iAd Gallery breaks App Store guidelines - so what?
There was a modest amount of Internet Fussing after Apple released its iAd Gallery app. Business Insider noted that iAd Gallery appears to violate App Store guideline 2.13, "Apps that are primarily marketing materials or advertisements will be rejected," and MacStories echoed that sentiment. Inneractive noted that a third-party developer had her app rejected for doing basically the same thing that Apple's own iAd Gallery does.
Out of all these outlets, Inneractive is the only one that focused on the real point; the third-party developer clearly had the idea for an iAd gallery long before Apple released its version, and it's unfortunate her effort went to waste. There may have been more to that rejection than meets the eye, though; it's likely that some of the iAds advertisers wouldn't have been pleased with their ads showing up in a third-party "gallery" app without their consent, and as Rene Ritchie pointed out this might have been a plausible intellectual property argument against the approval.
But even if Apple's iAd Gallery would have or should have been rejected if it was a third-party app, the key point here is it's not a third-party app. Apple doesn't have to follow the same rules as third-party developers. For instance, Apple can use private APIs and frameworks as much as it wants, and its home-grown Weather and Notes apps show it has no problem whatsoever with releasing apps that have "limited functionality" (snap).
You know why Apple can get away with those things while third-party developers can't? Because Apple owns the platform. Let's look at this from another angle: say you're renting a house, and your landlord has a strict "no pets" policy. You drive by his house one day, and you see two giant Great Danes patrolling his front yard. Are you going to knock on his door and say, "Hey, how come you can have pets, but I can't?" Of course you wouldn't -- but if you're game enough to try, please film the attempt and post it to YouTube once you're no longer homeless.
Expecting Apple to follow the same rules it's established for third-party developers sounds faintly silly to me. Apple developed the entire platform, from iOS itself, to the hardware that writes iOS code, to the servers that run the App Store, to the App Store itself, to the hardware that runs iOS and its panoply of apps. Apple created the entire iOS ecosystem from end-to-end, and it developed and single-handedly supports its entire infrastructure... yet some people believe the company should be held to the same standards as one developer who whipped up a quick app to show off iAds.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Apple built the house, and it owns the house. The rest of us just live in it.Share
Categories
There was a modest amount of Internet Fussing after Apple released its iAd Gallery app. Business Insider noted that iAd Gallery appears...
Add a Comment
I think this case deserves a special exemption.
If a 3rd party decided to make an app that was all ads, it'd be certain that ad revenue went to that developer. I'd also think that like all other ad-supported apps, the ads shown would be random.
In this case, Apple's posting an app to showcase ads while also being the ad agency. Does this mean that Apple does or does not make money off the Ads? Isn't the gain for Apple to encourage more support for the iAd program, as opposed to get paid via the ads themselves? In addition, I'm not sure how a 3rd party developer can actually control which ads get shown through their app. So if such an app were to be done, it seems more reasonable that Apple does it. At least for the reason that they can actually control what ads appear in the app as opposed to the random distribution from the iAd network.
iAds is a platform that Apple has invested mightily in, and should the need arise, and it has, Apple should be the entity that brings a collection of iAds to the App Store. Not interested in the Big Brother aspect of this story. It is something that exists between Apple and their iAd clients, mostly mystified that anyone else have the desire to do this?
April 07 2011 at 2:06 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThis is not hypocrisy at all. Apple put the rules in place for 3rd party developers. Why wouldn't apple be allowed to use the private API's that they developed?
April 07 2011 at 12:05 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyBest article I have read on TUAW! It's common sense if your brain can't simply process that thought... It's their house their rules they make them they break them they change them they in enforce them. Aside from it all the iAd platform is also theirs.. The ads have been paid for to apple and apple is simply looking for a way to showcase their nice form of advertising and they hold every right to do so in the form that they desire.
April 07 2011 at 11:59 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyActually, Apple has always maintained that its apps that are obtained from the App Store don't use private APIs or frameworks and comply with all of the developer guidelines. That this app is different is a big deal, no matter how much you use your Apple Can Do No Wrong goggles.
April 07 2011 at 11:01 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyFred do you have a citation for that?
April 07 2011 at 12:57 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyNO they have not. Apple uses Private APIs all the time. And they have never stated that they will follow the same rules.
That said, there's nothing that says that the companies behind the ads included are being charged anything for being included.
And there's nothing that addresses whether this girl was going to make money off the ads in her app. Which is what Apple is trying to prevent.
