Is There Any Good Reason Why Apple Should Pull The $1000 iPhone App?

from the USSR dept

Wed, Aug 6th 2008 11:53am — Kevin Donovan

Someone has created a simple iPhone application called "I Am Rich" which sells for $999.99 and simply makes the screen grow ruby red and offers "a secret mantra." But more shocking than this apparent waste of bytes and money is a number of prominent blogs which are calling for Apple to block the application. This is ludicrous. If someone wants to part with a grand for a glowing screen, who is Apple to stop them? The application developer is honest and clearly states that there "is no hidden function." It is not malicious, pornographic, a bandwidth hog, illegal or a threat to privacy.

And do these pro-regulation bloggers really want to have Apple assume the role of a Soviet ministry - designating appropriate prices for applications? Should Steve Jobs and company really determine the price of Super Monkey Ball? One commenter suggests that this application is an "insult to all the well-meaning developers that Apple made wait/are still waiting to get into the iPhone developer program." The problem of slow approval is not a single application, but the way in which Apple is playing gatekeeper to the iPhone. Again, these complaints are asking Apple to decide which applications should receive priority review and approval - a slippery slope which places arbitrary values on applications. And by advocating that Apple makes the iPhone a more closed system, these opponents of the "I Am Rich" application may in fact be pushing Apple away from a business model that succeeds - openness.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: apps, i am rich, iphone, openness
Companies: apple

70 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

William, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:12pm

Riches
The complainers are only upset that they didn't think of it first, but there are options for them to run with it.

I am Rich, Gold Edition - $10,000.
I am Rich, Platinum Edition - $25,000.
I am Uber Rich - $100,000.
Sheik Who? Oh, the guy that shines my shoes, Rich - $1,000,000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mudlock, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re: Riches
  You're going the wrong way; think "Panasanic" and "Sany". Make an app called "I am Rech", or something similar, and sell it for, like, $900.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple Programmer, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:33pm

New edition
I'm creating a new application that glows Green, then fades to black and says "Was Rich, but Squandered it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom The Toe, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:35pm

Re:Riches
How about the official Pet Rock Version which just displays a rock you can train to do nothing, $14.99.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric the Green, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:38pm

Prominent?
These "prominent" bloggers need to get over themselves and move on to something else. Sheesh -- slow day for something to complain about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple PR Department, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:40pm

Better than press releases
Let's get some free publicity for the iPhone, AppStore and Apple in general by providing the opportunity for bloggers to write stories. And commenters to comment. Thank you for your contribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward #42, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:55pm

Well...
You have to admit, it sounds like a fairly obnoxious type of application, one which could easily be classified as a scam, by the sound of it. I am glad that Apple made rules and is sticking to them instead of rewriting the rule book every time they don't like something (hopefully, anyway), but I can't help but wonder if something like this doesn't break the rules somehow. Remember, Apple has to test and approve any app that is submitted for sale in their store. I'm wondering how they allowed an app to be posted for that price that doesn't do anything constructive.

I'm not sure what is meant by a "secret mantra", but this reminds me a lot of those idiots on ebay who, instead of selling you game consoles, sell you the information on how to acquire one of said consoles for dirt cheap or even for free. That is definitely a scam, and this sure smells like one too. I do think that Apple ultimately needs to get rid of it, but maybe not for the reasons the bloggers are preaching about. If it were me, I'd pull it because I would be trying to protect my customers from being ripped off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re: Well...
  You have to admit, it sounds like a fairly obnoxious type of application, one which could easily be classified as a scam, by the sound of it.
  How so? What makes it scam other than your say-so?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re: Well...
  In the app's description, he says if you can't afford it to go check out his other apps which are way cheaper. This is a publicity stunt. No reason to punish him for being clever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wasnt me!, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:15pm
  
  Re: Well...
  You have to admit, it sounds like a fairly obnoxious type of application, one which could easily be classified as a scam,
  
  obnoxious definetly, scam? no since "The application developer is honest and clearly states that there "is no hidden function." It is not malicious, pornographic, a bandwidth hog, illegal or a threat to privacy."
  
  unless of course there are actually hidden malware type hidden function
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward #42, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Well...
    Well, if it's clearly stated (and by clearly, I mean glaring at you, not hidden in fine print anywhere) what it does and doesn't do, then no, it isn't a scam. You have to admit that something so expensive that does so little raises a few red flags. At least in my mind they do.
    
