Gay Cure app pulled from App Store – expect precedential backlash

Not that it’s my strong suit or anything, but I certainly take issue with Apple’s wording of Exodus International’s Gay Cure rejection letter, which went something like this:

“We removed the Exodus International app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.” (Cult of Mac emphasis kept).

Presumably, the ‘large groups of people’ Apple reference is – in this instance – the gay community. The problem, of course, is that the wording is otiose and could be construed to fit anyone’s purposes. Imagine Canon camera fans taking issue with Nikon Learn & Explore app. Or, Oxford dictionary devs taking issue with (admittedly inferior) Webster dev counterparts. Without even touching the political/religious debate, Apple have opened a can of worms by failing to properly copy edit their marketing literature. They aren’t some two-bit blog, they’re the most iconic tech company in the world, and their moves (no matter how small) vibrate around the world.

On the other hand, Exodus International’s rebuttals are hardly convincing, either. Exodus’ next editions: The Mormon Cure, the Jewish Cure, the Liberal Cure, the Evolutionist Cure, to be followed by: the Mormon Solution, the Jewish Solution, etc.. Both sides adroitly prove just how flawed a system of checks and balances can be.

Thanks Cult of Mac.

App Store Rejections: ‘why’ not ‘what’

Image courtesy of

John Gruber attempts to tackle a very contentious App Store issue: Apple’s sly policy regarding App Store rejections. TMA has taken to a nicknaming Apple’s undisclosed rejection policy: Bad Apple – and I think it applies. Gruber points out that iPhone OS hardware stakes the middle ground between relative openness in personal computers, and the strict control seen in console computing. The platform is strong because of strict hardware and software integration; nothing can stand against it.

But the iPhone is still a new platform: it’s been tested and proved in demand, but in order to keep that demand relevant, Apple need to focus on their dearest customer: the developer. Who wants to create high-quality content for a platform only to see it rejected? The ball is in Apple’s court and rather than acing their developer base, it is time to sacrifice something for openness. Everyone stands to benefit from Apple’s responsibility.

Keeping the rules secret may make things easier for Apple, but it’s weakening the platform. Clarity is a sign of strength. If Apple’s leadership wants the tight control, they should accept the amount of hard work that would go along with managing it openly.

forChan app ousted from App Store – dangerous precedent set

forChan was nothing more than an image browser. Point and click it to an URL and oila!, images pop up. Though cute dogs are included in the app, after a little cut and pasting, you can have full-blown prawns swimming on your iDevice. But sometime in the last few hours, Apple removed it from the App Store after approving in a nearly record-time of only 12 hours (cheeky bastards). This was bound to happen, but as Gizmodo pointed out, Apple have set a dangerous precedent: forChan is just a browser. Safari, too, is just a browser.

Whether you are a prawn fan or not, Apple need to get the message that their rub and tug tactics are tiringly sick. Apple, Safari is nothing more than a browser. It also has fewer limits for prawning it up than forChan did. Serious skin fans can have a lot more fun with YOUR APP than with any App Store software.

You might also look at the following tweaks which allow iPhone prawn:

Bobble Rep 111th Congress Edition madly rejected by Apple


Forget about Bobble Rep (an app illustrated by Tom Richmond) which should have been a fun, unique, new way for Americans to contact their government representatives. The app, which listed contact information for members of Congress has been rejected. Not because it might cause the iPhone to explode (even Apple figured out that this ain’t a terrorist app); not because citizens might contact their government – no. It is because, according to Apple’s approval guidelines, section 3.3.14 insinuates that the app ridicules public figures. Public figures – not even heads of state; not government ministers, public figures. There are a lot of public figures out there in the world – let’s see if Apple are ready to support such bland band-aid dogmas.

Rejection letter and article continued after the gap:

Continue reading…