Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Businesses Software The Almighty Buck Apple

How To Get Rejected From the App Store 252

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister catalogs 12 sure-fire ways to get your app rejected from Apple's notoriously fickle App Store. From executing interpreted code, to using Apple's APIs without permission, to designing your UI, each transgression has been abstracted from real-life rejections — for the most part because Apple seems to be making up the rules as it goes along. 'It'd be nice for Apple to make conditions for rejection clear,' McAllister writes. 'Apple has been tinkering with the language of its iPhone SDK license agreement lately, but that hasn't done much to clarify the rules — unless you're Adobe. For everyone else, the App Store's requirements seem as vague and capricious as ever.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How To Get Rejected From the App Store

Comments Filter:
  • by Michael Kristopeit ( 1751814 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @04:57PM (#32450612)
    with the current open ended terms, there is no way this book could be a complete set... "just 'cause" will always still be an option for apple.
    • by The Qube ( 749 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @05:57PM (#32451350)

      I have no problem with "just cause" if there are avenues for communication and appeal. However...

      My app was kicked out of the App Store after 12 months []. It was the best app for cricket scores out there - #1 app in almost all cricket-playing countries, great online and offline reviews, featured by Apple several times etc. All of the scores etc for it were obtained from legal sources. However, the developers for the official app of the Indian Premier League (sort-of international cricket competition in March/April every year) complained to Apple that my app infringed on their exclusive rights to provide information on IPL matches and, after a bit of back-and-forth arguments between myself and them, Apple pulled the app.

      Now, it's not the fact that they pulled it without "just cause" that upset me, but that they refused to comment and communicate about it in any way. I repeatedly sent emails to various official (and unofficial) contacts at Apple to seek clarification, complain and get the app re-instated, but not a peep from anyone. I even sent an official DMCA Counter Notification and not a single response on that either.

      After no word from anyone for a long while, I had to close the service even for existing users who already had the app on their iPhones 'cos I couldn't afford to keep paying for the match data feeds with no revenues. Apple's decision has cost me thousands of dollars, but again, what really upsets me is the total lack of professionalism and common courtesy that they have displayed in this.

      • by Weezul ( 52464 )

        You got what you deserved for working with oligarchs. What did you expect?

        A little life advice, you know that girl you call every 2-3 days for 2 weeks, but never actually meet? Well, she's just not that into you. Apple'a App store is a pretty similar situation. You should either (a) get a job writing an app for people who have the clout, like say a newspaper, or (b) just changing fucking platforms.

        Maemo and MeeGo are kinda a moving target right now, but one might try expanding GnuSTEP to aid porting iPh

      • by eulernet ( 1132389 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @08:04PM (#32452806)

        what really upsets me is the total lack of professionalism and common courtesy that they have displayed in this

        That's because they don't have an app for that.

      • I am also an iPhone OS developer and have had no problem working with Apple and the App Store so I am curious about the fervor surrounding rejections. I have some simple questions to ask you:

        1. How much research did you do into the information licensing that may surround the data you were aggregating?

        I ask this because I created a drink recipe and general bartending app and I had to do quite a bit of research into what is and is not copyrighted, trademarked, etc. before we began development. I found out t

  • by sethstorm ( 512897 ) * on Thursday June 03, 2010 @05:00PM (#32450642) Homepage

    Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

    It probably would be better to have a plan to offer it to jailbroken iPhones to at least reduce losses.

    • Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

      I found this article [] hilarious over a decade ago. Now it's kind of sad how Apple is treating innovative third party developers on the iDevices. Think outside the box, but not too far outside the box!

      • by hitmark ( 640295 )

        "think outside of their box, not our box" (their being "big bro" of the day, IBM, microsoft, take your pick).

    • Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

      You mind telling me what exactly Apple has forgotten that they said? It will make it easier for people who don't pay that much attention to the iPhone and I am not exactly sure what to google to check and get irate about. Apple is a corporation, and with all corporations their PR departments love to forget things.

      On a side note, are cut-paste and tethering really the best examples for innovative? You have to be able to come up with better examples of innovative than that. Copying features from other cel

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sethstorm ( 512897 ) *

        Those were ready examples of things that Apple put in later-generation revisions of their software and/or devices that they said were not important.