Not to mention whether the rule against persons creating apps that are just ads was in the agreement she signed (so she should have been expecting a rejection). But the rule that Apple can reject or pull anything they want at any time and isn't required to give a reason has been in there since day one and she agreed to that rule when she signed up. Plus if she just wanted to show off the iAds, a video like what she made on youtube does it just fine.
Typical Apple bulls**t hypocrisy -- that's why it's important. Apple creates BS rules and then gets to ignore them when it benefits them. Yep, that's fair. Further evidence Apple is evil.
April 07 2011 at 10:17 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyNo one ever said it was fair.
April 07 2011 at 1:24 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI don't disagree with Apple being able to make their own rules, but I am disappointed every time Steve Jobs big words about how their SDK, APIs and tools are identical for in-house and third party developers are shown to be a lie.
April 07 2011 at 10:07 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThe SDK & tools are the same, the rules are different.
When I am speeding, I get a speeding ticket. However, the cop that pulls me over doesn't, even though he had to have been going faster than I was to catch up to me.
People forgot this is a club; a club you have to paid to join. Therefore you have to follow club rules. One of the biggest mistake Apple made was making the club dues, cheap. If the membership fee was $1000.00 we wouldn't have half the crap we have in App Store. There's nothing stopping her from creating a ad gallery on the other platforms.
April 07 2011 at 9:53 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyIf I had purchased iAd coverage, I would be a bit upset if I were billed for this gallery. Possibly Apple doesn't bill for it; a non-Apple app that did the same thing would have to. And what's this thing about ideas being somehow sacred? Does the first person to have an idea deserve to have a monopoly on it? I don't think so.
April 07 2011 at 9:47 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyWhy would you be upset at being billed for the views of your ads in this? Are people's eyes not seeing them. If nothing else, people are looking at the ads in this gallery with less distraction to get back to their other app. For example, if I'm using an entertainment or informational app, and I see an iAd of interest, I'll click on it, play with it for a second or two, and then close it to get back to what I was doing. If I'm looking through this gallery I've clearly set aside time to do nothing but look at iAds, which means the advertiser gets more of my dedicated attention. This app is a big win for companies using iAds.
April 07 2011 at 11:19 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI don't really buy that as a use case. I think the end user is browsing ads for entertainment; they aren't targeted, hence aren't as valuable.
April 07 2011 at 5:26 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyOkay. This has to be the most ASS BACKWARDS post I've ever read on this site.
You're saying...it's okay to be hypocritical and contradicting...as long as you have power. Do you know you just endorsed dozens of pointless wars that were started because "they owned something". But that's okay that those wars happened...because hey, they had the power. So screw the lives that were needlessly wasted.
But I'm not going to get into that perspective of it. Point being...
Your most recent article about Google withholding Android source code (which, by the way, was incorrect information. You should really learn to get up-to-date information before you post), you basically implied Google was wrong for handling THEIR OS how they saw fit.
But now Apple comes along, basically sets the rules on fire, pisses on them, then throws em in the Grand Canyon...and it's okay? =
This is ridiculous. As the commenter above said...these rules are supposedly put there to protect users and deliver above par apps. So since Apple is basically ignoring the rules...this means that the app is just a crappy piece of software since they didn't follow one single rule. SMH.
As I said, this has to be one of the worst articles I've ever read on this site. This is sad.
"Your most recent article about Google withholding Android source code (which, by the way, was incorrect information. You should really learn to get up-to-date information before you post), you basically implied Google was wrong for handling THEIR OS how they saw fit."
Android is open source, it is not "THEIR OS" the way iOS is Apple's.
Maybe, "you should really learn to get up-to-date information before you post".
Actually...the finished version of Honeycomb that they are withholding, with all intents and purposes, is THEIR OS. Android itself is still open and out there. The individual versions are their property and they can see fit to do with it whatever they like. Thanks.
April 08 2011 at 11:21 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyDeals of the Day
more deals- 9-Piece iPhone Bundle, includes 1,900mAh battery for $8 + free shipping
- Skullcandy Riot Earbud Headphones for $10 + free shipping
- Apple Wireless Bluetooth Keyboard for $40 + $8 s&h
- Refurb Mac Pro Xeon Quad-Core 2.8GHz Workstation for $1,150 + $38 s&h, more
- Used Apple iPad 32GB Wi-Fi Tablet for $200 + free shipping
- Apple iPod nano Multi-Touch 8GB MP3 Player for $100 + $8 s&h
Software Updates
more updatesFeatured Stories
more stories
Popular Stories
TUAW (or The Unofficial Apple Weblog) is a website devoted to tips, reviews, news, analysis and opinion on everything Apple.
25 Comments