In a certain sense, that claim is valid. How many RSS readers are available on the App Store? Ranging from free to several dollars in price, these kind of apps allow users to subscribe to liberal websites like The Huffington Post, or its right-wing counterparts. iSinglePayer’s creator pushes the Drudge Report app as an example of this alleged inconsistency.

To be honest I haven’t read what Apple publicizes as criteria for getting an app approved for the App Store. What’s clear for me though is the company’s consistent stance that they exercise control over the App Store to protect the users’ experience, to keep them from using apps that may severely affect the iPhone’s operation from a user-friendliness standpoint.

So what does that have to do with refusing an app on the grounds that it’s “politically charged”? Perhaps the availability of iSinglePayer on the app store may offend some of health care reform’s opponents, but how is that related to user-friendliness? There are also Bible apps officially available for the iPhone and iPod touch; using the same logic behind iSinglePayer’s disapproval, shouldn’t these be disallowed, on the grounds that they’re “politically charged” for atheists?

Again, the App Store is Apple’s creation, and they’re free to do what they want with it. But this whole issue (or “issue”, depending on how you look at it) is another situation that has left observers scratching their heads—and future iPhone developers wary of investing time and money into the App Store ecosystem. What do you think?

Post from: The Gadget Blog

In retrospect, you just had to see it coming. The Google Voice iPhone app basically allowed free texts and much cheaper calls. That meant more money for carriers from data plans, but less profit from their traditional voice and SMS services.

It’s easy to point fingers at partner AT&T, as they’re the carrier with the most to lose if iPhone owners figure out how to send texts and do calls without adding to their monthly bill. And this is yet another way of limiting what subscribers can do for the sake of making more money.

Yet the whole brouhaha is also the fault of the App Store’s “walled garden”. That’s the setup that allows Apple to officially limit what iPhone owners can do—whether through its own initiative or under pressure from a partner—even after these customers have committed to a long-term investment to Apple’s product.

Sure, iPhone users can always jailbreak their phone. But why force paying customers to do something extra just so they can maximize their purchase? Just so they can do whatever they want with their gadget?

Source
Google Voice iPhone App screenshots courtesy iPhoneFreak

Post from: The Gadget Blog

The game in question, “Baby Shaker”—which is definitely outrageous—isn’t even revolutionary nor interesting. What’s so engaging about shaking a virtual baby until it stops crying? What’s so visually-catching about line-art drawings of a baby, when the game’s developer Sikalosoft simply puts red X’s over the virtual babe’s eyes to represent death?

Now, why would Apple allow this kind of game to show on the App Store? Had Sikalosoft found a way to trick the certifiers at Apple? Or was someone within the App Store team basically running on automatic, deciding that the game met all of Apple’s criteria for certification, without realizing what kind commotion a shaken baby would cause.

Post from: The Gadget Blog