Apple’s idiot App Store reviewer strikes again (with video)

A reviewer at the iTunes app store recently rejected a simple application Joel Comm had submitted due to “limited functionality.”

In this video, Comm appeals directly to Steve Jobs to make the review process more transparent and consistent:

Direct link via YouTube here.

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Yeah, that’s right, we said “idiot.” Where’s the consistency, Apple?

Once again: We don’t know if Apple’s problem is: (a) the quality of the staff they’ve hired to flip the coins they use to determine app approvals; (b) if said staff is totally overwhelmed; (c) if said “staff” is really just that lone not-so-smart MobileMe launch guy whom the new, more mellow Steve didn’t have the heart to fire; or (e) all of the above, but they really ought to have worked it out by now.

Apple’s only considerations should be to make sure apps do not harm the device and/or encourage physically harming others, directly or indirectly. That’s why we immediately condemned that despicable “Baby Shaker” app and applauded Apple for nixing it. Of course, it never should have been approved in the first place, but we already knew that Apple’s app approval process had major issues long before that particular SNAFU. (And, by the way,” for those that want to bring up FPS or similarly violent games: A defenseless infant is actually different than an armed soldier. If you’re ever in an actual war, you’re supposed to fight the enemy; if you’re ever holding a real baby, you’re never, ever to shake him or her.)


  1. Tyk, developers like Comm can write apps that do nothing to their hearts’ content. They can write fart web apps and sell them on the Internet or give them away for free. But that doesn’t mean that Apple needs to sell them in its store. I wouldn’t write an open letter to Nordstrom complaining that they don’t sell Whoopee cushions or Manny Hoes. Would you? I mean, you’re welcome to. Freedom of speech and all that. But you would be an idiot.


  2. Too bad Joel doesn’t put as much creativity into his apps as he does in this video.

    If Apple had a WAY BETTER way to sort, find and locate apps I could really care less if this app (and apps like it) were in the App Store. But the App Store is so choked with useless apps that it’s a real pain in the ass … therefore I’d just as soon the Crapp Apps were excluded. But – they should be consistent.

  3. Talking about idiots, MDN is full of idiots as well. To me this guys apps are not only not appropriate but stupid as hell. Why give him notice here, let him go screw up Droid. The fart apps and similar ilk should all be relegated to a special area of the iTunes store for the children who own an iPod Touch. Leave them off the adult iPhone owners area. It is almost impossible to find the good apps for all the crap.

  4. I have a hole in MDN’s approach to App Store approvals. If war games are accepted because you’re killing an “enemy” and baby apps are not accepted because you’re hurting an innocent life… what about games like Grand Theft Auto? Going around the city clubbing hookers and killing people on the streets is acceptable? They seem pretty innocent to me. I’m of the belief that all 3 should be permitted in the App Store. Something that is “immoral” to one person is not to someone else.

  5. @ ross , @ Sum Jung Gai, et. al:

    So all of you agree that Apple *should* have the final word on what software you install on your iPhone/iPod Touch? Really? Would you feel the same way if Apple put a similar policy in place for Macs?

    I see two solutions to this problem:
    1. Apple does what MDN suggests- approve all apps that are not harmful to the device/network and do not break the law.
    2. Allow alternatives to the AppStore, and keep a higher standard for any apps available through the AppStore.

    When a user buys an iPhone or iPod Touch, it is theirs. They own it, and can do virtually anything they wish with it. Apple trying to use licensing as a way to control what people do with their devices is just wrong.

    If you feel that Apple is in the right in this behavior, then you should feel that Ford could “license” you to use their automobiles, and require that you only have them serviced at Ford dealerships and only buy gas from Ford-branded stations. After all, you could always just not buy a Ford and go with another manufacturer. The problem arises when *all* of the manufacturers implement the same policy. Then, as a consumer, you’re screwed. But that would be a-okay with all of you, right?

  6. I’m surprised, and very pleased with the tone of reader responses. Crap is crap, and too much of it clogs the best of pipes. Unless referred by someone I know I have ceased searching the App Store for a useful App. You have to wade through too much crap to find them.

  7. WHY would ANYONE want a corporation limiting YOUR choices? Granted, this logic does not apply to harmful or repugnant content, but novelty apps are just that – a fun novelty.

    It is NOT OK for a government, or a business, to determine what I want. If people want it, they can d’l it. If they don’t want it – they don’t d’l it. SIMPLE, huh?

    People – many of you seem to feel ok with allowing your basic freedoms to be eroded. This is a dangerous way of thinking. Open your eyes. This is not a Florida Condo Association! Get your nose out of everybody’s business.

    It is NONE of your business if I want to put a stupid app on MY iPhone. And it is NONE of Apples business if I want to put a stupid app on MY iPhone.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.