Image Source: cals.ncsu.edu
One of the things that has always disturbed me most about all the App Store follies and controversies has been Apple ‘s near complete lack of communication, with users to explain actions or policies and, more importantly, with developers.
So I was very happy and encouraged to see a follow-up article at Daring Fireball, on John Gruber ‘s post earlier this week on the (seemingly) outrageous decision to censor the Ninjawords dictionary app, and slap it with a 17+ rating anyway.
It turns out, the day after Gruber ran his first post on the story, Phil Schiller, Apple ‘s Senior VP of Marketing, reached out and emailed Gruber “ and laid out Apple ‘s version of events.
Here ‘s a little slice from the beginning of that email:
When I read your column last night about the Ninjawords dictionary application I immediately investigated it with our App Store review team to learn the facts of what happened.
Let me start with the most important points – Apple did not censor the content in this developer ‘s application and Apple did not reject this developer ‘s application for including references to common swear words.
One very good thing jumps off the page right away there for me (and that ‘s before the main point in the second paragraph about not rejecting the app on the grounds we all thought they had): Schiller took the time to look into the facts of the situation and chose to open up and talk about it with Gruber, and with lots of us by extension.
The Daring Fireball article “ which you should check out HERE “ goes into great detail, and quotes long stretches of Schiller ‘s email, on this whole subject. This is still a case that highlights some of the serious problems with the whole app review process
I believe Phil Schiller that Apple ‘s policy is not to reject App Store dictionaries for containing swear words. However, it ‘s clear this policy has not been consistently enforced by the App Store review team. The problem, as I see it, is not that one or more App Store reviewers were unaware that it is acceptable for dictionaries to contain words that are not acceptable in other contexts. Mistakes are inevitable. The problem is that there ‘s no good recourse for developers to appeal such a mistake. It should have been enough for Matchstick Software to point out that the words flagged as objectionable in their initial rejection are in fact present in several other dictionaries already in the store.
Though there are a number of serious issues with the whole reviews process, it is very, very encouraging to see some serious communication from the very top of Apple on it. Gruber gets this across much better than I ever will:
That Schiller was willing to respond in such detail and length, on the record, is the first proof I ‘ve seen that Apple ‘s leadership is trying to make the course correction that many of us see as necessary for the long-term success of the platform. The improvement I consider most important is a significant focus on fairness, consistency, and common sense in the App Store review process.
I ‘d say this is some very bright light at the end of the broken App Store reviews process tunnel.
Continue reading:
- Everything New Apple Just Announced (Septembe
- Apple Watch Pre-Order
- Apple Research Kit launches with 5 Apps
- Apple TV now only $69
TAGS:
