[bambax]

In this case the crux of the problem is that they're deleting an app that's almost as old as the app store itself.

Curating content is almost impossible to do; app stores should limit their reviews to exclude:

- viruses

- blatant spam and copyright violations

and THAT'S IT. Assessing the quality of an app is what users' ratings are for (and of course excluding adult content is just childish).

[treelovinhippie]

Yes exactly! Could you imagine how far behind the Internet (and society) would be if any website you wanted to launch had to first be reviewed and assessed by Apple/Google/<insert other corporate entity>!

This system of app review and locked-down pay-wall systems makes commercial sense for now, but ultimately it is not scalable, doesn't provide quality and is too slow. Any system that goes against the grain of a major trend, progressing along a rapid trajectory, with rapid innovation... simply will not continue.

The point at which people realize that Google and Apple are hindering innovation, will be the point at which they will open-up, and hopefully become a free platform.

(although I'm hoping before that time, our Internet infrastructure and bandwidth will be ubiquitous enough that all phones will simply boot into a browser - it's inevitable at some near point in the future).

[acqq]

> Could you imagine how far behind the Internet (and society) would be if any website you wanted to launch had to first be reviewed and assessed by Apple/Google/<insert other corporate entity>

You can have now your site accessible from the iPhone without the approval from Apple. It's not about availability, it's about the convenience of selling on the regulated highly accessible market. To sell in their store you enter the contract between them and you, the same way you'd do this if you'd want to have Walmart selling your goods instead of selling them on your own on the street, and even for selling on the street you'd have to follow the local laws.

[nooop]

Walmart is not a monopoly (and even more not a monopoly by design that will never be anything else).

[J3L2404]

You sound as if you want to make it mandatory to jailbreak your phone. If you want to go ahead, no one is stopping you, but some people are going to want the protection of vetted apps running code on their primary communication device. It is not a coincidence that Google is going the way of Apple with a curated store. If you don't like it don't use it.

[ErrantX]

> Assessing the quality of an app is what users' ratings are for

As an app store user I disagree. User ratings in the app store are not really a useful guideline in my experience - and it often takes trying several (reasonably well rated) apps to find one that is actually usable.

For example; it took me the best part of 10 tries to find a working tourist map of a city I was visiting a few weeks ago.

The app store review process is currently broken; as you say this decision is prudish, and other review decisions are idiotic.

But I think it is generally broken too in letting too much cruft go live.

In fact, I'd happily pay a premium for a "curated" store where reviewers judged the utility of apps more strictly.

[nooneelse]

I would very much like a free-for-all to be listed in the app store at all, but then give people the ability to create "curated streams" that users can subscribe-to/filter-with. That way, no bizarre censorship or arbitrary in-or-out decisions, but users could, if they wanted, only ever have to look at the store owner's "best of breed" channel.

[timwiseman]

I agree with you, which is why I use Android. But, I see an appeal to the walled garden.

I can let my children get on the app store without worrying too much it will lead to questions I don't feel like answering at that age. I have greater confidence that getting a game for the kids won't come with overly onerous spyware. I also have a better feeling that it will generally work.

This is not the way I want to operate, but I see how it appeals to some people.

[wizzard]

Perhaps there should be a kids' version of the app stores, instead of forcing adults to use what amounts to a kids' version currently.

[excuse-me]

App stores should do what is good for their shareholders

Apple is trying to move from being the cool kids counter-culture creative types alternative to the PC to being the corporate acceptable alternative to the Blackberry.

A story about karmasutra apps or ifart in the WSJ could cause a CEO to change their mind about allowing users to use their iPhone on the corp network.

And of course the best way of preventing such a story is, as we all know, to make a big splash about banning such an app

[chris_wot]

And yet... There are still Karma sutra apps on the Apple network. And a LOT of fart apps. If what you say is true, then why hasn't Apple removed them?

[alexbell]

The problem is the human element. If you are doing something that can in some way be construed as going against the app store guidelines, eventually you are going to get a reviewer who rejects/takes down your app. Even if other reviewers knew that your app had been around for ever, you are eventually going to run into one who doesn't, or feels it's his/her job to be as strict as possible. There is very little consistency in Apple's process because of this. The company I work for has had apps rejected for things we've done literally about a dozen times before, and we certainly knew were border line but we figured were OK because it had been allowed so many times before. But eventually we run into a reviewer who for whatever reason, rejects something that we've done tons of times before.

Overall I think Apple's process works, but the inconsistency is just ridiculous. Especially when your releases are time critical.

[batista]

>Apple is trying to move from being the cool kids counter-culture creative types alternative to the PC to being the corporate acceptable alternative to the Blackberry. A story about karmasutra apps or ifart in the WSJ could cause a CEO to change their mind about allowing users to use their iPhone on the corp network.

Only this has nothing to do with it.

iOS made inroads into the enterprise DESPITE the plethora of fart apps, Kama Sutra apps and such stuff.

Apple could care less about the hypothetical CEO you mention --not that 99.9% of CEOs would care about the presence of Kama Sutra apps in the app store when considering allowing the iPhone or not.

Mostly things like: employes and managers like to use it, it delivers a business advantage, we can deliver apps for our corporation in that platform.

[excuse-me]

"Apple could care less about the hypothetical CEO you mention"

The old fringe player Apple could - the new $trillion corporate Apple might "think different".

Remember once upon a time Microsoft was a cool fashionable young persons software company fighting against the established corporate monopolies

I'm sure this was just a new employee who was probably still in high-school when the Appstore launched and thinks anything not on the front page of reddit is ancient. But it does show a certain attitude inside Apple. Iconoclast thinking different and "we can do no wrong" is great when it's Jobs deciding you only need one mouse button - it's different when it becomes an unwillingness to even talk to your customers and users.

[batista]

>The old fringe player Apple could - the new $trillion corporate Apple might "think different".

I seriously doubt it. Especially since they became the "$trillion corporate Apple" by not caring about those things --so why change a winning strategy?

[excuse-me]

Because being a niche underdog is different from having saturated one market and looking for a different one.

[batista]

Good point, but they normally wouldn't cannibalize their existing markets (consumer) and their existing strategy by taking on a new market.