    I concede that the chances of it from being a scam are slim, but the obnoxious part still stands. One could say that this is similar to city ordinances dictating certain rules about what you can and can't place on your lawn, because certain things would be an eyesore that could detract from the overall beauty of the neighborhood. Sometimes such rules are necessary for the good of all, but such power can be easily abused, especially when common sense is overlooked.
    
    I personally think that Apple has every right to take it down if it TRULY is an eyesore, but they need to be very careful about it if they do, because just because they have the right doesn't mean it's a good idea. It could easily become a slippery slope that would lead to much nitpicking about the definitions of "offensive" and "eyesore" and so on. The last thing we need to do is start using Bill Clinton's legal defense strategy.
    
    On a lighter note, here's an idea about improving the situation. Make a limited-time trial version available for like $10-20 or so. If the person feels he is richer after that, they can buy the full unlimited use version. Otherwise, they're only out the $10-20 for trying. I for one think that would make a person much more money than the $1000 price tag, because for that little bit of money, most people will try anything. That's why all these stupid TV commercial/infomercial products are so successful, even though they're nothing but cheap crap. As long as you don't have to pay too much, you don't feel too bad about getting ripped off.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2008 @ 4:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well...
      Why would they need to bother with a limited version for cheaper? The app is clearly called "I am rich", and most likely designed for people with more money than sense, who just want to show off how rich they are. Anyone with $1000 to throw away on a glowing iphone app probably isn't ever going to miss that money anyway.
      
      If people actually pay for this, then I say fair play to the developer. If even 1 person buys it, it's a win.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2008 @ 6:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well...
      Your analogy fails. City ordinances and community covenants on such things exist because the way your neighbors look actively effects the value of your property. No one wants to live/work/shop next to an eye-sore. But no one is going to not-shop at the AppStore because there's a silly do-nothing application listed at $1000.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2008 @ 6:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well...
      The App doesn't make you rich. It proves you're rich. Why else would you drop $1000 on a dumb app like that?
      
      Alternatively, the "I" could be for for the developer, who is now rich because you bought an app that took him a day to make for $1000.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:38pm
  
  Re: Well...
  umm...that is why they are up in arms over it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2008 @ 6:43am
  
  Re: Well...
  I'm wondering how they allowed an app to be posted for that price that doesn't do anything constructive.
  
  Why does that matter? I mean... Ok, so it doesn't do anything; maybe you figure something like that, useless, should be free? So your only real complaint is that it's over-priced. Well, OK, so what, it's over-priced. don't buy over-priced merchandise. But that doesn't mean that Apple should can it. Should we stop selling CDs because $20 is more than the music's worth? (That's a rhetorical question.) If no one buys it, there's no harm done, and if someone does buy it... so what? They guy's clear about it not doing anything, so it's not like you can complain when it works as advertised. There is no harm here. It doesn't even take up shelf space the way physical merchandise does (which is why stores won't carry CDs sold at $200).
  
  those idiots on ebay who, instead of selling you game consoles, sell you the information on how to acquire one of said consoles for dirt cheap or even for free. That is definitely a scam, and this sure smells like one too.
  
  No, it's not. If they're deceitful in what they're selling then sure, I'd go with that -- but if you're just upset because someone's selling something (information) at a price you feel is inflated (greater than free) that doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. That information is useful, and if people are willing to pay for it, so be it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caleb, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:59pm

Odd that Pornography and Bandwidth needy apps are lumped in with illegal activities..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beefcake, 6 Aug 2008 @ 12:59pm

First Class
Do the detractors also whine about first class airline travel? I mean, it's just an expensive upgrade that doesn't get you there any sooner than coach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re: First Class
  Do the detractors also whine about first class airline travel? I mean, it's just an expensive upgrade that doesn't get you there any sooner than coach.
  Not true! That's why they put first class in the front of the plane, so that it departs and arrives slightly ahead of the other passengers!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- retsel, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re: First Class
  Actually you do get there closer than coach... cause you are in the front of the plane...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2008 @ 6:50am
  
  Re: First Class
  You also get comfy chairs, more leg room, better food...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Bennett, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:03pm

It's not a scam and there's nothing wrong with it per se. But, particularly without an adequate way to get a refund, you have to admit there's a little too much of an "accidental idiocy" risk here. I can imagine someone buying it, quickly looking and thinking it cost $9.99, without thinking too much about it. Granted, most people won't, but someone will, and then that person is screwed. It's essentially like leaving a large open hole in the ground. Yeah, most people won't walk into it, but that doesn't mean it's really a good idea to leave the open hole.

If there was message upon clicking it "You realize this is $999, not $9.99, right?" or and way to get a refund, I wouldn't have any problem with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yakko Warner, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re:
  If it was $999, you'd have more of a point; but it's $999.99, which in theory is a lot harder to confuse with $9.99, there being not just a decimal point, but two more digits in difference.
  
  Although I guess I shouldn't attempt to underestimate John Q. Surfer's ability to misread clearly-printed prices.
  
  I just wish I'd thought of it. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2008 @ 6:52am
  
  Re:
  OK, but what if someone makes some crazy-awsome app that really is worth $1000? Should they not be allowed to sell it on the App store because someone might accidentally buy it? That's dumb.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chicken Boy, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:10pm

Wait For Six Months
If one were to wait six months, I'm sure the price will drop by 50% and Apple will send out a $200.00 rebate to those who purchased this app at regular price!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ZZ, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:17pm

Image
I can see why Apple would want to ban this app. It makes iPhone buyers look like idiots who waste their money and that's bad for Apple's market image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Duncan Yoyo, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re: Image
  Heh what they need is a $0.99 copy- I just look rich.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- deerhuntr (profile), 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re: Image
  I can see why Apple would want to ban this app.
  It makes iPhone buyers look like idiots who
  waste their money and that's bad for Apple's
  market image.
  
  But they ARE idiots who waste their money!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Image
    Exactly! They don't want that to be too obvious to everyone else and only want to seem like smart money wasters
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sierra Night Tide, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:41pm
    
    Phone that cost more than $200
    Until any phone that costs more than $200 comes with a hooker or at least a bj, I'm not buying!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CJ, 7 Aug 2008 @ 6:37am
  
  Re: Image
  But Apple customers are rich idiots that waste their money....I'm I missing something
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dad, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:22pm

Gated Community
The app store is essentially a gated community.
The people who visit and live in the gated community expect the gatekeepers to provide a certain amount of filtering.
Based on that, Apple has every reason to apologize to the residents for accidentally letting in a d!ck, then throwing him and his app out the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re: Gated Community
  Exactly. Apple is trying to ensure a certain level of quality to the applications sold through ITS store front. No, it isn't illegal but it is sleazy. Apple should block it. I don't see ANY company allowing this kind of rip off getting associated with the company's good name.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yakko Warner, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re: Gated Community
  Since it has their logo on it, does that make it a branded community as well?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Webomatica, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:24pm

Humph
There is an endless list of stupider things one could spend $1,000 bucks on - I say leave it in the store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fermilab, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:42pm

You seem to forget
it's not for people who are rich, it's for people who think they're rich. Truly rich people, those with F*** you money, don't need these things. The people who want people to think they are rich can use this to identify each other. Beyond that, I'd like it to have a mantra that changes every day or it's just not worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Devil's Advocate, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:55pm
  
  Re: You seem to forget
  I think you're thinking of "Wealth"
  
  Rich people buy stupid shit to make sure you know they're rich.
  