        Apple just wanted to gauge importance by seeing how much someone will protest about its non-presence.

    • cut and paste, and tethering, are innovative ?

  • It's because each app administrator just Thinks Different.

  • by TheLevelHeadedOne ( 700023 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @05:03PM (#32450680) Homepage using Apple's APIs without permission...
    Didn't Micro$oft have API's that they used and didn't want anyone else to use? Didn't they get lambasted for that?
    • by TheoCryst ( 975577 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @05:08PM (#32450720)

      The problem with using Apple's private APIs is that they tend to be unstable, and there are no guarantees that they won't change. Apple would very much rather that half the apps in their store didn't break because of an OS update that changes an undocumented API. And they've always been good about making private APIs public once they stabilize, so it's not as big a deal as this guy makes it sound.

      • by MBCook ( 132727 ) <> on Thursday June 03, 2010 @05:17PM (#32450828) Homepage

        Microsoft has the same problem. If you read The Old New Thing [], you'll get a lot of stories over time about things that people start doing in Windows/DOS that weren't documented, that were private APIs, etc. But they had to keep them working because otherwise some really important program would break. Microsoft generally seems to try to keep that stuff working.

        Apple is exercising control that Microsoft didn't have over Windows. Since Apple controls distribution, they can prevent people from doing these things, and save themselves hassle later.

        Just because someone discovers that a specific microwave can also open their garage door doesn't mean that all new versions of that microwave should have to do that forever.

        Apple (and Microsoft) never said "If you do this, it will work." Usually they say "DON'T do stuff unless we say it's OK, 'cause it will break."

        Apple just has a chance to force the issue.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          My question is, why should they be allowed to? Just slap a warning on it, and let it go. Last I checked, image management wasn't a valid reason to restrict other peoples' actions.

          • Let's not be indiscriminate haters. I disagree about a lot of things Apple does, but the one about only official APIs being allowed does not bother me:

            1- private APIs should not be needed. Is there any example of an "allowed" feature that can only be integrated in one's apps by using "unofficial" APIs ?
            2- indeed, "unofficial" APIs are subject to change at any time.I understand Apple insisting people avoid them, to avoid an MS-like compatibility mess over time, and to protect their customers. I'd be pissed i

    • The issue there was that Microsoft app writers (like Microsoft Office) were able to use private APIs and nobody else was. This meant that no other competing software could be as efficient as Microsoft's. That was a clear case of using a monopoly in one area (the OS) to stifle competition in another (the apps).

      Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smart phones, and given the vigorous competition I doubt they'll get one. More importantly, as far as I can tell they aren't competing in apps. They aren't tryin

      • by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @05:35PM (#32451052)

        The issue there was that Microsoft app writers (like Microsoft Office) were able to use private APIs and nobody else was.

        Except that according to people like Raymond Chen, the Office folks were just crappily reverse engineering those private APIs and doing things they weren't supposed to be doing by having done so.

        From a a comment in this [] article posted by him:

        The functions were exported only by ordinal. There was no documentation, there was no LIB file to link against, the function wasn't named; you had to reverse-engineer the LIB file and link with it. Surely that must've been a clue that what you were doing was the slightest bit dodgy. Office probably found those undocumented functions the same way you did. In the Windows division, we treat Microsoft applications the same as any other company's applications. In fact, earlier versions of the programs now known collectively as Office were such problems that -- I hope the Office folks' feelings aren't hurt by this -- we made up insulting names for them just to keep our sanity. The only one that comes to mind right now is "PowerPig". (I must point out that in the intervening years, the Office folks have done a fabulous job of getting their act together.)

    • One main difference that people complained about was that MS may have been using those undocumented APIs for their own products like Office but would not release them to 3rd parties. Could Apple be doing the same thing? Yes, but could it is also likely that those undocumented APIs are unstable.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by steveha ( 103154 )

      Didn't Micro$oft have API's that they used and didn't want anyone else to use? Didn't they get lambasted for that?

