Hey CC, you got a mention on the latest PC Pro podcast, which I was listening to on my iPod

Wow, what have I done to warrant that? I have had one or two mentions when they used to report on chat in the forums but I don't do that now. I stopped listening when it became a soapbox for blind slagging off of all things Apple.

I used to like to get a non Mac users perspective on Apple stuff, it stopped me being an unthinking fan boy. These days I just rely on this place to keep me seeing straight.

It seems the story was wrong. Apple did not censor the dictionary.

Phil Schiller comments on the story

Well, Apple refused to include the App in its uncensored form, the developers put filters in to censor it, to get it through the app store evaluation process... Same difference in my opinion, especially as it was 17+ rated.

But it is still hypocritical, that Mail, Safari etc. are included, which can view the same, or worse, words and images...

For me, it is one of the stories which demonstrate how bad the iTunes App Store is. As it is the only way to load applications, without jailbreaking the iPhone, I think it is a very bad thing. I like the idea behind the App Store, that it makes an easy to use, central repository for applications (much like Linux distributions have used for the past decade or so). It also adds security by filtering out potential malware and scamware.

But due to the inconsistencies of the process, it means that it can provide a very poor experience for developers, and often for customers, such as the current Google Voice debacle.

I like the theory of the app store, but due to the inconsistencies in the vetting process and the inability to source apps that have been rejected from elsewhere, I am a little disgruntled with it. That said, I have hardly any apps on my iPod Touch...

It was not 17+ rated. At least not when it was submitted/rejected. It linked to dictionaries that contained words/phrases that were not found in ordinary dictionaries. Apple asked them to resubmit when the ratings system was in place. They decided not to wait and self censored in a somewhat over the top way. Maybe as a publicity stunt.



Maybe, there is always a line. If Apple says "Put anything you like on the App Store as long as it can be found on the internet" I think the nature of the place may be a little different to what it is now. I would not like to be the one making the decisions.



I am still not quite understanding the fuss.

10,000 applications a month are added to the app. store. What proportion of these do you think leave the developers with a poor experience? And a poor experience in comparison to what? I thought Apple had taken most of the pain out of publishing applications. Was the experience so much better before? Did developers for Windows Mobile find it so much easier to have an app. out there?

Not quite correct. It doesn't link to wiktionary, it ships with an internal copy of the data that is in wiktionary. Therefore one of Apple's reasons for rejection - that it may be updated at any time with phrases people might find objectionable - was invalid.


Yes, there is. The problem is the line for Apple's own apps seems to be different to the line they're applying to everyone else's.


Decisions are easy if you have a clear set of criteria and an s.o.p. that allows you to apply them in a consistent way. Apple apparently has neither of those.


Just because the app distributing experience was nonexistent/painful before doesn't give Apple carte blanche just because it's implementation is somehow more adequate than any of it's predecessors. There's more to being a good shopkeeper than not being an awful one. I don't for a moment think that Apple are being malicious or partizan in their evaluations but the fact is they are being inconsistent and opaque, which tends to lead to people thinking the worst because they have nothing else to go on.

If Apple published an 'App store application certification guide' which had a clear set of rules & principles in it and then rigidly stuck to that set of rules regardless of their own interest, not one single person would be complaining. But the fact is you get illogical rejections without explanation and, given the people receiving them are trying to earn a living, it's bound to cause anger and resentment. Imagine if your job was such that you got paid every day for the work you did and one day your boss came along and said 'I'm not paying you today. Your work was unsatisfactory' and walked away without explaining why your work was unsatisfactory. would you just accept that, or would demand an explanation?

Apple's relationship with App store developers is very far from perfect right now - some prominent developers have put their hands up and said 'this is just too hard, it's not worth the hassle' not because iPhone apps are ard to develop, but because after you've done that work, you may
a) get your app rejected for reasons you can't predict, therefore effectively making your work worthless
b) Not hear anything at all either way for weeks - what are you supposed to eat in the meantime, air?
c) Even if your app does get on, be drowned in a pile of crappy fart/slideshow apps that somehow get past what may be laughably described as Apple's quality control.

There's a story on iLounge about a shovelware developer who has recently been booted off the store. The company had been in operation for a few months and had managed to get several thousand apps published. I think the stat they worked out was it was one every 25 minutes, all day, every day. The majority of them were absolute junk and quite a few of them were slideshow apps that used images for which the app maker had not been given copyright approval for use. Yet they all got through the certification process and got onto the store; until the point where someone spotted that this company was flooding the app store with dross and gave them the elbow. How do you think someone who had put a few months work into a well made, useful app only to get it rejected due to some criteria that Apple hadn't mentioned before feels when he sees what some other people had been allowed to get away with?

Jon

Er, believe it or not it was because you used to berate them for slating all things Apple.

I think that sums up my feelings quite comprehensively.

quick recommendation - space invaders infinity gene.

About as far from the original Space Invaders as Concorde is from a Sopwith Camel. A constantly evolving shoot em up that bears a more than passing resemblence to the last-gen console game 'Rez'. brilliant fun.

Jon

I wonder what brought me to mind then? Could it perhaps be that they were have another bash at the fruity computer company?

I can see that. If it were me I would be livid if it came out of the blue in the way you describe. However surely most of the developers must know if the project they are working on is "iffy". They may decide to take a punt anyway but are aware that it may not get through.

Also is this a widespread issue? It seems that of the 10,000 apps going in every month very few have problems.

By that logic anyone can do an awful job as long as they only do an awful job a minority of the time. To me, that's a rather low standard.

Jon

Yeah.

This week they were saying that OS X is harder to use than Windows Vista!

^ Was it not when compared to 'Doze 7?

Look at Google Voice, Phil Schiller allegedly told Google to go for it, because he really wanted the App... They developed it and it was rejected from the store! Iffy? It was requested by Apple's head honcho (in Jobs absence)! How is that iffy?

The Ninja dictionary, there were other dictionaries in the App Store, so it wasn't iffy. They only included words in the English language. I'm sorry, but a dictionary is there to define the language. If the language contains swear words, then the dictionary should contain them. It isn't obscene, it is language. It is how they are used that is offensive or obscene.

And what about the guy who had hundreds of apps pulled, because they were questionable and were using content that he had no right to use? They were there for months in the store and sold a copy, on average, every 25 minutes! Where is the consistency? Where are the clear guidelines? It seems to be down to the whim of the reviewer on the day...

Jason Calacanis just published a very interesting newsletter on the end of his love affair with Apple Clicky