Why was 'Free Memory' an App Store no-no?
The iStat app's killer feature has been killed.
(Credit: Bjango)The version 1.1 release of developer Bjango's iStat application for the iPhone last week was marked with disappointment.
To maintain the application's availability on the App Store, Bjango had been told by Apple that it had to remove what was arguably the most compelling feature of version 1.0: Free Memory, which enabled people to clear wired and inactive memory to increase the iPhone's battery life. It also improved the device's performance.
Bjango, which focuses on developing apps for the iPhone, felt that it had no other choice but to create a new version sans the Free Memory feature. iStat 1.1, $1.99, offers only iPhone monitoring. Among other things, users can see battery life calculations and how much memory and disk space remains.
"Apple would not say why we needed to remove the 'Free Memory' feature," Tori Gale, support manager at Bjango, wrote in an e-mail. "(Apple) simply demanded that it was removed, or (it) would delete (version 1.0 of) the app from the store...Nothing iStat did violated the terms of the developer contract, as far as we know, and Apple didn't say that it did."
When pressed for more insight over Apple's ultimatum, Gale had, much to her chagrin, little to say. "Apple really hasn't given us any information," she said. "We simply don't have much we can say."
Apple did not respond to requests for clarification as to why it demanded that Free Memory be removed from the app. At this point, I'm just as much in the dark about how iStat's Free Memory feature might have violated App Store policy as Bjango says it is.
This is far from the first time Apple has kept developers and the media at arm's length over an App Store rejection that has caused some head-scratching. More recently, Monday's publicized approval of an iPhone game from a controversial franchise--Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars, which follows the rejection of an official "South Park" app over "objectionable" content from the show--has people wondering whether the company even has a standard playbook for app approvals.
For its part, Bjango said it has "enjoyed creating iPhone applications, but we are disturbed at some of the recent decisions by Apple, both in this case and in cases with other developers," Gale wrote. "The dictatorship of the App Store is limiting the creativity of developers and is resulting in users missing out on software that has been allowed on other, more open platforms."
Gale's comments echo gripes other developers and application backers have had over Apple's App Store policies. Among many others, Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor expressed disgust when his band's app was originally rejected for objectionable content. "Apple rejects the NIN iPhone update because it contains objectionable content," he tweeted to his followers. "Not even sure where to start with that one."
That sentiment of frustration and bewilderment is growing in the iPhone developer community. A recent demand from the Federal Communications Commission has forced Apple to shed a bit of light on its app approval policies, but much more light could stand to be shed on it. In its current state, the apparent inconsistencies and outstanding questions appear to be hurting all parties involved--including Apple.
Check out Don's Facebook profile, Twitter stream, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
I now despise Apple and all it has become.
Ok, I can see how people might mistake Apple for being innovative. But when has Apple ever been mistaken for Freedom and choice?
But the mass market cares more about good UX than whether 2% of apps get rejected in the developer program. Ask your aunt with an iPhone if she even knows what a developer program is. She won't care. She likes her iPhone, she may even use the App Store, and she is probably amazed at the breadth of content there. She does not miss the apps that she is unaware ever existed. The market has spoken- they don't care about this issue and never will. If anyone wants change, developers need to leave en masse or in an organized protest. It's possible, but I doubt it will be sudden. Eventually, in the long term, more open solutions tend to win.
Do you think he'll be any better as a Chinese government shill? Doubtful.
Watch him wither, watch him shrink...
nothing for the world, all for himself...
Makes you think. Different.
Apple needs to be careful, fanaticism goes both ways. At what point do the leagues of Apple fans reach the breaking point on these hard line tactics and boycott?
As for me, it's just about time to make a statement.
Ease up Apple. You gather a significant percentage of your faithful's income. It would be a shame to lose that over something as meaningless as this.
So they blunder along with failures like the Newton, Apple Pippin, Apple Lisa, and AppleTV, and while all but the last are dead and buried Apple hit upon the idea of a music player. They get some momentum behind it as they drag along on the coattails of the Diamond Rio, but use the Reality Distortion field of Jobs and get themselves a hit. Not just a fanboy hit, but an honest to God screaming hit heard all the way to the moon. They liked the money coming in and the notoriety patted Jobs ego as well. So Jobs and co decided to do a phone.
