Filed under: Bad Apple, iPhone, App Store
Wacky App Store rejections du jour
If it's Monday, there must be a few more stories of iPhone apps rejected for curious and spurious reasons. Today's contenders are up to the line... and away they go!First, it's Maza's Drivetrain app, a remote control for the Transmission client for Bittorrent running on the user's computer. Rejected! In this case, the reason is that Bittorrent is sometimes used for the trading of third-party copyrighted material. Yeah, but... um... the iPhone app isn't a torrent client at all, it's just a UI for a client running elsewhere. How does that make any kind of sense? iLounge quotes the developer as saying the rejection is "ridiculous," and it's hard to disagree.
Second, if you've ever wanted to replace the face of Jesus with your own, well, you can't do it with an iPhone app. SAI reports that the developer of the previously-approved Animalyzer (which let you replace animal faces with your photos) has gotten a rejection notice for the Me So Holy app that extends the face-replacement to religious figures. Apple's justification for the rejection is the catch-all "objectionable content" clause 3.3.12 of the developer agreement, which states
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."Could one reasonably judge that some iPhone or iPod touch users might object to an app that lets users replace a divine visage with a mugshot or LOLcat? Sure, they might... but when an app that lets you aim virtual urine at a toilet sails through to the store without a hiccup, 'reasonable judgement' doesn't seem to be a valid operating standard any longer. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of 'offensive' apps in the store already -- but offending religious sensibilities is clearly different than grading feces.
[via Engadget & Techmeme]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
alexign said 3:07PM on 5-11-2009
Next up, apple releases app store for mac, rejects all torrent clients. iTunes now sells 100.000.000 songs a day. And it's good karma, so everyone is happy. Now universal doesn't have to seek $10 off of every iPod. They would never encourage Piracy
Reply
samu said 3:40PM on 5-11-2009
Can we not talk about an App Store for Mac? It'll give me nightmares.
Johnny said 4:01PM on 5-11-2009
@samu: No Kidding. That may be the only thing in the world that would get me to become a Windows user and that is a very scary thought.
I think everyone knows by now that Apple needs to change their policies and that will probably happen with 3.0. If it doesn't, may the trigger finally be pulled on the gun aimed at their feet. Even though 3.0b has kept me from really needing to jailbreak too much, I think we should all jailbreak just to show Apple what's up and developers should only release apps in Cydia.
samu said 4:28PM on 5-11-2009
Windows 7 is pretty good...
I can't see post-3.0 improvements to the acceptance policy affecting something like Drivechain; the likely complaint won't be addressed by parental controls.
Mike said 3:17PM on 5-11-2009
The ridiculous thing about DriveTrain being banned is that Transmission already has a web UI (and built-in webserver) that you can access via iPhone to control it. The app doesn't seem to do anything beyond what Transmission already allows you to do.
Reply
George said 7:50PM on 5-11-2009
I was going to mention the same thing about the Transmission web app. I guess Safari will be removed next, as well as the Google app since you can use it to search for illegal downloads.
Downright silly.
Planeten Paultje said 5:57PM on 5-11-2009
So anything in combination with religion is "obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory"?
Reply
sam said 3:45PM on 5-11-2009
It's interesting how Apple has set themselves up as the app police and now has the sole say in what is objectionable and what is not. They are now the organization we have to look to for our moral guidelines. Do you think they employ a priest, a shaman, and a rabbi in the approval process? I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.
Anyway, this and the lack of multitasking are the reasons I don't own an iPhone. I want freedom not iron-fisted totalitarianism.
Reply
Shunnabunich said 8:18PM on 5-11-2009
That joke would get you rejected from the App Store.
samu said 3:48PM on 5-11-2009
The Drivetrain rejection doesn't seem particularly silly to me. It's understating it a bit to say that bittorrent is "sometimes" used for copyright violation, and Apple would probably rather avoid irritating its partners in the iTunes store. Yes, it's only a controller, but it's still part of the chain. They wouldn't let through a remote control app for a kitten shredder.
(Hmmm...)
Don't get me wrong; I'd rather we could all run whatever we want. I don't know how the developer could ever have expected the app to pass, though, unfortunately. It doesn't make any difference to the rest of us, with the web interface available.