      Oh yeah. I worked at Microsoft in the early 90s, and I even worked on one of the flagship applications (Microsoft Word for Windows). I never saw any "secret backdoor" APIs, and I firmly believe that those rumors were wildly overblown.

      But Apple is actually doing it. They have undocumented APIs that they won't let anyone else use. Even on the Mac they have them, and they have been known to bre

  • Could we PLEASE try to go even a single day without some apple-based story? My god, there's more to the world of science and technology than a single company!

    Canada attempting to pass a bill to put filesharing along the same lines as in the USA?
    Info on the oil leak?
    Hewlett-Packard cutting 9000 jobs?

    To hell with all of that, someone somewhere posted something about Apple!

  • Ummm, If they are so notorious for rejecting apps, is there really a point to a recipe for getting rejected?
  • They used to have a game called Calvinball where the rules were made up as they played the game and ever changing. Dealing with Apple (or even thier bedmate ATT) is a lot like playing CB....sigh
    • by schon ( 31600 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @05:26PM (#32450944)

      No, it's nothing like Calvinball.

      In Calvinball, both players got to change the rules. With the iphone, only Apple gets to.

      • Developers can change the rules, too. Just make sure your next version runs on Android, too... for now. And the next one after it might be running on Android only - if need be.

      • by IANAAC ( 692242 )

        With the iphone, only Apple gets to.

        Not entirely true. That's why we have jailbroken iPhones.

        All this complaining is from a developer's point of view. Users aren't really complaining about app rejection.

        And if users really are complaining about app rejection (or a lack of apps for sale) and continue to buy iPhones, well, all I can say is - tough for them. There *ARE* other options out there. And good ones, too.

      • No, it's nothing like Calvinball.

        In Calvinball, both players got to change the rules. With the iphone, only Apple gets to.

        Wait...there's rules? I've only seen judgments, if you've got the current set of rules, you should post them!

  • One that I find moderately frustrating as a developer; the Netflix app. Fire it up and within the first one or two screens you see a pile of UI issues that would get any mere mortal rejected. I understand that the lax approval for Netflix is all about the benjamins, but it is still a little irritating to the free market economist in me. Perfect competition is tarnished when some are a little more equal than others.

  • by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @05:21PM (#32450878)

    If your app does anything that might make it bigger than The Phone, then you screwed up. Apple wants their customers to always have in mind that they're using an iPhone; not your apps on an iPhone. Same reason Valentino Rossi won't get to race on a Ducati.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)


      Now I don't need to spend ten minutes trying to think of a clever way to word what you just explained.

      Not that I technically needed to say anything. But this iPhone thing is like an obsessive itch; It bugs me because it's a major piece of social engineering in progress and it's being run by a control freak dick whose dream of reality just pisses me off. The fact that Apple calls its lead tech PR staff, "Evangelists" is creepy on so many levels. . !


      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by GlassHeart ( 579618 )

        The fact that Apple calls its lead tech PR staff, "Evangelists" is creepy on so many levels. . !

        A quick search on shows me people working for Rovi, Sybase, OgilvyInteractive, Gryphon, Elgato, Adobe, Addictive Mobility, Microsoft, Prezi, Nokia, AOL, Mozilla, IBM, HP, and as you point out, Apple, with that word in their job titles. Perhaps you just don't get out much?

    • Wow. This has got to be the single best thing I've ever seen someone say on the topic.

  • Why then did they approve the Spotify client []?

    • When Benjamin told them to? Or when they realised that they couldn't afford to not have that app?

      • by TyFoN ( 12980 )

        Maybe they couldn't. But its even more strange because spotify is in direct competition to itunes. You can buy songs in DRM free mp3 or just have the regular subscription and listen to whatever you want (even offline on the phone) without having to buy individual songs :)

  • I think we can say at the outset that Apple's policy is outlandish, but let's look at this as we move towards the computer appliance and not back to the mainframe.
    1. If it don't work, then don't sell it. This has been the bane of computer programs for years. No warranty, if it trashes your business, it is your fault.
    2. I have little problem with this. It does not prevent Skype, but prevents a million look alike apps
    3. Look and feel is why we buy Apple. We expect to do certain things in certain ways. There are s
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Look and feel is why we buy Apple. We expect to do certain things in certain ways. There are some things that will always be wanted. It is like cup holders. Just because some consumers buy cars based on cup holders does not mean that we should all have to drive car with 23 cup holders.