  Wealthy people sell those idiots that "I'm rich" shit.
  
  The person who made the app, therefore, is wealthy. ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gavin, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:56pm

"Shocking"??

What the hell is "shocking" about people on the internet complaining about something that doesn't really concern them, yet are compelled to opine???

Isn't that 75% of what the internet is?

This blog entry is a pretty big snorfest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:59pm

Re: Gated Community
Boy, that "gated Community" comment is really telling! Especially if you know the history of gated communities and that "certain amount of filtering" they are "expected" to do.

Tel me, who else shouldn't be allowed into the gated community for the "protection" of its residents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kike, 7 Aug 2008 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: Re: Gated Community
  Chinks, kikes, niggers, pollacks, crackers, beaners, honkies, fritz, frogs, gooks, gringos, jyps, krauts, nips, ragheads, rednecks, roundeyes, ruskies, squas, wops, wogs, damnyakies, albinos, dinks, hobos, vagrants, gangsters, theives, footpads, thugs.
  
  In other words: no one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kike, 7 Aug 2008 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Re: Gated Community
    Oh, an' I fergot the confeds! If I put the damnyankies on the list I need to put the confeds on too!
    
    Still, same point. No one's allowed in.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel Coehoorn, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:02pm

Status Symbol
Of course it's a scam! But not really illegal. If you're have the money and you want to buy the app just to show off that you can afford to spend a grand on a worthless app, more power to you. With that in mind, I'm thinking about building and selling a 99 cent app that glows a slightly different shade of red. For all those who want to look rich but don't really have the cash for the $1000 version. I'd have to trade the color a bit or the original author would likely try to claim a trademark on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GeneralEmergency (profile), 6 Aug 2008 @ 3:15pm
  
  Re: Status Symbol
  Umm...you might want to steer clear of T-Mobile Magenta!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:04pm

Yep
I like it. It shows that Apple is trying to cater to the upperend of the spectrum. In a way these are status symbols, folks. Like buying bottles of Bordeaux from the 1700s, anything from LVMH company, Nokia's Vertu line, other stuff like that. Sure there's cheaper ways to do it, but if you have high net worth, why not pay more. Who knows, maybe the app comes with a $400 bottle of wine.

But as all status symbols are, eventually the free market will catch up and the general demographic of iPhone owners won't want it. Let the free market economics dictate supply/demand. Besides, adding more hoops to jump thru to an already inefficient "branded community" process is the opposite direction Apple should take. Those who disagree probably cant get a iPhone, or work for a competitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:11pm

It's certainly not a scam. People buy what they want. Anyone here old enough to remember the "pet rock" fad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:14pm

Guys
The developer did this as a publicity stunt. In there, he mentions to go look at all his other apps which are much cheaper. He just got a whole crap load of free PR. I bet a lot of people are now checking out that app (obviously not to buy it though) and then figuring, why not check out his other reasonably priced stuff.

Don't get mad at him because his clever trick worked. But again, its one of those things that will only work once, but I bet that won't stop a bunch of others from trying (sorta like the million dollar homepage).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:20pm

"But more shocking than this apparent waste of bytes and money is a number of prominent blogs which are calling for Apple to block the application. This is ludicrous. If someone wants to part with a grand for a glowing screen, who is Apple to stop them?"

Kevin Donovan you are full of crap. I'd bet my next year's salary your blog entry would be screaming the exact opposite stance if were Apple selling this rip off instead of an independent developer. What company in their right mind would allow some con artist to rip off its customers through its own store front?

Caveat Emptor is a fine philosophy so long as you don't care about keeping your customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Wilson, 7 Aug 2008 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  Thing is, that anyone fool enough to grab a $1000 app that clearly explains what it is and isn't and not do some checking deserves what they get.
  
  So sell away, if you can actually sell any. Heck, even the name says there's something going on here as does the note about less expensive and far more useful apps that the developer wrote.
  
  What Kevin is saying is that it's not up to Apple to be your mom.
  
