Apple Changes Rules in App Store

[Jeff Campbell]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/02/20/over-5000-apps-stricken-from-the-apple-app-store-new-rules-in-place/' target='_blank'>http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/02...rules-in-place/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Things just got a lot more wholesome in Apple's app store as a boat load of apps were just banned, and new rules for future apps have been put into place. Bring on the lynch mob!"</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1266774471.usr105634.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>Some of the rules are no skin, no women or men in bikinis (men in bikinis??) and no apps that imply sexual content. The list goes on of course, yet they still have the Playboy app in the store even though approximately 5,000 other apps have been pulled. It is this kind of inconsistency that is maddening for the developers as well as the customers.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[Bladefree21]

This is good news! It was irritating having to scroll past those apps.. Bad for the mind, unless its your wife..

[ptyork]

I sure did think that this was the whole point of the parental controls added to 3.0. I don't give a flip if they HAVE apps such as these, but I sure do care that they are RESTRICTING apps such as these. I understood it before parental controls, but now it is downright akin to book burning--speaking of which, are they allowing lewd romance novels in their book store? How about a Penthouse magazine for the iPad? Welcome to the sad, sad world of iFootloose.

[Bladefree21]

Those (particular) apps are inappropriate in many environments including the office. I am sure there are many happy about this, including wives/girlfriends! The others can still look in other places..

[ptyork]

Those (particular) apps are inappropriate in many environments including the office. I am sure there are many happy about this, including wives/girlfriends! The others can still look in other places..

Then turn on your own parental controls to keep them from showing up. No, I don't like these apps either, but the freedom to create, publish, and consume such apps is part of being, well, free. As for the office, nearly all apps are inappropriate, including games, book/bible readers, etc. Do you want to ban those, as well, just because they are inappropriate for that environment? Sorry blade, but banning of content is always a last resort. And since there were appropriate controls to prevent them from being freely downloaded by kids, this is a sad day for believers in the first amendment.

[doogald]

And since there were appropriate controls to prevent them from being freely downloaded by kids, this is a sad day for believers in the first amendment.

I think that you misunderstand what the first amendment protects. One thing that it does not provide is overriding a contract that a developer signs with Apple when they become developers that says that Apple completely controls what can and cannot appear in the iTunes App Store.

Basically, you are saying the equivalent of a retailer who sells magazines *must* also sell Maxim, even if he does not want to. Or, a retailer who sells Maxim and decides against it when some of his customers object (and say that they will stop shopping there) cannot delist that magazine from his racks*. I believe that a retailer has every right to decide which products appear in their marketplace.


* pun intended ;)

[ptyork]

I think that you misunderstand what the first amendment protects. One thing that it does not provide is overriding a contract that a developer signs with Apple when they become developers that says that Apple completely controls what can and cannot appear in the iTunes App Store.

Think of it this way. Let's say Sony developed market dominance in TV's. They were better or at least more desirable for any number of reasons. Over a few years, 50% of the consumer market decided to buy Sony TV's because of this. Then, after they'd developed this market dominance, Sony decided to activate a chip in all of their TV's (new sets AND those already in consumer hands) that completely disabled the use of XBox and Wii consoles. Consumers had no choice but either to not play these consoles or to shell out a large amount of money to buy a competing TV--a TV that was still less desirable for the reasons that they bought the Sony to begin with. How would you react to that? How would Microsoft and Nintendo react to that? How would the FTC react to that? Sure Sony has full control over their TV's and could claim it was their "right" to block these devices. After all, they made the device and should be able to control what is viewed using the device. Right? However, they have de facto control over 50% of the market and they have caused significant financial damage to countless companies and a large portion of their consumer base by exercising their pseudo-monopolistic power over the media that the device can display. There is VERY little difference n these scenarios.

If you don't like the XBox and Wii analogy, then replace them with a permanently enabling a V-chip that blocks everything above TV-PG. That might make it even closer.

Apple keeps doing this over and over again. Blocking countless "confusing" competing apps from their store for vague, nefarious reasons. Blocking the Pre and other devices from using iTunes for media management (seemingly just because they can). Now blocking "undesirable" content from the store despite having opened up the store to such content 9 months ago. No, they are not quite violating the first amendment rights of content creators since there are still other outlets. However, they are skirting it because there are no other outlets for them on Apple devices which command a MAJOR portion of the smart device market.

