Just want to point out that while children might not use you’re iPhone, one does use my wife’s and used my iPod Touch as much as we do. Know, she’s not placing phone calls on it, she got the same dozen-and-a-half or so apps just for her on both devices.

Granted, children aren’t the direct target for the iPhone, but they are a secondary users of it. Or as is the case for my iPod touch, it’s primarily for her. While I have all my apps on it, we have Playhouse Mickey, Caillou, and other TV shows as well as Mary Poppins, Dumbo and other G-rated movies for trips in the car. Not to mention the many alphabet, math and reading games for use in the restaurant while we’re waiting for food or when mom and dad want to have a few minutes of quiet time after she’s finished her meal.

My wife and I are the filter of what she views, hears, and accesses as much as humanly possible. The world being what it is, we can’t control everything. Having said that, we appreciate Apple taking extra measures to help filter content. It’s not their responsibility, but it sure helps. For those who don’t see the benefit of a company taking children into consideration, well then you simply must not have children. While there’s nothing wrong with not having children, just don’t be so quick to slam Apple for their efforts.

http://ikeepass.de/bl0g/?p=101&cpage=3#comment-1905

This application (iKeepass) is another “victim” of Apple’s review process, it was submitted eight months ago(!!) and they’re still rejecting it again and again.

App Store is not just for iPhone, its for iPod touch too, And a huge number of children and teenagers use iPod touch as their music player and nowadays as portable gaming device.

“avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone”.

If you have ever downloaded any app from Android market, you will know what Apple mean by degrading core experience. Most of the Android apps just dont work as advertised. Its frustrating even to try free apps from Android market. Or even if Android market supports returns for paid apps within 24 hours. The kind of crappy apps Android market has, has definitely degraded my core experience of using my Android phone.

For example, Verizon land line charges $8 per month which
it costs them 1 cent to provision it. I bet it is even higher for
cell phone.

This is what is at stake when google voice comes calling with their free
product tied to advertisement.

Google’s transfer of user’s iPhone Addressbook to its own servers is a privacy violation.

Google should redesign Google App so that is is more like Comcast’s App. Comcast’s App is readily available. It does much of what Google App does. But it complements rather than replaces the core services of the iPhone. It has a different interface as well.

AdamC: GV is already available on Blackberries on the Verizon network, no need to wait to see. And it’s available on Android, but that’s no surprise at all.

ms: TechCrunch discussed the contacts issue in more detail here:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/the-simple-truth-whats-really-going-on-with-apple-google-att-and-the-fcc/

In short, GV doesn’t upload your contacts, but Apple will do it from iTunes if you check a box, so Apple’s claim doesn’t appear to hold water.

If Apple were really concerned about apps violating the privacy of users’ contacts database, I have to wonder why there isn’t an “Allow/Don’t Allow” alert for accessing it, like there is for accessing your current location.

If true, I do not like it and, based upon your comments about privacy above, I suspect you do not either.