  Grow up!
  
  ttfn
  
  John
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
W, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:26pm

how about a link
seems like a simple concept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:32pm

A fool and his money are soon parted. Only a fool would buy it, and he deserves what he gets.

If it doesn't break any rules, Apple has no place to pull the app - if they didn't want it there, they shouldn't have let it pass muster in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iPhone Expert, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:35pm

Ultimate iPhone App for the super wealthy
"I am Rich" is a good app, but the most exclusive is not something the public can afford, or even know about.

[NOTE]
--------------------------------------
In order to read the text of this post, you must have a TechDirt Gold Account

To subscribe to TechDirt Gold, click here.
--------------------------------------

[Continued]
..and that feature is helpful for your pilot or entourage of chauffeurs so they can rest. Remember, the app is available as long as the 1928 House of Adet Seward Bordeaux is too, so order it soon.

In summary:
The power and ease-of-use of the application is incredible. Seeing a tornado come out of nowhere was indescribable, and having silk and gold-encrusted toilet tissue delivered by Jimmy Cater is something every wealthy person should experience at least once. This application can literally do anything. With great power comes great responsibility. Use this app with care.

Editor's Rating:
The XYZ iPhone application:
***** (Five Stars) Highly Recommend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GeneralEmergency, 6 Aug 2008 @ 3:21pm
  
  Re: Ultimate iPhone App for the super wealthy
  +5 (Funny)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher Smith, 6 Aug 2008 @ 10:39pm
  
  Re: Ultimate iPhone App for the super wealthy
  I'm wondering how long it's going to take to see the next edition of Colbert Platinum...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rodney, 6 Aug 2008 @ 2:42pm

WTF?
Someone will buy this and that's cool. Build it and they will come.

I remember when my EX wife used to wonder why I would EVER play a stupid game like Duke Nukem. Who are YOU to say what is stupid or not? I build it, you buy it, sold.

God Bless America! haha ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 6 Aug 2008 @ 3:28pm

It's taken down
It appears this app has already been taken down. Looks like Apple wants to protect their image, go figure :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh noes, 6 Aug 2008 @ 4:39pm

They took down the app! The Applecalypse is upon us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucretious, 6 Aug 2008 @ 6:30pm

wow, socialist behavior from Apple users.....who woulda thought?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sachin, 6 Aug 2008 @ 7:03pm

Lets just have a sense of humor about it...
http://tinyurl.com/6ppvpm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 6 Aug 2008 @ 7:04pm

good one!
Regulating this? I thought this was a capitalist nation, for better or worse.

This does prove one thing... people really are getting stupider and stupider as time goes on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joseph Weisenthal, 6 Aug 2008 @ 7:33pm

Ur?
"And do these pro-regulation bloggers really want to have Apple assume the role of a Soviet ministry - designating appropriate prices for applications?"

Hyperbole much?

I think the point is this: In light of the fact that Apple has a screening policy, it's kind of ridiculous that Apple greenlighted this particular app. If the company had an open platform, then obviously there'd be no justification from blocking this app.

If you want to argue that Apple shouldn't use a screening method for its app store -- a reasonable argument perhaps -- then that's a separate story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin Donovan, 6 Aug 2008 @ 9:03pm
  
  Re: Ur?
  Yes, Apple has a screening policy. Yes, I'd rather a truly open platform. But even given the current status quo, there are certain rules. Steve Jobs, in his keynote, explained the reasons Apps would be banned. Those included "malicious, pornographic, a bandwidth hog, illegal or a threat to privacy."
  
  I Am Rich is none of those. A closed system needs clear rules and Apple cannot be creating them on the fly - developers will flee.
  
  And even if they made a rule that would ban I Am Rich, what would it be? You cannot charge more than we say? That is price control and we certainly don't want that.
  
