Developers claim Apple rates all browser-embedded apps mature

[AppleInsider]

Apple has caught the ire of some developers this week after it was revealed that all applications with integrated Web browsers will reportedly be rated for ages 17 and up, and that all such apps will not be entitled to promotional codes.

As first reported at The Unofficial Apple Weblog, the App Store's new app rating system prevents developers from obtaining promotional codes for their applications. Such codes allow up to 50 free downloads for developers to distribute however they see fit, such as for publicity or promotion.

"As it stands, neither the 3.0 software nor iTunes display parental warnings when using a promo code to purchase apps with a mature (17+) rating," TUAW writes, "so Apple has made the promo code functionality unavailable for apps that fall into that category. We were informed of this condition by a developer who prefers to remain anonymous."

This has upset some developers, such as the creator of Instapaper and Tumblr, Marco Arment. The developer conveyed his frustration in a blog post Friday, saying he now doubts the viability of a business based on iPhone apps. Arment has expressed his displeasure with Apple before, specifically with regards to the iPhone maker's alleged unwillingness to answer developers' questions.

Now, Arment claims that Apple takes 8 to 30 days for review, and all Web-capable applications must come with nudity warnings.

"They’re making a killing taking their 30% commission on the 1.5 billion copies of $0.99 top-25 games that they’ve sold," he wrote. "Who cares if the App Store discourages good developers from putting serious effort into it? Apple doesn’t need to care. And, clearly, they don’t."

With iPhone OS 3.0, Apple added an age rating system for applications. This not only allows parents to set appropriate application access for their families, but also opens up the potential for developers to release applications with adult content.

Friday another developer also complained about the length of time in Apple's App Store approval process. Syncode, the developer behind the application iTweetReply, claims that Apple tested their application merely a few days after its submission to the App Store, but didn't provide a formal rejection until nearly a month later. The reason for the rejection: An illustration of an envelope displayed when the application launches included Apple's address, 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino, Calif.

After the developer revised the application, it was approved two and a half weeks later.

"My personal guess is that once an app passes the initial technical test, it must be approved by multiple other levels from legal (to prevent illicit apps) to, well, God knows," Matthew Lesh of Syncode wrote. "If nothing else it has highlighted the need for a far more transparent approval process – Come on Apple, is it so hard to give us at least a quasi-detailed description of the approval process?"

[Slang4Art]

In a future update, to separate the Safari/Browsing abilities from the App ratings altogether. You can already turn them off independently, but a .x update will need to allow developers to access these settings through an API and have the software be able to disable browsing features if the user has turned these off. This would allow the App to still be rated according to its unique content, and still protect the poor, innocent youth of America. That, or people could just could making frivolous lawsuits every time they feel the need to blame their parenting errs on corporations. Apple shouldn't be expected to risk their ass, or the livelihood of the App Store itself (especially in an age where we have an Internet "Czar") just because a few developers can't figure out how to lock their apps down, or don't see the potential hazard in not doing so. That being said, I do think my above solution would work, and would probably be as easy as several lines of code to implement into an App. Just my thoughts.

[lepton]

The app I'm finishing up right now is completely G rated. But because it uses a browser view to show its online help, it is going to be mature only? And I can't give promo codes to reviewers? I worked over six months coding this app!

[Mac Voyer]

I am not a developer but that does not stop me from having an opinion.

In my experience with all manner of sales, wherever there is a high level of heavy-handed regulation, there is a good reason behind it. If you consider the most regulated industries, you will discover some of the worst abuses of consumers. I suspect Apple is so inundated with obscene, pornographic, violent, and racist offerings, they have to regulate with a heavy hand. We only get one side of the story. We hear from disgruntled developers who feel cheated out of their piece of the app store pie. We never here from Apple, and so never get the whole story.

