Recently, Apple rejected the iPhone app Eucalyptus entry into the company's App Store. The reason: the e-book reader, which can search the 20,000-plus item classic library of Project Gutenberg, "contains inappropriate sexual content" by allowing access to works such as The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana.
Eucalyptus’s developer, Jamie Montgomerie, wrote about Apple’s rejection on his blog, which garnered significant coverage on the Web.
On Sunday, Montgomerie wrote that he got a call from an Apple representative who discussed Eucalyptus with him and had Montgomerie resubmit the application, which is now available for purchase from the App Store for £5.99.
Was the initial rejection another example of the capricious nature of the App Store review process, the work of an overzealous app reviewer whose decision - once spread around the Internet - got overruled?
Hard to say, but Apple (eventually) did the right thing, and that's what really matters.
Check out our new Macworld Mobile site.
Follow Macworld UK on twitter: www.twitter.com/macworlduk
Contact Us
Digg
It's easy and free to get the latest news headlines, reviews and opinions straight to your email inbox. Sign up NOW to make sure you receive the latest Mac news, reviews and tutorials on your favourite topics.
Comments received
James Donevan said on Mon, 25 May 2009
The key line here (which the developer is gracefully gliding over) is 're-build... with no filters'. Apple did not change its mind and approve the original submission. Apple wanted changes, the developer made them, the app was approved. This isn't a 'bloggers/publicity made Apple cave' story, it's a 'developer changes app as required and gets approval' story.
David beating Goliath is always better news copy than David learns lesson and does as Goliath says - as he could have days ago and saved bloggers tiring out their fingers.
Dan said on Mon, 25 May 2009
It still shows that Apple are out of touch, point your iPhone Safari browser at any porn site and it completely makes a mockery of Apple's app censoring.
Don't Look!!!! said on Mon, 25 May 2009
Apple thought police will prevail!!!
Andy W said on Mon, 25 May 2009
@James Actually Apple refused to approve the original app, and asked the developer to *add* filters. He did so and re-submitted. Apple now say he can re-submit *again* removing the fix they requested and thus returning to the original app they rejected. It's *not* a case of changing app and getting approval, but that Apple have decided that the changes they requested or no longer needed.
Michael said on Tue, 26 May 2009
You must remember the curse of the Puritans still exists in the USA.
Daniel S said on Tue, 26 May 2009
well as long as we can shoot and mutilate zombies as games ...ho hum ; )
Sex in US no no guns OK
Disclaimer
Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Macworld. Macworld accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content.
Click here to read the house rules.
Click here for the latest reader comments