Tweet of the Day: Apple?s Contradictory App Store Guidelines

Apple has finally published the rules stating what types of content aren’t allowed in its famous App Store, but plenty of questions remain unanswered. In fact, a number of apps in the App Store appear to contradict these guidelines.

In today’s tweet of the day, iPhone developer Layton Duncan (@PolarBearFarm) makes this astute observation: “I’d say 70% of apps currently on the App Store contradict the approval guidelines release today.”

Seventy percent is a hyperbolic estimate, but Duncan has whacked the nail on the head: There are indeed some strange offerings that made their way into the store that probably shouldn’t be there, according to the guidelines.

Notably, one rule labeled “Objectionable content” states: “Apps that are primarily designed to upset or disgust users will be rejected.”

Interesting that this rule exists, because Apple’s own App Store director Phil Shoemaker sells iPhone apps that some might find disgusting. His app “Animal Farts” depicts an illustration of a panda’s anus emitting gas (pictured below), along with an animation of a wrinkly naked man farting, too. This seems both contradictory and hypocritical.

Especially funny is the bullet point in Apple’s review guidelines, which states, “We don’t need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn’t do something useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may not be accepted.”

Shoemaker also sells an app called iWiz, which simulates the, er, pleasures of urinating in a toilet, which some might argue is a form of rather short-lived entertainment (unless you drink jugs of Gatorade every day) as opposed to “lasting.”

And besides the apps that come at odds with Apple’s newly published guidelines, it remains a mystery as to why Google’s Google Voice app hasn’t been approved or rejected ? for over a year. You know, the famous Apple non-rejection rejection that prompted an FCC investigation. The guidelines don’t say anything about why a piece of software that offers the benefits of free voice calls, text messaging and voicemail has got Apple’s App Store reviewers so puzzled that they’ve been “studying” it since 2009.

With all that said, publishing the App Store review guidelines is a huge step for Apple. By telling content creators what the rules are (even if they’re vague), they now have the freedom to innovate, and perhaps push the envelope, without fearing the ban hammer. This decision is worthy of applause, but App Store programmers should continue to demand more openness from their partner.

Seen any especially awesome tweets you?d like us to feature? Share them with Gadget Lab by Twitter.

See Also: