then its up to apple not to approve the stuff during the approval process. They pretty much used a nuclear option, without trying something less lethal.
My guess is that the App Store reviewers don't look at where the content is from, and instead look at what the content actually is. In this case, the content was OK. The content source was questionable.
The reviewers at Apple decided to OK the apps. And they then received enough reports that it was pulled. If the reviewers didn't approve the apps initially, we would be seeing a different story: "Apple rejects harmless application from developer".
The App Store has problems. But this decision fixed one small problem that existed, not created another problem.
//Edit: And from the article, Apple did try less lethal options. It sounds like they contacted Khalid and told him their concerns. And he chose to ignore Apple.
Comments
then its up to apple not to approve the stuff during the approval process. They pretty much used a nuclear option, without trying something less lethal.
My guess is that the App Store reviewers don't look at where the content is from, and instead look at what the content actually is. In this case, the content was OK. The content source was questionable.
The reviewers at Apple decided to OK the apps. And they then received enough reports that it was pulled. If the reviewers didn't approve the apps initially, we would be seeing a different story: "Apple rejects harmless application from developer".
The App Store has problems. But this decision fixed one small problem that existed, not created another problem.
//Edit: And from the article, Apple did try less lethal options. It sounds like they contacted Khalid and told him their concerns. And he chose to ignore Apple.