There are many developers who are writing apps that are on the fringe of acceptability. They are constantly pushing the envelop of what is acceptable. I do not feel sorry for them when their app that took all of ten minutes to make is declined. There is plenty of room in the fat middle for writing good apps that are useful and inoffensive to all. Apple is a family company and wants to run a family store. It is not always possible, and they do make allowances for people who are writing useless crap. Just brows through the store to see what I mean. But if they did not regulate with such a heavy hand, all you would ever find are baby shaking apps. Yes, Apple makes many mistakes in the process. I would rather they err on the side of caution, which they are doing most of the time.

As to apps with browsers, I can imagine that many developers are submitting apps that are fine on the surface, but link to inappropriate content in a browser. It is just a way for them to get around Apples rules and Apple is fighting back by overreacting with this new regulation. I am too familiar with human nature to be too upset with Apple over this one. Personally, I would prefer all of the fringe developers to go over to WinMo, Palm, or Google. The app store does not need to become a red-light district. If that means overenthusiastic policing from time to time, so be it.

[AppleStud]

the saga continues. Yawn.

[dreyfus2]

Well, this might be a temporary thing. Whenever they get around to enable coupon redemption with rating warnings, the case should be solved? No idea what this browser-nonsense is about though. If somebody displays a help file or FAQ in a Mobile Safari control, the user has no means to navigate elsewhere. So, what's the big deal. Also: shouldn't the browser object added through Interface Builder honor the same parental control settings as Mobile Safari itself? If yes, then there is no issue. If no, go ahead and fix it.

As long as thousands of developers sign up for the program, and they can't barely keep up with submissions, they have absolutely no need to be more transparent about the approval logic. And seriously: putting anything in writing that can't be bypassed or turned upside down is about impossible. It would only make the situation worse for Apple, because then making exceptions to whatever they put in writing could open the door for claims.

On the other side, I can't really understand Apple's priorities in some cases. The German iTunes Store offered music by some neo-nazi bands for months. Some of them as explicit as celebrating 9/11 for the "extinction of Jewish and American scum" (and already blacklisted and declared illegal by German public offices). All this, of course, without even a rating or an "explicit" tag (no, I am not suggesting that would have made a difference). After the story hit major news sites, blogs and even the second biggest news show on German TV, they still needed almost two weeks to pull that crap.

[chronster]

This is the second time in a few days where I've read someone say something like "Apple is making a killing off the app store" but aren't they pretty much breaking even? I'm sure there are some profits, but nothing to justify saying they are "making a killing."

Apple's profits from the app store aside, I think the app store has become so large that Apple now has a responsibility to treat this approval process professionally. Provide thorough documentation for developers so approval is easier.

I mean, when you think about it, it would save Apple time and money if they gave a clear definitive guideline for developers to follow. When an app is rejected, it goes back into the approval process. So if the developer had known what not to do in the first place, time wouldn't be wasted to analyze their app a second time.

[nagromme]

Apple HAS to do this, or else the ratings feature doesn't even work. Because Apple made a big mistake.

The mistake they made is not adding one more parental control: "allow 3rd-party apps to access network." They need to do that, so that paranoid parents can keep their kids offline and yet still buy apps. Then apps can be rated on their OWN INTERNAL content (or on the content they are specifically MEANT to download), rather than on the possibility that "anything" might be out there.

Apps already fail gracefully of the network can't be reached, so games with online high scores etc. should be basically OK even with that function removed.

(What about games with chat? I assume those are all mature, since a fellow gamer could swear? Once again, adding that additional parental control switch would solve the problem.)

Apple could even add a new rating: something like "Open-Ended Content, May Include Any Age Level of Material." Something that goes on any app that accesses the network, without the stigma of "mature."

[mstone]

Originally Posted by lepton

The app I'm finishing up right now is completely G rated. But because it uses a browser view to show its online help, it is going to be mature only? And I can't give promo codes to reviewers? I worked over six months coding this app!

Maybe you could use web services to retieve the information and display it in a view. Since all you need is a few help screens.