      It is a flawed analogy. No-one is asking for that. What people want is the ability to add extra cupholders to their car in case they need them (and apparently many people do!). But Apple only lets you install anything into your machine in its own service centers, and they only offer a limited range of options.

      Also, "iTunes sync over WiFi" = "cupholder", seriously?

      This has been discussed ad infintum. I think battery life should take precedence over developers wanting to take the easy way out. I pay for code to be good.

      The Flash aspect has been discussed ad infinitum. However, there isn't any good reason why a user cannot run an application which is an interprete

    • by s73v3r ( 963317 )

      I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use unsupported APIs, but when the program breaks, we can't blame Apple.

      Because when Joe User updates their phone, and then their favorite fart app won't work (or more likely, some app they've come to depend on), then they're going to blame Apple, not the developer, even though it is entirely the developer's fault. Not allowing private APIs avoids this problem altogether.

  • by DdJ ( 10790 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @05:34PM (#32451044) Homepage Journal

    Part of the problem is that these ways are not sure-fire.

    The app reviewers are overloaded and the app review process gets gummed up, and so sometimes mistakes are made and things are not enforced consistently. So, you can have an app that gets through the process just fine for a while, and then gets rejected. Sometimes, it should have been rejected to begin with, but wasn't, and that makes people think that what they're doing is okay, and they got an explicit "wink" and approval.

    The (specific, not only) problem is that inconsistent enforcement makes it seem more like there are inconsistent rules than is actually the case.

  • apple better look out as M$ got in a big mess over stuff like this.

  • WGN gets around the no Internet radio apps rule as they have a live feed on the app store.

  • Still... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joh ( 27088 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @05:59PM (#32451390)

    I certainly totally hate it when some useful app vanishes or new rules pop up out of nothing, but on the other hand I can somehow understand that Apple has to make the rules as it goes along. I mean, if they'd put up clear rules and would stick to these, developers would instantly start to find loopholes and to work around them, naturally. And for Apple the iPhone/iPad platform is what they bet their future on. And this platform is still at a very early stage. They do not want to be the dog with which the tail waggles.

    Apple (and the Mac and OS X) has more than once suffered from others having too much control over things. Like Adobe with taking ages to port their apps to Intel Macs because they did not use XCode in the first place. Imagine Apple allowing Flash and any kind of programming language and compilers and middleware and then, 4 or 6 years on, they try to go to a totally different hardware platform (which *will* happen sooner or later, be assured). Suddenly they'd have a large amount of apps they couldn't offer any migration tools for then and be at the whim of some third party (or worse, hundreds of them). Look at Microsoft -- Windows and all its apps are married to Intel and the flood of ARM platforms for tablets is totally out of bounds for MS here. There is absolutely no way to port Windows and all applications to another platform. Trapped.

    For Google, Android itself and its apps is still a minor thing. Google does not sell systems. As long as they get your data and your eyes, they can allow Android apps to go whereever they go. They don't actually care.

    Really, I'm somewhat happy that there's more than one way. All of this is a large experiment and attacking the problems from more than one angle is good. Freedom is not when everyone does the same.

  • Stop writing software for the iPhone, start writing it for Android. End of problem, write what you want!
  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @06:29PM (#32451772) Homepage

    They are a moving (some might say evolving) target and are most definitely an unknown quantity. Some might say that their "keep'm guessing" style is to their benefit and keeps fans champing at the bit, but for people who are interested in operating a business on their platform, they are anything but stable, reliable or predictable. If there was ever any wonder why Apple hasn't taken over, this paints the most clear and current picture as to why. People bought into iPod and iPhone but it won't be long before Apple pushes enough developers away that those same developers start making really great things for other platforms. Once that happens, all the slick commercials and designs won't keep new customers coming.

