Info Laptop

Since last year, Apple has allowed all iPhone developers to request 50 promotional codes for their application when first added to the App Store, a policy that makes it easy to offer free applications for trial, review, or a competition. It allows easier initial promotion of an app, removing the need for a more complicated process of ad-hoc distribution or offering iTunes gift cards.

A few weeks ago, Apple stopped offering promotional codes to developers of applications rated 17+. This decision sparked controversy, with developers angry that they were no longer able to easily offer promotional copies of their software to reviewers.

The change was particularly difficult to stomach for many developers due to the already ambiguous interpretation of the 17+ rating. According to Apple, the guidelines for this rating category are as follows:

Applications in this category may also contain frequent and intense offensive language; frequent and intense cartoon, fantasy or realistic violence; and frequent and intense mature, horror, and suggestive themes; plus sexual content, nudity, alcohol, tobacco, and drugs which may not be suitable for children under the age of 17.

Although the statement seems fairly definitive, in practice, various other applications are being awarded a 17+ rating. For instance, any app that offers access to the Internet also falls into the 17+ category as it could be used to access objectionable content.

Developer Response

Various news agencies picked up on the change, putting pressure on Apple to re-consider its decision. It seems that Apple has responded and, unusually, reversed the change in policy to now offer promo codes regardless of age rating. The Unofficial Apple Weblog is reporting that various developers have this functionality re-enabled, though no official comment has been made by Apple.

Light at the End of the Tunnel?

To date, the approval and rating system for the App Store has remained somewhat of a mysterious frustration for many developers. Although it is understandably difficult to operate a consistent process across the thousands of applications submitted, developers have voiced frustration at the lack of dialog and information coming from Apple.

As John Gruber eloquently expressed:

I can imagine that for the developer on the other end the experience must be like that of speaking to a wall. A monolith.

While no official comment has been made by the company, this turnaround — seemingly in response to developer criticism — could mark the beginning of an improved back-and-forth process. It will be interesting to see whether, as the App Store grows, developers and technology publications find their voice valued by Apple to a greater degree.

---

Market research you can use:
Keep informed about Cloud Computing and IT Infrastructure.
Learn more »

Greenpeace released the 12th edition of its Guide to Greener Electronics today (PDF), with Apple falling somewhere between tangerine and burnt orange. For those who take the rating seriously, Apple scored 4.7 out of 10, unchanged from last time, though the company slipped from 10th to 11th place in the ranking of 18 companies.

The guide is based on three “demands” (their word) by Greenpeace: eliminating toxic substances, e-waste recycling and energy usage. Those demands are then broken down into four sub-demands, which are ranked: bad, partially bad, partially good, and good. Overall, Apple scores mostly in the middle, but with several bad grades.

The single, wholly positive ranking Apple receives is for the timeline on phasing out nasty PVCs and BFRs from manufacturing. As Apple and the Environment notes, “printed circuit boards, electrical components, mechanical parts, and internal cables are BFR-free and PVC-free.” However, Greenpeace even takes issue with that claim because Apple has “unreasonably high threshold limits for BFRs and PVC in products that are allegedly PVC-/BFR-free.”

Going negative, Greenpeace criticizes Apple strongly on e-waste recycling, while at the same time noting Apple has extended coverage of its recycling program to Asia, and that the company has set a goal of a 50 percent recycling rate by 2010. The main problem, according to Greenpeace, is a matter of disclosure on the part of Apple. On the issue of energy, Apple again scores poorly. First, because the company does not report on GHG (greenhouse gasses) emissions, Apple fails. Second, because the company does not report on renewable energy usage, Apple fails.

If you don’t see a pattern here, what it comes down to is that Greenpeace grades companies on words as much as action. Apple is a secretive company by nature. Considering how confrontational Greenpeace has been with Apple in the past, it’s hardly a surprise that Apple makes no effort to meet the “demands” of Greenpeace.

The real question here is why Greenpeace focuses so much on Apple. Both Dell and HP sell far more computers than Apple. Both have dropped in ranking according to the latest guide, and both now score lower than Apple. Does this mean we will see protestors at the headquarters of HP? Will there be advertising campaigns about a “yellow” Dell? If Greenpeace followed their own guide, that’s what should happen.

However, the difference between Apple and every company in the guide is brand. Apple is easily the most popular brand. By focusing on Apple negatively, Greenpeace can theoretically threaten Apple’s brand popularity. Further, any changes Apple makes because of pressure from Greenpeace could then be leveraged against companies that actually pollute more than Apple. Finally, attacking the most popular company raises awareness of Greenpeace itself, not that the environmental organization would ever be so self-serving.

Keep going green, Apple, but keep going without Greenpeace.

---

Market research you can use:
Keep informed about Cloud Computing and IT Infrastructure.
Learn more »