Reply
crosby said 4:02PM on 5-11-2009
This is a great policy for Apple to help out the Android and WinMo app stores.
Reply
Asher said 4:05PM on 5-11-2009
Apple's policies for rejecting applications are the reason why the iPhone and the App Store are massive failures.
Oh, wait...
Reply
Rob E. said 4:27PM on 5-11-2009
Just don't tell Apple that I manage my torrents over the iSSH ap or that will be banned as well.
Reply
Big Al said 4:34PM on 5-11-2009
Who cares if you can remotely control a bit torrent from your iPod? Seriously, just call up the web-server side of your bit torrent program from Safari. Beyond that, who cares! Again, the bit torrent programs I have used have scheduling and other things. I mean what is the real purpose of having remote control of BT anyway. So you can lay in bed and monitor pirate software and music. Because honestly WHO USES Bit Torrents for legitimate sharing, and who cares if you can find out if it's done from another room? Just move the mouse, and look!
Reply
sam said 8:54PM on 5-11-2009
When someone takes rights away from you, you shouldn't find ways to excuse them, you should ask why they are taking away your rights.
Fact is, it's your device and you should be able to run whatever code on it that you want. This app may seem like a small thing, but it sets a precedent that not only has implications for the iPhone and their app store but for the freedom to do as you please with your property in general.
Would you let Honda tell you what kind of aftermarket gizmos you can put on your car? Would you let Microsoft tell you what apps you can run in Windows? Would you let Mead tell you what your allowed to write in your notebook? Would you let Craftsman tell you what you can and cannot use your hammer for?
If I want to run a fart app, a flashlight, a bittorrent remote/client, or *heaven forbid* a baby-shaking app, it's my phone and I should be able to do it.
This isn't about a bit torrent app, it's about freedom.
Azazello said 6:28PM on 5-11-2009
I love it: another choir of cursing thieves who feel superior about their freedom in consumerist choices! How quant to complain about Big Overseer while obsessive collecting copyright protected works of art. Vive la hypocrisy!
BUT wait, why would someone who detests/resents Apple or the iPhone read this blog? Nothing else to do in Spring afternoon?
Reply
Kai Cherry said 6:48PM on 5-11-2009
Why is it you assume this? Funny, not too long ago there was a LOT of pressure on hard drive manufacturers to come up with a mechanism to allow "rights holders" to remotely erase things off your hard drive, because hard drives could/can be used to store and keep infringing content.
Many, *many* things are distributed over the Bittorent network...including *licensed content* from major rights holders.
Virtually every alternative OS is distributed this way, tons of artist authorized *lossless* live recordings, films, etc.
Of course my app had/has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Someone just decided that it looked like it might to a moron in a hurry or something.
Kai Cherry said 5:08PM on 5-11-2009
That is interesting, indeed. I recently received one of these gifts from Apple as well for an app they claimed the same thing about, but without any doubt whatsoever can be used to "infringe" on 3rd Party Rights any more than Apple's own software (like say, iTunes, MobileMusicPlayer, MobileSafari) can. The app is specifically designed *not* to allow this.
Very, very interesting.
Reply
Kai Cherry said 5:30PM on 5-11-2009
In case it isn't obvious that it is a typo, above where I say "without any doubt whatsoever can be used to" I meant to type "without any doubt whatsoever cannot be used to"
-K
Heebie said 5:25PM on 5-11-2009
This is why the App Store and its principle is just terrible. Who wants to have a massive corporation censor third-party apps? I love Apple products but I've hated the iPhone and all the hype associated with it since its release - simply because it's all too 'closed'.
If an App Store or equivalent is brought to Apple's computer OS then I will take a step back to Windows without hesitation. The fact that I wouldn't be able to modify system properties on my Mac without having to 'jailbreak' it or similar makes me sick. That, by the way, I know, is a long way off (apart from maybe on a Mac netbook?).
I said on a previous post that I was fed up with TUAW's iPhone hype. Another TUAW commenter suggested that the reason for TUAW's obsession was because there's no Mac gossip so they have to talk about the iPhone. That's a fair comment. But if all the reasonable, decent and well written blogs (not necessarily this one [Steven take note]) take a stand against the whole principle of app regulation and censorship then who knows - change could happen. And we all know how much the world likes change!
/justified rant
Reply