Even Garage Sale Apps are Rated Mature

These are crazy app approval days we're living in. Today's exhibit: iGarageSale has earned the 17+ mature rating from Apple's app review process.

I've been to a lot of yard sales in my day, and aside from the occasional risque board game, I've never seen anything I would rate as 17+, although that's just what's happened to iGarageSale (review coming soon), an app that brings together multiple sources of sales, and shows the sales nearest to you.

Aaron Kardell, the developer of the app has a blog entry explaining this most recent odd rating decision:

When we originally submitted iGarageSale to Apple, we used a questionnaire provided by Apple to determine the rating. We came up with a 12+ rating, citing Infrequent Mature/Suggestive Themes and Infrequent Profanity/Crude Humor. Understand, though, that we were doing this to err on the safe side. We have yet to see a garage sale listing with profanity, crude humor, or mature/suggestive themes. However, it could happen and likely will at some point, so we thought a rating of Infrequent Profanity, etc. / 12+ would be safe.

Nine days after submitting our first copy of the app to Apple, we received a rejection notice by e-mail. The rejection notice stated: “iGarageSale 1.0 allows unfiltered access to Craigslist, which include frequent mature or suggestive themes.

Kardell goes on to cite the concern that this rating will negatively affect the perception of the app:

On the one hand, Apple accurately determined that it is possible to get to a search box for all of craigslist within the iGarageSale app. This seems to miss the point, though. The primary purpose of the app is to browse and search garage sales, and it takes a considerably more effort to get to a search box for all of craigslist, than it would to simply open up Safari and browse to craigslist.org.

What can be done? Yes, Apple has a right to "protect" their users from objectionable content, but when the content that can be accessed can be accessed just as easily using an app Apple has included (Safari) how is anyone "protected" from the material.

Tomorrow, we'll tackle some of the possible solutions, and we'd love to hear yours in the comments below.

Boot Camp Shows Apple's iPhone Defense is Bunk

While you were out enjoying the weekend (hopefully), we were here digesting Apple and AT&T's response to the FCC's query regarding the "rejection" of the Google Voice app.

If you haven't heard, Apple clarifies, saying the app hasn't been rejected, but rather:

The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature.

Apple goes on to make more valid points, concerning the security of the transfer of the iPhone's contacts to/through Google. To be sure though, what you see above is their biggest concern with the App. The problem is, it just doesn't make any sense, especially when you consider one of Apple's other products.

Perhaps you're familiar with Boot Cam: Apple's utility allowing you to boot your mac into Windows if you install a copy on your Mac. The biggest concern with Google Voice is the manner in which it duplicates the functionality of the OS/apps Apple has placed on the phone, and yet Apple freely, and helpfully, includes the ability to completely duplicate the entire functionality of the OS on their computers.

Something just doesn't add up. Apple doesn't block Firefox from the Mac, because as much as they might want Safari to be the biggest browser, they know how foolish such a move would be. Why then would they reject an app for the iPhone that duplicates phone functions? Apple and AT&T both say AT&T has/had no say in this app rejection/further study. There's really no other rational reason for Apple to decline the app. If Apple truly believes they have created a superior dialing app/contact app, etc, then they shouldn't be bothered by an app that duplicates those functions. Let the consumer decide which is truly the better implementation.

And let's get away from this idea that the iPhone requires a special walled garden because it is a phone. The iPhone is not a phone, it's a lightweight netbook with 3G access. In the future this is how we will see every smartphone.

When you categorize it as a computer, this behavior can't be justified. Surely Apple wouldn't think that all the software for a computer should be approved by, and purchased through the maker of that computer exclusively. Then again, maybe they do...

Where's the Love, Bono?

Our friends from atu2.com just got the scoop on the new U2 / RIM Blackberry collaboration. Blackberry will soon be introducing something called the U2 Mobile Album. The application will let fans get the latest tour news, listen to music, watch video and share photos.

You may remember Bono stating they switched to RIM due to Apple's unwillingness to grant them "access to their labs and people." Well despite being huge U2 fans, we're just not buying that. This Blackberry app doesn't appear to do anything more than what Trent Reznor is offering with his NIN app available on iTunes right now. We think U2 was looking for a tour sponsor and Apple was unwilling to part with the money, and now fans are stuck using a boring Blackberry instead of a sexy iPhone 3GS.

Bono, next time leave the technology decisions to The Edge.

App Store Difficulties: Some Perspective

We're as guilty as many other sites of pointing out small issues (and some larger issues) that have cropped up on the app store over the last few months. The app store has become so ubiquitous in TV ads, Apple coverage, and iPhone discussions, that it can be easy to forget on this date last year, the app store didn't even exist. There was even a time when it looked like there would never be an app store to begin with ("webapps are fine," anyone?)

Here we are less than a year later, and an incredible billion plus apps have been downloaded. Making it possibly second only to the iTunes music store in terms of online content downloads. While Apple may not have been thrilled with initially opening the phone up to outside developers, it's hard to imagine what iPhone ads may have looked like over the last 12 months without it. Apple has spent far more time promoting the apps and what they add to the phone, than the phone itself.

Kudos Apple, and especially kudos to the hard-working developers who have essentially carried the iPhone over the last year.

Trent Reznor and the Slippery Slope of Appropriateness

Just last week, we had mentioned the issues Apple faced with the Baby Shaker app, approving, then swiftly removing the app. Now one of Apple's most prominent supporters is frustrated with the app approval process. Trent Reznor, the founder and only official member of the band Nine Inch Nails (NIN) has had the latest update to his praised iPhone app rejected. Due to objectionable content. According to Reznor on his message board, its the inclusion of a profanity-bearing song in the app that's caused the issue.

Reznor points out, in language more colorful than we use here, that the same lyrics can be found in songs available in the iTunes store. Apple has offered content in the store for years, labelled as "explicit."

How then should Apple regulate app appropriateness? It seems the best, although not perfect, solution would be to make robust parental controls available for app purchases. This isn't a new issue the gaming industry in particular has dealt with objectionable content issues for years, especially with online gameplay. Perhaps Apple should add a disclaimer for apps that could be used, to access a message board, for example, where any number of things might be seen/heard/read outside of Apple's control.

For two weeks, the biggest headlines generated from the app store have been about app mis-steps. It's time for Apple to be proactive and create a more uniform set of standards for the apps. It is by no means an easy issue to solve, but clearer/consistent guidelines are a start.