As I have mentioned more times than I care to admit, I love my iPhone. It's pretty great. And, over the last two months, I have become even more of an iPhone evangelist thanks to Apple's iPhone SDK, which allows approved third party developers to develop amazing new applications for the iPhone and iPod Touch platforms.

While the vast majority of the applications available on the App Store have absolutely no purpose and merit no attention, other than as examples of how not to program, a few gems make the true potential of the iPhone as a computing platform clear. Super Monkey Ball, for one, takes advantage of the iPhone's accelerometer and relatively powerful 3D graphics capabilities in an amazing way. I'm also a big fan of OmniFocus on the iPhone (and the desktop, for that matter).

But, understandably, Apple has taken measures to ensure the iPhone platform remains safe and malice free for its millions of users all over the world. Unfortunately, these measures will keep some truly fantastic ideas from ever making it into the hands of consumers.

Just today, news broke that a fantastic application will never make it onto users' iPhones. As someone who likes podcasts and owns an iPhone, I have often wondered why I can't download podcasts straight from the cloud to my phone. After all, the iPhone can connect to the Internet via WiFi and over the cellular network. Yet, I have no choice but to download podcasts on my Mac and sync them down to the phone. Apparently, someone else had the same qualm. And that someone developed an application to permit iPhone and iPod Touch users to download and play podcasts right on their devices.

Sadly, however, no one — save perhaps for the developer — will have the opportunity to use the application. Because Apple rejected it.

I respect Apple's right to exercise control over the applications distributed on the iPhone platform. They have the best intentions. Nevertheless, Apple should adjust its policy so far as approving applications goes.

Apple should reject applications only when absolutely necessary. Only, that is to say, if the application violates their agreements with AT&T (e.g., a music store application that used the cellular network to pull music from the cloud) or poses a significant threat to users.

Other applications should, regardless of Apple's opinion of the applications utility or other subjective traits, receive a free pass. Apple has an uncanny ability to predict what will and will not work. They are not, however, as intelligent as the market, which has already exerted a profound influence on the way the App Store works. Many developers have responded to customers' complaints about high prices by lowering the prices of their applications, sometimes significantly.

Apple may suffer from time to time by taking this path, when some idiotic journalist links an equally idiotic application to Apple in error. But Apple stands to gain so much more. By allowing risky, unproven ideas onto the platform, Apple could easily find themselves with the platform running the next great, breakthrough piece of software. That, in turn makes the iPhone an even more compelling product for consumers.

By removing subjective discrimination from the application approval process, everyone wins. Developers have more opportunity to reap the fruits of their labor. Consumers have a richer experience. And Apple hooks even more people with their thoughtfully designed, brilliantly engineered products.