Apple changes mind on rejected e-book reader app
Apple has had a change of heart and decided to allow an iPhone app that offered access to the Kama Sutra.
Apple on Thursday notified the developer that it had rejected the e-book reader app because it deemed the content available on Eucalyptus as "objectionable." As it does with all books available through the app, Eucalyptus downloads a text-only version of the ancient Indian book on sexuality from Project Gutenberg.
The Kama Sutra does not come installed on the app; as with any book title, users must search for the book and download it. The baffling thing in this case is that the book is available on the iPhone using other e-book readers available on the App Store.
Then early Sunday, Apple changed its position and accepted the app after discussions with Eucalyptus developer James Montgomerie, the developer wrote on his blog:
Earlier today I received a phone call from an Apple representative. He was very complimentary about Eucalyptus. We talked about the confusion surrounding its App Store rejections, which I am happy to say is now fully resolved. He invited me to re-build and submit a version of Eucalyptus with no filters for immediate approval, and that full version is now available on the iPhone App Store.
When the App Store was announced in March 2008, Apple said it would vet every single application submitted to the App Store and approve or reject applications based on the company's internal standards. However, Apple has a mixed record on apps that win approval.
Last month, the App Store approved an application called Baby Shaker, the object of which was to stop the incessant crying of an infant pictured onscreen by violently shaking the iPhone, at which point two red "x" marks appear over the baby's eyes. After a wave of protest, Apple removed the app.
In March, Apple reversed itself and accepted a popular Twitter app for the iPhone and iPod Touch that gives users access to the Twitter Trends section, which displays the most frequent topics or words on Twitter at any given moment--including swear words.
In the past, the company has also banned a book from the App Store for using dirty language, yet approved a fast-growing category of fart-related applications, leaving many to wonder exactly what sort of standards are used to evaluate iPhone applications.
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven. 
"Microsoft rejects dirty dozen apps from mobile store"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/windows_marketplace_mobile_prohibited_apps/
There is no such thing as a completely open phone that you control. It doesn't exist. The Android platform is closest, but even that can be locked down by the telcos:
Google bars Android app makers from their own apps
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/27/android_market_shuns_unlocked_google_phones/
Android tethering app tossed
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/31/android_tethering/
There is not one single smartphone platform that gives the user complete freedom to install whatever you like. Not one. Not Apple, not Windows Mobile, not Android, not Symbian, nothing.
The customers of cell phone manufacturers are the telcos, not you. You are just the user. If the real customer demands something--if T-Mobile demands that Google remove a tethering program from their store, for example--the platform makers will do it.
The key difference is with my GF's winmo and with my G1 we can both install 3rd party apps directly without having to go through any store. I have the wifi tether, I even have the JF multitouch maps and browser. I prefer to be out of the walled garden.
"There is no such thing as a completely open phone that you control. It doesn't exist. The Android platform is closest, but even that can be locked down by the telcos:"
What lies. Sure, certain marketplaces decide what they put on their on-line shelves.
But an OS like WinMo lets you install whatever you want. Apple maintains very tight control over what you do with your iPhone. The rest of us are free to install whatever software we like, and have been doing so since the 90s, with thousands and thousands of apps to choose from.
Spew your pathetic lies elsewhere.
So, it's not only Apple distributing iPhone OS apps, but many companies doing it internally, as well.
Yes there are a lot of free apps, but surely there are a lot of people buying apps and as Apple said, 70% goes to the developer and that 30%, well they didn't really say where that went, but I am guessing it goes into Apples bank account.
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2009/05/14/apple-take-so-far-from-the-app-store-not-much/
As intelligently posted by someone else, the app store is not a big money maker for Apple. However, it IS a big money maker for those who have produced decent applications that are wanted by more than just a few.
you take the "not so much" and multiply that by over a billion and I bet it does add up to a pretty hefty sum that most of us wouldn't mind seeing magically appear into our bank accounts once a month.
at the barest bleakest outlook, $12 million, all the way up to $160 million and for what? hosting/bandwidth on an infrastructure already in place? It's still pretty much free money to Apple.
I for one hope Apple does not choose to be either a G rated "disneyfied" provider, or that adult or controversial material are permited to be censor based on SOME employees personal cultural or religiously based intolerances.
Personally, I don't like they way they do business, but it's 100% their right to arbitrarily accept and reject whaterver app they feel like.
For example, the NIN app update that got denied because of the "objectionable" content that linked to The Downward Spiral album... YET you could change from the App store to the Music store and BUY The Downward Spiral... the very same "objectionable" content that got the NIN Access app denied.
Baby Shaker app approved, ebook reader denied? ***? Come on, it doesn't take much logic to see that Apple has a very screwed up app approval process. Even the most die hard fan boy has to agree that there are some funky things going on with apps.
So why is it OK for sex, violence and profanity in music / movies, but not in apps? All are sold in the very same iTunes, but it seems the apps are heavily censored compared to music / movies.
with over 98% applications being approved, please define "strange, and controversial". The fact is, every once in awhile, some bone-head with a bad day does something even more bone-headed. The process isn't a slam dunk computer automated system, real people are reviewing them, and real people make mistakes. And then again, some real people are in the wrong jobs. Such said person may be using the stick in the rear to get back at the world.
The problem with the app store is the double standards on the apps that get denied. The double standard is that the content that gets the app denied has absolutely no problem showing up in the music and video store. There's been a lot of articles on those apps, from ebooks, to ebook readers, to the NIN access update. Trent made a very valid point that Wal Mart likes to try and censor music, but you go on the other side of the aisle and the same stuff Wal Mart tries to censor out in the CD section shows up profoundly in the DVD section. The same applies to the iTunes app store.
It's the double standard that has people upset. Honestly, someone approved the baby shaker app, but denied an ebook reader because you could read the Kama Sutra on it? You don't see a problem here with the app store approval process? If anything, lay out some guidelines so there can be some internal consistency.
No, it's you guys who didn't even finish reading the sentence. Let me be more clear.
"no one has to sell their app through them, since no one has to sell iPhone apps."
There's an important clause there: "since no one has to sell iPhone apps. "
Apple can do what they want. You guys are missing the point that the App store is something Apple created and owns complete control of. It's not like they are withholding food or medicine. It's an absolute luxury, and folks can do business with them or not.
What is "OK for tyhe app store? Whatever Apple feels like. (And no, I'm no fan of Apple.)
Get over yourselves Apple, it's up to your customers to decide what is or is not objectionable to them. If they want to pay and download the kama sutra, obviously do not object to its content. Soon you're going to call for books to be burned in a mass pit for their objectionable content.
And riddle me this, how come you allow explicit content on iTunes?? The lack of consistency is baffling. If explicit songs didn't earn you so much cash, you would ban that too.
You don't like Apple and the way they market their products? Just shut up and don't buy them!
As an AAPL shareholder, I would request that Apple's App Store review team use -- dare I say it -- a little COMMON SENSE in your approval process so that you increase shareholder value.
Don't be throwing that out there, their heads will asplode. Providing they even read it after posting their faux indignation.
Do you think windows would be running on 94% of the worlds computers today?
Apple can do what they want but as a consumer I can make a choice not buy it. The iPhone is going to get some serious competition over the next 2yrs and cell phone brand loyalty is nothing these days. In 2011 we could see former Iphone users moving to android devices or the Palm Pre or some other iPhone copycat platform.
The Apps store makes quite a few mistakes in its first year. Apple had to hire a lot of people to do the vetting process. They're going to get it right. The fact that you can by more and cheaper apps for iPhones than any other platform means I can do more with my iPhone than you can do with any "smartphone" alternative out there. So two percent of the apps sent to Apple are blocked. Every single one that's reasonable that has an outcry from the public ends up being added to the store.
So let's not get hysterical here. People bend over backwards to make the iPhone look bad simply because of some irrational animus aimed at Apple. Apple has to work with AT&T, so there are two companies making the decisions about what's on the store.
Get over it.
So saying that you can run OS X, Windows, Linux, whatever on a Mac doesn't really mean very much because the Apple platform is just a generic (albeit well built) x86 platform. It would be far more surprising if you couldn't.
ROFLMAO, your comment immediately reminded my of that teacher in SouthPark "hmmmm?" LMAO!
Unfortunately, PalmOS is a relic of the past, because now the phone networks know better than to allow such unfettered access to what they unilaterally consider to be /their/ platform.
I am filled with such vitriol over Apple's application monopoly and censorship policies, that I try to avoid ranting on it, because I know it is hard for me to contain my disdain. Thinking about the initial rejection discussed in this article, I can only say this: if I want to download a "dirty book" on my iPhone, who the hell is Apple to say I can't? (Not that I believe the Kama Sutra /is/ dirty, but that's a whole other rant on their policies.) It's one thing to say, "You need to make it so that minors can't do it"; it's another to say nobody can.
As others rightly say, I should be able to choose what I download on my phone or PC or any other darned device. I should read what I want to, view what I want to and say what I want to without being denied access to it by a corporation. Only the legal system, with its public accountability, should be able to challenge what I can access.
The Kama Sutra issue is clearly the silly thin end of a more pernicious wedge. However, if it was access to a book exposing government abuse of prisoners, or the twitter feed of an environment campaign group, or a website containing images of police acts of violence against protesters it becomes an issue.
The media (including CNET) has a duty to expose the thin end of the wedge whilst it remains silly; this keeps corporations on their toes and stops any further erosion of our liberties.
- by jarturof May 25, 2009 6:37 AM PDT
- Remember how apple told us that 1984 wasn't going to be like 1984, they where right, they are achieving control until 2009, where they decided what is good for us
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Thomas, David May 25, 2009 2:28 PM PDT
- egads jarturof,
- Like this
-
(39 Comments)read the damn book