App Store rejections tied to third party rights infringements

More Pulitzer Prize winning journalism from Ms. Sadun. Fact-checking and responsible reporting are clearly not her strong points.

Seems to me it is time for a simple Mac application that will install iPhone/Touch apps without going through iTunes. Yes, I know this can be done with jalibreaking, but I would like a non-jailbreak solution. Let me buy and download an iPhone app directly from the developer, then use the Mac application to install it on my iPhone. The application developer then is in the same legal position as Apple itself with the the OS - what people use it for is not their responsibility. It's the fact that Apple runs iTunes as a STORE that gets their knickers in a bunch.

If this is true then I WON'T be renewing my iPhone contract or buying one of the new "media" tablets as I planned.

Companies such as Fictionwise/eReader already have Geographic Rectrictions in place so that books cannot be bought by non US residents where applicable.

Palm, Android and Windows Mobile must be grinning like the Chesire Cat at the moment.

Apple have invested a great deal of time and money in selling and developing the iPhone and now it looks like they want to throw it all away, how sad!

Apple admits to turning funy. Jerry Falwell would be proud! Apple's explanation is so much Applesauce!

Apple blows. The app store rejections are out of control. As a developer, why would I want to spend hundreds of hours developing something Apple may reject because it competes with Apple or AT&T? GIVE US AN OPEN PLATFORM.

Just jailbreak and put in on Cydia. Problem solved.

I am also in agreement with the other posters. Apple is out of control with their banning actions. They probably should ban the iPhone itself, since the whole thing is used for reading/playing/displaying other people's copyrighted information.

It's at the point now where there is no point in developing an App for the iPhone unless you like flushing time and money down the toilet. The chance of rejection is too random and high.

I want to focus on a line in the first paragraph though "leaving their developers without recourse and forced to swallow refund costs that exceeded their initial per-sale earnings."

Why? Apple hasn't used the kill switch to force delete the purchased apps off people's phones, so anyone who has paid for said apps already has them and is still able to use them. The first example of this was the tethering app by NullSoft.

Who gives a refund when the customer has the item they purchased?

It's pretty clear that Apple has made some anticompetitive moves with App Store rejections. I wonder, though, if the e-book app rejections have more to do with legal ass-covering than anything else. Apple not only runs the App Store, it also has a (well-exercised) policy of policing each and every app in it. I imagine that could place liability on Apple should any app run into legal trouble. That would explain the double standard re: Safari, iTunes, etc - they're willing to fight for their own products, but some random third-party application isn't making them enough money for it to be worth it.

Of course, the obvious solution is to simply allow third-party app stores. I'm not sure whether the security trade-offs would be worth it, but it would certainly save us from dependence on the benevolent monopolist.

This is probably clearing the way for their ebook business. How can they possibly resist, with a tablet coming out and the iPhone (as that recent New Yorker article agreed) the best small-form ebook reader out there? Eliminating competition is primary rationale for App Store rejections, this is just preemptive. Though how they can do this when it is worse than what Microsoft ever did, monopoly-wise (they didn't ban Netscape, at least!), boggles the mind.

This is an Apple blog and everyone here is pissed at Apple.

Speaks volumes.

Apple: Wake up. Get your shit together or you're going to lose your most important customers.