[chronster]

Originally Posted by nagromme

Apple HAS to do this, or else the ratings feature doesn't even work. Because Apple made a big mistake.

The mistake they made is not adding one more parental control: "allow 3rd-party apps to access network." They need to do that, so that paranoid parents can keep their kids offline and yet still buy apps. Then apps can be rated on their OWN INTERNAL content (or on the content they are specifically MEANT to download), rather than on the possibility that "anything" might be out there.

Apps already fail gracefully of the network can't be reached, so games with online high scores etc. should be basically OK even with that function removed.

(What about games with chat? I assume those are all mature, since a fellow gamer could swear? Once again, adding that additional parental control switch would solve the problem.)

Apple could even add a new rating: something like "Open-Ended Content, May Include Any Age Level of Material." Something that goes on any app that accesses the network, without the stigma of "mature."

This is a good point. I think the people at Apple are too smart to ignore such common sense as this.

[clickmyface]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"They’re making a killing taking their 30% commission on the 1.5 billion copies of $0.99 top-25 games that they’ve sold,"

Apple has not sold 1.5 billion Apps, they have distributed 1.5 billion Apps. It is quite reasonable to assume that an overwhelming majority of those are Free apps. Do the math.

Lets say, for simplicity sake, Apple sold 500 million Apps, and gave away 1 billion for free. Lets say the average free app is 5 mbs. Thats 5 billion mbs of bandwidth going through Apple and AT&Ts networks.

Imagine what 5 billion MBs cost. Also imagine that NOBODY USES PARENTAL CONTROLS.

[melgross]

I understand that Apple wants to maintain its family friendly status.

But how do they do that while allowing mature content? With movies, it's an independent board. With TV shows there's a broadcast standard that applies to all over the air companies. Pay channels such as HBO and Showtime can do what they like, up to a certain extent.

How does Apple regulate this? No matter what they decide, some will think it's wrong.

But they should be much more open as to how they make their decisions.

If we go by what Apple is saying here, then the entire iPhone/Touch system should be rated as mature, as we can go anywhere with Safari. That's what makes much of this so silly.

[mstone]

Originally Posted by nagromme

Apple HAS to do this, or else the ratings feature doesn't even work. Because Apple made a big mistake.

The mistake they made is not adding one more parental control: "allow 3rd-party apps to access network." They need to do that, so that paranoid parents can keep their kids offline and yet still buy apps.

Children who have an iPhone are usually trusted to be online. The parents wouldn't have allowed the child to have that kind of device if they were not. The problem is in unwanted surprises from the net. Apps need to access the net. IMO any social networking or UGC type app should be 17+ because there are eventually going to be some mention or image of private body parts in those types of apps. You can moderate it but you can't prevent it.

[mstone]

Originally Posted by melgross

If we go by what Apple is saying here, then the entire iPhone/Touch system should be rated as mature, as we can go anywhere with Safari. That's what makes much of this so silly.

Parents can turn Safari off

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mstone

Parents can turn Safari off

And they can prevent their kids from buying and using any program they think isn't suitable.

So?

[chronster]

Originally Posted by clickmyface

Apple has not sold 1.5 billion Apps, they have distributed 1.5 billion Apps. It is quite reasonable to assume that an overwhelming majority of those are Free apps. Do the math.

Lets say, for simplicity sake, Apple sold 500 million Apps, and gave away 1 billion for free. Lets say the average free app is 5 mbs. Thats 5 billion mbs of bandwidth going through Apple and AT&Ts networks.

Imagine what 5 billion MBs cost. Also imagine that NOBODY USES PARENTAL CONTROLS.

lets also say that many people have ipod touches, and app store purchases are through wifi. I mean, what you quoted from that guy was wrong and misinformed, but to say 5 petabytes of data was transfered over AT&T's network might be wrong as well, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

From everything I've read, I don't think Apple is "making a killing" but I also don't think their profits aren't covering the cost of the app store.

