not a developer, does it matter to you that Apple is trying to improve their developer relations?

Happy New Year and welcome to the iPhone blog’s 2009 TiPb Editor’s Choice Awards for the very best (in our opinion!) iPhone and iPod touch apps and accessories released in the last year!

Smartphone of the Year: iPhone 3GS (by default)

We’re not really doing Smartphone of the Year since, unlike our sibling sites, Apple has so far seen fit to only release one new iPhone each year. However, that doesn’t mean we don’t think the iPhone 3GS isn’t terrific. It is. Even if we consider the smartphone space as a whole, even if we put it up against the best Android, BlackBerry, Nokia, Palm, and Windows have to offer, while it might get bested — even eclipsed — in certain specs or feature sets, there’s still nothing that brings it all together in so appealing a mainstream package as the iPhone 3GS.

From its butter-smooth interface now with “s as in speed” to its singular build quality to its incredible ecosystem to its 120,000 apps for anything and everything, even if we did do this category — which we’re not — the iPhone 3GS would still be our pick for Smartphone of the Year. So there.

Competition of the Year: Palm Pre and webOS

Make no mistake, the Droid, the BlackBerry Bolds and Tour and Storms, the Nokia N900, the Windows Phone HTC HD2 — each brought it in their own way (hey, it’s why we do the Smartphone Round Robin), but each mostly brought it with hardware specs like 480p displays, or services like free navigation. They made good things better.

Palm brought it with a whole new OS, one that combined amazing visualization for multitasking with brilliant notification handling, and sidestepped the developer divide by using web technology as their SDK. If the iPhone woke up a complacent smartphone industry, Palm made sure they stayed awake another year. Sure the hardware could have been harder core and there was that whole iTunes sync brouhaha, but that combined with the “years in the desert” to go from PalmOS to webOS, made Palm even more of a comeback story, and who doesn’t root for Rocky? That’s why the Palm Pre is our competitor of the year!

Apple Innovation of the Year: $99 iPhone 3G

Last year Innovation of the Year was easy: the App Store. Now, two-billion downloads, well over 100,000 apps, and almost universal imitation not just from the Android Market, but now from BlackBerry App World, Microsoft Windows Marketplace for Mobile, Nokia Ovi Store, Palm webOS App Catalog, and who knows what else, it’s still far and away the market leader, if the idea itself has long passed being led. Not that Apple didn’t try in 2009, with the iPhone 3.0 Sneak Preview Event the undoubtedly innovative in-app purchases (including free apps no longer needing to stay free) and accessory access via the dock and Bluetooth. Push notification tops the candidates list as well. It isn’t he full-on multitasking some still demand, but it covers 90% of the functionality at 20% of the battery drain (ahem) and hey, even some multitasking smartphones don’t handle push notification yet.

But no, we’re going with something more important even if less interesting. The $99 iPhone 3G. Sure, it’s last year’s model, but it’s got the latest iPhone OS 3.x on it and most importantly it redefined — and disrupted — what was considered a budget smartphone and forced every other platform and player to lower prices and reconsider the — frankly crappy — handsets they offered for cheap. Up front cost shouldn’t mean much to people on contract for $2000+ over two years but it does. Getting under $100 was huge for Apple. And for consumers, who’s previous budget choices were the likes of Palm Centro, BlackBerry Pearl, or WinMo… whatever, it was huger still. That makes the $99 iPhone 3G our Apple Innovation of the Year.

App Store App Innovation of the Year: Augmented Reality

Last year Google Mobile snuck in some private-API wizardry (later made all nice and legal by iPhone 3.0) to make voice search so good we thought we were in Star Trek. This year Apple announced accessory access and all sorts of new API’s and developers certainly didn’t disappoint. Some of the most amazing new iPhone Apps weren’t new to mobile, however. RedLaser reads barcodes and finds competitive prices amazingly well, but Android had that first. Likewise Qik is finally streaming live, but geeks were doing that from the N95 a couple years ago. Still, with everything from the latest Apple Remote to Zipcar, it’s harder then ever to single one app out.

So we’re singling out a category — Augmented Reality. Take a live camera view, add location services and — one day, visual recognition — and layer data on top of it. Hold your iPhone camera up to a restaurant and the menu pops up for you to read. Point it west and see the tweets of the physically closest people you follow. Point it at your friend and get a reminder you owe him $5. We’re not sure if it’s just trendy concept or will really, truly prove functional one day, but just like Google Mobile made us think of Star Trek, this combines several cutting edge technologies in such a way that it makes us think of a dozen sci-fi heads-up displays and gorramit if we don’t want that future today.

UI Gem of the Year: Tweetie 2 “Pull Down to Refresh”

Too small to be the overall innovation of the year, this category is for the tiny little tweaks that never the less make all the difference. Lots of developers continued to make drop-dead gorgeous iPhone apps in 2009, including Tapbots’ latest Pastebot, Twitterrific 2‘s ability to hide so much functionality behind so sensible a layout, and Facebook 3.0 finally showed how to do massive social networking right on a local app, and Apple even rolled out new Voice Recorder and Compass app interfaces. It was something much simpler, however, much more insidious that got inside TiPb’s user experience this year.

Yeah, it’s totally Tweetie 2‘s terrific “pull down to refresh”. Apple built the wonderful, tactile feeling elasticity of the “rubber band” effect into iPhone 1.x but never did much with it. Developer Atebits took it and made it a simple, intuitive way to request new data from an internet server — in this case update your Twitter timeline. That many of us now try to use it to reload a page in Safari, or get new messages in Mail, or refresh anything and anything that feels like it should refresh when we pull down shows just how simple and intuitive it is. Sometimes it’s not the big once-and-a-while’s that make the difference, it’s the little use-it-all-the-times.

Camera App of the Year: ReelDirector

iPhone 3GS brought a much improved camera and video recording, amazingly improved photo software, and even trim-able video recording. A lot of apps took advantage, both of the old gear and the new. Leanna covered five fantastic ones earlier, and since then a couple have even come around to offering video for the iPhone 3G.

But if video is the new still, ReelDirector ups the ante from Apple’s trim to full-on (for a mobile) video editing. From titles to transitions, soundtracks to Ken Burns effects, it may not be Final Cut Pro but it’s definitely a fun first cut.

Productivity App of the Year: Documents to Go Premium

Over two and half years in and some are still foolish enough to call the iPhone a toy. Unless, of course, they mean the iPhone can make even productivity work more fun than it has any right to be.

Documents to Go, which updated their flagship app to Premium and added PowerPoint editing and Gmail attachment support at almost the last minute gets our vote. Even though Apple still hasn’t provided a universal document repository, or file picker (the way the picture picker works for images), Documents to Go continues to push the boundaries of what an Office-style app can do on the iPhone.

Social App of the Year: Twitter Clients

If Facebook had gotten push notifications, if Skype had actually gotten 3G access, this category might be even harder to decide than it already is. Likewise notification enabled IM clients such as BeeJive that now has group chat is a social powerhouse.

But those iPhone twitter clients just. won’t. stop. We already mentioned Tweetie 2 and Twitterrific 2, but there’s also Birdfeed, and both Twitbit and SimplyTweet made it into our staff picks of the year. And yeah, TweetDeck is on the iPhone now as well. In addition to the general-purpose clients, we have apps like Birdhouse that excel at writing and Reportage that make reading manageable. Heck, even Twitter’s own WebApp got a great makeover.

Twitter exploded in 2009, and the quality of iPhone Twitter apps exploded right along with it. They’re all so good, again we can’t pick just one, so we’re naming them all the social networking apps of the year!

Navigation App of the Year: Navigon Mobile Navigator

Another of app category made possible by iPhone 3.0 is turn-by-turn GPS navigation, and it didn’t take long for top of the line, premium-priced market leaders like TomTom to come on board (and with car kits!), and subscription services like the TeleNav-powered AT&T Navigator have come on board, but low-cost, crowd-sourced alternatives have also flourished. And even with the 800lbs gorilla of the newly announced Google Maps Navigation staring them down all searchy and free, they’ve continued to update and innovate.

Navigon’s MobileNavigator has been helping push the pace of those updates and that innovation. Whether it’s text to speech or live-traffic, this maps-on-board solution took iPhone 3.0′s APIs and didn’t run — it drove.

Action Game of the Year: N.O.V.A

If there was a theme to iPhone and iPod touch gaming in 2009 it was the maturing of the platform that brought both big franchises and games very much akin to the big franchises. There are literally too many to list (though Jeremy started and Chad focused in on FPS‘ a while back).

But N.O.V.A brought “Halo” to the iPhone. Maybe we should have found something more original, more uniquely dependent on the iPhone’s specific technologies. But N.O.V.A brought “Halo” to the iPhone.

Racing Game of the Year: Real Racing

Given the accelerometer, racing games are just such a natural fit for the iPhone and iPod touch that it’s no wonder there are so many great racing games for the platform (Chad’s picked out a top 5 already!) And with iPhone 3GS and iPod touch G3 level horsepower and OpenGL 2.0 no doubt there’s even better ahead (hey, we’ve seen a glimpse of it already).

For now, however, Real Racing is where it’s at. Our 2009 Grand Prix winner is also a racing game of the year.

Puzzle Game of the Year: Ramp Champ

A lot of great puzzle games have hit the iPhone, from Peggle to Stoneloops to Bejeweled 2 and Tetris, to well almost every great puzzle game that could come to the platform. In 2008, however, Trism showed you could do an iPhone-proper puzzler and do it incredibly well.

Ramp Champ took a flick at it in 2009, with gorgeous graphics, one of the best implementations of in-app purchases to date, and arguably too much challenge for its (or rather its players) own good. There maybe puzzle games with bigger brands, more levels, and perhaps even better physics, but when we think about what we love most about iPhone software — indie developers, attention to detail, love of UI — Ramp Champ lands squarely in the bullseye.

Jailbreak App of the Year: ProSwitcher

Even post-iPhone 3.0, Jailbreak continued to fill gaps in functionality like theming, BT keyboards, lockscreen widgets, notification management, and — of course — unlocking the iPhone 3GS. If Apple won’t do it, it’s been proven time and time again the Jailbreak community will.

ProSwitcher did the same, but looked especially great doing it. Take a Jailbroken iPhone, add Backgrounder to get your multitask on, and then manage the whole thing with Safari Pages-style — and yes, webOS cards-style UI candy.

Bluetooth Headset of the Year: Blueant Q1

Apple raised the stakes in 2009 by adding iPhone 3.0 support for A2DP stereo Bluetooth — sort of. Apple forgot to add all the proper control protocols, so you can’t skip tracks, but boy can you still rock out. Now iPhone and iPod touch users can enjoy music (and adjusting volume), and excellent products like the Motorola S9-HD and the Jabra Cruiser speakerphone.

And if that wasn’t enough, our pick for BT headset of the year, the Blueant Q1 got an update — really, how often to BT headsets get firmware update?! — to enable A2DP. It’s a premium product, just like the iPhone, but with voice control, and support for two phones (for you dual wielders), it’s also a fantastic one.

Case of the Year: Otterbox Defender

Apple can’t win. They change the design of the iPhone 3G and people with iPhone 2G cases complain their old accessories don’t fit. They keep the iPhone 3GS in the same duds, and people complain it’s boring. But at least the case makers could concentrate on better rather than different, and better they have. From the soft-stylings of the iSkin solo to the gloss of the Case-mate Barely There Chrome and the utility of the Golla bag, there’s definitely a “case for that”.

And if we’re talking case, and we’re talking protection, the Hummer of cases, the battle-armor of protection, is the OtterBox Defender. It’s not for those who just want a sticker or a skin, a splash of color or the smell of fine leather — it’s for those who want their iPhone survive. And it’s our case of the year.

EPIC FAIL of the Year: Capricious App Store Rejections

No doubt the App Store is such a smash hit that even Apple was unprepared for the tsunami of submissions they’re now facing. The numbers are staggering, but not as staggering as the growth rate. But choosing to be a gatekeeper comes with it the responsibility of being a good gatekeeper. It’s Apple’s store and they can fill it’s virtual shelves with what they want, but when the developers who make the apps those shelves are being filled with lose faith — when they no longer trust Apple’s rules, or realize there are no consistent rules being enforced, even if Apple and mainstream users don’t lose out, the platform does. Sure, they’ve made some small improvements inside iTunes connect and with the RSS feed, but they’re slow to the point of being arduous.

Some developers have been frustrated enough to leave the iPhone. A few returned only because the competitions’ development environment, install base, and user experience wasn’t competitive enough… yet. But that “yet” could change at any moment. And if the best and brightest developers are making the best and brightest apps for Android rather than the iPhone, that’s not a loss to Apple’s bottom line, it’s a loss to their heart.

That’s why rejected App Store apps, specifically the capricious, opaque way in which they’re continuing to be rejected, is our epic FAIL of the year.

Story of the Year: iTablet

We’ve mentioned most of the other big stories already — the still amazing Jailbreak journey, the still disappointing App Store rejections. And then there was the leave of absence, and triumphant return of Steve Jobs.

But iTablet/iStlate was the story that wouldn’t quit, however, and the rumors, speculation, and rampant geek want built and built throughout 2009. We’re not even sure actually announcing the device (which may just happen in 2010) could have been a bigger story — anticipation is just that powerful. Whether (more likely when) it ultimate comes out, Apple’s mysterious, mythical, magical, maybe iTablet is our story of the year.

Bring on 2010!

Well, that’s it — TiPb’s Editor Awards for 2009 gone and done! What will we see in 2010? Who knows, but we’re excited to find out!

Did you agree with any of our picks? Disagree? What would YOU have given the nod to? Feel strongly about it? Tell us — or tell us off — in the comments! (And we’ll have our next Readers’ Choice Awards coming up later in 2010 so you can put your apps where your opinions are as well!)

Happy New Year

–The iPhone blog team

Apple, on orders from Senior VP of Marketing Phil Schiller, has removed all 1000 Molinker-developed iPhone apps from the App Store for allegedly astroturfing the iTunes review system with fake 5-star reviews. Says iPhone camera and video site, iPhoneography, which reprinted an email from a friend named SCW, and jointly followed up with Apple:

Please investigate for I have just looked at 44 of the reviewers who posted reviews for this Molinker Inc app “NightCam Pro” & EVERY Review except 2 of the 44+ are ALL FAKE 5 ★★★★★ reviews. (on my iPhone I could view more reviews but on my computer only 35 were visible & of the 35 visible 34 ARE fake). If you investigate ALL have ONLY reviewed ONLY Molinker apps. A little odd that 42 of 44 US reviews are poorly written & that all users have only written reviews for either All Molinker photography apps (giving 5 star reviews to 6-7 Molinker apps ONLY no other apps by any other developer) or the same 2 apps. 10 Reviewers who only reviewed NightCam Pro & ColorMagic (5 Stars), 24+ Reviewers have ONLY written reviews for 6-7 other Molinker photography apps (5 Stars) & 1-2 are real Reviews giving a 1 Star review

Schiller’s response:

“Yes, this developer’s apps have been removed from the App Store and their ratings no longer appear either.”

So, was this one of the rare positive uses of Apple’s rejection hammer? Any negatives that could come from it?

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

9to5Mac brings word of Unity’s latest update:

Unity iPhone 1.5.1 includes improved XCode support and improved AssetBundle support, but more importantly Native APIs (NSGetEnviron and exc_server functions) have been removed to comply with new Apple requirements.

“The main reason for this is to avoid problems with applications breaking when Apple releases new versions of the iPhone OS,” the company explains.

In case you hadn’t been following the story, Apple is using a new static analysis tool to find and reject apps using private APIs, and in so doing flagged a bunch of them caused by some calls inside the Unity game development engine (and the Three20 framework, perhaps among others).

On the flip side, it’s possible the same static analysis tool is also generating false positives when it comes to apps using Apple’s own recommended backward compatibility guidelines.

According to Apple’s Dev Center:

By using “weak linking” in your Xcode project, you can include frameworks you’ll need for the newer features, and check for API availability when your application is running. This technique provides you with the broadest possible audience for your application.

Yet developer Juicy Bits Software speculates that:

we’ve been bitten yet again by the static analysis tool. 3D Camera Lite runs on iPhone OS 3.0 or later, and we check the OS version before calling any of the new 3.1 APIs…

So, basically, Apple’s not acknowledging the OS check, and rejecting based on 3.1 APIs being used for apps that run on earlier versions of the iPhone OS that don’t include those APIs as public.

If correct, that’s certainly “frustrating” as they put it, and yet another sore point Apple will need to address and quickly.

[Thanks to Jordan for the Juicy Bits tip!]

A little while ago we posted about Apple’s new use of a static analysis tool to find private API calls and reject the apps that make them. Rather than Storm8 or Unity this time, however, it’s former Facebook developer Joe Hewitt’s pioneering Three20 framework that’s getting caught.

Daring Fireball has some details:

One popular open source framework, Joe Hewitt’s Three20 (linked here on DF back in March), played a bit fast and loose with private APIs, and so now there are numerous developers with apps getting flagged for private API calls made from the Three20 framework. This Google Groups thread [link] covers the problem and the work that’s being done to create a branch of Three20 that’s free of private API calls.

Gruber also links to RogueSheep, whose Postage app has gotten caught via Three20, and has some suggestions to help them help Apple help them avoid getting rejected for unintended private API calls in the future:

Making the static analysis tool available to developers would indeed be helpful. But I suspect it wouldn’t work in terms of game theory. Honest developers could make good use of having access to the tool, to help ensure their projects are free of private API violations. But dishonest developers would use the tool to figure out ways to slip private API calls past the checker. Parrish’s second request, for Apple to run the tool against submissions far sooner in the review process, strikes me as a good and reasonable one.

Us as well.

Speaking of Storm8, Unity-engine code, private API, and Gruber, A recent Twitter exchange between him shows just how seriously all of this is now being taken by the App Store:

Hockenberry: Hearing lots of reports about apps getting rejected due to private API usage. Maybe now you’ll believe me when I say it’s a bad idea…

Gruber: Yup: Apple recently started running apps through a static analysis tool to look for private API calls.

Google set off some of the private API discussion when they implemented them as part of the Google Mobile app (though it’s our understanding those API were later made public). Generally, private or unpublished API are kept that way because Apple (or whichever platform maker is supplying the APIs) hasn’t finished working on them, are planning changes, or is otherwise reserving their use — if 3rd parties implement them anyway, any future OS update can break them and cause problems for end users. Public API, on the other hand, are supported and intended to let developers do their thing without worrying about platform-level changes wrecking their apps.

It looks like Apple is using its rejection power for good this time — removing games built on the Unity engine which included private-API calls that could be used to steal private user information like your iPhone’s phone number.

Not all of the rejected/removed games were engaged in privacy violations (or even had the network capability to exploit it), but Apple isn’t taking any chances following the Storm8 lawsuit. Touch Arcade has the details:

The Unity engine currently uses the two private API calls that Storm8 allegedly exploited to steal user data, NSGetEnviron and excserver. Mantas Puida of Unity Technologies explains these two API’s utilized by the Unity engine serve the following functions:

_NSGetEnviron is used by Mono runtime to provide implementation of .NET core API method: Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable().

exc_server is also used by Mono runtime to provide graceful NULL reference exception handling.

The Unity engine, however, has been updated to remove the offending API calls, and the games are being recompiled and resubmitted to the App Store. Hopefully this will keep users’ data safe from unscrupulous developers, while the scrupulous ones continue to turn out great games.

[Touch Arcade via TUAW]

After submitting a minor .1 bug fix for Airfoil Speakers Touch 1.0.1 [Free - iTunes link] for iPhone and iPod touch, longtime Mac developers Rogue Amoeba waited for what they assumed would be a routine App Store review. Three and a half months, three rejections, and the unsuccessful intervention of a champion at Apple, the app is finally in the store, but the developer has decided the process is too odorous to continue with the iPhone platform.

Don’t stop us just because you’ve heard this before over and over again.

The issue this time was Rogue Amoeba discovering the type of Mac and exact application that was being used as audio source, and displaying the corresponding Mac OS X-provided image of the machine and icon for the app.

Though standard — intended — behavior on the Mac, Apple’s App Store policy branded this a trademark violation and they requested it be changed. Rogue Amoeba assumed the request was erroneous and tried resubmitting, tried escalating via email, even had a champion inside Apple try help get it through. In the end, the App Store policy was an immovable object, and Rogue Amoeba had to remove the Mac and app icon images. Airfoil Speakers Touch 1.0.1 was then approved and placed in the app store.

(And during the whole process, Airfoil Speakers Touch 1.0, buggy as it was, and using the exact same artwork Apple had issue with in 1.0.1 was left untouched in the App Store for users to download and use).

In the future, we hope that developers will be allowed to ship software without needing Apple’s approval at all, the same way we do on Mac OS X. We hope the App Store will get better, review times will be shorter, reviews will be more intelligent, and that we can all focus on making great software. Right now, however, the platform is a mess.

The chorus of disenchanted developers is growing and we’re adding our voices as well. Rogue Amoeba no longer has any plans for additional iPhone applications, and updates to our existing iPhone applications will likely be rare. The iPhone platform had great promise, but that promise is not enough, so we’re focusing on the Mac.

Add our voice to the chorus: fix. this. More after the break…

While many of these developers point to Apple acting as App Store gatekeeper as the issue, we’d submit right now the actual issue is Apple continuing to act as a capricious, illogical, unpredictable, often stupefying gatekeeper.

Curating a store is just a business model. It may well cost them developers philosophically opposed to the idea, even incredibly talented ones like Facebook’s Joe Hewitt, but every decision has an opportunity cost. Choosing to curate a store, even one growing so fast it has 2 billion downloads and 100,000 apps, and continuing to suffer from poor communications, overzealous legal oversight, unclear guidelines, and the crap shoot that seems ultimately at the core of any given app getting approved on any given day… it just doesn’t work.

Getting rid of the gatekeeper might treat the symptom but is it the cure? Apple legal could just as easily issue a DMCA demand notice for an app using artwork they felt was a trademark violation, and have it taken down — even under Google’s more open, publish-first, investigate-if-flagged App Market system. The problem is Apple shouldn’t think using that artwork is a problem on the iPhone if it isn’t on the Mac. That, and the dozens of other so-obvious-it-hurts-our-brains-issues, are what needs to be fixed, and what are driving developers to question the platform.

Like Palm, Apple could allow developers to skip review entirely, leave them off the storefront, but give them a direct download link to market and distribute on their own. That wouldn’t fix this issue. They could extend Ad-Hoc to infinity so there’d be no update notification or over-the-air (re)downloads, but developers could make binaries available themselves and users could drag and drop them into iTunes to install, along with beefy warning flags for “unapproved apps”. They could create those $999+ “pro” developer accounts, along with dedicated App Store point-of-contact and accelerated review process (levels of partnership program exist on many other platforms and in many other businesses).

Or Apple could just spend some of that 35 billion on hiring a legion of reviewers (rather than just 40ish), training them to the standards of Apple Retail, creating a second team dedicated to communicating with developers, and third team focused solely on whatever tiny percentage of cases, like the one above, spiral out of control.

Yes, Apple is making incremental improvements like email escalation and better review status messages, but every step forward always seems to be met with an equal and opposing step back.

2 billion downloads, 100,000 apps — Apple touts the growth and size of the App Store in press releases, they need to start respecting that size in practice. Observably respecting. It shouldn’t take a champion inside Apple. It shouldn’t take emails from Apple Marketing SVP, Phil Schiller. It shouldn’t take an open letter from Steve Jobs. (Though it might help restore some developer confidence at this point). It should just work, and Apple needs to invest whatever they need to invest at this point to make it work.

Umpteenth verse, same as the first — Macworld turned their iPhone ebook into and app and submitted it to the iTunes App Store. It was rejected. Several times. Finally editor Jason Snell expressed his frustration on Twitter and several high profile blogs picked it up. Apple called him immediately to try and make it right.

Good for Macworld. Bad for all the developers who lack the same megaphone by virtue of their job and connections.

Granted, with 100,000+ apps, the non-sensical and erroneous rejections remain a tiny percentage, but even a tiny percentage of 100,000+ represents many developers’ time, effort, and money. It’s frustrating for them and embarrassing for Apple.

Tim Cook and Phil Schiller claim they’re making improvements, and no doubt they are. From a pure perception point of view, however, this is one issue that needs fixing sooner rather than later.

One of TiPb’s favorite iPhone games, indeed the game that cost some of us fingerprints on our index fingers, StoneLoops! of Jurassica has been pulled from the iTunes App Store following a copyright infringement complaint from Luxor-maker MumboJumbo. According to the developers’ blog Casual Games Harmony:

About 3 weeks ago we have learned that MumboJumbo supplied Apple with a formal complaint and a request to remove StoneLoops! from the AppStore. The reason? Infringing Luxor copyright, confusing customers, stealing Luxor’s look & feel and even stealing their source code! This might sound absurd to anyone who knows both games but apparently Apple decided otherwise as we’ve been requested to prepare a formal response, which we did. We described how ungrounded each claim is and supplied various materials to back our claims.

The developers responded, denying all but one complaint (the word Luxor appeared in the text of a quoted review, which they offered to remove). Apple, it seems, removed StoneLoops of Jurassica anyway. This led to the developer further pondering that:

if Apple stands by its decision this will create a dangerous precedence. If you are a developer and have an application in the AppStore you should quickly request Apple to remove the apps of your competition, before someone else requests to remove you! I don’t believe this can get any more absurd, but this is exactly where this reasoning is getting us.

Copyright and infringement is a messy, litigious business, one which Apple puts itself squarely in the middle of by virtue of acting as sole App Store custodian. How can they determine merit all on their own, and avoid action by either affected party regardless of what they decide?

We love StoneLoops! We want it back immediately, but more than that — we need a better way for these disputes to be handled. Is there one?

[via AppAdvice, thanks Tyler!]

In a post on their official blog, Google has let the world know that, “in the interest of transparency,” they’re allowing the FCC to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request to fully publish their response about the whole Google Voice Rejection Brouhaha, and it’s an interesting read, to say the least. You can grab the PDF of the letter right here.

The letter, which had been previously redacted, claims that not only did Apple fully reject both Google Voice and Latitude, but the rejection came after conversations between top executives, including Phil Shiller. This contradicts Apple’s claim that they had not rejected the apps, but merely reviewing them in a more extensive way.

The reason for the rejections (as Google calls them) is what you probably expected: “duplicate functionality.” Google writes:

Apple’s representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality

The story is much the same for Google Latitude, but has a bit more shadenfreude to it since the functionality that’s being duplicated is “a version of Google Maps.” Google also details the dates of calls, emails, and in-person conversations between Alan Eustace of Google (VP of Engineering and Research) and Phil Schiller of Apple (VP of Worldwide Product Marketing, but you knew that).

So… the worm and turned and Google’s letting the world know they feel rejected. How do you feel after this latest development?

Rhapsody [free - iTunes Link] is now available in the iTunes App Store. It was less than a month ago that we told you about the submission of RealNetwork’s Rhapsody iPhone app, well Apple may have been scared straight by the FCC because it’s been approved and is now available as a free download.

Now don’t don’t forget there is a $15/month subscription fee you must dish out if you want all of that music streaming goodness over AT&T’s data network or Wi-Fi. Sorry folks, no off-line access like Spotify here.

In a strange twist of fate, PreCentral.net tells us Palm has rejected their first App Catalog app, NaNPlayer, a (superior according to PC) replacement for the built-in Pre music player. Why did they do this? The developer used an undocumented API and that violates the SDK agreement. Sound familiar, iPhone users? Will Palm now get the same grief Apple does?

Sound off in the comments!

As of this writing, while the C64 emulator app still shows up in the iTunes App Store, attempting to buy it results in the above error message:

The item you tried to buy is no longer available

The availability of the item changed while you were using the store. The same item may be available with a different price or elsewhere on the store.

Whether this is just a glitch in the system, or a result of Apple pulling the app due to the BASIC interpreter still being accessible via a workaround (which would likely be a violation of the SDK license agreement), is unknown. If the latter, hopefully the developer can update and return the app to the store ASAP. Given how fast Apple has been processing Facebook updates lately, it shouldn’t take long to get a revision up, right?

[Thanks to @clayrussell for the head's up!]

According to developers Bjango, Apple is now telling developers to remove the “Free Memory” function — the ability to clear data from RAM without force quitting or rebooting — from their iPhone (and iPod touch) applications or those applications will be removed from the App Store.

Bjango, who makes iStat [$1.99 on sale - iTunes link] had to do just that for their latest version:

Stat’s Free Memory function was removed at Apple’s request. This decision was completely out of our hands. Please note that all other apps with Free Memory appear to have been removed or updated without their Free Memory function too.

After eliciting feedback and considering their options, Bjango went ahead and removed the feature. (Bjango advises users who want the feature to NOT UPGRADE their copies, and reminds Mac users with Time Machine how to downgrade to the old, “Free Memory”-enabled version if necessary.)

To rub salt on their wounds, negative reviews are now piling up for iStat in iTunes, of course, despite Bjango explaining Apple requested the removal in the app’s “What’s New in This Version” section.

What Apple’s rationale may be (if Phil Schiller deigns anyone with another email) is unknown.

[Thanks Scott for the tip!]

Convertbot [$0.99 - iTunes link] has seen their latest update, version 1.4 for iPhone (and iPod touch), rejected by at least 2 of Apple’s 40+ App Store reviewers because the icon they’re using for “Time” (the same icon they’ve been using since 1.0, mind you) is nigh-identical to Apple’s built in “Recent” icon, and that was enough to raise that troublesome “user confusion” flag at iTunes HQ.

They’re going to try and find a different yet equally minimalist icon, and we’re going to start counting down to a letter from either Phil Schiller or the FCC…

Sigh.

[Via Daring Fireball]

Apple has responded to the FCC’s questions, issued following the controversial rejection of Google’s Google Voice application (though, in their response, it looks like Apple is claiming they haven’t rejected Google Voice, but are merely reviewing it (updated: under the dubious “duplicates functionality” rationale, due to independent and different dialing and voice mail interfaces and) to see if it violates Apple’s contract with AT&T not to allow VoIP over AT&T’s data network.)

We are pleased to respond to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s inquiry dated July 31, 2009, requesting information regarding Apple’s App Store and its application approval process. In order to give the Bureau some context for our responses, we begin with some background information about the iPhone and the App Store.

The entire document is available via Apple.com.

Google and AT&T responded as well, though not on their own websites yet. Engadget is hosting their letters. AT&T claims they were never contacted about Google Voice, however if their contract with Apple forbids it, like Skype and other VoIP apps, Apple wouldn’t have to contact them, so again — huge round of jeers for AT&T’s non-denial denials.

[Thanks to Doug for the tip)

Mac developer and Panic luminary Steven Frank’s public break-up with the iPhone over Apple’s capricious App Store policy was one of the few so grounded in rationale and reason we couldn’t discount it, and neither could Apple’s Senior VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller.

While Schiller previously responded to Daring Fireball’s John Gruber over concerns about the Ninjawords app, Schiller’s response to Steve Frank was different in kind, if similar in sentiment:

I haven’t sought Phil’s explicit permission to republish the letter, so I won’t do so here. But to summarize, he said: “we’re listening to your feedback”. Not all of my suggested solutions were viable, he said, but they were taking it all in as they continue to evolve the app store.

He went on to say that the rumors of widespread e-book app rejection I’d heard were false — that specifically one e-book app had been rejected because it facilitated iPhone-to-iPhone sharing of (potentially copyrighted) books. But that otherwise, there was no sweeping ban on e-book readers.

First, it’s interesting to see such high level and yet fairly intimate intervention by an Apple executive when it comes to the App Store. It’s not an open letter by Steve Jobs — it’s something subtler, and yet seemingly targeted to engender the type of good will that could give Apple the time and good faith they need to fix the App Store approval process if — and it’s a huge if — they truly take the time to fix it. And that’s the fulcrum of actions and results upon which Schiller’s intervention will ultimately succeed or fail.

Second, Steven Frank is now left to wonder whether to continue his boycott of the iPhone given the lack of those observable actions visible results, or to extend his hand back to Apple and give them that same second chance.

It will be interesting to see what happens next…

Let’s just ask it: is it time for an open letter from Steve Jobs concerning the state of the iTunes App Store? Apple’s CEO has written several of these over the course of the last few years — rare public statements typically addressing wide-spread perceptions of critical problems or situations facing Apple. He’s taken on DRM in music (but not video) to prevent the EU from forcing Apple to license FairPlay DRM, offered $100 to early iPhone 2G buyers incensed by a rapid post-launch price drop, addressed the lack of native apps on the iPhone amid massive developer dissatisfaction, espoused Apple’s commitment to the environment given Greenpeace’s constant PR pressure, and spoken about the uncertainty surrounding his health prior to Macworld to help assuage investor panic. There was even a “leaked” internal letter regarding the troubled MobileMe launch, one of the worst customer relations situations Apple has faced in recent years.

While the App Store is not yet a large-scale consumer facing problem like the iPhone 2G price cut or MobileMe were (some consumers don’t even use the App Store, many others don’t follow any backstage news about), nor a regulatory issue like DRM-music threatened to be (Apple is hardly a monopoly in the smartphone space) or Jobs’ health might have been to investors, it is and will continue to cause Apple pain in one very important area: tech savvy, power users (and media) who typically influence friends (and readers) and generally presage public perception.

Jason Calacanis, who’s frustration at this point clearly overcame his reason (see Marco Arment‘s retort), and Mike Arrington, who might again garner Leo Laporte-esque responses himself, are easy to dismiss given their bombastic personalities, passion, and self-interests. Others aren’t so easily dismissed. Long time Mac developer Steven Frank is one example. Daring Fireball’s John Gruber is another. Dieter’s ranted about it on iPhone Live! and Jeremy and I have even written a word or two. Heck, even Apple’s highly operational COO Tim Cook and perennially affable Senior VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller, have mentioned it.

But Steve Jobs hasn’t.

Granted, Jobs is just getting back to work after an extended leave of absence and has been letting his team do their share of heavy lifting, but despite Apple’s highly innovative, world class executive team, Steve Jobs is still the voice of Apple, and there’s likely very little else — aside from carefully watching and tracking tiny improvements over an extended period of time — that will help ease the growing concerns about the App Store and grant Apple a little renewed faith along the way.

An open letter from Steve Jobs in Apple’s news feed, symbolic though it may be, stating a clear “we want a delightful App Store experience for developers” manifesto, reflecting an understanding of the current concerns, offering a “Mobile Me News” olive branch of openness — doing what he did for DRM, the $100 credits, the green initiative, the native apps SDK — would not only address the immediate perception problem, but could start fixing the root cause. Even a “leaked” letter like the one that followed MobileMe’s launch would be a start.

Apple’s often effective, often decried, culture of secrecy is widely thought to emanate from Steve Jobs. He’s shattered it before for Apple’s benefit. Is it time for him to shatter it again?

Daring Fireball received a response from Apple Senior VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller, regarding the App Store incident involving the Ninjawords iPhone dictionary app.

Gruber quotes “the salient parts” of the email in full, but the gist seems to be that, unlike other dictionaries approved for the App Store, Ninjawords drew from Wiktionary — an open internet source — and thus the App Store suggested they wait until iPhone 3.0 was released with parental controls before re-submitting it. Not knowing the release date of 3.0 and not wanting to wait, the Ninjawords developers went ahead and filtered it themselves, thus ending up with a filtered app that took long enough to approve it timed itself into the 17+ rating anyway.

However, other dictionaries with the same “objectionable content” haven’t been flagged as 17+, so the capricious nature of the App Store — the very thing developers fear most — remains. Check out the above link to Daring Fireball for more on that aspect.

For his part, Schiller closes his response as follows:

Apple’s goals remain aligned with customers and developers — to create an innovative applications platform on the iPhone and iPod touch and to assist many developers in making as much great software as possible for the iPhone App Store. While we may not always be perfect in our execution of that goal, our efforts are always made with the best intentions, and if we err we intend to learn and quickly improve.

On the heels Tim Cook’s comments about improvements needed to the App Store, if observable actions follow the sentiments, perhaps developers and users alike will begin to regain some faith in the approval process. Until then, it remains an unsightly blemish on Apple’s otherwise brilliant mobile platform.

(No word yet on whether Gruber asked him about Google Voice…)

• Our podcast feed
• Download Directly
• Subscribe via iTunes

Join Dieter, Chris, and Rene for iPhone 3.0.1, iProd 1,1 speculation, more App Store craziness, top 5 jailbreak apps, and a dramatic reading! Listen in!

Featured Accessory

• Jabra SP200 Bluetooth Speakerphone for Hands-Free iPhone 3G/3GS Action

News

iPhone 3.0.1 – SMS Fix

• iPhone OS 3.0.1 Now Available Via iTunes
• Fixes SMS Security Vulnerability
• iPhone 3.0.1 redsn0w & ultrasn0w Safe for Jailbreak, no more Purplera1n

iPhone 3GS Watch

• Rogers Canada to Start Selling 8GB iPhone 3GS?

Apps and App Store

• App Store Insists Ninjawords iPhone Dictionary Remove “Objectionable” Content, Still Classifies it 17+
• Apple Adds “App Store Review Status”, Escalation Email, to iPhone Dev Center
• FCC Investigating Google Voice Rejection from Apple’s iTunes App Store, AT&T’s Involvement
• AT&T Issues Non-Denial Denial on Denying Google Voice Entry into App Store

iTunes & iTablet

• iProd 1,1 Once Again Seen in iPhone Firmware
• Crazy Rumor: Apple to Turn iTunes Accounts into Paypal Competitor?!
• Apple Launches iTunes Store (Music) in Mexico!
• FCC Investigating Google Voice Rejection from Apple’s iTunes App Store, AT&T’s Involvement

Jailbreak Central

• Apple Officially Warns Against Jailbreaking
• Top 5 Must-Have Jailbreak Apps: Post iPhone 3.0 Edition

Carrier Talk

• TiPb Poll Results: Verizon Couldn’t Handle the iPhone Either
• T-Mobile UK Offering Unlocked iPhones to Retain High-Value Customers?
• Rogers/Fido Canada Extend 6GB/$30 Data “Promotion” to September 15

The Competition

• Microsoft Gives Devs Guide to iCloning iPhone Apps for Windows Mobile
• iPhone developer revolt brewing, what can Palm learn?

In Other News

• Netflix Next to Stream to iPhone?
• Google’s Eric Schmidt Resigns from Apple Board of Directors
• Nintendo: iPhone May Damage Sales

Help and How To

• Want Easy Google Voice Access on Your iPhone? Go Old School with a Bookmarklet!

Forums

• From the Forums: iPhone 3.0 Jailbreak Apps, Overheating, 3GS Photos, Battery Tips

Credits

Thanks to the the iPhone Blog Store for sponsoring the podcast, and to everyone who showed up for the live chat!

Our music comes from the following sources:

• I Called You — iPhone Remix by Pete Leidy
via Sneakmove iPhone Ringtone Challenge

A couple new and interesting cases of App Store rejection, including the stripping Perfect Acumen and owner, Khalid Shaik, of their developer account, and ejecting their 900+ application already in the store, and the blanket rejection of E-Books — both nebulously tied to copyright infringement or the fear thereof.

Details after the break…

First one comes via MobileCrunch and tells of the aforementioned Khalid Shaik who, using a team of 26 Indian and Pakistani based programmers, turned out a mind-numbing (in more ways than one) 943 apps in the last year. These apps aggregated text or images from the Internet around topics like army news, wrestling news, sexy ladies, etc. and typically sold for $4.99. The only problem, of course, is that Shaik didn’t own the rights to the content he was using, and when you start trying to profit off racy pictures of young starlets you pull from the internet, the copyright police will come knocking. (Though apparently other developers were incensed over his marketing methods, and many users were none to pleased with the quality of the apps they purchased).

Apple claims it received complaints about more than one hundred of Shaik’s apps, and since Shaik has failed to respond, they’ve stripped his company, Perfect Acumen, of their developer license and removed his apps from the App Store.

MobileCrunch points out similar developer, Brighthouse Labs and their 1000+ apps have yet to be removed, though Apple may simply be at an earlier point in their internal, infamously opaque ejection process for Brighthouse.

Second, Erica Sadun at TUAW has learned that Apple has begun a blanket rejection of E-Books and E-Book readers due to concerns about copyright infringement. TUAW says there’s no evidence to suggest Apple is trying to bully the deck clear in order to launch E-Books as part of iTunes to coincide with their mythically rumored iTablet.

Apple could be responding to the recent Amazon Kindle debacle, where 1984 and Animal Farm were yanked from the service due to copyright infringement claims — not all books enter the public domain in all countries at the same time, apparently.

Says TUAW:

Apple cannot police the developers and will not allow possibly fraudulent postings on their store. Apple does not want to be in the position of vetting rights claims.

By letting E-Books and E-Book readers into the App Store, Apple will no doubt get DMCA (or equivalent) take down letters by publishers who believe their rights are being infringed. However, this is a cost of doing business everyone from YouTube (which is built into the iPhone) to niche forums (many of which can be access by the also built-in MobileSafari browser) have to face.

Set yourself up as lone gatekeeper, it’s hard to feel sympathy when you start cutting corners to get your job done…

Ninjawords [$1.99 - iTunes link], a delightfully crafted dictionary application, was rejected from the iTunes App Store no less than three times of “objectionable content” and still slapped with a 17+ rating before being approved in mutilated form in just the latest of Apple’s stupefying, infuriating, frustrating, and ultimately disappointing blunders that haunt their mobile platform.

Daring Fireball casts a scathing light on the Ninjawords situation, and sums it up brilliantly:

The list of omitted words includes some which have utterly non-objectionable senses: ass, snatch, pussy, cock, and even screw. (Ass and cock appear throughout the King James Bible.)

Every time I think I’ve seen the most outrageous App Store rejection, I’m soon proven wrong. I can’t imagine what it will take to top this one.

Apple requires you to be 17 years or older to purchase a censored dictionary that omits half the words Steve Jobs uses every day.

Yes, you cannot find words for donkeys, cats, roosters, or hardware in this one dictionary on the App Store (though you can, of course, in Apple’s own Mac OS X dictionary). Gruber also rightly points out that App Store reviewers would have had to deliberately search for words like f–k and c–t to find them, given the care taken by the apps developers in filtering results, which mirrors the rejection of e-book reader Eucalyptus when not one but two App Store reviewers deliberately searched for Kama Sutra, apparently just so they could reject an app. (Maybe because they duplicate functionality of Mobile Safari?)

Steve Jobs is back. Could we desperately suggest nothing, not Eric Schmidt, not iTablets, not AT&T should be higher on his priority list than forcing sanity upon the App Store and now? Or does Apple really want the influential, tech-savvy apperati to start considering competing platforms?

AT&T has issued an even more strongly worded statement that at first glance shifts blame for denying Google Voice and Google Voice-related iPhone apps entry into the iTunes App Store, while on second glance looks like that’s all it’s really aimed at doing — shifting blame and not actually denying responsibility.

“AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it.”

As others have pointed out, AT&T has previously admitted complicity in denying SlingMedia Player usage of the 3G network for their iPhone app, and is widely suspected of having likewise limited the Skype app and having the NetShare tethering app removed from the App Store last year.

Had they rather said something closer akin to “we have no problem with Google Voice or any Google Voice-related app running on our network” it would be quite a bit more believable. (Although who knows what contractual muzzles Apple, AT&T, and perhaps even Google are operating under, though the FCC is sure trying to find out).

If you haven’t yet, get on over to our poll and let us know what you think!

UPDATE: DaringFireball claims a source has confirmed that Apple pulled Google Voice apps at the request of AT&T. GigaOm, by contrast, wonders why AT&T would ban Google Voice (and Skype, and SlingBox) on the iPhone and allow them on BlackBerry, for example. We don’t know of course, but we guess nothing else scares AT&T like the iPhone — it’s the first multi-million selling consumer smartphone success, people actually use its features, and it hits their balsa-wood network like a freight-train. -Rene

ORIGINAL: Apple has systematically removed and/or rejected all Google Voice apps for the iPhone (and iPod touch) from the iTunes App Store, whether by Google themselves or by third party developers.

Rejection is something we’ve all become very familiar with since the inception Apple’s App Store. However, Apple picking off the two Google Voice applications that were already available in the App Store (GV Mobile and Voicecentral) along with flat out rejecting Google’s official application, is something else.

It all started with Sean Kovacs’ GV Mobile client, which originally became available last week (according to Kovacs after being approved by Apple VP Phil Schiller himself), being yanked from the App Store for allegedly duplicating the iPhone’s calling and text messaging features. When Apple contacted Kovacs, no specifics were given on what needs to be changed to get his app back into the store and Kovacs claims Apple refused to send an e-mail to confirm that GV Mobile was yanked. The following is from Kovacs blog:

Richard Chipman from Apple just called – he told me they’re removing GV Mobile from the App Store due to it duplicating features that the iPhone comes with (Dialer, SMS, etc). He didn’t actually specify which features, although I assume the whole app in general. He wouldn’t send a confirmation email either – too scared I would post it. I’ll see what I can do to get it back up there gang…

Voicecentral has since also disappeared from existence within the App Store. They have been less vocal as there is not a single mention of the disappearance on their website.

Is this Apple’s doing or more of a carrier-forced rejection? TiPb thinks the carriers are pulling Apple’s rejection strings on this one as Google Voice has the potential to hit the carriers where it hurts – free SMS messages, cheaper phone calls, etc…

What do you readers think about these rejections?

[Via AppleInsider]

Amazon, citing new provisions of their API/data terms of use, informed Delicious Library developer Wil Shipley that if he didn’t immediately remove Delicious Library for iPhone from the iTunes App Store, they’d remove his ability to use Amazon APIs and data from all of his products, including the long-standing Delicious Library for Mac.

Just when we thought Apple had a hold on mind-boggling app blocking. Sigh.

TUAW quotes the relevant new passage:

(e) You will not, without our express prior written approval requested via this link , use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device.

So, according to Shipley:

Delicious Library for iPhone isn’t coming back as long as we’re using Amazon’s APIs, unless they decide to make an exception to section 4e.

Which he says he’s been told they aren’t going to do at this point.

Is this just another big company stumbling around in confusion about new mobile technology and how it’s used, ready to rectify it when public outcry makes them aware and uncomfortable. Or is this a sign that Amazon has big plans for this new mobile technology themselves, and they don’t plan to share?

Last week the first iPhone (and iPod touch) app to feature nudity was live in the iTunes App Store. Technically, however, it was simply a change in the server behind the app — the developer added nude images.

Subsequently, however, the app became unavailable. The developer first reported that their own servers couldn’t keep up with demand for the newly nudified images, but it turns out Apple laid the hammer down on the “soft-core porn” app:

Apple will not distribute applications that contain inappropriate content, such as pornography. The developer of this application added inappropriate content directly from their server after the application had been approved and distributed, and after the developer had subsequently been asked to remove some offensive content. This was a direct violation of the terms of the iPhone Developer Program. The application is no longer available on the App Store.

Given that Apple has included new parental controls and App Store restrictions in iPhone 3.0, including a declaration for nude content, and given the eternal argument that nudity is available for age-appropriate viewers via iTunes movies, is there some contradiction still at work? Or is Apple drawing the line artificially close for now while it watches and gauges reaction?

[via CNN]

Tim Daley let us know via Twitter that his app, What Would Chuck Do?, was rejected by Apple’s iTunes App Store for the most terrifying reason imaginable. Because they said so:

Thank you for submitting WWCD – What Would Chuck Do to the App Store. We’ve reviewed the Application and, consistent with the criteria considered in our approval process, we have chosen not to publish this application. As you know, Apple reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject an application for any reason.

Regards,

iPhone Developer Program

While as a publisher, this is absolutely within Apple’s rights, as a platform that needs to nurture and maintain the support of both its developer and user base, it’s suicidal. And what’s worse, it’s stupid. In this day and age, especially for a company as connected as Apple, poor communication causing bad PR is as astounding as it is inexcusable.

Steve Jobs and Eddy Cue need to pull out whatever flame-thrower they marched the halls of MobileMe with last year and turn them full-throttle on whatever passes for the current App Store rejection policy. If any reviewer even thinks of typing “because we said so” they should immediately be transfered to whatever passes at Apple for Siberia.

It’s getting tiring to keep typing this, but developers deserve clear, consistent guidelines, users deserve top notch reviewers to make sure we get the best technical quality in apps, and Apple deserves a happy developers and PR experience that matches the phenomenal success of the App Store.

It’s such an easy thing to fix, which makes it all the more stupefying Apple not only hasn’t fixed it, but hasn’t even reached out to developers to show they understand the frustration level and are working to fix it.

For more examples, see TUAW’s recent reports from Christina Warren on MiniPops and Erica Sadu on iLaugh Lite.

Stupefying.

Short story: GP Apps made iVidCam, a video recording app. Apple rejected it for using undocumented APIs. The developers appealed on the grounds that other camera-related apps also use undocumented APIs and demanded Apple allow it in, and let them sell it for 2 months before Apple released their own video recording functionality, as anticipated for WWDC 2009. Apple thanked them for pointing out other API violators, said they would investigate, and let the rejection stand.

Long story, including personal response from Apple VP of marketing, Phil Schiller: See GPApps.com.

It’s hard not to sympathize with GP Apps given the amount of hard work and obvious passion they’ve put into iVidCam. They’ve made 680(!) other apps already and had them approved in the App Store.

It’s hard to sympathize with Apple, whose App Store approval policies remain opaque and seemingly capricious to the point we’re amazed developers have any hair left.

But here’s the thing: the app is in clear violation of App Store policy. If Apple keeps the other violating apps in the store, GP Apps could clearly argue fairness, but if Apple investigates and removes the other apps, that’s a done deal. Basing significant development resources on the shaky foundation of others getting away with something is harder to sympathize with. It’s more of a gamble than an investment.

In other words, if several people jaywalk in front of us, and we get caught, we’re still getting the ticket. And demanding that the cop not give us the ticket, and give us two months of unmolested jaywalking privileges on top of it… Well, we admire the hutzpah, but when the cop’s name is Apple, we don’t see it getting us too far.

Still, we wish GP Apps good luck. If those APIs are made public (as happened with the undocumented API’s Google was using), and Apple restricts their built-in video functionality to third generation hardware, we expect it will iVidCam may still appeal to a lot of iPhone 2G and iPhone 3G owners.

What do you think?

Daring Fireball has posted a bitingly satirical look at Apple’s iPhone App Store review process which, like the best of comedy, is firmly rooted in both tragedy and truth. That Apple hasn’t posted clear guidelines for developers is frustrating enough. That they apparently haven’t imposed them on their own internal staff raises the flabbergast bar to dizzying new heights.

With 35,000+ apps and a billion downloads Apple is well on their way towards building that next great platform. Until they fix the app approval process, however, that building is a house of cards.

Enough of the choir preaching. Here’s Gruber bringing the painful funny:

MONDAY MAY 18: The dude who wrote that game with the iPhone icon seems very upset. Says that the iPhone image is used to explain that the user must tilt the device in order to play the game, and so how can he show this visually without using an image of an iPhone. And he has a list of other apps already in the Store which use similar graphics. I reply with the exact same message as last week, word for word. Spend the rest of the day playing Flight Control.

Read the entire Excerpts From the Diary of an App Store Reviewer via Daring Fireball…

• Our podcast feed
• Download Directly
• Subscribe via iTunes

News

• iPhone 3.0
  • iPhone 3.0 Walkthrough Now Updated to Beta 5
  • Apple Recruiting Developers to Beta Test Push Notification
  • And we’ve got the screenshots to show it!
  • But is Apple reconsidering and thinking of allowing limited background multitasking? We’ve got three rumors saying… maybe!
  • If you’re not a developer and are running iPhone 3.0, and have hardware issues, don’t count on the Apple Store!

• iPhone: Next Gen Rumorpalooza Part XXVI
  • Daring Fireball Weighs in on Next Gen iPhone
  • Asahi Kasei Confirmed for Digital Compass
  • Super-Rumor: Next Gen iPhone due in store July 17 + Glowing Apple logo?
  • Apple Jobs Wanted: Faster, More Powerful iPhone Processor Architect + Embedded Video Engineer
  • Palm Pre Pressuring Apple to Pressure AT&T to Lower Rates for Next Gen iPhone?
  • Rumorous Maximus: iPhone Models to be Differentiated by Software?

• And in Other News…
  • Speaking of Palm Pre: it launches June 6, two days before WWDC. Timing much?
  • Eucalyptus Rejected! Or, Do iPhone App Store Reviewers Spend Their Time Searching for Porn?
  • iPhone Easter Eggs Could Kill App Store Golden Egg?
  • Apple Hiring At-Home Experts from July to September just in time for…?
  iPhone Doubles Share of Smartphone Market
  • Fraudulent “iTunes” Alert — Check Your Charges!

TiPb Forums

• This week, Jeremy shone the spotlight on: iPhone on Verizon Soon? Bored of Your iPhone? WWDC and New iPhone?
• Check out our awesome forum reviews for Myst and Twittelator Pro, and don’t miss the huge Forum Reviews index

Credits

Thanks to the the iPhone Blog Store for sponsoring the podcast.

Our music comes from the following sources:

• I Called You — iPhone Remix by Pete Leidy
via Sneakmove iPhone Ringtone Challenge
• Relaxation Spa Treatment by Dan the Automator via Wired 12.11: Sample the Future
• Wataridori 2 by Cornelius via Wired 12.11: Sample the Future
• DC 3000 by Thievery Corporation via Wired 12.11: Sample the Future

A while back we mentioned that an update to popular Twitter client, Tweetie was rejected by the iTunes App Store because, at that particular day and time, ****itlist showed up as a popular trend on Twitter. Later that same day Apple reversed the decision. But they haven’t, apparently, reversed the capricious lunacy that led to it.

Latest example: the e-book reader Eucalyptus has been rejected because not once, but twice, an App Store reviewer specifically searched for “the kama sutra of vatsyanya translated fr…” (or at least searching for enough of it to be offered that search term, then selecting it).

Developer James Montgomerie blogs about his frustrations, the continued opaqueness of the App Store review policy, and points out the blatant inconsistency of Safari, Google Mobile, and a variety of other built-in and already approved 3rd party apps providing complete internet search access to pretty much any content imaginable. (And some we’d frankly rather not imagine, thanks!)

Needless to say — and regardless of Apple’s statistics saying 98% of all apps are approved within 7 days of submission, 35,000+ apps in the store, and over one billion downloads — that simple, clear, and consistent guidelines, and developer support equal to the customer support Apple touts and prides itself on, are still not available some 10 months since launch, is embarrassing.

The App Store is a phenomenal success, no doubt about it, but doesn’t matter how fine your tuxedo is if you keep walking around with one or more battered, bloody eyes.

Need more absurdity? Forbes profiles the trials and tribulations involved in getting an app approved about US President Obama’s dog in cartoon form…

[via @chokenberry on Twitter, and the Reptile]

According to one of Trent Reznor’s latest tweets, an update to the very popular and crafty Nine Inch Nails application has been rejected by Apple.

Apple rejects the NIN iPhone update because it contains objectionable content. The objectionable content referenced is “The Downward Spiral”

For any of you not familar, The Downward Spiral was Reznor’s 1994 hit album that featured the popular song “Closer“. It’s a pretty good guess that is the song that put a halt to this update hitting the App Store. But wait one second… you can purchase this complete album including that particular song right one iTunes?!

Not much to say about this one but wow… just wow.

Update: Our good friend from WMExperts, @PhilNickinson, just sent over a link from the NIN forums where Trent Reznor has posted a bit more information on the rejection. Turns out The Downward Spiral is not even available to listen to in the updated app yet the objectionable content is The Downward Spiral… We are scratching our heads as well.

[Thanks to Juan for the tip!]

Today is a depressing day for all of the South Park fans out there. The South Park app that Dieter told us about back in October has been rejected once again by Apple.

We first announced our iPhone App back in October, after we submitted the Application to Apple for approval. After a couple of attempts to get the application approved, we are sad to say that our app has been rejected. According to Apple, the content was “potentially offensive.” But Apple did admit that the standards would evolve, citing that when iTunes first launched it didn’t sell any music with explicit lyrics. At this point, we are sad to say, the app is dead in the water. Sorry, South Park fans.

Who is Apple to say what is offensive and what isn’t? They let fart apps in the App Store in groves. Who is to say those do not offend anyone? How about Wobble? An app that gives you the ability to make certain female body parts jiggle around your screen. That doesn’t offend anyone? That is a choice the consumer should be making, not Apple. Ok, I’ve made my point.

There is one simple solution to something that may offend someone. If you are offended, don’t buy it!

[Via Southparkstudios.com]

To no one’s surprise, but perhaps to a few’s disppointment, Apple may have denied entry to the iTunes App Store to Opera Mini. Says the New York Times (via Daring Fireball):

Mr. von Tetzchner said that Opera’s engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won’t let the company release it because it competes with Apple’s own Safari browser.

Opera doesn’t state what the terms of rejection were, be it “duplicative functionality” like PodCaster, they dared touch Steve Jobs’ sacred dock, or whether they were trying to parse JavaScript against the terms of the SDK. Whatever the reason, however, there remains uncertainty for developers and a deafening lack of justification from Apple. (Perhaps even more ironic, given Valley Wag’s assertion that Opera was once considered by Apple to be the iPhone browser!)

For those not familiar with Opera Mini, on the Windows Mobile, Palm, and even Blackberry platforms that have been woefully under-served by the likes of Blazer and Pocket IE, Opera Mini has become one of the first things installed in a desperate attempt to get at least something closer to the actual internet on their devices (though this is changing with the likes of Android, and devices such as the Blackberry Thunder). Opera has also found a niche in embedded systems (e.g. video game platforms).

However, Opera Mini pre-crunching all data on their own servers before shipping it to handsets sets off a “Gibsonian response” in my central security core, so while it wouldn’t appeal to me on the iPhone, I would prefer to reject it myself rather than have Apple do so perfunctorily on my behalf.

What about you? Anyone seriously bummed there won’t be Opera for the iPhone any time soon?

Following on the heels of PodcasterGate, another App has been denied entry into Apple’s iTunes App Store: Mailwrangler. The reason, according to Apple (as cited by developer Angelo DiNardi, via Daring Fireball):

… Your application duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application Mail without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion. …

And:

… There is also no way to edit an account once it has been added. …

The latter is a gimme, and the developer acknowledges it, though feels is a capricious enforcement. The former?

Many developers are still in an uproar over Apple’s tight-fisted control of the App Store, and others are distracted by counting the huge heaps of money they’re making, and Google’s “open” Android Market looms on the horizon, we’re left to wonder how this will shake out in the ecosystem.

Some have theorized that Apple rejected Podcaster because iTunes is a revenue stream for Apple, and they don’t want any precedence set for bypassing iTunes, even for “free” podcasts. But MobileMail’s Gmail functionality doesn’t generate any revenue, does it? And all the calculator, weather, etc. App’s already duplicate functionality, so what’s going on here?

We’ll take a look, after the jump…

Since Apple doesn’t seem interested in pre-screening Apps before developers invest time and resources in them, these last minute rejections will continue to throw cold water on the iPhone App Store ecosystem. The results?

Some developers will learn to stay as far away from the 1 ton Apple elephant, their money and premiere Apps, as possible, and content themselves with other areas. Others will simply go elsewhere and develop the next generation of miracle apps on Google’s platform instead. While a few may keep throwing Apps willy-nilly against Apple’s fence, hoping something will stick.

This isn’t a computer. We get that. There will never be unfettered access. It’s not a lock-box either, however, and by remaining unclear, and worse — seemingly uncommunicative and uncaring — Apple will kill the developer community the iPhone Mobile WiFi Platform will need to truly become the Next Great Thing.

In that regard, Apple also needs to trample with extreme care.

Null River sends word that Apple has officially responded to them (at long last) and the response is sadly what we expected:

Looks like Apple has decided they will not be allowing any tethering applications in the AppStore. As such, NetShare will not be available in the iTunes AppStore. We are seeing a lot of similar reports from various developers who’s applications were abruptly removed and banned from the AppStore without any violations of the terms of service. This is all unfortunate news for the iPhone platform end-users.

Of course, this also bodes ill for PdaNet and any other folks looking to create tethering apps. Just ain’t gonna happen, folks.

The App Store cancellation / banning / NDA / mystery is starting to approach critical mass. Dave Winer nails the real issue here: there’s no way to app developers to find out whether or not they’re going to even be allowed to sell their app via the App Store until after they’ve put all the work into creating it. Developers are all sitting “Before the Law,” hoping the gatekeeper will suddenly become reasonable and rational. For tethering apps, at least, that hope is in vain. We’re still holding out hope for Podcaster and, well, for a lot of others.

(Netshare and Winer links via Daring Fireball)

Podcaster.fm, a pod-catching App designed to help you stream podcasts via WiFi or cell data, should you find yourself away from iTunes and unable to sync, has been denied entry into Apple’s App Store — the exclusive venue for legitimate iPhone distribution:

Today I finally got a reply from Apple about the status of Podcaster.

Apple Rep says: Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes.

The developer finds this odd in light of the multiple calculator, weather, and other duplicative apps already in the App Store, as well as the dedicated pod-catchers from Digg and Mobility Today.

Apple does deny iPod App access via the SDK (likely for industry demanded DRM reasons), but this is new — and uncomfortable — ground Apple’s treading, if the denial is indeed upheld. Daring Fireball links to Steven Frank’s nightmare scenario to try to put things into a grander perspective:

Apple makes code-signing mandatory for desktop Mac applications. You can now only buy them through iTunes. Think it can’t happen?

It could, but as with the great app blacklist debate, I think the repercussions from the community would be near-nuclear, and I think Apple knows that.

(Via Ars)