If you want to look at it as a dichotomy, sure, but can't we agree that there's a continuum here? Syncing is certainly a "core" feature. Can anyone be surprised when Apple protects this as something they want to implement?
I think that as an app developer, you have to consider this continuum when you set out to develop an app. Many "utility" apps would be considered closer to the core. Apps like a medical x-ray viewer are further from the core. That's not to say you shouldn't develop a to-do app, but you should A) plan your product ramp in a way that you recover your investment quickly, and B) not be surprised when Apple announces a simple, integrated to-do solution.
One could carry the same analogy to level apps, compass apps, music streaming apps (particularly given the iPod and iCloud), etc.
More relevant to this case, is that Apple rejected an app that (based on the evidence presented) met every knowable requirement for being included in the app store and which had a high probability of generating substantial revenue. Then Apple appropriated the name and icon.
All this makes it hard to consider Apple's actions in this matter to be ethical in any meaningful sense of the term.
The icon was a mix of the Mac's wifi and sync icons. For all we know Apple didn't want their icons used by someone else, that's a legit reason that's been used elsewhere. Also judging by the comments on the TUAW post of this topic, the app was low quality, and the support was even worse. Apple don't like that, rightly.
At the time it was submitted, Apple was not purging "low quality" apps - and as the noted in the Register story, Apple thought enough of its implementation to call the developer and request his CV. This would be more consistent with Apple's engineers being impressed by the implementation rather than it would be consistent with its poor quality being obvious.
Furthermore, given your premise that Apple had something in the works but could not create an implementation which was good enough, it is clearly plausible that Apple's technical review of the app provided a roadmap for improving their implementation to the point where it was good enough.
Finally, it is highly unlikely for poor support to have been a reason for rejecting the application because it can rarely if ever be determined for new apps. The infringing icon argument is not backed up by the fact that Apple did not mention it in their rejection and has not taken legal action in the year it has been in use for the jailbroken versions.
I will be the first to recognize that the plausibility of one line of speculation regarding the course of Apple's actions is no more evidence of an actual state of affairs than the plausibility of other lines of speculation within the discussion are evidence that those events indeed occurred.
> One could carry the same analogy to level apps, compass apps, music streaming apps (particularly given the iPod and iCloud), etc
Yes, because it is a continuum, the argument extends to every type of application, including the outliers I mentioned in my own example. The important point is that some are farther from "core" functionality than others. The closer you move to the core, the more risk you assume.
In my view, a music streaming app on iOS faces a lot of risk. It's Apple's platform. They don't enjoy a monopoly, so they should be free to set the rules of entry. I've strongly disagreed with their policies in the past [1], but my views don't change the facts. Apple's platform, Apple's rules.
This WiFi sync app is particularly high risk, because it's "plumbing". Syncing is a low-level function that reasonable person would expect to be provided by a system service. Apple recognizes that this is the reasonable view and denied the original app for their own reasons. Many of which we cannot know, but we can reason. Being such a "low-level" service, Apple wants to preserve the user experience. This is very typical Apple behavior. I'm not surprised at all that they would deny the app.
The "ethical" question is a much more interesting one. It raises the question, "What are the boundaries of governing your own platform when users have the ability to leave at any time?" I think Apple bumps up against these boundaries all the time. They have a pretty long history of pushing the limits with their T&Cs, then easing back. Is that ethical? I'm not sure.
Its obvious that Apple may want many useful apps on their platform. For many other categories, this hasn't stood in the way of approving an app that conforms to standards.
The factor here is (obviously) that Apple is quashing competition. Working in a walled garden, this is a fact of life. But its frustrating each time it happens.
