or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple modifies App Store Review Guidelines to ban DUI checkpoint apps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple modifies App Store Review Guidelines to ban DUI checkpoint apps

post #1 of 77
Thread Starter 
Apple has complied with a request from the U.S. Senate and changed the guidelines for software in its iPhone App Store, as it has now banned applications that inform users of DUI checkpoints.

The new App Store Review Guidelines, highlighted Wednesday by Autoblog, have an added section 22.8 as of this week. The new section states:

"Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected."

Back in March, a group of Democratic U.S. Senators -- Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg and Tom Udall -- banded together to send letters to Apple, Google and Research in Motion, requesting that they remove applications from their respective digital stores that notify users of police checkpoints. The senators argued that the applications in question are "harmful to public safety" because they could allow drunk drivers to evade police detection.

In May, Apple's vice president of software technology, Guy L. "Bud" Tribble, took part in a hearing on privacy at the U.S. Senate. During that hearing, Tribble, said that Apple was in the process of "looking into" the legality of so-called DUI checkpoint applications.

Some applications, like Trapster, rely on users to submit data when they encounter speed traps, DUI checkpoints or police patrols. The GPS-enabled applications can then warn other drivers of potential locations.



Trapster, which bills itself as the "world's most complete and up to date speed trap and camera database," is still available on the App Store. In addition to enforcement points and red light cameras, it also offers other services such as real-time traffic.

Schumer, speaking at the Senate privacy hearing, specifically took issue with applications like Buzz'd and Fuzz Alert, which he said "really only serve one purpose." He noted that when the applications were brought to the attention of RIM, the BlackBerry-maker complied and removed the software, while Apple and Google did not.
post #2 of 77
Papers please?

I really hate how we've come to live in a police state, where our 4th amendment rights are meaningless, and our 1st amendment right to free speech (telling others about a potential 4th amendment violation - to protect others rights) can so easily be trampled on by a senator.

I despise drunk driving, but the fact of the matter is, many of the laws passed through the lobbying of MADD are unconstitutional. Forced to consent to a search without a warrant without probable cause under coercion and threat of losing your drivers license - whether you're sober or not.

The problem with checkpoints is they are fishing expeditions. Anything the police can use to say you might be drunk, even refusing to answer questions which you legally may refuse to answer (5th amendment anyone?), gives them the ability (legal or not) to search your car, phone, laptop, etc. Next thing you know you might have been downtown when a bank was being robbed in the area based on your location data. That gives them probable cause to search your whole life -and there are so many laws, you know somewhere they are going to find something to charge you with no matter how petty.

This is how the police state works, turn us into scared little babies. They will probably win.
post #3 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple has complied with a request from the U.S. Senate and changed the guidelines for software in its iPhone App Store, as it has now banned applications that inform users of DUI checkpoints.

The new App Store Review Guidelines, highlighted Wednesday by Autoblog, have an added section 22.8 as of this week. The new section states:

"Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected."

Back in March, a group of Democratic U.S. Senators -- Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg and Tom Udall -- banded together to send letters to Apple, Google and Research in Motion, requesting that they remove applications from their respective digital stores that notify users of police checkpoints. The senators argued that the applications in question are "harmful to public safety" because they could allow drunk drivers to evade police detection.

In May, Apple's vice president of software technology, Guy L. "Bud" Tribble, took part in a hearing on privacy at the U.S. Senate. During that hearing, Tribble, said that Apple was in the process of "looking into" the legality of so-called DUI checkpoint applications.

Some applications, like Trapster, rely on users to submit data when they encounter speed traps, DUI checkpoints or police patrols. The GPS-enabled applications can then warn other drivers of potential locations.



Trapster, which bills itself as the "world's most complete and up to date speed trap and camera database," is still available on the App Store. In addition to enforcement points and red light cameras, it also offers other services such as real-time traffic.

