Feeds

Steve Jobs lectures devs, dodges antitrust action

Weeding the walled garden

3 Big data security analytics techniques

Comment Over two years after the debut of the iTunes App Store, Apple has finally provided developers with guidelines describing what apps are and aren't acceptable for inclusion in what Steve Jobs has called Cupertino's "curated platform."

Apple also removed restrictions from its iOS developer license that brought good news to Adobe, Google, and any developers squeezed by Cupertino's draconian coding and data-collection restrictions.

But balancing that good news were the App Store Review Guidelines, which make it abundantly clear — as if more clarification were even needed — that Jobs & Co believe that it's their role, not yours, to decide what you can load onto your iOS device.

In Apple's paternalistic world, you're an unsophisticated child, unable to make your own decisions. It's not up to you to decide what you want. Apple will take care of that for you.

Apple advises developers that "If your app doesn't do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted."

Caveat emptor has been replaced by caveat developer.

Apple decides, not you, what's innovative and what's not: "Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them."

Apple decides, not you, whether a complex app is worth learning: "If your user interface is complex or less than very good it may be rejected."

Developers are also warned that although a Review Board is available to which rejections can be appealed, "If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."

Apple refers to the guidelines as a "living document, and new apps presenting new questions may result in new rules at any time," but follows that with what could well be regarded as a thinly veiled threat. "Perhaps your app will trigger this."

Inconsistencies

In addition to its overall "we know what's best for you" tone, the guidelines are also at odds with many apps currently available on the App Store. Either Apple will have to remove a host of existing apps or grandfather them in.

There are over 250,000 apps in the App Store, but even a cursory review points out items that now run afoul of the finally-explicit App Store Review Guidelines:

  • "Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript." Opera Mini works by downloading compressed versions of web pages from its proxy servers rather than using WebKit in what seems now to be a direct violation of the guidelines.
  • "Apps involving realistic depictions of weapons in such a way as to encourage illegal or reckless use of such weapons will be rejected." Apps such as Shoot-iT, which promotes "solving life's little annoyances one bullet at a time", and which includes realistic depictions of a Smith & Wesson pistol, .357 Magnum Colt Python, AK-47, and more run afoul of this directive.
  • "Apps that encourage excessive consumption of alcohol or illegal substances, or encourage minors to consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes, will be rejected." What about iBeer, which simulates a frosty beverage being quaffed when the iOS device is tipped to lips, Beer, which offers "a rich symphony of burps, belches, chugging, slurping, gurgling and crushing cars with your face," and over a dozen Beer Pong apps.
  • "Apps that are not very useful or do not provide any lasting entertainment value may be rejected." It's time to get rid of Wooo! Button, Ka-Ching!, Poop Machine, and hundreds — thousands? — of others.

While some of these examples may seem petty — who really cares about such silliness as Poop Machine, after all? — they point to a larger issue. Namely, have the App Store police had any formal guidelines over the past two years? How have they made their decisions?

If there have been no specific guidelines, and the App Store police have been approving and rejecting apps by the seats of their collective pants, isn't that an inexcusable failure in leadership? And if there have been specific guidelines, why did Apple wait two years to share them with developers?

Top three mobile application threats

Next page: The Good News

More from The Register

next story
This time it's 'Personal': new Office 365 sub covers just two devices
Redmond also brings Office into Google's back yard
Inside the Hekaton: SQL Server 2014's database engine deconstructed
Nadella's database sqares the circle of cheap memory vs speed
Oh no, Joe: WinPhone users already griping over 8.1 mega-update
Hang on. Which bit of Developer Preview don't you understand?
Microsoft lobs pre-release Windows Phone 8.1 at devs who dare
App makers can load it before anyone else, but if they do they're stuck with it
Half of Twitter's 'active users' are SILENT STALKERS
Nearly 50% have NEVER tweeted a word
Internet-of-stuff startup dumps NoSQL for ... SQL?
NoSQL taste great at first but lacks proper nutrients, says startup cloud whiz
IRS boss on XP migration: 'Classic fix the airplane while you're flying it attempt'
Plus: Condoleezza Rice at Dropbox 'maybe she can find ... weapons of mass destruction'
Ditch the sync, paddle in the Streem: Upstart offers syncless sharing
Upload, delete and carry on sharing afterwards?
New Facebook phone app allows you to stalk your mates
Nearby Friends feature goes live in a few weeks
prev story

Whitepapers

Top three mobile application threats
Learn about three of the top mobile application security threats facing businesses today and recommendations on how to mitigate the risk.
Combat fraud and increase customer satisfaction
Based on their experience using HP ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager for IT security operations, Finansbank moved to HP ArcSight ESM for fraud management.
The benefits of software based PBX
Why you should break free from your proprietary PBX and how to leverage your existing server hardware.
Five 3D headsets to be won!
We were so impressed by the Durovis Dive headset we’ve asked the company to give some away to Reg readers.
SANS - Survey on application security programs
In this whitepaper learn about the state of application security programs and practices of 488 surveyed respondents, and discover how mature and effective these programs are.