HN user
> 2.3 Apps that do not perform as advertised by the developer will be rejected
> 2.11 Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them, such as fart, burp, flashlight, and Kama Sutra apps.
They ARE prohibited by the guidelines, and I'm surprised they get approved.
> "It's pretty clear that nazism, racism, gaycism and other hateful applications shouldn't be allowed on the Apple App Store."
Yes, exactly. I'm not sure if that above statement was an attempt at sarcasm, but it's completely true, they shouldn't be allowed.
> "it doesn't make any business sense to enter a PR war over the relatively miniscule amount of profit they'd make from this app."
unless I'm mistaken, it was a free app (with no ads), so they made no money off of it.
Everyone here is missing the point, this is not exactly meant for direct ports of iOS applications to Mac OS X. For example, look at Twitter for Mac and Twitterific in the Mac App Store, they aren't direct / touch-based ports, but rather, they take cues from their iOS counterparts.
I agree that the whole "try before you buy" thing seems like bullshit, but let me confirm. The "new rule" I posted about above is referring to a case in which the application is a paid application that is cracked, but the application detects the crack and instead of limiting its functions or ceasing to work, it self-instills a "timed trial". Definitely would be annoying for developers to implement, but it will also make you kind of "untouchable" to the pirate/cracker community, since you as a developer are satisfying the "try before you buy" rule that they like to say they follow.
Angry Birds is different. Their "rule" and way of thinking applies to fully featured trials. Angry Birds offers not a timed trial, but I believe it instead only allows you to play the first level before paying. Not saying I fully agree with this technicality, but that is the way that the crackers are seeing it.
Hope this clears some things up.
It's interesting you mention that. I pointed that out today, and a new rule was implemented, saying that if a cracked application has a built in (fully featured) timed trial when it detects that it is a pirated version, then that check should remain intact and un-patched, otherwise the crack or request for the crack will be removed. Not perfect, but at least a step in the right direction (they didn't have an argument when it was brought up, because their reasoning is that people want a fair chance to try apps before paying, which this compromise allows).
I'd link to the thread on their forums about this new rule, but I'm assuming that most people in here are iOS developers who seem to be against this, so you probably don't have an account on their website and can't view the post.
I hear this argument a lot, and wonder, is there any actual evidence out there to back it up/
It may seem that way to you, but just look at how popular Foursquare is. The general public loves it.