Schumer, speaking at the Senate privacy hearing, specifically took issue with applications like Buzz'd and Fuzz Alert, which he said "really only serve one purpose." He noted that when the applications were brought to the attention of RIM, the BlackBerry-maker complied and removed the software, while Apple and Google did not.


Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

DUI checkpoints are direct violation of Constitutional Amdendment IV
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #4 of 77
Quote:
Back in March, a group of Democratic U.S. Senators -- Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg and Tom Udall -- banded together to send letters to Apple, Google and Research in Motion, requesting that they remove applications from their respective digital stores that notify users of police checkpoints. The senators argued that the applications in question are "harmful to public safety" because they could allow drunk drivers to evade police detection.

Let's see, Reid endorsed a spending bill to build a bridge between Nevada and Arizona that would make land he owned more valuable. Schumer called a flight attendant on a US Airways flight from New York to D.C. a "bitch" because she asked him to comply with federal regulations and turn off his cell phone.

Two out of four ain't bad I guess.

All seriousness aside, shouldn't these folks be doing something worthwhile with the taxpayers money like, oh, balancing the budget?
post #5 of 77
I do agree that DUI checkpoint apps are a harmful bunch. Then again, if you're punch drunk...how can you operate the phone (provided you don't have other passengers)?
post #6 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

I do agree that DUI checkpoint apps are a harmful bunch. Then again, if you're punch drunk...how can you operate the phone (provided you don't have other passengers)?

++ like someone driving shatfaced is gonna pick up their phone and dial. They'd probably wreck out just trying if they were that drunk.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #7 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

I do agree that DUI checkpoint apps are a harmful bunch. Then again, if you're punch drunk...how can you operate the phone (provided you don't have other passengers)?

Considering I can write thesis papers without spelling or grammar errors while totally wasted, probably not that hard. Even then I still support the right of the apps to exist, its free speech, and the checkpoints have to be announced in many states anyway.
post #8 of 77
There goes the new iMessage service, which could be used to alert other iOS users to what is happening on public roads.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #9 of 77
This is really interesting, because on one hand, it seems kind of messed up, but on the other hand, what would everyone think of a car full of dead people was found wrecked on the side of a back road, and right there on one of their phones is one of these apps, which if didn't exist, would have saved all their lives?

It's a bit of a conundrum, but ultimately I'm not surprised by Apple's decision.
post #10 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

This is really interesting, because on one hand, it seems kind of messed up, but on the other hand, what would everyone think of a car full of dead people was found wrecked on the side of a back road, and right there on one of their phones is one of these apps, which if didn't exist, would have saved all their lives?

It's a bit of a conundrum, but ultimately I'm not surprised by Apple's decision.

I"m not surprised by Apple's decision either. The US Government hasn't been "by the people for the people" in a long time.

Corporations and States that kowtow the the Feds in some cases can get benefits "down the road".

Roughly 618 thousand men and women died during the Civil War to uphold freedoms that today are so "cavalierly" diluted.

Today's DUI checkpoint is tantamount to a British soldier occupying the house of a colonist and searching through private property. If you have a warrant I'm cool with it but a checkpoint assumes guilt before innocence.

The drunk driver stuff is the kind of emotive BS that Americans fall for. Here in Washington the liquor is controlled by the state so they are culpable for every drink driver on the road. They profit in some manner.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #11 of 77
The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.

Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?

The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?

What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?
post #12 of 77
Disappointed in Apple. The police state joins with the police corporation for total control. 1984 getting closer everyday. Another reason to use Android.
post #13 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.

For the same reasons I've never understood why the UK government taxes the s**t out of the common folk while a bunch of passé royals are still on the gov. teat
post #14 of 77
For religious and health reasons, I don't drink any alcoholic beverages, nor do I do drugs (not even tobacco), nor do I condone those substances for use by others. And I certainly do not condone drunk driving. Even so, I think caving in to Congress on this is ludicrous, especially in light of the plain logic before us. If a so-called "drunk" is sober enough to use an iPhone app to navigate around a checkpoint, he's sober enough to drive safely.

