It seems that arguments siding with Apple here are all various flavors of "The rules are the rules". But after you leave grade school, if you still think the rules really are the rules, you haven't been paying attention. Rules at every level, business, government, personal, are all flexible and open to constant interpretation depending on who benefits most from the interpretation.<p>I'm struck by another recent headline case in this community, that of Aaron Swartz. The rules were capriciously enforced in that case as well. Yet the community largely came out on the side of Swartz (and probably rightly so) then. But it's just another high profile case where rules are never the rules when humans are involved.<p>Saying that AppGratis should have known not to build their business on the AppStore platform or they should have known not to break the rules is an easy way to ignore the fact that capricious enforcement of rules has consequences far beyond the ecosystem in which they are made. It's a viewpoint that
is naive at best and callous at worst.<p>Which is a bunch of words to say exactly what mattdeboard said: "There's a bunch of Ayn Rand horseshit going on in this thread"
My personnal rule to guess whether a business model that rely on the app store is going to get destroyed by apple someday is this : whenever you make money, does apple make money too ?
If they don't ( and i mean directly, not because they'll sell hardware thx to your little app) then one day they'll get at you.
In the case of appgratis, they were loosing money. Appgratis was redirecting cash from the appstore into their pockets ( i know, that's a very short term way of looking at it).
AppGratis and needless middle-man apps like it are a plague and Apple was good to get rid of them.<p>One thing I love and respect Apple for is their enforcement of the "spirit" of the App Store, rather than enslaving themselves to the letter of their contracts. Reading that "appeal" from the AppGratis CEO would make you believe that they're a benevolent company helping the entire world, when really it's pretty easy to read between the lines and see that this was a spammy company whose intention was to skim revenue off the top of the huge AppStore pool by harassing people who download the app.<p>People think that the App Store approval process is so fickle, but really, it's easy: make a good, original app that stays sandboxed and that makes people <i>want</i> to use it rather than you pestering the user, and it will get approved.
There's two separate issues here, the way Apple handled the rejection, and the policy that led to the rejection.<p>While Apple handled it badly, Appgratis was breaking the rules and deserved like many other apps to be pulled. The real issue was the paid promotion which Apple is trying to stamp out.
This article makes a fair point. Whether AppGratis breaks the guidelines or not - Apple did act in a very unprofessional manner. They could have waited a day or two and given the CEO a right to respond before pulling it.<p>But this is the risk you take when you build a Business around Apple's app store - any intelligent investors and employees should have known the risks, before committing to AppGratis.<p>As a sidenote, I'm really struggling to compute how AppGratis has 45 members of staff - whichever way I look at it (developers, sales, accounts) I can't see them needing more than 10.
people take pleasure taking potshots at apple, the app should not have been in the first place.<p>google yanked 60k apps, you dont see 60 posts about them
Well, people who are already users of the app can still use it like before, right? So I don't think you can say Apple is endangering the company in the short term.<p>Sure, it sucks to lose a few days' growth, but it should still be possible to AppGratis to do whatever it is they need to do to be accepted and go on with their life. Or am I missing something?
As an end-user, I rarely, if ever, had to deal with the consequences of an app being rejected or delayed for release. Along the same lines, I feel that Apple has consistently protected the user experience with strict guidelines.
I'll jump on the "Ayn Rand" bandwagon.<p>Apple is free to play BS games like this, yanking long-established companies without any reasonable notice or discussion. The companies are welcome to refuse to deal with Apple because of it (and everyone in this business has heard of similar stories before... you can't claim to be surprised that Apple behaves capriciously with regard to the AppStore).<p>But once we get past the "Ayn Rand" philosophy, I want to point out that everyone is hurting themselves. Apple is hurting themselves by raising the perceived RISK of their marketplace in the eyes of developers. Developers are hurting themselves by playing along with this game (although, to be fair, there is money to be made). I wish everyone would just grow up (starting with Apple).
The AppStore is direct retail, even if we are disinclined to view it that way.<p>Walmart won't guarantee shelf space for stuffed unicorns just because a company makes them. It won't guarantee shelf space tomorrow just because a company has some today.<p>Apple offers the same standard terms to everyone. Those who think they make business sense can agree. Those who don't are free to pursue other options.<p>The inconsistency in Apple's interpretation and implementation of Appstore policies is a known risk. The dominance and dependence relationship between Apple and developers is spelled out clearly and multiple times. Your good business decision to enter the app store is irrelevant when making my business decision.
Does somebody know if appgratis informed its users that apps were paying to be featured?<p>I would say that this is an important point to find out if this can qualify as an ethical business model
I can't follow the "breaking the rules" argument in this thread: They were talking to several people at Apple and were told everything is ok.<p>Additionally Apples rules are not clear guidelines, everybody is in some kind of validation.