Apple rescinds version change App Store ban Apple's iPhone caprice continues. Little more than a week after it banned version 1.3 of return7's CastCatcher internet radio service from the iPhone App Store, Apple has now decided the app doesn't warrant banning after all. return7 announced the reprieve on the company blog late last night. Versions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 of …
Cade, this God Complex of yours is getting pretty boring.
If you were to create a new mobile phone (which with your omniscient superpowers should be no problem), what would the terms and conditions of *your* app store be? Hmm, let's see:
"Feel free to sell any old crap on my app store. My phone's brand reputation won't be damaged at all if you write buggy software, bundle trojans with every app and generally behave like amateurs. I'm sure people will still flock to buy my phones even though they have to take them in to have all the malware sucked off them every two weeks because I can't be arsed reviewing your code".
Yes, that would be a great business model. Fsckwit.
>even though they have to take them in to have all the malware sucked off them every two weeks
Having had three WinMo and two Nokia smartphones, having installed dozens of apps on all them, I dont recall EVER having malware/virii on any of them ?
How ironic that the WinMo platform is the most open and the Iphone the most closed when it comes to the owners ability to install the apps of their choice. The apparent capriciousness of Apples app store with regards to what is acceptable is one more reason my next phone will either run Android or WinMo (or if Nokia ever gets its act together, mabye even S60). I stress apparent, because they may have good reasons for their decisions but they are p*ss poor at explaining them and I dont want to feel that some small app I have come rely on may be withdrawn at a moments notice (and possibly wiped from my phone).
Actually, CTG, this article is warranted, as The Reg ran a previous piece saying that the app in question had been banned. Without this article, people would likely assume said app was still banned. This articles lets them know that all is better now. The cynic in me might also point out that the reason is very likely because The Reg ran its earlier piece which made this much more public then the app's author could have done, thereby prompting a more decisive reaction from Apple.
However, since you obviously are getting fed up with Cade's articles about Apple, I have an incredibly simple piece of advice: stop reading them.
As for me, I say keep it up, Cade. I'm sure I'm not the only one who enjoys reading these articles.
The "censor" must have been having a bad day when the app got banned, or perhaps even clicked the wrong button. Shit happens, it's been put right, so there's nothing to fuss about.
As for the other discussion in the first few comments, I can see arguments for and against "censoring" apps. Yes, it does restrict, or allow Apple to restrict what can be put onto the phone for their own gains if they wish, but then it's their phone so it's up to them. It does add a certain level of quality control to the process too, which is not always a bad thing.
Realistically, assuming you want an iPhone, you will either put up with it or jailbreak your phone, depending what is most important to you.
The easiest and best solution for consumers and devs is to have an App Store, but not make it your only distribution channel.
It may shock you to realise that until Apple and its iphone, it was considered standard practise to allow consumers to run anything they like on handsets they own! Imagine that, people being allowed to take responsibility for what they do and don't run on their devices!
Incidentally, I love the way you insinuated that nothing on the app store was buggy or amateurish.
I've got at least 3 apps installed right now that only start 1 in 3 times. Every other time, they just crash back to the springboard. Two of these apps are paid apps, and haven't worked, OR been updated in months. One of them (MobileChat) I've never actually seen function (on any iDevice), so I suspect it might just be a con. Cleary all App Store devs are Upstanding Citizens and excellent coders!
I agree.
Apple's mistake, in fact, *is* to allow the amateurs in.
Compare this with another platform holder. Sony and the PS3.
The publication sequence goes like this:
1. Submit game design
2. Get it approved by Sony
3. *Then* you get the dev hardware + software, for which you pay *through the nose*
4. You must follow TRCs (technical requirements checklist). No pass, no publish.
5. Get through all this and you can publish online and/or on physical medium
Yet the world and its dog doesn't bitch and moan about Sony's practices, because they never said amateurs could publish, so the amateurs don't expect to be able to.
The pros, on the other hand, accept the restrictions and simply work within them.
What a fucking idea! Saves stress on all sides, saves misguided anti-Sony bullshit from non-developers whom it doesn't affect (such as El Reg hacks), etc. etc.
AppStore bans app upgrade, possibly by accident
Developer says please reconsider
AppStore reconsiders and allows the upgrade after a few days, never having removed the previous version, so essentially the upgrade is a few days late.
Where's the story? Oh yeah, the developer got in touch with all the media they could to drum up interest. Was this necessary? Probably not, but hey why spoil a non-event story with facts...
Lame lame lame lame lame.
"and generally behave like amateurs"
Such as...
Force developers to sign an NDA preventing them from discussing the SDK and stifling both innovation and quality control. Vet all software before publishing it in such a closed way that nobody knows what the criteria are (hell, how do you know that Apple actually perform any real quality testing or scan for malware at all?) and reject submissions out of hand with no explanations or suggestions for improvement. Fail to reply to simple requests for information. Take weeks to publish some software and only hours for others. Apparently reject any software that might impinge on markets that you occupy. Publish a $1000 piece of clip-art of a red gem. Perform rapid U-turns on your decisions without explanation under pressure of publicity making it look as though you don't actually know what you're doing.
"Having had three WinMo and two Nokia smartphones, having installed dozens of apps on all them, I dont recall EVER having malware/virii on any of them ?"
<sigh> No such word as 'virii'. The plural of virus is 'viruses' - as has been pointed out many times before here on El Reg and elsewhere.
Mr Pedant
With the number of apps submitted, there can't be one single person checking them all against one strict ruleset. There must be many moderators, all with slightly different interpretations of the rules.
I'd go as far as to suggest that if something has been turned down for borderline reasons, just submit it again and it'll probably be checked by someone different.
"I can see arguments for and against "censoring" apps. Yes, it does restrict, or allow Apple to restrict what can be put onto the phone for their own gains if they wish, but then it's their phone so it's up to them."
NO, its MY phone so i should be able to choose what goes on it. If I want to pay $999 for a collection of pixels that look a bit like a ruby then it is my RIGHT to be parted from my hard earned cash!
OK so Apple reviewing apps to make sure there are no hidden nasty's, great. For them to censor stuff because "they" dont like it is a little too much isn't it?
Mines the one with the unlocked, jailbroken one in the pocket
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
