Apple Accepts, Then Rejects BitTorrent iPhone App

An anonymous reader writes "Apple recently approved an iPhone app called IS Drive, which lets users check and manage downloads from ImageShack.us, while also offering users the option to use the company's BitTorrent service to download files to their ImageShack account. Once Apple got wind of what the app was capable of, however, it was promptly removed from iTunes."

Re:Bandwidth

[biryokumaru]

The ImageShack servers do the torrenting. You just tell them what to download so you can download it straight from them later.

How many types are secretly banned?

[burris]

From Apple via the TFA:

We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store.

In addition to the published list of restrictions there is a second, secret, list of types of application that Apple has chosen not to publish. There is no way to know if your type of application is on that list without submitting a fully working application.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[gstoddart]

Apple keeps an iron grip over apps. It's weird that they would approve something like Bittorrent at all!

From TFA ...

Kepner theorized that the app was able to sneak in past Apple’s censors because he avoided using the word “torrent.” Well played, Sir Kepner. Well played.

So, the way he described it, they didn't quite realize what it was actually doing. The reasoning from Apple was:

this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights. We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store.

I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with Torrents. While they do have non-infringing uses, I can see a company like Apple just deciding they don't want to risk the legal actions which could result.

The *AAs aren't above suing absolutely everyone who had anything to do with distributing anything which can be/is used to do filesharing. Apple doesn't want to jeopardize their iTunes contracts by appearing to support that.

Total breakdown of their vetting process.

[wvmarle]

Once Apple got wind of what the app was capable of...

Isn't the whole purpose of vetting apps to figure out what they are doing (and that no "bad" behaviour is included - no malware)? It seems that if this app gets through the vetting process, from the of it doing only what it's advertised to do, that there's something terribly wrong with Apple's vetting process.

Re:Seems strange they approved it at all

[characterZer0]

I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with the Internet. While it does have non-infringing uses, I can see a company like Apple just deciding they don't want to risk the legal actions which could result.

Obious Reason

[whisper_jeff]

To everyone planning on blasting Apple for rejecting the app, please check the submission guidelines they recently published. The reason this app was rejected is spelled out in clear detail there - the developer has nobody to blame but themself for the app's rejection. They knew they were submitting an app that wouldn't be approved because they hid certain functionality, which is precisely the reason the app was going to be rejected.

2.4 Apps that include undocumented or hidden features inconsistent with the description of the app will be rejected.

When you do something against the rules and get caught, don't be surprised that there are consequences. Don't want to play by those rules, then don't. That simple.

Re:Total breakdown of their vetting process.

[Have Blue]

From the description in the article, especially the phrase "sneak in", it sounds like he deliberately obfuscated the functionality of the app. It's happened a few times before- an app is submitted with a questionable feature disabled, then once it's in the wild a switch is thrown on a server and suddenly it's capable of more than was ever shown to Apple. The vetting process being susceptible to targeted attempts to circumvent it does not mean that a "total breakdown" occurred.