Ted Landau's User Friendly View
- Archives
- Previous: Having Fun at Macworld Expo
- Next: Is This Any Way to Run an App Store?
Rejected by Apple
February 16th, 2010 at 5:40 PM - Columns and Opinions by Ted Landau
I’ve covered the story before. A developer submits an iPhone app to the App Store. The app gets rejected for what the developer believes to be an arbitrary or unjust cause. Some degree of controversy ensues. Usually, after some modifications by the developer or some degree of concession by Apple, or both, the app winds up in the Store after all.
Yup. I’ve been down this road before. Still, I never expected I would be traveling it for an app of my own. Yet that is exactly what happened.
I am the author of an ebook called Take Control of iPhone OS 3. Last year, Adam and Tonya Engst (the people behind the Take Control Books series) negotiated with O’Reilly Media to have several Take Control titles converted to iPhone apps. Not surprisingly, given its subject, my book was included in this destined-to-be-an-app group.
To be clear, I did not personally submit the app to the App Store. Rather, it was submitted on my behalf by O’Reilly Media. Thus, I have never had any direct contact with Apple regarding this matter. All the information I have is via O’Reilly Media as an intermediary.
Was I looking forward to having my book appear in the App Store? Sure. Did I consider it a big deal, especially from a financial perspective? Absolutely not. To be frank (maybe franker than my publishers would prefer), I doubted that the profits from sales of my book-app would cover taking my wife out to a fancy dinner. It was just going to be fun. Or so I thought.
Reality hit in December when we received word that the book had been rejected.
My obvious first question was “Why?” Apple’s only answer was that we would “need to remove the section on jailbreaking.” Could we get any further guidance? Did we really have to remove all mention of jailbreaking? Or was there some specific aspect of the coverage that needed to be revised? Apple’s answers to all of these questions was silence. All O’Reilly Media could tell me was that “Apple doesn’t provide specifics, unfortunately.”
However, O’Reilly Media did add that the jailbreaking section of my book “violated” the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. Really?
A Bit of Background
Exactly what does my book say about jailbreaking? There is a 4 page section (in a 200 page book) that explains the risks of jailbreaking — such as it may void your warranty and “may lead to problems using your iPhone, such as crashes or even startup failures.” Apple publicly offers this same advice in a support article on jailbreaking. Thus, I didn’t imagine that this would be a problem.
The problematic material, if there was any, is where I discuss the potential advantages of jailbreaking and offer a brief subsection titled “How to Jailbreak.” Despite the title, the subsection does not provide step-by-step instructions. Rather, it offers only a vague description of the jailbreak process, noting: “Describing how to jailbreak an iPhone for a book like this is an exercise in futility. What you can or cannot do, and how best to do it, keeps changing as Apple continues efforts to prevent jailbreaking…As such, it’s pretty much pointless for me to give step-by-step guidelines.” (I did include a couple of links where you could get further assistance.)
I honestly did not believe any of this material was cause for Apple to reject the app. This view was reinforced by my perusal of the iPhone app version of David Pogue’s iPhone: The Missing Manual. Pogue’s book, already in the App Store, includes coverage of jailbreaking, with statements such as: “It didn’t take long for these programmers to ‘jailbreak’ the iPhone, using special software to open it up (metaphorically speaking) and shoehorn their own programs onto it.”
Back to Our Story
I was curious as to exactly what clause in the License Agreement my book violated. I obtained a copy of the Agreement (not via O’Reilly Media). Is there really a statement that specifically prohibits any mention of jailbreaking? No. As it turns out, the supposed violation might come about only if you make a rather tortured (in my view) interpretation of a much more general restriction that states that applications may be rejected if they contain materials that Apple finds “objectionable.” The cited examples were “obscene” or “defamatory” material, not informed discussions of technical procedures.
