Once again, we were confused and a bit upset. We responded to Steve [this is not Steve Jobs], explaining that we were publishing a book about the iPhone, but he was insistent that the rules were the rules. We decided to compromise and change the name of our product. We redesigned our icon to omit the iPhone but include the word “iPhone,” to differentiate it from other future Macworld-related apps.
We thought we were on safe ground with that one, mostly because we had looked at David Pogue’s book about the iPhone, also available on the App Store. His book’s app icon didn’t include a picture of the iPhone, but did feature the word “iPhone” in big, bold lettering.
Pogue’s book was also called “iPhone: The Missing Manual,” which we pointed out to Steve, because we thought it was inconsistent with what he was telling us. Steve very politely told us that he wouldn’t discuss already-approved apps or allow us to use them as precedents
Bold emphasis added by me.
Because Apple is clearly playing favorites:
Two hours after I posted my tweet, out of the blue I got a phone call and an e-mail from someone at Apple, apparently in the app-submission group. (I’d never heard his name before.) What he told me was that he had heard about my situation and that it had all been a mistake on Apple’s part. This gentleman said that it was Apple’s policy to approve apps that were based on existing published works, and that since that was the case with us, they would be happy to approve our app with the original title, “iPhone and iPod touch Superguide.”
Bold emphasis added by me.
Personally, I think Apple needs to get out of the way as much as it possibly can.
Apple now has a very, very embarrassing record of capricious app rejections.
The most ridiculous of which still remains this one: Apple rejects e-book reader app over Kama Sutra
Apple has rejected yet another iPhone app, Eucalyptus, over offensive content, according to Wired. The e-book reader does not contain the objectionable content, although it allows users to download titles from Project Gutenberg. Apple cites access to the Kama Sutra as the reason for rejection, despite the fact that the text must be manually added by the user.
With Apple clearly headed towards encompassing all of digital publishing — digital books, digital magazines, and digital newspapers, what’s going to be Apple’s reaction when Rupert Murdoch‘s sleazetastic rags …
… are submitted for sale to Apple and Apple gets a load of stuff like this:
Page 3 of The Sun:
Hey, Murdoch is offering you Danni-to-go-go if you just hit that button I’ve highlighted in bright green!
That wasn’t working today, so let’s see an example from the archive:
She looks, um, newsworthy:
And if you don’t like her, there’s lots and lots and lots to choose from. The Sun is your pimp:
Rupert Murdoch, the man whose one idea in life has been, “Well, if they won’t buy news, let’s sell them tits and throw in the news for free!”
How will Apple deal with The Sun as a digital newspaper offered for sale at the App Store?
Steve Jobs versus Rupert Murdoch?
I doubt that!
Apple had better be working on turning the iTunes Store into a platform.
Let there be free enterprise — really free enterprise — and let the market sort out what it wants to buy.
Apple clearly can’t do it. Nor should it continue to try.