  (And forgive the hyperbole; I felt it was fitting.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joseph Weisenthal, 7 Aug 2008 @ 3:17am
    
    Re: Re: Ur?
    There's another hurdle that the company's been clear about: quality. The screening process isn't merely to screen for banned categories, it's to weed out bad apps. A glowing orb that costs $1000 bucks? Yeah, apple is right in calling that a bad app.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2008 @ 7:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ur?
      I disagree. Good app, bad price. So, are we supposed to have Apple tell us how much an app should sell for, or just trust the market to vote with their clicks?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike (profile), 7 Aug 2008 @ 9:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ur?
      There's another hurdle that the company's been clear about: quality. The screening process isn't merely to screen for banned categories, it's to weed out bad apps. A glowing orb that costs $1000 bucks? Yeah, apple is right in calling that a bad app.
      
      You think Apple should be making that decision? What's wrong with individuals deciding for themselves whether the price is appropriate or not?
      
      What is the *quality* problem here anyway? The product works just fine, and it should be up to the buyers to decide if it's worth buying or not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2008 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ur?
        Yeah, and who gets to field the calls from consumers complaining about this app? Apple, not the smuck who wrote this. As long as Apple has a monetary and reputation stake in the applications sold on through its store front it has the right to ban applications it feels are not in keeping with the quality it wants to deliver to its customers. This is no different then Sears pulling a $999.99 screwdriver off the shelf. The store owner gets to decide what wares go on its shelves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truthseeker, 7 Aug 2008 @ 7:17am

Is it possible iPhones are for idiots
Is it possible that a direct correlation exists between ones intellegence and the ownership of an iphone. That is to say, are stupider people more likely to own iPhones (I know both Paris Hilton and Rush Limbaugh own several and they are pretty stupid people)? I think if this direct connection actually does exist (between stupidity and iPhone ownership), then this application makes perfect sense.

Since the iPhones main market appears to be "attack-jocks", "rappers" and "celeb-utaunts", this application would appear to be exactly the type of thing that will accentuate thier solid gold bentleys and other extravengant "idiot bait" merchandise they love to flaunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truthseeker, 7 Aug 2008 @ 7:19am

I call it iBling
enough said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bri (profile), 7 Aug 2008 @ 10:19am

Don't make me laugh
Apple was never into free markets so don't start whining about it now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sandoz76, 11 Aug 2008 @ 12:46pm

I'm trying to figure out what kind of phone you all are using. The new iphones cost as much as some lame Verizon LG "chocolate" without the contract. Rich idiots have been plunking way to much down for phones that don't do half as much. If you want to bag on apple, pick a real reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kelly williams, 11 May 2009 @ 1:49pm

unlocked brand new Apple iphone 3g 16gb
Product Description for Apple Phone 3G HSDPA Quadband Unlocked Phone (White 16GB)
Apple phone 3G gives you fast access to the Internet and email over your cellular network. And 3G makes it easier to multitask: When

connected via 3G, you can surf the web even while you?re on a call.

Key Points

SIM Free Mobile Phone
Quad Band
2 Mega Pixel Camera
HSDPA
Wi Fi
GPS
Touchscreen

Technical Description

Display Size:320 x 480 pixels, 3.5 inches
Display Type:Touchscreen, 16M colors
Video:yes (8gb / 16gb)
Flash:no
Ringtone:Polyphonic, MP3
Memory Type: N/A Original Cingular IP
Internal Memory:8 G /16 GB
GPRS:yes
HDSPA:yes
Edge:yes
3 G:HSDPA 850 / 1900 / 2100 MHz
Wi-Fi:yes
Blue Tooth:yes
A2DP:no
USB:yes
Messaging:SMS, Email
Radio:no
Games:yes
Speaker:yes
Operating System:Mac OS X v 10.4.10
Touch Screeen:yes
Standby Time:Up to 300 hours
Talk Time:Up to 10 hours
band:Quadband GSM 850/900/1800/1900

Package Contents

1 Apple IPhone 3G Phone (16g 8g Black & white)
1 Battery
1 Charger
1 Stereo Handsfree
1 Cleaning Cloth
1 User’s Guide

Discounts available for any of our products, order now.

CONTACT DETAILS:-sunny_shop08@hotmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]