There has to be some middle ground between Apple's style and Google's style. Apple overdoes their control a bit, and Google doesn't exercise enough control. You shouldn't have to make an anonymous reviewer think about puppies to get your app passed. I'd just like an app market where Apps are guaranteed to not be privacy violators, trojans, or capable of damaging my hardware.
"There has to be some middle ground between Apple's style and Google's style."
Isn't Apple's approach actually the middle ground? Traditionally when you bought software in a store you were looking at quite a bit more curation then Apple does now.
"You shouldn't have to make an anonymous reviewer think about puppies to get your app passed."
You don't. I guess it could help if your app was in a gray area but I don't see it helping that much.
"I'd just like an app market where Apps are guaranteed to not be privacy violators, trojans, or capable of damaging my hardware."
While we're going all wishlist let's go scammer free and get an astroturf resistant rating system with much higher discoverability.
I'm specifically saying middle ground between Apple and Google's styles, though. Traditional software publishing is obsolete and we don't really need to worry about how that worked.
As for thinking about puppies, my point is that the 'human factor' in Apple's review process seems to count for too much. It should be cut and dry: it is legal, does what it claims and does nothing behind your back, and has no trojans.
