Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Accepts, Then Rejects BitTorrent iPhone App

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the make-up-yer-mind-wouldja dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Apple recently approved an iPhone app called IS Drive, which lets users check and manage downloads from ImageShack.us, while also offering users the option to use the company's BitTorrent service to download files to their ImageShack account. Once Apple got wind of what the app was capable of, however, it was promptly removed from iTunes."

15 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Seems strange they approved it at all by biryokumaru · · Score: 2, Funny

    To be fair, the app in question duplicated functionality: it communicated with other machines over the internet to perform specific tasks. Apple can't allow any apps to do that! I'm glad there aren't any other ones breaking the rules like that...

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  2. Re:Bandwidth by biryokumaru · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ImageShack servers do the torrenting. You just tell them what to download so you can download it straight from them later.

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  3. How many types are secretly banned? by burris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From Apple via the TFA:

    We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store.

    In addition to the published list of restrictions there is a second, secret, list of types of application that Apple has chosen not to publish. There is no way to know if your type of application is on that list without submitting a fully working application.

    1. Re:How many types are secretly banned? by Thinine · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, Apple recently released all of their criteria publicly, and this standard was on that list. http://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html

  4. Re:Seems strange they approved it at all by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple keeps an iron grip over apps. It's weird that they would approve something like Bittorrent at all!

    From TFA ...

    Kepner theorized that the app was able to sneak in past Apple’s censors because he avoided using the word “torrent.” Well played, Sir Kepner. Well played.

    So, the way he described it, they didn't quite realize what it was actually doing. The reasoning from Apple was:

    this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights. We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store.

    I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with Torrents. While they do have non-infringing uses, I can see a company like Apple just deciding they don't want to risk the legal actions which could result.

    The *AAs aren't above suing absolutely everyone who had anything to do with distributing anything which can be/is used to do filesharing. Apple doesn't want to jeopardize their iTunes contracts by appearing to support that.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Re:Seems strange they approved it at all by AltairDusk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a common problem with censorship, tools and information which can be used in both legitimate and illegitimate ways are often blocked completely.

  6. Re:Seems strange they approved it at all by alexhs · · Score: 2, Informative

    FTFA, the app was previously rejected under the name "Jack Torrents".
    After the last developer guideline change, it was resubmitted as "IS Drive", hiding the fact that it was actually doing BitTorrent (from the article video, isoHunt and Mininova tabs have also been hidden along the name change, for example).
    That's why the app got approved...

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  7. Total breakdown of their vetting process. by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once Apple got wind of what the app was capable of...

    Isn't the whole purpose of vetting apps to figure out what they are doing (and that no "bad" behaviour is included - no malware)? It seems that if this app gets through the vetting process, from the of it doing only what it's advertised to do, that there's something terribly wrong with Apple's vetting process.

    1. Re:Total breakdown of their vetting process. by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the description in the article, especially the phrase "sneak in", it sounds like he deliberately obfuscated the functionality of the app. It's happened a few times before- an app is submitted with a questionable feature disabled, then once it's in the wild a switch is thrown on a server and suddenly it's capable of more than was ever shown to Apple. The vetting process being susceptible to targeted attempts to circumvent it does not mean that a "total breakdown" occurred.

  8. Re:Seems strange they approved it at all by characterZer0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can see why they don't want to get embroiled in any of the legal stuff associated with the Internet. While it does have non-infringing uses, I can see a company like Apple just deciding they don't want to risk the legal actions which could result.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  9. Re:Why? by garcia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are we so far gone that we can't even have a torrent app because we *might* pirate things with it?

    While we'll probably never know due to the lack of transparency about the whole process, it's likely due to AT&T. Their network can't very well handle the traffic it has now and certainly won't be able to handle pegged upstream and downstream connections from the growing number of iPhones.

    As an iPhone user who has been experiencing more and more slow network connectivity, I could care less if someone has a BitTorrent application on their phone installed via Cydia but I certainly don't want the majority userbase accessing it to peg their connections to download *anything* legal or illegal content aside.

  10. Obious Reason by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful
    To everyone planning on blasting Apple for rejecting the app, please check the submission guidelines they recently published. The reason this app was rejected is spelled out in clear detail there - the developer has nobody to blame but themself for the app's rejection. They knew they were submitting an app that wouldn't be approved because they hid certain functionality, which is precisely the reason the app was going to be rejected.

    2.4 Apps that include undocumented or hidden features inconsistent with the description of the app will be rejected.

    When you do something against the rules and get caught, don't be surprised that there are consequences. Don't want to play by those rules, then don't. That simple.

    1. Re:Obious Reason by Combatso · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't want to play by those rules, then don't. That simple.

      Seems to me they didn't want to play by those rules, and didn't.

  11. Closed Systems = Closed Wallet by tomweeks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, this just validates what most FOSS advocates preach... closed systems are self serving and antagonistic toward freedom. This is one reason why I've never financially supported Apple products (since the introduction of the Mac in the 80s).

    Tweeks

  12. Re:Seems strange they approved it at all by PeterBrett · · Score: 2, Interesting

    so true. it's not like the whole ipod business was built on piracy or anything. i mean ask anyone with a few thousand tracks on their players.

    Ummm ... I've got something like 6,000 tracks in my iTunes library. Not a single one was pirated -- they're all rips from CDs that I own. I've bought several hundred CDs over the last few years. I know several people with thousands of tracks ripped from CDs in their collection.

    Are you in the UK? If so, yes, you're a pirate. Because, over here, copying tracks from a CD (which you own) onto an iPod (which you own) using a PC (which you own) is unlawful.

    --
    Pirate Party UK