The usage of the app itself should determine if one is too drunk to drive. And if one wishes to contend the app is so easy now that even a drunk or drugged person could use it, rather than remove it from the iTunes entirely, just make it more challenging to use such that the app would become a sobriety check.

The fact that Apple did not suggest this sanity to Congress indicates Apple suffers from the same brain disease as Congress. And I'm surprised that more people aren't mentioning this either. Is everyone suffering from the same disease now days?
post #15 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Today's DUI checkpoint is tantamount to a British soldier occupying the house of a colonist and searching through private property. If you have a warrant I'm cool with it but a checkpoint assumes guilt before innocence.

The difference being one enters your private domain in your home while the other you are on publicly funded streets.

Not that I think government should be unfettered with what they can do, but I've alway assumed once I leave the home, any expectation of privacy and freedoms are greatly reduced.
(Not saying it's right, just realistic.)
post #16 of 77
Harmful how? All the applications do is publish publicly available information. The Supreme Court has held that it is unreasonable to have DUI checkpoints without publishing the information first thereby removing a persons' reasonable expectation of privacy. The is a gutless move by Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

I do agree that DUI checkpoint apps are a harmful bunch. Then again, if you're punch drunk...how can you operate the phone (provided you don't have other passengers)?
post #17 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW View Post

...

The fact that Apple did not suggest this sanity to Congress indicates Apple suffers from the same brain disease as Congress. And I'm surprised that more people aren't mentioning this either. Is everyone suffering from the same disease now days?

I'm concerned about that disease you're referring to and certainly don't want to be similarly afflicted. Could you please provide a link which states "the fact that Apple did not suggest this sanity to Congress"?
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #18 of 77
This is silly. Public information is public information. Although I expect more from Apple, I do sympathize with their dilemma. It's hard to blame a company for wanting to avoid appearing callous or negligent. Anyway this is simply window dressing that will have no effect on the perceived "problem."

I'm sure some more universally designed app can reproduce the functionality of these apps in a more "respectable" way (when you call your app "Buzzed" or the like, it does send an idiotic message.) Perhaps some combination of location aware notifications and user customizable inputs to specify freely available information from the web,Twitter, or other sources will do the trick with not much of a problem (this must be possible in some way.) It will just de-monitize things.
post #19 of 77
I seldom drink, have never driven drunk and feel anyone who does drink and drive is an idiot. However, I believe these damn checkpoints are an intrusion on law abiding citizens and nothing more than a way for cops to justify overtime and harass people. They're not even just drunk driving checkpoints anymore; they're drunk driving and driver's license checkpoints. Why do you need to check my license without probable cause? The main reason for them is not drunk drivers but impound fees from taking people's cars over minor violations. They are a waste of time and community resources and it is very weak of Apple to do this.

The other day I talked to a guy who'd been out drinking at a bar and when he came out saw a cop in the parking lot. He went back inside and called a cab. If cops really want to curtail drunk drivers they should post patrol cars in the parking lots of the busiest bars in town so people will decide it's not a good idea to drive home and take a cab. Of course, the public may be safer but what about those impound fees?
post #20 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

DUI checkpoints are direct violation of Constitutional Amdendment IV

Got that right.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." —Benjamin Franklin

As a large corporation, Apple basically has little room to move in this situation, unless they want to waste their time and resources fighting an opponent with unlimited time and resources (our glorious government).

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 77
Safari has Javascript location apis now anyway (since version 5.0), so it should be possible to do this kind of thing on a webpage.
post #22 of 77
These checkpoints are not about catching drunk drivers. They are nets intended to catch people for a anything. For instance, not having a proper drivers license. They are huge money makers for the States that implement them. It used to be the case, if you blew .12 or over you'd be considered drunk. The States then found out they make a lot of money off supposed drunk driving cases, and could make more if they caught more people. So, they lowered the amount. Most convictions are based off the breathalyzer, which is ridiculous because you can blow into the same machine twice back to back and get dramatically different results.

Safety is a noble goal, but checkpoints are a pain in the butt for everybody and the cost is not worth the benefit. So, me opposing the removal of such applications has nothing to do with assisting drunk drivers. It has to do with me not being significantly inconvenienced just so the state can make money off people. Further, what many don't understand is these applications comply with the Supreme Court ruling requiring the DUI checkpoints to be made public prior to setting them up. They decimate readily available public information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.

Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?

The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?

What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?
post #23 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.

Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?

The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?

What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?

Without liberty we may as well be dead.

The point is not to assist drunk drivers but to limit police power over the law abiding citizenry. According to US law, police are not supposed to be able to stop or detain anyone with probable cause that they have committed a crime. These checkpoints do not protect the public any more than normal police patrols but they expand on police being able to randomly harass people with no cause.
post #24 of 77
Bingo. This is a huge money making racket for States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by halhiker View Post

The main reason for them is not drunk drivers but impound fees from taking people's cars over minor violations. They are a waste of time and community resources and it is very weak of Apple to do this.
post #25 of 77
I see this as a good thing. A drunk moron behind the wheel is a homicide just waiting to happen. There shouldn't be apps that tell people, drunk or otherwise, where checkpoints are so that these people can avoid them. Don't blame Apple for having plain common sense, DUI checkpoints are nothing new and they have been around for ages. Having DUI checkpoints doesn't mean that you live in a police state, only a paranoid, tin foil hat wearing person would suggest such a thing. It means that you live in a civilized, modern society with laws. There wouldn't be any need for checkpoints if drunk idiots didn't murder people on a very consistent basis. They should release all of the harmless potheads from jail and lock up some real potential killers instead, people who get caught driving while drunk.
post #26 of 77
they should also remove safari from ios devices. i can use it to access the freely, publicly available information about dui checkpoints. i can also use it to access, gasp, porn.

this is simply hypocrisy and pandering to the lcd. sad.
"Personally, I would like nothing more than to thoroughly proof each and every word of my articles before posting. But I can't."

appleinsider's mike campbell, august 15, 2013
Reply
"Personally, I would like nothing more than to thoroughly proof each and every word of my articles before posting. But I can't."

appleinsider's mike campbell, august 15, 2013
Reply
post #27 of 77
While I agree and sympathize with pretty much everything said here, and while we (supposedly) have 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, that doesn't mean Apple is violating any of those rights by removing the app from the store.

In fact, having this app removed is so unsurprising that I feel like it barely qualifies for an article. If you've read the *published* app store guidelines, I'm am absolutely positive I can find somewhere that says this sort of app is against the rules.

Apple also ban apps that are racist. While I am a vehement supporter of free speech, that doesn't mean I have to like people's bigoted opinions, and nor does Apple. Nor does that mean that they have to include apps that let you circumvent the cops. I had actually thought of making an app like this to avoid speed traps, but the thought of helping people speed even more (and cause more accidents) was an unpleasant thought, so I never pursued it.
post #28 of 77
The senators know they could never get a law passed, so they just "ask." And because they have so much power to pass economic laws, Apple really has to stay on their good side.

Those who complain when the govt tries to restrict free speech, but say nothing when they tax the rich, well now you see the result of that. They are able to leverage those economic powers to do other things.
post #29 of 77
I really don't see a problem with this. It's completely reasonable for Apple to have rules against apps that find ways to circumvent the law. That's what an app like this does, it allows people to effectively bypass the law. If people don't like it they should work to change the law, and DUI checkpoints are legal.

4th Amendment right arguments are debatable here. Don't conflate your actual 4th amendment rights with a responsible society that is trying to keep people safe on the roads.
post #30 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

DUI checkpoints are direct violation of Constitutional Amdendment IV

The Supreme Court of the United States, the sole arbiter of what is constitutional or not, has decided DUI checkpoints are indeed constitutional. Your uninformed, uneducated, personal opinion is irrelevant. If you tried to argue your opinion before a judge you would be shot down immediately. Your opinion simply doesn't matter to anyone.\
post #31 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Having DUI checkpoints doesn't mean that you live in a police state, only a paranoid, tin foil hat wearing person would suggest such a thing. It means that you live in a civilized, modern society with laws.

Tinfoil hat brigade is out in force today on this thread.
post #32 of 77
This is interesting. In the San Jose Mercury News, there is a column called Mr. Roadshow, where various traffic-related questions are answered (When will that pothole be fixed? etc.).

The column is often used by police departments to advertise DUI checkpoints, rationale being that by knowing cops are out enforcing that someone will decide to not drink that night--prevention before incarceration, if you will. If by checking the app I see that a party will be too close to a DUI checkpoint and I decide not to drink, isn't that a good thing?

So...what's the difference here?
post #33 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post

The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.

Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?

The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?

What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?

prin·ci·ple/ˈprinsəpəl/Noun
1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
2. A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior.
post #34 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post

Personally, I'm glad for anything that saves lives.

Cars are one of the most dangerous ways to travel. If a politician started a movement to outlaw all motorized vehicles, would you be glad for that? After all, it's certain to save an incredible number of lives.
post #35 of 77
So which is it AppleInsider? Are they completely banning apps that alert users to DUI checkpoints or just the ones that aren't published by the local police departments? Seeing that you wrote a totally wrong headline to get page clicks, and you didn't read your own article it seems to me you have no clue what you are talking about. Now you have a bunch of retarded commenters debating what people will do with an app when no one actually cares but lying politicians. Congrats. You've gotten click bait down to an art form.
post #36 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

Cars are one of the most dangerous ways to travel. If a politician started a movement to outlaw all motorized vehicles, would you be glad for that? After all, it's certain to save an incredible number of lives.

Straw man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
post #37 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

The Supreme Court of the United States, the sole arbiter of what is constitutional or not, has decided DUI checkpoints are indeed constitutional. Your uninformed, uneducated, personal opinion is irrelevant. If you tried to argue your opinion before a judge you would be shot down immediately. Your opinion simply doesn't matter to anyone.\

They also deemed that cops can literally kick your door in and murder your whole family if you resist and the correct way to stop illegal police entry is to sue them in civil court. Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling doesn't mean it's factually and logically correct. Any pig kicks my door in in the middle of the night is going to get a bullet to the face, not a request to show up in court so I can sue them. A ruling that is factually and logically incorrect should be resisted at every opportunity that presents itself. By force if necessary. Maybe you should get a damn clue. Your uninformed, uneducated personal opinion is irrelevant.
post #38 of 77
post #39 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I see this as a good thing. A drunk moron behind the wheel is a homicide just waiting to happen. There shouldn't be apps that tell people, drunk or otherwise, where checkpoints are so that these people can avoid them. Don't blame Apple for having plain common sense, DUI checkpoints are nothing new and they have been around for ages. Having DUI checkpoints doesn't mean that you live in a police state, only a paranoid, tin foil hat wearing person would suggest such a thing. It means that you live in a civilized, modern society with laws. There wouldn't be any need for checkpoints if drunk idiots didn't murder people on a very consistent basis. They should release all of the harmless potheads from jail and lock up some real potential killers instead, people who get caught driving while drunk.

The problem is that they don't catch drunks, they write fix it tickets, illegally search vehicles, and rake in the cash. I'm all about getting drunks off the road, but our judicial system is at fault, not Apple.
post #40 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ View Post

They also deemed that cops can literally kick your door in and murder your whole family if you resist and the correct way to stop illegal police entry is to sue them in civil court. Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling doesn't mean it's factually and logically correct. Any pig kicks my door in in the middle of the night is going to get a bullet to the face, not a request to show up in court so I can sue them. A ruling that is factually and logically incorrect should be resisted at every opportunity that presents itself. By force if necessary. Maybe you should get a damn clue. Your uninformed, uneducated personal opinion is irrelevant.

+++10!
Damn right!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple modifies App Store Review Guidelines to ban DUI checkpoint apps