This is a tempest in a teapot. Obviously the same content could be placed on a Web page containing an incarnation of Google Maps, with an updated overlay containing publicly available data about air strikes. Then iPod/iDevice owners could simply launch a browser and visit the site for the latest data.
It's obvious from the article graphic that the app is using Google Maps to display its data, so hosting it in a Web page would produce the same outcome, even the same appearance.
Indeed, given the move to so-called cloud computing and the public nature of the data being displayed, that's a more obvious way to accomplish the program's role -- put it on the Web and publish the page's address.
The creator stated push notifications as one of the main points of the application. Rather than being about getting raw information, this app is more about general awareness.
An issue easily solved by the user pressing "Refresh" on a Web page, or the provider designing a page that refreshes itself at 30-second intervals, and avoiding this entire brouhaha.
If the app was something other than an obvious and trivial Google Maps incarnation, this might be different, and I am in no way excusing Apple's paternalistic behavior, but it isn't as though the content is being suppressed by their decision.
It's better overall if this is a Web page -- it lifts the restriction of being an iOS app, it opens the source to anyone with a working browser. It's a more robust solution to what seems to be a non-problem.
I still think you're missing the point. The point was someone would be going about their normal day, and intermittently receive notifications of a disturbing event from the phone in their pocket. A webpage breaks this, as users have to seek out the information.
Again, this app is more a creative endeavor than a tool. The author is thinking of ways to make people more aware of something, forcing them to think about it during their day, not trying to give them raw information. (Granted, one must still decide they want to be forced to think about this during their day, as they have to install the app and allow push notifications.)
I'm also not making any judgements on Apple or the app itself. I'm just trying to explain what I think the creators' intentions are, and why a webpage is not suited for those intentions.
What's more, this incident likely created more interest than they would have ever had -had this not been rejected. Not saying rejection was their anticipated motive, but in retrospect, it did give the data visibility. So, in that sense, it is a likely positive outcome for their purpose.
Agreed -- and not unlike filmmakers who tune their film during editing to achieve an R rating, or better, who create some pre-release publicity around what rating the film should have.
It's obvious from the article graphic that the app is using Google Maps to display its data, so hosting it in a Web page would produce the same outcome, even the same appearance.
Indeed, given the move to so-called cloud computing and the public nature of the data being displayed, that's a more obvious way to accomplish the program's role -- put it on the Web and publish the page's address.