AAPL Stock: 124.24 ( + 0.86 )

Printed from

Apple reverses decision on Eucalyptus app

updated 10:50 am EDT, Mon May 25, 2009

Eucalyptus app wins

Apple has once again overturned one of its decisions on approving an iPhone app, the developer of Eucalyptus says. The software is an e-book reader with an emphasis on physicality, mimicking the experience of turning a real page in addition to providing more print-like fonts. The fonts can be resized through pinching commands, which preserve proper formatting.

Eucalyptus was initially rejected however as a result of access to Project Gutenberg, a service which offers free books in the public domain, such as titles by Charles Dickens and the Baron d'Holbach. Among the other books available is the Kama Sutra, which an Apple employee identified as having "inappropriate sexual content." The work is centuries old, though, and one of India's most famous pieces of religious writing.

Apple has changed its mind on a number of "offensive" apps in recent weeks, for instance approving the submissions of Tweetie 1.3 and NIN Access 1.0.3. Still banned is Me So Holy, an app which let users insert their own photo into a painting of Jesus. It is believed that Apple may use future ratings on apps to permit the sale of controversial titles, without engendering developer frustration.

by MacNN Staff





  1. LouZer

    Joined: Dec 1969


    gotta love it

    So even Apple has no clue what they should and shouldn't allow in an app. Maybe if they specified these rules, wrote them down, so both developer and reviewer knew what to look for, there wouldn't be so many stupid decisions being made.

    Man, I'm glad we don't have to get apps approved for use on Macs. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to get anything on your computer...

  1. iphonerulez

    Joined: Dec 1969


    I said they would likely

    change their decision and they did. What's the big deal for a couple of days wait. It's not going to hurt the developer to any degree and it sure shouldn't concern the myriad bloggers that have nothing else to do but gripe and speculate. These people just want to blow a small issue out of proportion. I don't care how many rules Apple sets up, there will always be some issues. Who said Apple has to be perfect. Even if their 99% correct, people will complain. Is there really any urgency to have the Kama Sutra on the iPhone. Hardly. If there are other apps that allow it, then they should use that instead. What does Apple gain by rejecting apps? Nothing. I'm sure Apple is just reviewing it with the legal dept. or setting up some other precedent.

    We'll see how well the other app stores do but it's not like anyone is going to care. RIM and Nokia are companies outside of America and will have different standards, but let's see how Microsoft will be able to handle it. If anyone wanted to get the Kama Sutra on their mobile devices that badly, they could just buy the actual book and scan it in.

  1. QualleyIV

    Joined: Dec 1969


    re: gotta love it

    Man, I'm glad we don't have to get apps approved for use
    >on Macs. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to get anything
    >on your computer...

    I really hope that's sarcasm. If not, it just goes to show what an idiot you are as you obviously missed the fact that there are over 10,000 applications available for the iPhone...

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Re: I said they...

    change their decision and they did. What's the big deal for a couple of days wait. It's not going to hurt the developer to any degree ...

    That's assuming the developer is told "We're going to reevaluate your app" or "We need to spend more time talking about it". Which they weren't.

  1. QualleyIV

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Re: Re: I said they...

    There goes testudo again, making up things s/he has ABSOLUTELY no idea about...

  1. Woode

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Last Living TV Censors

    They banned it because of the Kama Sutra? Sheesh. I'm getting the feeling Apple hired the last living TV censors from the fifties or something. If they can not allow this app because it allows access to objectionable material, they should also remove Safari because it allows access to the same.(Oh, QualleyIV, LouZer's statement was hyperbole, not sarcasm, and was pretty obviously that. Look it up then you'll understand.)

  1. elroth

    Joined: Dec 1969


    not clear

    It's really not clear why Apple initially refused the app, and why it's now approved. The story mentions Project Gutenberg - I'd like to hear more about that. Is the app using the work of Project Gutenberg and monetizing it?

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Seagate Wireless

It seems like no matter how much internal storage is included today's mobile devices, we, as users, will always find a way to fill th ...

Brother HL-L8250CDN Color Laser Printer

When it comes to selecting a printer, the process is not exactly something most people put a lot of thought into. Printers are often t ...

Moshi iVisor AG and XT for iPad Air 2

Have you ever tried to put in a screen protector that relies on static to cling to the screen? How many bubbles and wrinkles does it h ...


Most Commented