The music player while it wasn't a total fanboy item didn't really find itself in the hands of average americans. It was a gadget that kids played with. The phone on the other hand introduced an element that anyone could relate too, plus it had free WiFi and a web browser. That hit that was the iPod was forgotten as people from all over clamored for this new device while Apple struggled to maintain control of this runaway hit. In the process however Apple has exposed their business practices to the light of day.
Sure that small loyal group from before might have buckled under muttering comments like "it's for our own good it's done that way" or "That's the way it should be done to make it work." The rank and file however is used to doing business with consumer friendly companies however, ones that believe the customer is always right (Sony excepted) and are now complaining about Apple and it's monopolistic practices. So while Apple hasn't changed the general person's opinion of Apple has and I think the app store is the rallying point people are focusing upon.
The iPod is a huge commercial success. It is not in any way a fanboi item. It IS in the hands of average Americans (and quite a few other nationalities, too.) Kids gadget? That's absurd.
Anyone can relate to a phone with an expensive unlimited data plan & locked into a single carrier? Um, no, not at all. The iPod has been forgotten? Again, not even close.
Here's a clue: The average American couldn't care less about the app store. The average iPhone/iTouch user couldn't care less about Apples's policies regarding the app store. That's reality.
I couldn't agree more it feel's that apple has me on an leash lollll
"Nobody knows" is not a story.
Every small/independent developer band together and insert the same objectionable content in every one of their applications (memory manager, dictionary with slang words, GV plug-in and any other content that Apple has ambiguously rejected recently). Add a new menu item on the main menu for each application called "David Versus Goliath" that links to this standard library. If enough developers participate, Apple either shuts down the app store OR commits to a new policy of standardization and fairness when reviewing applications.
- by DaveInSDCA September 1, 2009 10:12 AM PDT
- If Microsoft was behaving this way, the Justice Department would have Ballmer and Gates in virtual handcuff's by 3:00 p.m.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by 01Phyxius September 1, 2009 11:13 AM PDT
- Bingo. Somebody give this man a cookie.
- Like this
-
- by msalsbury September 1, 2009 2:32 PM PDT
- I agree with you, but the typical Apple fan response will be to remind you that when the DoJ went after Microsoft, Windows had more than 90% of the desktop OS market share (giving it monopoly-like power). The iPhone, in spite of the hype it gets, represents a relatively small share of the cell phone market. It's not (yet) a monopoly, and its actions (the fans say) are only necessary to protect its market share and provide users with a "good experience". That argument holds water so long as Apple doesn't rise to the dominant position in the market. If that happens, its behavior will have a very close resemblance to the stuff Microsoft got in trouble for. In fact, it might even arguably be much worse.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (80 Comments)Amazing how companies like Apple change their priorities when the shoe is on the other foot. Now that they have a popular and profitable platform, all that control for which they use to vilify MS for is perfectly acceptable.
They're a bunch of stark raving hypocrites.
A perfect example is the iPhone browser. You get Safari by default. (Just like Microsoft shipped IE by default with Windows.) If you want a third-party browser on the iPhone, that browser has to be vetted by the App Store folks. (Microsoft didn't vet third-party browsers for Windows.) One of the criteria they check against is that your browser has to use the WebKit framework Safari uses. (Microsoft didn't care what your browser used.) That means no Internet Explorer, no Firefox, or any other alternative browser that doesn't use WebKit. Thus your browser at best is going to be a variant or cousin of Safari, which Apple controls through its control of the built-in version of WebKit (i.e., your third-party browser won't be allowed to download MP3s to play on the phone).
If Microsoft had tried (back in the day, or today) to say you couldn't use any browser that wasn't based on Internet Explorer in Windows, the DoJ would have smacked it down hard. Apple gets a pass because the iPhone isn't 90% of the cell phone market. Should it ever get to that point, one would hope the DoJ will look upon Apple's practices (assuming they continue, which is likely) much as they once did on Microsoft's. The iPhone is a far more locked-down, anti-competitive platform than Windows ever was. You have to use Apple's iPhone hardware, on the network they have an exclusive deal with, sync it with their supplied software, using only Apps purchased through their exclusive store, and only with App content they decide isn't "objectionable" for you. Steve Ballmer would be burned at the stake (probably literally) for trying to exert that kind of control on the Windows ecosystem.