Yes, they have the right to carry what they want in their own marketplace. But when they are the ONLY marketplace, then there begin to be problems. They are able to get away with it for now because there are some competitive devices with open markets and the damages have been to individuals and small companies without the money to challenge them in court. However, as the sole marketplace for software for the market-dominant smart device, they are coming very close to backing themselves into a corner with the FTC or a class-action suit. I would not be surprised at all to see a suit out of which came the demand to open up the device to competing marketplaces. I think most folks non-zealous would welcome this remedy with open arms.

[doogald]

Apple does not have market dominance in mobile smartphones - they are not even number one, either worldwide or in the US. There are competing marketplaces - you can buy yourself an Android, Blackberry, Windows Mobile device and install soft porn apps on those. Anybody who has bought an iPhone in the last two years - so, one that is still in contract - knew that Apple was going to control the app store, because they said that they were going to. The buyer knew that something like this might happen from the time that they bought the phone. In this case, Apple is not blocking content from a competitor, unlike your example.

If I am not mistaken, there is nothing on the iPhone that prevents any user (without parental blocks) from connecting to salacious web sites. Apple is blocking apps, not web sites.

Should parents take more initiative and turn on parental controls? Sure they should. But, the fact is that many do not know about this, Apple apparently is getting hammered by people because of the presence of these apps, and they chose to stop allowing them in their market.

If you want your porn, you can still get it. I think that my metaphor was far closer to what this "story" is than yours.

(I put "story" in quotes because I'll bet that a strong majority of iPhone users don't give a crap about whether or not there are boobie apps.)

[doogald]

Sorry for the second post, but after thinking about this more, I think I was more concerned about the first amendment thing. The first amendment protects your right to make your post critical of Apple. It does not enjoin Apple to sell an app in their store that they do not wish to sell.

I get why people want an open market, but, if you own an iPhone, you know that the market is restricted. If you are a developer, you know when you get the SDK that Apple reserves the right to not allow your app to sell for various reasons, which are subject to change. You all knew that before you bought your phone or before you started working on your app. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. That's probably the clearest message that you can send - give your money to somebody else.

[Jason Dunn]

Apple does not have market dominance in mobile smartphones - they are not even number one, either worldwide or in the US...

You can't argue that they have a crushing dominance in apps though - no one does apps like they do at the moment, and if you want apps, you buy an iPhone. And there's no competition for them - no other companies offering iPhone apps.

[ptyork]

Apple does not have market dominance in mobile smartphones - they are not even number one, either worldwide or in the US.

You know as well as I that the Blackberry is a totally different kind of device and that RIM's 40% share is grossly inflated by corporate accounts. Apple has 25% of the overall market, but undoubtedly a plurality if not a majority of the consumer market. I'd also be floored if it didn't account for well over 80% of mobile application development and sales. It IS dominant, something that in any other context you'd be flouting.

In this case, Apple is not blocking content from a competitor, unlike your example.

What? Apple is blocking the Pre from simply syncing to iTunes. It is blocking Opera from the device because it isn't based on their own WebKit rendering engine. You can't purchase and download otherwise supported music or videos from Amazon or any other online retailer. Emulators and interpreters (Java/Flash/Silverlight) that could allow for the purchase of apps without passing through their iTunes gateway...blocked.

And in the example it wasn't just MS and Nintendo suffering. It was countless developers that created apps for these devices. And of course in anticipation of your "argument" regarding my "story" I gave you an alternative using the V-Chip.

Should parents take more initiative and turn on parental controls? Sure they should. But, the fact is that many do not know about this, Apple apparently is getting hammered by people because of the presence of these apps, and they chose to stop allowing them in their market.

If this was the issue, they should have turned on parental controls by default, perhaps requiring a signed affidavit from an adult to unlock the content. Or perhaps simply created a special category in the app store that required such a signature to access. Sort of like the back room at the video store. Technical solutions that offer inclusion should certainly trump blanket exclusion, IMO.

I put "story" in quotes because I'll bet that a strong majority of iPhone users don't give a crap about whether or not there are boobie apps.

Yep, the strong majority should always dictate the morality of the minority. Works great for much of the Islamic world...and France. ;)

The first amendment protects your right to make your post critical of Apple. It does not enjoin Apple to sell an app in their store that they do not wish to sell.

Yes, but as I said, in a normal free market, there are plenty of alternative stores...sorry, this dead horse has gotten quite bloody. But you're right, the first amendment was a much less appropriate leg upon which to stand than would be Title 15.

If you don't like it, then don't buy it. That's probably the clearest message that you can send - give your money to somebody else.