[Roos24]

As long as we have more lawyers than ants in this country, I think Apple is right. Is Apple going to be sued when someone finds inappropriate material on his/her child's iPhone? You bet. Is Apple going to be sued by someone whose app was denied because there is a change that it opens the door to unwanted material? Questionable. There's your answer.

[mstone]

Originally Posted by melgross

And they can prevent their kids from buying and using any program they think isn't suitable.

So?

So what was your point about restrictions being silly?

[chronster]

Originally Posted by melgross

If we go by what Apple is saying here, then the entire iPhone/Touch system should be rated as mature, as we can go anywhere with Safari. That's what makes much of this so silly.

Maybe this is why they haven't provided a clear cut definition of what an acceptable app is, because by that very definition, Apple's stuff wouldn't be acceptable.

[mknopp]

I don't understand people who think Apple is in any way justified or obligated to do this.

They do not restrict what can be ran on their Macbooks or iMacs. So, why should they be playing morality police on the iPhones and iPod Touches. They shouldn't!

Now, I fully agree with Apple building in parental controls, and I think nagromme has the truth of the matter. Apple needs to build in the ability for parents to limit what their children can download and run on their iPhones, just like they do on their computers.

Beyond that they need to back the hell off.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

... With iPhone OS 3.0, Apple added an age rating system for applications. This not only allows parents to set appropriate application access for their families, but also opens up the potential for developers to release applications with adult content. ...

just to be picky, this statement is not actually true.

Apps with adult content are (so far) still not approved.

There is also the question of what counts as "adult." Where I live a woman can walk down the street topless and it's legal and no problem, whereas the app store both considers an app with naked boobies in it "adult" and simultaneously (so far) refuses to publish it, even with the parental controls.

The idea that parental controls would enable adult apps has so far proven to be false.

[mstone]

Originally Posted by mknopp

Apple needs to build in the ability for parents to limit what their children can download and run on their iPhones,...

They do. If you have an iPhone go to settings > general > restrictions and check the available configurations.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mstone

So what was your point about restrictions being silly?

I didn't say that.

I said that as Safari allows one to access any content, forcing developers to restrict their own programs is a silly requirement on Apple's part.

That's the expanded edition.

I think they should have a mature section, or warning, and allow PARENTS to utilize their responsibilities to control what their kids do.

This isn't like going to the movies where kids are out of the control of their parents.

With their electronics, parents can tell where they're going, and what they're purchasing for these things. Too many parents are lazy, and expect others to do what they should be doing.

If a parent gives their kid an iTunes account with the credit card activated, they're giving them license to get what they want, unless they require them to show what they're getting first.

Parents have a lot of control here. They just have to be willing to exercise it, and not leave the entire thing to others they don't know.

This doesn't mean that Apple should allow XXX rated content in their store, or overly violent or racist content.

[mstone]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

whereas the app store both considers an app with naked boobies in it "adult" and simultaneously (so far) refuses to publish it, even with the parental controls.

Apple would allow 'naked boobies' since most sea birds are in fact naked. Or is that just polite Canaidian slang for bare breasts?

[mstone]

Originally Posted by melgross

I didn't say that.

back peddling

Originally Posted by melgross

Parents have a lot of control here.

Yes like use the settings > restrictions, which you were apparently unaware of.

[Magic_Al]

Originally Posted by nagromme

(What about games with chat? I assume those are all mature, since a fellow gamer could swear? Once again, adding that additional parental control switch would solve the problem.)

Apple could even add a new rating: something like "Open-Ended Content, May Include Any Age Level of Material." Something that goes on any app that accesses the network, without the stigma of "mature."

This is how the ESRB handles multplayer games. The game has an age rating and a content description, and if it has a multiplayer component there is a disclaimer that "experience may change during online play" which is a vague way of saying the content rating doesn't stop someone from swearing into their mic or potentially getting their avatar to perform a suggestive act.

