MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Aug 07, 08 - 03:22 pm Comment from: John

The one thing I could say for Apple (if they did pull it) is this: if I accidentally clicked on that "buy" button and spent $1k, I'd be REALLY pissed about it.

However, for some kinds of very specific apps for a specific group, I could see $100+ for an app. So... perhaps Apple should build in a threshold of say $20, and any app that costs more than that should have additional warnings in place before one can purchase it. That way the unwary consumer is protected, but Apple's not censoring developers and at what price they choose to market their apps.

Aug 07, 08 - 03:22 pm Comment from: TowerTone

I wish they had a free one that said
"I be po'"

it would sell like hotcakes.....

Aug 07, 08 - 03:23 pm Comment from: Timbo

I got a chuckle when I read about 'I am Rich' on MDN yesterday. I wonder if they sold any before taking it offline?

I think it was an experiment on the developer's behalf to embarrass Apple by showing how the App Store will be governed. But we'll see.

Whoever is running and reviewing the third party APPS at Apple better quickly get their head out of their ARSE and do the proper job of reviewing these things before they go up on the store.

If either the APP is harmful, offensive, or violates some type of TOS it should never get up there in the first place.

Shame on Apple - this clearly shows they are learning as they go...

Aug 07, 08 - 03:29 pm Comment from: Andy

You have to hand it to Armin, though. He likely made a $5000-10000 profit in the few hours it was on the storefront. And if Apple did cut the app out - good going to all those dorks who complained Apple was too 'lenient' in allowing apps in the store, who all now inevitably claim Apple are too 'draconian'.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?

Stuff like this obliterates the whole point of the AppStore. Afterall, for all the people who hate death metal/marilyn manson etc, Apple isn't exactly pulling 'controversial' artists from iTunes, is it?

Aug 07, 08 - 03:29 pm Comment from: Cubert

Apple found out that it was really a Durex Horse.

Aug 07, 08 - 03:31 pm Comment from: Cubert

Gotta admit the guy had a good idea. Even if sold only a few downloads....

Aug 07, 08 - 03:32 pm Comment from: HMCIV

That guy who bought it thinking it was a joke. I wonder if I can sell him something!

As for Apple Pulling Apps, it's their store. They can sell what they want. Steve said from the beginning there would be selectivity.

Aug 07, 08 - 03:33 pm Comment from: NeverFade

I disagree with MDN's take.

I think Apple should have taken it off. It really makes Apple look like fools to host such an app.

What happens if a person is looking at the app, and accidentally clicks Buy, or a friend is playing a prank on another friend's iPhone and clicks Buy. Oops - there goes 1k. Hope you didn't need it.

Nope, this person was making a fool of Apple and iPhone owners...

Aug 07, 08 - 03:35 pm Comment from: NeverFade

Also, I think if this were to be bought, there'd be a slew of apps doing the exact same thing...

Apple wanted to nip this in the bud....

Hey @TowerTone

Download the Devcelopers kit and crank it out..

Aug 07, 08 - 03:39 pm Comment from: Spark

"He likely made a $5000-10000 profit in the few hours"

I can't imagine anyone stupid enough to have paid for that app. However if they did, it's their business and their money. Apple may have received complaints, but if so should release info on why this or any app is removed. The "disappearing" has too much of a dictatorship feel to it.

Aug 07, 08 - 03:39 pm Comment from: Andy

@ Cubert,

I think the app was up for about 6-10 hours, so he could've made a really tidy profit from even a small number. of clicks.

The AppStore needs more Armin Heinrichs, I reckon. Inventive, entertaining apps that in no way harm the iPhone's operation or cell network.

If Apple expand their remit beyond the above criteria, do you think people will be pleased about it, honestly? If iTunes allows artists of every conceivable stripe, then the AppStore should operate the exact same way.

Now, think of the kudos you'll get when flashing your $123,000 diamond encrusted iPhone with the I Am Rich app!

Duh..

typo..
Developers..

It figure this was covered by FOXNoise... errr FOXNewbs... I mean FOXNobs... [shakes head] NOPE!, I just can't say it... FOX and News don't belong in the same sentence let alone in the same word, is just blasphemy!

aheh heh I'm rich and.........yerrrrr not!
Points then smile with visible twinkle effect plus sunglasses. :D

iPhone?

What iPhone?, you can't even see the text on the screen.

But a big glowing gem! Yea that's more like it!!

MDN's got it's head stuck in this developer's ass. It has nothing to do with someone taking offense or such. This was an attempt for an idiot to game the system. They did and Apple didn't like it. Apple did what it had to do to stop looking like a fool as well as stop customers who are stupid enough to fall for MDN's logic from buying this crock. By the way, it is within Apple's right to decide what should be sold or not sold in the App Store. If you don't want to play in their playground, then pack up your toys and leave. You can whine if you want to but that's optional.

MDN is full of shit on this one.

You let this guy by on this nonsense and there will be every kookie, bullshit artist polluting the apps store with all kinds of gimmickry and bullshit apps in one week.

Apple has a responsibility to maintain some level of propriety and control so as to dissuade these crack pots from turning the Apps Store into the piece of shit Fishermans Warf one sees in San Francisco, with endless stores of T shirt shops and tricket crap.

Kick em right out of the Apps Store and let Microsoft or some other shit operation host them, and their phony free speech bullshit story.

Aug 07, 08 - 03:59 pm Comment from: Lurker_PC

Agree with MDN's take. As this app is not pornographic or otherwise offensive, Apple should not be in the business of serving as judge and jury for apps which do not harm the iPhone , ATT, or the network. Agree that there should be an immediate and swift recourse for those who accidentally purchased the app. Otherwise, let people purchase what they want.

Peace.

MDN is finally wrong.
Why open the floodgates for scammers?
Remember, at one time spam was probably almost a joke, now, it's deeply imbedded in evryone's inbox, a menace, and a pain in the arse. It's good to nip these problems in the bud.

Aug 07, 08 - 04:01 pm Comment from: Botvinnik

I agree with the MDN opinion (take), what if Apple doesn't like the lyrics in a song? Should they be allowed to censor music?

There is no software for iPhone that is worth a grand...sorry...ethics should apply here, regardless of just how stupid someone is to buy it.

MDN is absolutely wrong on this one. This was a gimmick and if Apple let the developers get away with it, then others would follow. The App store is supposed to service the customers, and pulling this "app" is certainly in the interest of customers.If you want to spend a grand on something useless, then find your own way of getting it on the iPhone (there are other ways to get apps on the iPhone). The risk of someone accidentally "buying" this app is too much.

My only real problem here with Apple is that they let this crap on their App Store to begin with. Who the hell allowed this "app" to appear? They should have some explaining to do. Apple should have never allowed this thing to be on their store in the first place; it makes a mockery of the whole damn thing.

Aug 07, 08 - 04:07 pm Comment from: Demon

I'm well rather rich and it offended me. It basically said if your rich or well off you're stupid. The one thing about most rich people is they are not stupid. If Apple removed the App I'm sure there was a very good reason. Like people accidently buying it and then wanting a refund once they discovered it really did cost them 999.99 plus tax after 3 refunds for any App purchased from the App Store Apple should pull the App and notify the Apps Publisher on why it was pulled and why refunds were issued to customers. This would give publisher the ability to correct the issues that resulted in the refunds. Once the issues have been corrected by the publisher they should be able to resubmit the App for distribution in the App Store.