And you are seeing some of this. I do know a few disgruntled iPhone consumers and developers who are moving away from the platform. Most notably Joe Hewitt, I suppose. But it is a trickle in the torrent. And the actual and opportunity costs of abandoning the platform are exceedingly large (for consumers, possible early termination fees, loss of use of purchased apps, and loss of access to a large number of useful apps not available elsewhere--for developers, loss of a gigantic potential market for their software).

Bottom line is that there should be an open market for this device, at least available as an opt-in alternative. Apple has been able to retain sole control because of their size and power and it has gone unchallenged because their devices over which they served as gate keepers were perceived to be in a fully competitive marketplace. They aren't. I don't think that their monopolistic control over the software available on the device will stand too much longer unless their trends toward market dominance reverse quickly.

[doogald]

What? Apple is blocking the Pre from simply syncing to iTunes.

First of all, this story is about Apple retroactively blocking "sexy" apps, and has nothing to do with the Palm Pre. That said, again, I do not believe that Apple must allow connectivity for competitor's devices to their software without licensing.

You can't purchase and download otherwise supported music or videos from Amazon or any other online retailer.

From the phone? No. From your PC? You most certainly may.

Emulators and interpreters (Java/Flash/Silverlight) that could allow for the purchase of apps without passing through their iTunes gateway...blocked.

Since Apple has no control over these apps, they could cause the phone to crash, lock up, rootkit, or worse. Apple makes the phone; Apple supports the phone. If customers with valid warranties start asking for support due to untested Flash apps, isn't that adding cost to Apple's support efforts with no revenue to support?

This has long been Apple's defense of their gatekeeping - they are making sure that the network and the device are not compromised by malware or bug-ridden software.

And in the example it wasn't just MS and Nintendo suffering. It was countless developers that created apps for these devices. And of course in anticipation of your "argument" regarding my "story" I gave you an alternative using the V-Chip.

But that fails due to the premise that the V-Chip was installed from the time the TV was delivered. If a consumer buys a TV with a mandatory V-Chip that cannot be defeated, they will know this from the time that they buy the TV - just as an iPhone buyer knows the deal when they buy their phone. They can choose to buy a competitive brand.

If this was the issue, they should have turned on parental controls by default, perhaps requiring a signed affidavit from an adult to unlock the content. Or perhaps simply created a special category in the app store that required such a signature to access. Sort of like the back room at the video store. Technical solutions that offer inclusion should certainly trump blanket exclusion, IMO.

Perhaps you are right - perhaps they should have done this. (But can you imagine how many pissed off users there would be when they wanted to download a song with explicit content and realized that they had to sign some crap piece of paper in order to do so? I can't believe that this would have been a good idea.) However, the device is already out; it's too late to enforce something like this.

So, they can just do what they are doing - block content that they do not want in their store. It's their store.

Yep, the strong majority should always dictate the morality of the minority. Works great for much of the Islamic world...and France. ;)

Oh, so we are talking about tittie apps and not the Palm Pre again?

If I am in the business of selling something, you'd better effing believe that I am going to pay attention to what the majority of my customers care about. Though I may listen when a very vocal minority speak up, I am most assuredly going to make sure that I maximize my profits by catering to the greater number of my customers.

I am quite sure that the iPod Touch is skewing very heavily toward teenaged and tweenaged users, and my guess is that this decision was based quite a bit on that. The last thing that Apple wants is a bunch of pissed off Moms who'll stop buying Touches for their kids. They'll sacrifice sales to smaller numbers of masturbating, lonely men, I guess.


And you are seeing some of this. I do know a few disgruntled iPhone consumers and developers who are moving away from the platform. Most notably Joe Hewitt, I suppose.

I'd put more stock in this if Apple's market share had plateaued or fallen. It seems that for any customer or developer who leaves, there is more than one who replaces him or her. I'd put more stock in the Joe Hewitt story if the Android app had become better than the iPhone app. I can assure you that it is not; the iPhone Facebook app is better than its Android cousin. The Facebook mobile web app is actually seems more capable than the Facebook Android app. (Which, again, I turn back to: those masturbating, lonely men do not need apps to find porn. It's all over the web!)

Of course, Joe Hewitt said this when he made that announcement:

My decision to stop iPhone development has had everything to do with Apple’s policies. I respect their right to manage their platform however they want, however I am philosophically opposed to the existence of their review process. I am very concerned that they are setting a horrible precedent for other software platforms, and soon gatekeepers will start infesting the lives of every software developer.

Emphasis mine. He disagrees with Apple's gatekeeping, but respects their right to do this. You, apparently, do not.

[ptyork]

I'm bored...

----

Okay, I shouldn't, but it's too easy so I'll respond to a few.

First, I was pointing out the pattern that Apple had established in exercising their control of their marketplace to exclude competition. The Pre episode was one of many mentioned and there are many that have been left out.

Second, yes you can put your Amazon stuff into your iTunes library, but I find it funny that you can't even preview or purchase a song from the phone.

Third, emulators and interpreters ARE APPS THEMSELVES. They operate within the same sandbox and simply translate from one app language to another. Any emulated or interpreted code is protected in the exact same way as the parent, native app. There is no threat whatsoever of malicious code, at least no more than is allowed by any app in the app store. You are simply ill informed here, I think.

Fourth, despite a small typo, it should have been obvious that I meant that they permanently enabled the V-Chip AFTER it was purchased (perhaps because parents were too lazy to enable it and Sony was getting too many complaints about kids seeing men in bikinis...sound familiar).

Finally, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEM CONTROLLING CONTENT IN THEIR OWN MARKET--I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT BEING THE ONLY MARKET. There horse officially turned to bloody pulp. Perhaps you got it that time.

Beyond this, it is obvious that no amount of actual logic is going to convince you of Apple's potential liability here. This is simply the wrong forum for unbiased thought.

[doogald]

Third, emulators and interpreters ARE APPS THEMSELVES. They operate within the same sandbox and simply translate from one app language to another. Any emulated or interpreted code is protected in the exact same way as the parent, native app. There is no threat whatsoever of malicious code, at least no more than is allowed by any app in the app store. You are simply ill informed here, I think.

If you think that there are no security threats introduced by unintended flaws in Adobe Flash or Java VMs, then clearly you are not paying attention yourself. If Apple tests and approves every app that is in their store, they take responsibility for an app that introduces malware. They cannot possible test every piece of Flash content or Java code to see if Adobe's Flash or a Java VM is secure.

Fourth, despite a small typo, it should have been obvious that I meant that they permanently enabled the V-Chip AFTER it was purchased (perhaps because parents were too lazy to enable it and Sony was getting too many complaints about kids seeing men in bikinis...sound familiar).

Like people who buy iPhones now know that Apple only allows apps that they approve onto the phone before they buy, the consumer buying this imaginary TV is buying a TV that has this chip in it - the chip is not being installed into them after purchase. I guess we need to imagine how this imaginary Sony activates this imaginary circuitry after the TV is purchased - "the consumer must connect this TV to the internet", I suppose - all of these things are knowable by the consumer prior to purchase. They also know that there are imaginary other TVs that do not require internet access, or that come without imaginary chips that can be remotely activated, just as real consumers know that there are real alternative phones that allow them to install and run apps from multiple sources before they buy their phones.

Sometimes it sucks, because I know that plenty of consumers are ill informed before they make their purchases, but caveat emptor seems to hold pretty well in court.

Beyond this, it is obvious that no amount of actual logic is going to convince you of Apple's potential liability here. This is simply the wrong forum for unbiased thought.

I have no problem with logic, just sloppy arguments. I didn't post anything until you said:

And since there were appropriate controls to prevent them from being freely downloaded by kids, this is a sad day for believers in the first amendment.

I'm not quite sure why I am being accused of bias, since I don't even own an iPhone.

Apple has about 15%-25% market share in smartphones, perhaps 5% of all mobile phones. They have nowhere even close to a monopoly in any market.

If you don't like the fact that there is only a single marketplace for apps on the iPhone, THEN DON'T BUY AN IPHONE!! It is not for you, or anybody who has the same requirement, clearly. There are alternatives.

As for "potential liability", this is beyond my level of expertise. I am not an attorney. Are you? It seems to me, in my admittedly inexpert knowledge, that illegal tying can only be successfully prosecuted when there is a super-dominant market position, such as the IBM 370 case, or the Microsoft Windows anti-trust case, or the AT&T case. It seems a real reach to say that such a case exists here, at least right now.

In the worst case, somebody who wants free access to any app (who was ill-informed prior to purchase) can buy another phone for full price, can wait for their at most 2 year contract to expire, or can pay an ETF and buy another phone with another plan, selling their iPhone used to recover some costs. It sucks, yes, but anybody who doesn't like this censorship can get out of, if they wish to.

[ptyork]

If you think that there are no security threats introduced by unintended flaws in Adobe Flash or Java VMs, then clearly you are not paying attention yourself. If Apple tests and approves every app that is in their store, they take responsibility for an app that introduces malware. They cannot possible test every piece of Flash content or Java code to see if Adobe's Flash or a Java VM is secure.

These issues are only introduced if the host process runs with privilege. In Windows (and I think in MacOS), the host VM/Interpreter runs with upgraded privileges to allow it to access the file system, manage processes, etc. This is NOT the case for the iPhone. Every process runs in a sandbox. It is simply not possible (at least unless Apple really screwed up) for any app running within a sandbox to cause issues either with the core OS or with other processes. The only possible exception would be if the implementation allowed for multiple Java/Flash/Silverlight apps to run in the same sandbox. Then it would be possible (but unlikely because these apps also run in their own sandboxes within the VM/Interpreter) for one interpreted app to cause trouble with another. Again, not likely and CERTAINLY not an excuse to disallow such apps.

Rest assured, it is a whole different game on the iPhone than it is on the PC/Mac. And no I'm not a lawyer, but I am a CS/MIS professor and prior to that a 15 year veteran software developer. I do know this for fact.

Sometimes it sucks, because I know that plenty of consumers are ill informed before they make their purchases, but caveat emptor seems to hold pretty well in court.

Caveat Emptor for consumers who make possibly ill informed purchases but not for consumers who are too ignorant/inept to have AT&T or the Apple Store show them how to enable parental controls? Seems kind of an arbitrary assignment of (lack of) culpability.

...bunch of stuff that boils down to whether Apple has a super-dominant market position in anything...

This can be argued all day long. And while I did minor in business law many, many years ago, I'm definitely not a lawyer (thank God). But as has been said by both me and Jason, they DO have a super-dominant position in mobile app sales. And that position is strengthening, not weakening. > 80% of all mobile apps are developed for the iPhone and all MUST pass through one gatekeeper. With that kind of control over such a large market, that gatekeeper is under significant scrutiny and it is expected at least to be benevolent (both to its developers AND to the consumer). Apple has time and again failed the benevolence test.

Yes, there are other possible outlets, but there are major disadvantages for both consumers and developers to focus elsewhere. They simply give up too much lost potential in making the switch. Some will. And perhaps all boobie-app developers and connoisseurs will find a home elsewhere, but it is doubtful since most boobie-app connoisseurs also consume many other classes of app for which there simply is no comparable device/market.

Add to this the fact that developers, in good faith and with the assurance of Apple and past precedence, invested significant resources in developing apps that met Apple's standards, only to have those standards suddenly changed and have NO other outlet for recovering their investment. Sure, they knew that Apple had the right to reject their apps, but they had assurance that they would not and made investment decisions based on these assurances. These are REAL damages.

And this isn't taking into account the up-front and contractual financial burden placed on the consumer to make such a switch--a real issue, but I'm willing to ignore it since the argument holds without it.

Look, you argue against this. I argue for it. I suppose we can just leave it at that. But I'm right. :)

[Jason Dunn]

Add to this the fact that developers, in good faith and with the assurance of Apple and past precedence, invested significant resources in developing apps that met Apple's standards, only to have those standards suddenly changed and have NO other outlet for recovering their investment. Sure, they knew that Apple had the right to reject their apps, but they had assurance that they would not and made investment decisions based on these assurances. These are REAL damages.

That Apple is going this route doesn't surprise me. Remember what they did in the late '90s? They licensed Mac OS to a handful of companies (Umax, etc.) and watched as their customers bought the cheaper Mac OS computers instead of the Apple-branded ones. I think it was less than two years from start to finish, and Apple revoked the Mac OS licenses and those companies mostly died. Apple is ruthless and brutal in their dealings with other companies from what I've seen. Screwing over a few hundred developers wouldn't even make them blink.

[Dyvim]

That Apple is going this route doesn't surprise me. Remember what they did in the late '90s? They licensed Mac OS to a handful of companies (Umax, etc.) and watched as their customers bought the cheaper Mac OS computers instead of the Apple-branded ones. I think it was less than two years from start to finish, and Apple revoked the Mac OS licenses and those companies mostly died. Apple is ruthless and brutal in their dealings with other companies from what I've seen. Screwing over a few hundred developers wouldn't even make them blink.
Actually the first thing that sprang to my mind was PlaysForSure and Zune.