The history of the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas "Hot Coffee" controversy may also be relevant. In that case the game was rated M but modders discovered and unlocked unused assets in the game that depicted more intense sexual behavior. The game was re-rated AO (effectively banishing it from mainstream retail) until the content was actually excised and not just unlinked from the game script.

Apple's concern is that user-generated content cannot be reviewed and rated in advance but their ultimate solution should be bringing apps under the umbrella of systemwide parental controls, so that apps may be limited to built-in, rated content or specific Internet connectivity according to parental settings.

[OC4Theo]

It is the right thing for Apple to do by rating these browser-embedded apps as mature, because once you are on the web, you are everywhere. In that case, parents need to know.

Allowing these sneaky developers to route traffic to the internet from their apps is outrageous. Who knows what else will happen? A porn site can use this means as a gateway to their website.

It should not be allowed!

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by chronster

This is the second time in a few days where I've read someone say something like "Apple is making a killing off the app store" but aren't they pretty much breaking even? I'm sure there are some profits, but nothing to justify saying they are "making a killing."....

I noticed this too.

Usually when someone opens an argument with hyperbole it means they don't actually have a good argument, and know it.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mstone

back peddling

Nope. You didn't read what I said correctly.

Yes like use the settings > restrictions, which you were apparently unaware of.

I'm aware of those settings. That's why I said it;s up to the parents to exercise control.

You don't have to play the fool here, you know. You're perfectly capable of understanding what I mean.

[stonefree]

I've heard Apple requires its approval team to read Franz Kafka's "The Castle" for inspiration.

[chronster]

Originally Posted by stonefree

I've heard Apple requires its approval team to read Franz Kafka's "The Castle" for inspiration.

I heard they read mad magazine

[Akac]

Originally Posted by lepton

The app I'm finishing up right now is completely G rated. But because it uses a browser view to show its online help, it is going to be mature only? And I can't give promo codes to reviewers? I worked over six months coding this app!

The use of WebKit is not the issue. The use of an open-ended webkit is. The ability of a user to go to any website within the app is the issue. And yes, Apple should have separate parental controls for webkit apps.

[Mac Voyer]

It seems obvious that Apple is just trying to keep developers from selling legitimate front ends to illicit content on the web. You can argue that their method is flawed, but not their intention. The biggest outcry does not come from legitimate developers; it comes from people who want to sell something that Apple does not allow. I am confident the WinMo would welcome all app store rejects with open arms. As for legitimate complains, Apple tends to get those worked out. I do not know of a legitimate app that was locked out and not eventually allowed after further review. This whole argument is a smokescreen for people who want porn apps. What app store does not have similar restrictions and concerns? Obviously, none of them have similar traffic.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by iPhone1982

So does this mean that Apple has to put a mature rating on it's own box when it you purcase it. The phone ships with a browser (Safari) that can be used to look up sites that are not meant for the eyes of Children.

If they are going to set a standard, Apple should make it across the board and not just to developers.

Apple is being ridiculous with this entire matter.

I think the difference is the world knows web browsers are open-ended, and Apple has a parental control installed to allow parents to throttle the browser is they so desire.

A lot of those folks who know web browsers are open-ended have no clue how software works and likely won't distinguish native content in an app from what is pulled into it from an open-ended browser connection. They won't accept -- well it has a browser so we can't control it. They will say Apple sold me an application for little jimmy that was secretly obscene. Some subset of those idiot parents will sue for substantial sums and there is no predicting how a judge and jury of non-technophiles will rule on that.

I liked the web-service idea above from @mstone. It is the kind of thing that could be helped along with an API wrapping the whole thing up in a statically compiled access protocol. Then any web-accessed content could only be from the compiled-in addresses and any company trying to use that to get around content rating issues could be shut down because there is direct evidence of intentional subterfuge.

[hezekiahb]

Originally Posted by chronster

This is the second time in a few days where I've read someone say something like "Apple is making a killing off the app store" but aren't they pretty much breaking even? I'm sure there are some profits, but nothing to justify saying they are "making a killing."

Apple's profits from the app store aside, I think the app store has become so large that Apple now has a responsibility to treat this approval process professionally. Provide thorough documentation for developers so approval is easier.

I mean, when you think about it, it would save Apple time and money if they gave a clear definitive guideline for developers to follow. When an app is rejected, it goes back into the approval process. So if the developer had known what not to do in the first place, time wouldn't be wasted to analyze their app a second time.

I think the problem is probably that they have the same guys running the app store as the music store. They need to get some new guys on the team, some people with more app store experience, to help iron out their model.

There is 1 thing Apple could stand to learn a lot about from Microsoft, you gotta keep the developers happy if you want to keep the apps. Programmers don't like being jerked around & they aren't afraid to take their product & go elsewhere.

[Mac Voyer]

App store developers are very happy. Apple revolutionized mobile app development. For those who are unhappy, I would personally like to see them go somewhere else and find I better deal. I am sick of the crap-ware on the app store.

[McDave]

Originally Posted by hezekiahb

There is 1 thing Apple could stand to learn a lot about from Microsoft, you gotta keep the developers happy if you want to keep the apps. Programmers don't like being jerked around & they aren't afraid to take their product & go elsewhere.

Apple = Responsible technology; DRM, parental controls, no cheap/misconfigured boxes, software that's actually works etc.
Microsoft = Irresponsible technology; legalised copyright theft in the eyes of a generation, lots of options though - very engrossing.

Welcome to the new age of responsible technology. If developers don't like it, they can take their insipid practices to another platform, that's to Apple's & it's customer's advantage.

McD

[a_greer]

I agree that Apple needs to fix the problem, but really, rating systems and controlls are so under utilized that they don't matter any how.

Do you know anyone using the V-Chip or web filtering packages on kids' PCs (content blocking, not just logging activity)? Hell when was the last time you went to an R-rated movie that wasn't stuffed with 12 and 13 year olds? When I was a young teen in the hay day of Mrs. Gore's "war on freedom of speech in music" most of my friends and I all had copies of CDs like Nine Inch Nails, and kids today are listening to lots of rap which is chalk full of crude stuff...

In short, the ratings and filtering tech is just to silence the Religion industry: NOT RELIGION AS A WHOLE, just the loud mouth groups like the Parents TV council, the 700 Club, Focus on the Family, and so on.

I really don't want to steer this thread off course, and I completely agree with previous statements in the thread that devs should be able to promo adult apps, but do the ratings effect more than 0.1% of end users?

[melgross]

Developers are no different from anyone else who needs to make money for a living.

While there is a percentage who are "righteous", and who will stand for some principles, whatever they may be, most just want to make a good living out of this.

For every developer who will leave developing for the iPhone because of "principles", there are a thousand others, just as good, who won't.

And that's they way things work.

[akhomerun]

apple can do whatever they want to the app store developers because it is such a lucrative platform. if one of thems says "f--- you apple, i'm leaving!" 5 more will take their place to make a killing on the iphone's 40+ million users (all of which spend more than users of other mobile platforms on apps). it also helps that it is such an easy platform to develop for. "apple rejected my application, tears and sadness, that wasted 4 weeks of my time and now i'll need to spend 2 days to fix it!"

apple's strategy is to make products consumers drool over and use that leverage to maximize their profits.

this whole issue isn't really a big deal, if an application has a web browser there needs to be some way for parents to deal with it. it's even less of a big deal considering most parents don't use parental controls on most of their devices that support it because their kids are the ones they depend on to set up all their electronics.

the fact that apple disallows adult content (even if it isn't so "adult") is also a non-issue. it's apple's store and they can put whatever they want in it. if you don't like it, jailbreak it. the iphone is a much more free and open platform than anything you can get from just about any wireless carrier, at least in the US.