[wardoggie]

Wow, Godwined in the eighth post!

I agree with the sentiments, though. It's one thing if the standards are consistently applied to all apps, but if I were a developer, and I knew there was a 4% chance my app would get rejected for some unknown, possibly random reason, I'd be a little more reluctant to develop for the platform. And even Steve "developers, developers, developers, developers" Ballmer knows how important developers are to the health of a platform. :)

As for the "losers" comment, well, that's just troll bait. I'm sure BB and Android users are just as attractive and successful as iPhone users ;)

[kill953]

One wonders just how ill-educated the person who reviewed this app must be. From my point of view, the problem here is not that Apple has a review process for their apps, but that some of the people doing it are quite frankly not up to the job and are apparently lacking in a lot of basic common sense. That, or they are under so much pressure that they can't do a good job of it, even if they are capable of doing so.

[natmusak]

>

chartier said:

> I wasn't talking about the store rejecting any specific number of applications versus the number that get approved. I was referring to the weight of the consequences of these rejections?they echo loudly in the press, and last longer in the minds of developers.

You're right. I shouldn't have jumped to the conclusions I did. :)

Quote

> Some applications require half a year (or longer) and $70,000 of investors capital to develop. Getting rejected for something as stupid as the reasoning for Eucalyptus or that Tweetie update I linked is an extremely bitter pill to swallow after all that work.

What app with that kind of capital behind it has been rejected from the App Store? I Am Rich? Pull My Finger? Podcaster? MailWrangler?

With that said, Apple's App Store approval process needs changes. I think those changes could come in the form of parental controls on the device itself, which have all but been confirmed to be part of 3.0. At least with apps involving "mature" content, I think parental controls will give Apple the reassurance that they can allow the kind of far more "mature" stuff they allow in...the rest of iTunes.

It seems as if the media has forgotten that the iTunes Music Store originally only sold clean versions of music from a very small selection of artists, limits they relaxed over time. The same thing is already happening with the App Store. Now we can all make fart noises with our iPhones!

smax013 said:

In the end, Apple has decided the potential lumps that they take are worth it for benefits that they gain from controlling the process, not the least of which is the cut of the money that they get.

Apple is a hardware company. They've stated publicly the cut they make from content submitted to their store, whether it be music, movies, TV shows, or apps, is invested in the maintenance of the Store.

[FirstHundredDays]

Yawn.

[cpfoto2005]

chartier said:

I thought it would be obvious that, while the entry has a timestamp of March 24, the developer's mention of being rejected "for three weeks" would have placed the update to that entry sometime within the last week or so.

I am also a fan of QuadCamera and I look forward to being able to continue to use it when iPhone OS 3.0 arrives.

And I realize that the March 24th time stamp may be from the original
entry and not the update (although 3 weeks from March 24 would place it
sometime in the 2nd week in April, not "within the last week or so.").
My point was that the developer's blog you linked to doesn't state when
or why the update was rejected. And Macworld didn't get a response to
their request for comment from the developer. Yet you lump it under the
"more senseless iPhone app rejections" header.

I totally agree with the point of the article. And Eucalyptus is a
great example of the problems with the approval process. Is QuadCamera
another great example? There is not enough information at this point to
tell. And assuming that it is in that same category is not
really up to the journalistic standards that I have come to expect from
Macworld. And it is that slow erosion of those standards that I see on
other "news" sites that I find far more frightening than Apple's
inconsistent/unknown/senseless app rejections.

[himbo]

MacPCJustCreate said:

" Wow, Godwined in the eighth post!"

What does that statement mean? Was god drinking wine? If so was it good?

Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia..../Godwin%27s_law

[Macalways]

Patience

Out of 30,000 plus app, a handful got rejected or delayed.

So far, every reason is pure conjecture. One sided. Unconfirmed. Certainly, not enough to support the article's headline.

Apple built and owns the Store. Apple has every right to say when it will be open, what it will put on its shelf and when. Just like Macworld does with its editorial, reviews and how it monitors and controls its commentators. A lot of people have been banned from posting on this site. A lot more than Apple has rejected or held up on its App Store. Many, were if fact, guys that came to Apple's defense.

If this were a concern from the developer community, why the hell aren't we hearing a human outcry from the developer community, especially from the 6-8,000 that are planning to attend this years WWDC?

[dennishenley]

MacPCJustCreate said:

So one is not to question the policies of Apple, Inc. and the App store? Would you have questioned the policies of Hitler and the Nazi government?

Wow. That's quite a leap comparing lack of criticism about Apple's policies to Hitler and the Nazi party. Of course, Hitler didn't invent computers or improve phones. He just turned people into numbers (to paraphrase Jacob Bronowski) and erased them.

[WarrenS]

The worst thing about this article is that you report any rejections at all. Do we really need to know what didn't make it, when there evidently so many apps that do. Since you don't tell us why, you just guess, it isn't really newsworthy. Unless it is some way out there egregious insult to mankind such as "shake a baby" I see little use in commenting. I would, however, like to know more about those that do make it from Macworld, rather than get my info through the grapevine.

[techguru]

This is ridiculous. I read the transcript on the Eucalyptus blog. Filtering of manual searches is censorship. When will people realize that the best way to deal with appropriate or inappropriate content is to educate the mass, not attempt to SELECTIVELY restrict access to various information.
If I can use a web browser or other e-reader search tools to find "inappropriate content" and that is truly the reason for the rejection then someone needs to wake up and pull their heads out of their respective "inappropriate places".

[mlibrescu]

Your point is taken but maybe you could have made it without comparing Apple with Hitler. Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews. Apple is a consumer electronics company.