However, it doesn’t really matter. Apple’s License Agreement includes a catch-all clause that amounts to a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card for the company, allowing it to do whatever it wants: “Apple may…reject Your Application for distribution for any reason, even if Your Application meets the Documentation and Program Requirements.”
In other words, Apple can reject your app even if it is not in violation of any specific clause in the License Agreement. Apple doesn’t even have to provide a rationale for its decision. Apple can basically tell you: “We reject your app. We’re not going to tell you why. We’re not going to tell you what, if anything, you can do to revise the app that would change our decision. It doesn’t even matter if another app already in the Store includes the same material that is the basis for our rejection here. And there’s not a thing you can do about it. So get lost.”
I think you can tell that I hardly believe this is a fair policy. But I get that my opinions carry no weight whatsoever. Apple is holding 4 aces and I have a pair of deuces.
Rejected Again…and Acceptance
I was reluctant to cut out the entire section on jailbreaking. As much as possible, I wanted the app version of the book to be the same as the ebook version. So I deleted the entire “How to Jailbreak” subsection and removed some related text from other sections. I held out some hope that this would be sufficient to make the book acceptable to Apple. It was not.
I was not entirely surprised to learn that the revised app was rejected — this time with no explanation. I probably would have dropped the matter at this point and given up on having my book in the App Store. But others at Take Control Books and O’Reilly Media had invested time and money into pursuing this matter, and I felt they deserved for me to follow through. And I was curious as to how the story might play out. So I re-edited the book, eliminating all the material on jailbreaking. This was the magic key to unlock the door. My book-app was accepted and is now in the App Store. [For those of you who buy the book and want the “redacted” material, it will soon be available online via a link for getting “updates,” located in the beginning of the book.]
Bottom Line
While Apple’s policies may be legal, I believe they are wrong. I don’t see how Apple’s behavior here (or in similar situations with other apps) benefits the user, despite Apple’s claim that this is the ultimate basis for its decisions. Rather, what Apple is doing amounts to corporate censorship, for its own benefit, in what should be a much more open marketplace for apps. If Apple at least permitted a way for users to acquire apps rejected from the Store, similar to how you can import CDs into iTunes as an alternative to the iTunes Store, I might not object to their policies. But they don’t.
Where will it stop? At the risk of sliding too fast down a slippery slope, I can imagine a cookbook app getting rejected because it contains meat recipes (Steve Jobs is a vegan). It sounds silly. But my point is that it could happen and, if it did happen, there is nothing you or I or anyone could do about it. Except protest. Only a decision in the court of public opinion can force Apple to budge here. It’s up to you.
In addition to his role here at The Mac Observer, Ted Landau is a Senior Contributor for Macworld, the author of several Mac and iPhone help books, and the founder of MacFixIt. You can .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) Ted Landau or post your polite comments below.
52 Observer Comments
Ted, if the government was doing this, you could drag them to court and would win the case with no trial at all. I think your case is special, because you had to edit (censor) a book.
Seriously, Apple should reconsider their policies soon, at very least because most of their costumers living in democracies and are used to basic rights like freedom of the press. Apple should apply a code of ethics here if they want to stay “the good guys”.
The eBook as app model does muddle the normally clear issues of censorship with the written word with technical issues relating to security, performance and so on. These are not really relevant to the points made but they are there and they do confound attempts to discuss matters like this in a clear and straightforward way. There are many who would support Apple’s right to control applications running on their devices who would not support Apple’s assertion that it has a right to censor.
So, it will be very interesting to see how eBooks and eTexts written in open formats such as .ePub fare in the land of Apple. Already, you could recast your book in ePub and folks could read it with Stanza for iPhone and iPod touch and many other similar apps. Here is where Apple could get burned in the court of public opinion and maybe in other courts as well.
We know that iPad/iBooks.app will support ePub but what we don’t know yet is whether and how an ePub document that you or I might write will get onto the iPad. Getting the same thing on an iPhone or iPod touch is trivial if you don’t involve Apple in the process.
What I’m hoping for are new podcast file types at least one of which is for .epub files. Podcasting eBooks, eTexts and whatever else would be quite nice, especially in iTunes U.
What a bunch of whiners.
Apple has terms of service. That includes prohibition on jailbreaking.
By telling people how to jailbreak (whether you give them a step-by-step or not), you are assisting people in breaking their terms of service with Apple. Basically, you are participating in contributory infringement.
Why should Apple help you to help people break their rules? You don’t have a right to free speech when using someone else’s podium. If you want to exercise your free speech, you’re free to create your own podium.
At least a more transparent process with less byzantine rules. If they put out a list “100 Commandments for Getting Your App Approved” it would help people avoid this kind of problem. What I’ve gathered from the many stories about this is that the person creating the app does not know what step might trigger a land mine. The rules can be as restrictive or open as Apple wants, people just have to know what they are. A book full of legalese does not tell a programmer what they need.
That’s nonsense. Almost all the time, there is a clear violation of the rules.
In this case, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Apple isn’t going to want to help people jailbreak their phones.
Of course, from a moral perspective, it should never have been there in the first place. Look up ‘contributory infringement’.
Right you are Ted. The app approval process is a damper on innovation on the platform. Who wants to spend a year writing an application only to have it rejected, and with little guidance on how to remedy the situation.
Combine this with the fact that “expensive” apps cost $5, and you have to wonder if any real desktop-grade applications will ever be developed for the iPad.
Its one thing when we’re talking about toy-apps for a cellphone. Its another when we’re talking about applications for a tablet device like the iPad. Apple isn’t helping matters by selling iWork components for $10 each.
“The app approval process is a damper on innovation on the platform. “
Absolutely. No one would EVER write an app for the AppStore. And no one would ever buy an app there.
Oh, wait.
Apple has 140,000 apps. BILLIONS of apps sold. They didn’t write themselves. All the reports are that iPad app development will be even greater. Out of 140,000 apps, how many were rejected without reason? Ten? Five? Fewer?
The App Store has been one of the great successes in software. The fact that a few loud-mouths are unhappy doesn’t change that.
By telling people how to jailbreak (whether you give them a step-by-step or not), you are assisting people in breaking their terms of service with Apple. Basically, you are participating in contributory infringement.
Even if I agreed with you, I would point how that I did not tell people “how to jailbreak”—especially in the first revision that was also rejected—any more than Apple does itself (in its own support documents) or than is found in other books accepted in the Store (namely Pogue’s). If Apple is going to enforce some quasi-rule, they should at least do so consistently.
I think this is the section of the iPhone Program developers agreement that you are violating.
“(e) You will not, through use of the Apple Software, services or otherwise, create any Application or other program that would disable, hack or otherwise interfere with the Security Solution, or any security, digital signing, digital rights management, verification or authentication mechanisms implemented in or by the iPhone OS, this Apple Software, any services or other Apple software or technology, or enable others to do so; and (f) Applications developed using the Apple Software may only be distributed if selected by Apple (in its sole discretion) for distribution via the App Store or for limited distribution on Registered Devices (ad hoc distribution) as contemplated in this Agreement.”
This is section 3.2(e). The part that is relevant is the “or enable others to do so.”
Why should Apple help you to help people break their rules? You don’t have a right to free speech when using someone else’s podium. If you want to exercise your free speech, you’re free to create your own podium.
This gets to a critical question. Am I really using Apple’s “podium”? Or is a different analogy more appropriate?
For example, should Amazon ban a book from its store simply because the book advances a political view that someone at Amazon disagrees with? Should Amazon even be in the business of reading every word of every book in its store before deciding whether or not to carry it? Should it be telling authors that specific (non-obscene, non-illegal) sections of a book need to be deleted before Amazon will carry it? I’m not asking “can” Amazon do it, but is it proper for a general-purpose bookstore to do this? Would you be standing up and defending Amazon for behaving in this way?
While we’re at it—would you prefer if Apple could similarly prevent you from downloading an ebook via a Web browser to your Mac? On the basis that your Mac is “Apple’s podium”—so they can block whatever they want?
This is section 3.2(e). The part that is relevant is the “or enable others to do so.”
I saw this section. I believe it is open to interpretation. It sounds to me as if it is describing an app that would actually accomplish some prohibited task (such as a utility that would access jailbreak software)—rather than a text that merely mentions that such things can be done.
In any case, I would restate that I did not provide information that would “enable” anything—especially in the revision that was also rejected.
For example, should Amazon ban a book from its store simply because the book advances a political view that someone at Amazon disagrees with?
More to the point would there be an outcry if Amazon banned a book that included instructions on how to break the security on Amazon’s web site. Or how to break into Amazon’s warehouse? Even if it’s not step-by-step instructions? Of course not.
Apple puts security on its products for a reason. I don’t have a problem if they won’t let someone put instructions on how to defeat their security. Could they handle this sort of thing better? Of course. Everyone would be happier with a system where you knew going in what would get your App rejected and when they do reject an App the reasons were spelled out clearly and in detail. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. I think clarity would make life easier for both App creators and App reviewers.
Or how to break into Amazon’s warehouse?
That’s a bit of a stretch. Breaking into Amazon’s warehouse is a crime. You can literally go to jail for that. I don’t think what I’ve been discussing falls into that category.
I might also counter: “Is it proper for Amazon to ban a book that is critical of how Internet book stores are destroying bricks-and-mortar stores?”
We can play dueling analogies ad infinitum I suppose. There are definitely some shade of gray here. The problem is that I don’t think Apple is interested in gray.
Ted, they probably will get bent that you spoke about Fight Club too. I think you hit the nail on the head with the “podium” analogy. Your iPhone doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to Apple. That’s how they see it. That’s how they will see it with the iPad too. I think a lot of us who saw this and still gave them the benefit of doubt over all the goodwill they’d amassed in the past decade are particularly bent because our trust that Apple wouldn’t act like douche bags was misplaced. The saddest part is that at this point, it’s predictable. Pick some tough decision Apple has to make. Imagine a reasonable alternative and a douche bag alternative. 99 times out of 100, Apple will go with the second. And then the mindless fanboys like jragosta will line up to call anyone who doesn’t see it Apple’s way a “whiner”. That just strengthens my view that Apple wants to appeal to the brainless now.
Ted didn’t discuss how to jailbreak in his prose. At the most, he identified that it is a phenomenon, which is a fact. He identified the downsides of doing it. In fact, it wasn’t even a very balanced discussion of the issue or what drives it. The only silver lining in this is that now, people here are talking about jailbreaking. But Apple doesn’t get irony, that’s for sure.
We can play dueling analogies ad infinitum I suppose. There are definitely some shade of gray here. The problem is that I don’t think Apple is interested in gray.
Absolutely, and if Apple wants to be b/w about it then they should put out a list of commandments so everyone knows what the rules are. Thous shalt not discuss jailbreaking. Thou shalt not show uncovered boobs. Thou shalt not harvest personal data. The problem IMO is that the rules ARE grey. There is room for interpretation so your App with a discussion of jailbreaking gets rejected and another does not. In a way I feel sorry for the reviewers. They are trying to make solid defensible yes no decisions on submitted Apps based on rules of legalese jello.
“Breaking into Amazon’s warehouse is a crime. You can literally go to jail for that. I don’t think what I’ve been discussing falls into that category.”
That’s the point you’re missing. Contributory infringement IS illegal. While you can’t go to jail, it is against the law.
And providing someone with instructions (or even telling them where to find the info) qualifies. Read the final court decision in the Psystar case.
The app approval process is a damper on innovation on the platform. Who wants to spend a year writing an application only to have it rejected, and with little guidance on how to remedy the situation.
Apparently, quite a few.
I suppose one could always write for Palm’s WebOS. With the sales volume and established name they have you should get enough to get a Burger King Double Cheeseburger 
And seriously, a YEAR for an iPhone OS application? I think the number of such applications is extremely small. The iPhone OS isn’t a full feature desktop OS.
“I think you hit the nail on the head with the “podium” analogy. Your iPhone doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to Apple. That’s how they see it. That’s how they will see it with the iPad too.”
Yes, the iPod belongs to you and you’re free to use it. The AppStore belongs to Apple and they’re free to control it. The App Store podium most certainly DOES belong to Apple.
Contributory infringement IS illegal. While you can’t go to jail, it is against the law.
I won’t give a full answer to this, as I would just be repeating what I have already said. However, I will say this:
While I am not a lawyer, I doubt that a simple discussion of jailbreaking amounts to “contributory infringement.” If it did, a host of very reputable institutions are guilty of breaking the law. Just do a Google search on the word “jailbreak.” The first link that popped up when I did this was to Wikipedia. The topic has also been covered on the New York Times, Macworld magazine, and too many other places to count. Are we all guilty of a crime? I don’t think so.
Recent Headlines - Updated September 2nd
- Thu, 12:58 PM
- Deal Brothers - Refurbished 17” MacBook Pro 2.66GHz Intel Core i7: $2169
- 12:47 PM
- Editorial - Apple TV: What was Apple Thinking?
- 11:35 AM
- Games - Chillingo Intros Lamp of Aladdin iPhone, iPad
- 11:14 AM
- In-Depth Review - Eye-Fi Pro X2 Lets Your Digital Camera See the World of WiFi
- 10:42 AM
- Rumor - Apple Source Claims T-Mobile iPhone On the Way
- 10:15 AM
- Hot Forum Topic - Reader Speculation: Apple’s Move into Content Delivery
- 9:51 AM
- News - Amazon Intros $0.99 TV Show Purchases
- 9:19 AM
- Product News - Twitter for iPhone adds iPad Support
- 8:50 AM
- Apple Stock Watch - Analyst: Apple Primed for Holiday Season
- 8:18 AM
- News - Apple Posts September iPod Event Video
- Wed, 5:46 PM
- News - Live Nation Drives iTunes Concert Information
- 5:30 PM
- News - Apple Swings Name Deal with Ping Golf
The Mac Observer Reader Specials
- TypeStyler For Mac OS X is Now Shipping! Download The Free Fully Functional 60 Day Tryout at www.typestyler.com
Mac Memory and Hard Drives: MacBook Pro Memory 8GB kits $275.99! iMac Memory 4GB Kits for $109.99! Mac Pro Memory 8GB Kits for $289.99, 64GB for $2,839.99! Mac Hard Drives 2TB Seagate SATA II for $149.99! Click Here!
If you're using a Mac, then you've gotta check out Full Tilt Poker for Mac. This Full Tilt Poker bonus code does the unthinkable, it actually rewards!
Well said Ted. Hey, any chance the O’Reilly folks would port its Take Control series to Android?
But seriously, I’d love to see some publicity hungry developer come up with a game called iSteve. You move your player around collecting black mock turtlenecks and blue jeans. You have an opportunity to eat things too. If you eat meat products, you’re RDF power diminishes, but your liver health increases. Conversely, if you eat fruit and granola, your liver health decreases, but your RDF shoots up. If you drink the wrong brand of bottled water, you throw a tantrum. You get to choose from a bunch of products to present at your Keynote. You always get applause. You have to have full RDF to choose the G4 Cube or the Apple TV, but can choose iPod Video or iPhone with only a little RDF.
Business plan:
1. Make game for iPhone.
2. Rejected by Apple App Store.
3. Port to Android.
4. There is no “????????”
5. Profit.