david:
that would be nice. can ya provide a link to the source of this? If it is not an official press release from Apple it's not fact. Just like if there aren't pictures it never happened, ya know?
I would of thought even if the situation really is as your note indicates, then if the app needed to access that content is no longer an "approved" app then it's no different that blocking content purchased via other options as for all of Sony, B&N & Amazon you need their apps to actually read the books down the road. That leaves the users in a lurch because the app they have installed won't have access to updates -- as app not in the store = ability to no update so no improvements in the app = a progressively less useful and attractive app and thus less reason to own and use the device for many people. I don't need an device just to access the web and check email. A Touch is nice for that but not at the current $300 price tag for a 32gb device with no ability to increase storage capacity or even change the battery.
And if you read the article I posted above, post 212 I believe maybe 213 I dunno but you can find it.
But that article indicates the state of confusion among publishers who did indeed follow the Apple model, submitted their app and now some are getting notices that what was already approved is no longer OK. And the confusion is simply because Apple simply is not consistent in their application of their own guidelines. I don't give a crap if they have too many apps to approve to get it right the first time, not a user's problem because as so many are happy to state :...it's Apple's sandbox and their rules so deal with it" Well, apparently Apple can't be counted on to follow their own guidelines/rules nor apply them in a consistent fashion. This sounds more like the IRS than a real business. These are the reasons people are concerned, what is OK today can, at Apple's whim, not be OK tomorrow. And you cannot lay responsibility at the feet of the app developers, it is APPLE who already approved an app as written and with the features already in place.
All of this is no better than what Apple claims their platform offers over the option of Windows, no need to spend time working around what some call problems the user should never need worry about. Well, here is a case of a corporate induced BUG in their system which has users actively seeking other options because if they are going to face these sorts of issues why not use devices with full and real computer functionality and operating systems where how one uses the device is not dictated by the label on the machine. It's about the trade off of freedom and knowing tomorrow when I turn on the device and see an update, that update is not going to stop any of my needed apps from working or eliminate the ability to download updates/upgrades for those apps because Apple has decided after-the-fact to remove it from the App Store.
I think that is all people want, and it needs to be officially addressed by Apple. If an app is approved then it's approved for good, unless the developer adds something in the future that is in violation of the rules as adding a function to an approved app which breaks the guidelines should not be allowed even if prior approval allowed features Apple did not want. If Apple needs do anything it's fire the people who approved the apps in question to begin with and just live with the situation at their expense not the users. Apple is the one vetting the apps for the "safety" everyone, right? Apple is here to "...keep us safe from the big bad internet and the evil competition." But to paraphrase who protects us from Apple [the protectors]?