If the creator pulled it to make it appear as though Apple pulled it for hype purposes then Apple should ban the developer from selling Apps in the Apps Store for 3 months for a first offense, 6 months for a second offense, 12 months for a third offense and permanently for a fourth offense. Apple is the retailer and as the retailer Apple is not required to sell or distribute any Application that it deems as undesirable, disruptive or that it just does not like, If you have a different opinion then too bad you are wrong. Apple does operate in a free society so, they are not obligated to the media's or anyone else's communist views on how they should operate.
Thank You Apple for pulling the offensive and disruptive "I am Rich" App, stick to your guns on this one cause you were right in pulling out of the App Store. "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Pants, No Service!"

Aug 07, 08 - 04:09 pm Comment from: minime

Please no, not a centrally planed "App Store"

let the free market rule

Some will pay hundreds for Vista, why not this lettle gem?

Aug 07, 08 - 04:10 pm Comment from: Jimbo von Winskinheimer

MDN Take: It is not Apple's, nor anyone else's, right or responsibility to decide if an app is worth buying or not.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. It is totally Apple's right (I do not think that word means what you think it means) to determine what apps appear for sale on their store. Every other store in the world makes some sort of determination as to what is for sale at their store. They make that choice on their own terms, as is their right.

Aug 07, 08 - 04:13 pm Comment from: TowerTone

jbird
I decided to use a Post It note.
It will work even if my phone gets cut off.....

Some think "freedom" is to be permitted to make monney by any means... There are countries where to be "rich" (in $) is equivalent to be "intelligent"... These are poor and pathetic folks, indeed!

I think the app is pretty funny and ingenious in a sick kind of way and I agree with MDNs take.

BUT, once the knockoffs start to appear, I wouldn't want the app store to get get clogged up with this kind of crap. Purely from a navigational point of view, who would want to wade through this junk if you are actually looking for something useful?

I agree with both sides. Here's a twist to the argument.

What if the developer donated the proceeds to charity (Apple would most likely follow). The program could be retitled 'I am rich and moronic, but I care'

Apple said they wont allow PORN applications, well then they shouldnt allow this one either.

I'd pay a few bucks for this as an iPhone app:
http://www.egg-attack.com/

Aug 07, 08 - 04:42 pm Comment from: madgunde

Apple, as a reseller of software, is fully in their rights to choose to not carry a product that they feel does not offer value to it's customers and/or will have a negative impact on their brand image.

If the developer disagrees, they're more than welcome to convert their app into a webapp and charge people to access it that way. Should still accomplish their goal of being able to show off how filthy rich you are. Or they could choose to sell a ringtone or wallpaper instead, both would be equally useful in getting the point across.

@ no porn apps
" . . .well then they shouldnt allow this one either."

Have you actually seen pornography? I think you might be a bit confused.
Unless of course, bad abstract art gets you off. We won't judge.

It makes more sense as a Windows Mobile app or an add-on for the Big Ass Table. Microsoft customers fully expect to get ripped off.

i don't think there's any hard back or whites here... while I agree partially with MDN, this is Apple we're talking about and it's always ran into the grey areas on many things.

why does everyone think by having "allowed" this application in the first place Apple is setting any kind of "precedent" for future applications—or that "scammers" will even try to do this kind of application again in the future? For one, Apple does have a right to say "no" at any time to any application it thinks it doesn't add any value to the store. Second, the "idea" has basically run its course and I would imagine any application that tries this sort of shtick in the future would be denied. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on you.

Doesn't sound very black and white to me. Perhaps we (MDN) should wait until more facts emerge before either/or situations get suggested.

While Apple is certainly within their rights to pick and choose what they offer for sale in the AppStore, I think it would be a crappy decision if Apple started yanking Apps arbitrarily.

Did this app break any developers agreements? Did it interfere with the operation on an iPhone or AT&T;'s network? Was it porn? If not, then what reason does Apple have to yank it?

I only mention porn because Apple was pretty clear that they would not allow porn apps on the iPhone. Personally, I think that's a shame. If some one wishes to spend their money for a porn app for their phone, why not let them? It's not like they can't use the iPhone to see porn on the web. Or is Apple going to start trying to filter iPhone web access to block out naughty sites?

The best way for this to get resolved is for Apple to allow other ways to get apps onto an iPhone. Then they can be as picky and choosy as they want with regards to what apps they host, and no one can offer any complaints as there would be other means to get apps that Apple does not care to host.

No one would stand for Apple restricting what software we could install on our Macs, so why are so many people so in favor of Apple restricting what software can be installed on our phones?

First, Apple, implement a Shopping Cart. Second, people, use the Shopping Cart.

To the bigger picture, Apple has already listed various rules where your application will not be allowed on the store. For example, pornographic applications will not be allowed. So the precedent exists.

The question is, can Apple abruptly change the rules?

Consider that the only difference between "I Am Rich" and one of the "flashlight" applications is the image displayed (red gem versus white square) and the price (less than $1 versus $999.99). There's no reason Apple should offended by the content and Apple should stay out of setting prices.

So I agree with MDN that, if Apple did this, they're in the wrong.

That said, I tend to believe that Apple didn't. The app was meant as a joke. I'm sure some people purchased the app as a joke and then tried to get their money back which became a real hassle for Apple and the developer.

When you have to spend an hour or two each day dealing with credit card companies to give people their money back, it stops being quite so entertaining. After a day or two, I'd've probably pulled it myself.

Aug 07, 08 - 05:30 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

TowerTone,

Have you seen the one called 'I AM DOOMED'?

It has a screen filling image of the spinning beach ball.

I wonder if Apple will pull that one?

Aug 07, 08 - 05:33 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

FreddyThePig,

WHO? Baba O'Riley?

Aug 07, 08 - 05:44 pm Comment from: TowerTone

No, Gill, haven't seen that one.
But I am hoping to see this turned into one (it is Flash, I believe)

http://boortz.com/mp3/archive/countdown.swf

Will help clear that long line at the airport......

This was pulled by the same Apple that sold us $10,000 Lisas?

Bet the real reason is Jobs was pissed because he didn't think of a $999 screen saver first.

if I accidentally clicked on that "buy" button and spent $1k, I'd be REALLY pissed about it.

Why? If you know the price and agree to buy, who's to blame but yourself?

So what if a $1000 screen saver is the worst deal in town, it's a healthy market if someone actually offered it. Like the saying goes, a sucker is born every minute.

MS should get on this quick though. A BASIC "10 goto 10" loop should bring, what, $500?

Aug 07, 08 - 06:00 pm Comment from: Spark

How long before the lawsuits begin?

"Apple does have a right to say "no" at any time to any application it thinks it doesn't add any value to the store. "

Maybe, but the commercial implications of developing an application then Apple having complete control over whether you sell it or not should not be overlooked. There doesn't appear to be a way to know if they will shit-can your app, nor much of a process to review the decision if they do. Apple needs to publish the rules by which it will judge and pull applications, and stick to them.

Better still, Apple needs to stop being the only store. Apple should be able to run an app store, and put whatever they like in it provided they provide a way for people to directly sell apps Apple does not like. Until that day they should be a neutral vendor of all apps. i

Just checked a video of the original Keynote presentation. Limited apps: illegal, malicious, unforeseen, privacy, porn, and bandwidth hog. This app fits under "unforeseen" (and perhaps malicious).

Aug 07, 08 - 06:13 pm Comment from: alansky

It is not Apple's, nor anyone else's, right or responsibility to decide if an app is worth buying or not. —MDN

Wrong. Every merchant—which includes Apple as the merchant selling iPhone apps—has the right to decide if an app is worth selling in their store. The fact that Apple provided the tools necessary for developers to create <i> candidates</u> for inclusion in the App Store only adds to Apple's rights in this matter.

The app in question—an outrageously-priced app that does nothing except advertise the bad taste of the purchaser—certainly would not be on the list of iPhone apps that I would offer my customers if I were running the iTunes App Store.

Aug 07, 08 - 06:28 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

TowerTone,

That took me by surprise. Just a little unnerving.
But humorous.