    Apple is like a controlling, abusive spouse. You either live with them or you divorce them. In time, though, people will start pitying you and questioning your judgement as to why you stay with them.

  • I think Apple feels that it is their job to guarantee a consistent user experience on their product. It's good business, because as long as users feel safe downloading the apps, they will keep buying them and keep buying iPhones. Sure, it sucks for the few who would be willing to wade through dozens of bad apps to find one good one, but for everyone else it works great. Developers need to learn that it's not all about them, Apple is genuinely trying to keep its users happy.
  • With just innovation and marketing chutzpah, Apple has created its own kingdom, not unlike Disneyland, where they get to make the rules. That is one of the big rewards of success in business. They have the right to do what they want with the product they sell, including confusing business practices that competitors can use to beat them. As I recall, many were complaining about Microsoft Windows Mobile until Apple came along and helped destroy Microsoft's dominant share in the mobile market. As for the Ap
  • Exaggerated? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @09:48PM (#32453658) Journal

    I have no doubt that there are issues with the way Apple handles this. However I consider this article as bad journalism. About much stuff I have a clue, and the article makes no attempt to give any explanations on how or what is going on and what is so bad about it.

    However articles like this one:,0/ [] only lead to confusion and are not really helpful (as half the claims there are arguable wrong)

    I work down the list as presented in said article.

    1. we all agree that (crashing) software like that has nothing to do on my mobile device, I assume?
    2. I agree with Apple. Why should they allow to have several Mail, SMS and what ever programs on the device that ruin the platform look and feel?
    3. Well, neither the article, not the linked article make clear what this is about. So I would call this bad journalism. Again: what exactly is the Wi-Fi synch thing wee are talking about here? You want to tell me if I want to synch my iPhone with my Mac it wont work over Wi-Fi? Are you sure? And Apps that make this possible get rejected? Are you really sure? If that is the case, we have a point here, but if that is truly the case what is so hard in making this explicit for noobs like me?
    4. Execute interpreted code. Your comments are wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with "interpreted" or "not interpreted". Apple considers the iPhone an End-User-Device. You can not program on it, and you should not. That is their stand of view. It has nothing to do with interpreted. Imagine a C64 Emulator that has access to the Mac OS X API and is able to "format" the "HD" of the iPhone. Nightmare!
    5. Use too much bandwidth. The whole explanation makes no sense at all. First of all internet radio streams only us 2 or 3 times the bandwidth a phone call does. Secondly, a provider like AT&T perfectly knows which connections over his network do what. So instead of dropping a phone call because of network saturation the provider easily can drop a true bandwidth hogger. Blocking an App because it might use bandwidth makes no sense ... that sounds like bullshit to me.
    6. No idea about this. All I can find about this is pretty weird. I had expected that the author of this article had worked on that so we as his readers get an ida what is really going on. However: The App Store is no democracy, which might be why Apple doesn't feel inclined to support free speech. First off all: Free speech or not free speech is something different. Supposed there is a ruler and some citizen says: "that ruler sucks." In a society honouring free speech that citizen can say this unharmed. In a society not honouring free speech the ruler might call for his head. Why do you want to imply that an App that does not get published, for what reason ever, is somehow violating "free speech principles"? Claims like that are a slap into the face of people all over the world that fight for free speech in their countries. You dare to compare a not published App in a Store that belongs to Apple, where Apple has all rights to do what they ever want (not rights: privileges even) with "free speech issues"? Hello, get a real live man!
    7. Use Apple's APIs (without permission). Oh my god. The biggest bullshit in this article. First of all the (without permission) part. It implies that some Programmers have the permission to use those APIs. If you have an App on your iPhone, you expect it to continue to work after a system upgrade, or not? If that App uses a "secret API" and that API got changed during the upgrade, the App will likely crash, or not? Whom do you blame? The stupid moron who used secret/unofficial/undocumented APIs or the System Upgrade? Stuff like this bullshit only one who has no clue about programming can write.
    8. Use someone else's stuff. No comment about this but I doubt the

  • by mykos ( 1627575 ) on Thursday June 03, 2010 @10:59PM (#32454006)
    I think people with popular "rejected" apps should put them (maybe they already are?) on Cydia. My iPhone has been much more useful (and has a prettier interface) since I started getting my apps from there.
  • by protektor ( 63514 ) on Friday June 04, 2010 @12:50AM (#32454602)

    Apple is trying to create a walled garden and are desperate to own the content because they know that pretty soon everyone is going to catch up with OS X in terms of usability and then they will just be another also choice. I give it another 5 maybe 10 years at the outside until most OSes are pretty much the same in terms of look and feel and usability, baring anything stupid in terms of software patents.

