I disagree with that, and I was very solidly on the other side when they had their previous set of rules.
The list given here shows 'intent'. Now you can go and interpret it to the letter as if it is a kind of legal document, but that's not the right way to approach this, just as it isn't very clever to try to live by the letter of the law but to ignore the spirit of it.
Apple has clearly set a bunch of rules here that indicate what is the desired way you should develop your app and how you interpret these rules is up to you. If you're going to do your best to squeak by the guidelines they're warning you up front that they may amend the guidelines and ban your app anyway, just in case you decide to go 'legal' on them.
Is's a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do.
I'm surprised at the magnitude of this about-face, anybody with a clear conscience can take this list, self-validate their app and have a very good idea of whether or not it is going to pass.
No doubt there will be smart asses that will try to abuse the fact that the list is now published to find loopholes and Apple has pre-emptively closed those.
All (or as far as I can see it) of the dealbreakers are gone and I would imagine they're gone for good.
I think DF was right in its analysis: These changes are likely coming straight from Jobs. Perhaps it was Apple Legal dictating the rules and it just didn't seem "human" enough. Perhaps Jobs wanted to unify the left and right hand to know what both were doing. Maybe they're scared of the Probe.
Apple is showing here that it is one of the biggest small companies around. The wording in the App store review guidelines reads like something out of an up-and-coming Webapp startup run by a 20-something ne'er-do-well.
It's clear that Apple wants to get back to its "Designed by Apple in California" jeans and mock-turtleneck 'tude. The draconian rules and BS were antithetical to that. Hey, maybe the gyrating silhouettes will make their comeback to replace disembodied hands in their commercials.
Agreed, I'm very impressed with the changes to both the content and tone. For me the annual charge to run my own code on my own hardware and the prohibition on non-appstore distribution are still dealbreakers, but this will undoubtedly keep many developers around who otherwise would have jumped ship. It will also allow more apps to be ported to and from iOS, which is beneficial for everyone.
Hey, don't knock the annual charge. If we have garbage in the App Store right now, imagine the crap we'd see if Apple removed that particular bozo filter.
Still, it would not be out of line for a developer account to permit the creation of only developer certificates/provisioning profiles, limited to five devices a year or something, to suit personal noodling not destined for the App Store.
The Eucalyptus app could still be banned under the current rules because it makes it possible to download sex books of project gutenberg.
It isn't mentioned directly, but combine the protect the children with no obscenity (which I personally find Obscene) clauses and you can ban anything.
The list given here shows 'intent'. Now you can go and interpret it to the letter as if it is a kind of legal document, but that's not the right way to approach this, just as it isn't very clever to try to live by the letter of the law but to ignore the spirit of it.
Apple has clearly set a bunch of rules here that indicate what is the desired way you should develop your app and how you interpret these rules is up to you. If you're going to do your best to squeak by the guidelines they're warning you up front that they may amend the guidelines and ban your app anyway, just in case you decide to go 'legal' on them.
Is's a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do.
I'm surprised at the magnitude of this about-face, anybody with a clear conscience can take this list, self-validate their app and have a very good idea of whether or not it is going to pass.
No doubt there will be smart asses that will try to abuse the fact that the list is now published to find loopholes and Apple has pre-emptively closed those.
All (or as far as I can see it) of the dealbreakers are gone and I would imagine they're gone for good.