Numerous Web sites are reporting that Apple is removing protective screen film products from its Apple Stores. An initial posting from iLounge states: “Apple has banned protective screen film from its retail and online stores, a policy that will affect both cases and individual film packages beginning in May.”

A few quick reactions to this news:

• It’s not a “ban”

Apple is choosing to remove these products from its Stores. This is not a ban any more than if Apple decided it no longer wanted to carry Canon printers in its Stores. In such a case, you wouldn’t say that Canon had been “banned” from the Apple Store (at least I wouldn’t).

Apple is entitled to select what products it wishes to offer, especially in the limited space of its retail stores. As the “mother ship” of all Apple-related products, one could argue that there should be a moral obligation for Apple to be appear “fair and reasonable” to third-parties in its decisions. But ultimately it is for Apple to decide.

• There may be a good reason for Apple’s decision

These products are notoriously difficult to “install.” Frequently, you wind up with air bubbles or dust specks under the film. This, in turn, could lead to numerous dissatisfied customers who return the product, causing unwanted and unneeded headaches for Apple.

Added to this is that the “oleophobic” coating on Apple’s latest products make such films less needed (although not entirely without value). It’s a toss-up. Personally, I no longer use these films. But I know others who swear by them.

• There may be a bad reason for Apple’s decision

These are among the most popular of iPhone and iPod accessories. Many people coming to Apple Stores will want to buy these products. Apple is losing sales here. Even if they don’t want to encourage people to use them, this doesn’t mean Apple needs to stop offering the products altogether.

There is speculation that this decision somehow relates to the iPad and Apple wanting to actively discourage the use of such films on the new device. Perhaps. Regardless, as is now becoming far-too-typical, Apple is taking a heavy-handed approach where perhaps a lighter touch would have worked better.

• Either way, it’s not comparable to Apple’s App Store policies

In prior entries here at Slanted Viewpoint (and elsewhere), I have strongly argued against Apple’s decisions regarding removing or “banning” certain apps from the App Store. On the surface, it may seem that this latest move regarding protective films falls into the same category. It doesn’t.

Although the Apple Store may be a significant source of revenue for these products, manufacturers are free to offer the products elsewhere — which they will certainly do. You’ll be able to get them at Target, Best Buy, whatever — as well as at Amazon and an assortment of other online sites.

The same is not true for the App Store. If your app is not permitted in the App Store, there is no other place to go. That is why I continue to assert that special rules should apply to the App Store (or at least to how apps may be installed on iPhone OS devices) and why my reactions to Apple’s decisions regarding the App Store are much harsher than in this case of protective films.

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!