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.







- 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />They're a bunch of stark raving hypocrites.
- 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.
<br />
<br />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).
<br />
<br />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.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (80 Comments)