    So Apple knows that since its days are numbered they need to own or control the content. Which is why the do everything they do. They don't care about the OS any more, they care about owning and controlling the content now.

    As for the walled garden, we all know how well that worked out for AOL and other similar companies. The walled garden approach almost never works because there ends up always being something outside of the walled garden that people want. Walled gardens will never work in the long term.

    I think Apple is just scared to death of the future repeating itself and Apple being a nothing on it last legs in 5+ years, like it was 5-10 years ago. So they are willing to do anything to try and make that not happen, including doing stupid things that make it happen faster.

    If it is all about the OS then Linux is going to eat Apple's lunch given enough time, and every time. There is very little that OS X has currently that isn't available in Linux. Plus Linux being open source and free means more and more companies who don't want to pay an OS tax are using it. Linux is showing up everywhere on every kind of device you can think of, and neither Apple or Microsoft can hire enough programmers to combat that level adoption or features being added by so many companies and developers. Is Linux perfect? No, but it gets better all the time, and what is clear is that Linux is good enough for a lot of things currently. Perhaps Linux isn't prefect for everything, at least not yet, but that will change in time.

    Steve Jobs knows he won't be at the head of Apple forever and probably won't be around after another 10 years, so he has to do whatever he thinks he can to make Apple be able to survive when he is gone so they don't have a repeat of what he sees as the past failures while he was gone. In the end the more he or anyone else tries to put a tight grip on things to control them, the more they lose control of the very thing they want to control.

    Microsoft learned long ago, you want your platform to succeed then you need to win the minds of developers. It seems Apple never really learned this, or at least not well. The more Apple pisses off developers the faster they will become an also or a has-been.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by walterbyrd ( 182728 )

      If it is all about the OS then Linux is going to eat Apple's lunch given enough time, and every time. There is very little that OS X has currently that isn't available in Linux.

      Not as long as Linux uses X11. I am a Linux user myself, I am using Ubuntu right now. But, the sad truth is: X11 graphics are substantially inferior to Apple's graphics.

      Of course, on Android, that's not a problem.

  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday June 04, 2010 @10:35AM (#32458116) Homepage Journal

    Developers are still writing apps for the platform, aren't they?

    Here's the deal. You get access to the iPod and iPhone user base ... maybe ... for as long as it pleases Apple for you to have that. You take the calculated risk that Apple will accept your app, and continue accepting that app long enough for you to recoup your investment. There are no guarantees that it will please Apple to continuing doing so, any more than there are guarantees that users will buy your app.

    I don't understand why people agonize over this like its some kind of betrayal, or like Apple owes them something. As far as Apple is concerned they own not only the platform, but the customers for that platform and every aspect of the user experience. What part of that hasn't been made abundantly clear yet? Oh, there are certain well known things you can do to avoid getting your app banned, but Apple could decide tomorrow to change the rules. They could even ban your app because they decide it's not consistent with the image they want to project.

    As long as there are plenty of app developers who willing to develop on those terms (basically nothing is guaranteed), and Apple has never pretended otherwise, why should Apple do anything for you? It'd be different if they'd promised you anything like control over your own destiny, or openness, or transparency, or even a fair shake. But they haven't. They promised you a crapshoot, and that's what you get. It's their rules, and those rules are "what we say goes, and we don't owe you any explanation." The only people who might in some conceivable scenario have any cause for complaint are the stockholders, but those circumstances haven't arisen yet.

    So, iPhone developers, if you don't like Apple's terms, eat it, or move on. Apple never forced you to develop for the platform, and they aren't forcing you to stay.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford