Yet another small controversy is brewing in the iPhone’s App Store. This time it has nothing to do with sex. Rather, Apple has removed all Wi-Fi scanning “stumbler” apps — such as WiFi-Where, WiFiFoFum and yFy Network Finder. These apps allow you to locate free Wi-Fi networks that are in your local area, and have been in the App Store for months (in some cases, years).

Why were they removed? The developer of WiFi-Where posted that, according to Apple, his app was removed because “…There are no published APIs that provide the ability to manipulate the wireless connection or the show level of information regarding the wireless connection as demonstrated in the application….” Or, as stated elsewhere, he was using a “private framework.”

Why is Apple doing this? It remains unclear. The License Agreement that all iPhone app developers must sign does prohibit use of private frameworks. But either there aren’t any private frameworks in use here (despite Apple’s vague contention to the contrary) or Apple has been making a long-standing exception for this category of software. So why change the game now? There may be a good reason (an article in The Register suggests it may be do to changes coming in the iPad). But, if so, Apple is not saying. Beyond its letter to affected developers, Apple’s only comment has been “No comment.”

I tweeted about this the other day, suggesting that I have had “enough” of Apple’s heavy-handed App Store tactics. A couple of people replied (paraphrasing here): “The developers knew that their apps were breaking the rules. They shouldn’t complain.”

I have seen this type of response many times before. I believe it is misguided, especially in this instance but also in general. Here’s why:

• Apple refuses to have a clearly spelled out policy. If Apple wanted to allow Wi-Fi stumbler apps in the App Store despite a general ban on “private frameworks,” and later wanted to reverse its decision, that is its prerogative. But it should at least explain what guidelines it was using in each case. Otherwise, how is a developer to know what to do? As the developer of WiFiWhere noted:

“This is very frustrating. WifiTrak and WiFiFoFum have been on the App Store since its very early days, and for the longest time no other apps appeared. It took months of trying and re-trying before WiFi-Where was approved. Starting in November 2009, we started seeing these new apps appear. We took this as an indication that maybe Apple had decided to allow WiFi apps, and began re-submitting WiFi-Where until it was approved in January 2010.”

Developers should not have to guess as to what Apple is thinking here. And, if Apple does accept your app, it should generally be taken as tacit evidence that Apple thinks what you are doing is okay — especially if your app is similar in function to numerous other accepted apps that have been in the Store for a long time.

To place the entire onus of responsibility for this situation on developers is wrong. It lets Apple off the hook far too easily.

• The larger issue for me has to do, not with developers, but the iPhone owners. Just because Apple has a clause in its license agreement, and even if the clause is legal (which has been questioned in certain instances), does not make it a “good” rule. Developers may have to abide by the rule, but that does not mean users (and even developers) are not justified to complain about this.

There may be good reasons for Apple to generally restrict the use of “private frameworks.” But that doesn’t mean it is always wise to do so. I am especially concerned when doing so means that worthwhile apps are kept from the Store — apps that over a million users appear to want.

As the developer of yFy Network Finder noted: “Every application that could scan for WiFi has been banned by Apple, after the fact, including applications that have been on the store a long time and have nearly 1 million users. Apple doesn’t want their platform to have this functionality.”

What is the harm in letting people have these apps, rule or no rule? In my view, Apple has not made a defensible case here. If enforcing a rule is preventing helpful apps from making it into the Store, then maybe it is time to change the rule.

As an analogy, I could have a rule that says: “Before you can post a comment to any articles on this site, you must demonstrate that you can speak Finnish.” I could enforce this rule. I could attempt to ban anyone who doesn’t speak Finnish from posting. If a comment from a non-Finnish speaker somehow slipped by me, I could later remove it. I could do all these things.

But that does not mean it would be wise for me to do so. It doesn’t mean it is good policy. It doesn’t mean that people coming to this site, even just to read the articles, should not complain about the rule.

The situation with the App Store is even worse than with my analogy. If you objected to my site rule, you could easily decide to stop visiting this site, without any real consequence. If you have an iPhone, you can’t choose to stop visiting the App Store. If you are developer who wants to make an app for the iPhone, you can’t bypass the App Store. There are no alternatives.

Jailbreaking is a possibility, but not a great one — especially as Apple continues its efforts to blockade jailbreaking with every iPhone OS upgrade or new iPhone model.

Buying a Google Android phone (or other competitor) instead of an iPhone is a possibility — but not a great one either. I prefer the iPhone. I just want it to be better. There are people who say: “If you don’t like what Apple is doing with the iPhone, don’t buy one. Otherwise, shut up.” My reply is that this is like saying “America. Love it or leave it.”

This isn’t an either-or situation. I can “love” my iPhone and still complain about Apple’s policies. From Day 1, I have been uncomfortable with the fact that the only way to get apps on my iPhone is through the App Store. I don’t believe this is good policy. I have always been a champion of a more open system. As I watch these recent developments, my conviction on this matter only grows stronger.

P.S. I remain well aware that opinions are varied and sharply divided on this debate. For yet another example of just how varied, check out the reader comments to this CrunchGear article. Whatever your opinion on the matter may be, I’m sure you’ll find at least one posting here that agrees with you! For the record, I agree with those who say Apple should be able to decide what it allows in its App Store — even if I object to its decisions. I don’t agree that Apple should be allowed to completely determine what I put on my iPhone.

Last week, Apple added a new feature for MobileMe and iPhone users: When accessing MobileMe on an iPhone, it now shows “a link to use Find My iPhone from a friend’s iPhone/iPod touch if you need to locate your lost iPhone/iPod on a map, display a message, play a sound, or remotely lock or wipe it.” Previously, you could only access these Find My iPhone options via a Mac or PC.

This new addition came just in the nick of time for my wife (Naomi). Yesterday, we went to see a movie. When we got up to leave, Naomi discovered that her iPhone was missing from her purse. We had been to several places that evening. Her iPhone could have been at any one of them.

Did we need to retrace our steps, possibly taking an hour or more, in a search for her iPhone? Nope. All we needed to do was whip out my iPhone and use the new Find My iPhone option. We did. And we discovered, with relief, that her iPhone had somehow been left back at our house.

Postscript: When we returned home, we still could not locate the phone. Because Naomi had turned off her iPhone’s sound, we could not call her phone to help find it. So we used another Find My iPhone feature: “Play a sound on your iPhone, even if it is in silent mode.” That did it. iPhone found. Story over. Happy ending.

Thanks Apple, for helping save our day!

As reported by TechCrunch, Apple yesterday reversed its policies regarding previously accepted iPhone apps that contain sexual content. Numerous such apps, some having been in the Store for months, were removed. Developers received a brief email stating:

“We have recently received numerous complaints from our customers about this type of content, and have changed our guidelines appropriately. We have decided to remove any overtly sexual content from the App Store, which includes your application.”

The list of now-banned apps includes many with only the mildest form of sexual content (certainly no nudity or anything that might be considered pornographic). On this list were eleven apps from Chris Pavlou, author of the the Audio Match game, whose saga to get the app into the App Store I previously covered. Making matters worse, Apple appears inconsistent in its enforcement of this new policy; several apps with sexual content remain in the Store.

Reader comments appended to the TechCrunch article epitomize the common split of opinions in this debate:

“It still does bother me that Apple has complete control over what can be put on their platforms. It might be THEIR platform, but it’s MY phone; I should be able to put whatever the hell I want on it. If they don’t want this kind of stuff in the app store then they have to make an alternative medium for distributing apps available.”

“If they started restricting what websites Safari can browse then that’ll be a big deal. Keeping porn out of their App Store is akin to keeping skin mags out of their brick and mortars.”

As regular readers of my writing surely know, my sympathies lean toward those critical of Apple’s position. In that regard, I note:

• While Apple is certainly entitled to change its mind about its policies, it continues to do so in a way that too often seems unpredictable and capricious. This is not good.

• Why should customer complaints about the sexual content completely determine Apple’s policy here (assuming Apple’s statement can be believed)? What about the likely vast majority of customers who had no complaints? Or the ones who would have preferred that the apps remain in the Store? Don’t their opinions also matter? If I (and enough others) complained that we wanted the apps to return, would Apple do so? I doubt it.

• Apple has a 17+ parental controls Restrictions option. If a parent is concerned about their children accessing these apps, they can enforce this option. Apple could even set up the Store so that restricted apps are in a separate area where you need 17+ access to even see them. Instead, Apple treats all of us as if we are children and Apple is the parent.

I am not saying there should be no limits. But the now-removed apps were fairly mild in content (or they never would have made it into the App Store in the first place). Often, the apps had to be revised several times (as I detail in my above-cited article) before eventually getting an initial acceptance. And yet now they have been summarily removed.

• Reversing a long-standing policy, especially one that forces out previously accepted apps, is especially difficult to navigate successfully. Such changes tend to cause all sorts of havoc for developers. Imagine the time and money that someone like Mr. Pavlou invested in his iPhone apps. At this point, it is now all for naught, as all of his apps are gone from the Store. If you were a developer thinking of doing anything the least bit edgy, would you want to risk it now — without any way of knowing in advance whether or not your app will be accepted or whether your app might be accepted and then later removed? Perhaps. But I believe it is a lot less likely. It’s not just about sexual content. This has happened in other areas as well, with apps that have no sexual content at all. I believe Apple is hurting innovation here.

• The big debate remains: To what extent should Apple be able to maintain 100% control over what apps you can install on your iPhone? Where, if anywhere, are limits on what control Apple has? There are no easy answers here. I clearly have my own bias. If I want Chris Pavlou’s apps on my iPhone (or any of dozens of other prohibited apps, many of which that have no sexual content, that I would like), I want to be able to do so. If not from the App Store, than some other way. To me, the fact that it may be “Apple’s iPhone” in some sense should not matter, any more than it should matter that the computer on my desk is “Apple’s Mac Pro.”

This is a debate that will continue to burn. Unfortunately, this latest incident is just another in a seemingly unending string where Apple throws fuel on the fire.