Is there any evidence to believe that anyone would have known of or cared about the app if it had been accepted? It seems likely that most people have only heard of it because of the rejection, first on "technical grounds", and then for the cowardly admission that they thought that people would find the content objectionable.
Apple certainly can run their store any way they want to. At the same time it's worth noting that compared, say, to standards set by bookstores and libraries which often contain material that many people would find offensive, Apple is acting, well, rather gutlessly.
One might have thought that the brand that they wanted to protect would have been that of a company that is not afraid to "think different" and that worked to ensure that "1984 is not like 1984". Evidently they'd rather throw away that brand equity and become as inoffensive as the local Walmart. Fine, noted.
Comments
Is there any evidence to believe that anyone would have known of or cared about the app if it had been accepted? It seems likely that most people have only heard of it because of the rejection, first on "technical grounds", and then for the cowardly admission that they thought that people would find the content objectionable.
Apple certainly can run their store any way they want to. At the same time it's worth noting that compared, say, to standards set by bookstores and libraries which often contain material that many people would find offensive, Apple is acting, well, rather gutlessly.
One might have thought that the brand that they wanted to protect would have been that of a company that is not afraid to "think different" and that worked to ensure that "1984 is not like 1984". Evidently they'd rather throw away that brand equity and become as inoffensive as the local Walmart. Fine, noted.