Besides taking 30% of any sale price, Apple controls what appears on its iPhone Apps Store. And that's really annoying some people.
Why should a podcasting app that's better than Apple's recording system be turned down? Why should something that lets you share your iPhone's network connection with your computer be turned down? Why should a fart joke be turned down?
Nobody, outside Apple, knows for sure. But it's annoyed people outside Apple. Such as Fraser Speirs, who has written for us in the past, who writes on his own blog that "I will never write another iPhone application for the App Store as currently constituted". Where "currently constituted" means "with Apple being able to reject stuff but not explain why."
Apple's current practice of rejecting certain applications at the final hurdle - submission to the App Store - is disastrous for investor confidence. Developers are investing time and resources in the App Store marketplace and, if developers aren't confident, they won't invest in it. If developers - and serious developers at that - don't invest, what's the point?
He adds:
Some people might have given Apple a pass when they rejected the e-flatulence applications iFartz and Pull My Finger. Personally, I didn't. Half of my reasoning is that selecting for taste is the first step to censoring for business advantage. The other half of it is that, well, who can't think of a million uses for a TCP/IP-enabled whoopee cushion?
That said, Apple is now selecting for anti-competitive reasons. It came to light today that an app that will deliver a capability I really, really want was rejected by Apple because it replaces a feature in Apple's own software.
The app in question: Podcaster whose author received an email saying "Apple Rep says: Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes. ".
This is turning into a can of very big and squirmy worms. You'll find plenty of anger in the blogosphere - particularly the Mac developer blogosphere. John Gruber, who is a reliable channel for such thinking, says:
Flabbergasting. This is the worst reason for an app to be rejected yet. As the author points out, by this logic, Apple could have rejected PCalc (for duplicating the built-in Calculator app), or any of the various note-taking apps. .. This stinks to high hell. Jon Rentzsch nails it in this tweet: the NDA is a mere annoyance, but a "you can't compete against Apple" policy is so wrong it breaks the platform. It is indefensible.
Also: Paul Kafasis, Dave Winer - the latter making the point that if Apple doesn't approve an app for the App Store, you can't get it into the public domain at all. All that effort, wasted.
Anyone care to defend the indefensible? Or will Apple make its policy on rejecting and allowing applications public?
(Update: I've phoned Apple this morning and asked for clarification of what the rules are for rejection or acceptance of applications. I'll update here if and when we get some news.)
