Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Sep 2008 07:50 UTC
Apple The situation regarding Apple's App Store for the iPhone is getting weirder by the day. Several applications have been rejected from the App Store based on seemingly dubious claims such as duplication of functionality (even though they didn't duplicate anything), or alikeness to default applications. Two such cases made headline news over the past few days; Podcaster and MailWrangler. The developers of these applications openly protested against these rejections, and apparently, Apple doesn't really like that. Apple now reiterates that rejections fall under the NDA, prohibiting developers from speaking up about rejections.
Order by: Score:
Apple vs Google
by evangs on Wed 24th Sep 2008 08:03 UTC
evangs
Member since:
2005-07-07

The difference in approach between the Google and Apple when it comes to their mobile platforms is blatantly obvious. Google encourages anybody to write for their Android platform while Apple tries to maintain an iron grip on what runs on their iPhone.

Both approaches have their merit of course. Should be interesting to see how the users react to these two approaches. While I'm a Mac user, I'm rooting for Google on this one.

Reply Score: 16

RE: Apple vs Google
by Googol on Wed 24th Sep 2008 08:10 UTC in reply to "Apple vs Google"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

I hope Apple meets their history here - would serve them right. So, Apple phone, please go the way of Firewire, which co-coincidently is the way of the dodo, too... Apple really learns its lessons harder than a retarded child and you guys are no help in buying their crap ;)

Reply Score: 20

RE[2]: Apple vs Google
by Kroc on Wed 24th Sep 2008 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple vs Google"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I get your sentiment; but I don't understand the Firewire dig?
I love Firewire. It freakin' works. USB hard disks are painfully, woefully slow. Firewire is a really good standard, and it only didn't catch on [in the PC world] because of cheapo PC manufacturers not wanting to pay the licencing cost.

My 2003, 40GB 3G Firewire iPod transfers songs 2~4x faster than my 2006 5G USB2 iPod.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Apple vs Google
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 24th Sep 2008 09:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple vs Google"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Sorta agreed. Without firewire, my job would involve an awful lot of waiting (firewire has some pretty slick special affordances for kernel debugging and is hundreds of times faster than the RS-232 Null Modem alternative).

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Apple vs Google
by 3rdalbum on Wed 24th Sep 2008 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple vs Google"
3rdalbum Member since:
2008-05-26

Not really - heaps of PC motherboards have Firewire. Both my computers (a cheapie and an expensive one) have Firewire ports.

Firewire is a bit of a white elephant. For ordinary consumer-level devices there's USB. For ultra-fast external hard disks there's eSATA. Firewire is the domain of Mini-DV-camera owners, kernel programmers, and black hats.

Typical Apple BTW - encouraging a standard with a showstopper security problem.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Apple vs Google
by tsuraan on Wed 24th Sep 2008 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple vs Google"
tsuraan Member since:
2006-01-16

Are you under the impression that eSATA doesn't have DMA? Seriously, DMA is the only way to have high-performance data transfers on any computer architecture, which is why any bus designed for performance supports it. DMA is a security hole, definitely, but until most PCs start shipping with IOMMUs that's just something you have to live with. Physical access to a machine typically leads to all sorts of possible exploits...

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Apple vs Google
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 24th Sep 2008 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple vs Google"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Firewire is a really good standard, and it only didn't catch on [in the PC world] because of cheapo PC manufacturers not wanting to pay the licencing cost.


Cheapo PCs... like the MacBook Air?

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Apple vs Google
by Kroc on Wed 24th Sep 2008 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple vs Google"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Oh get a grip. You sound as if you weren't born before the MacBook Air. Try going back to 1995 please.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Apple vs Google
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 24th Sep 2008 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple vs Google"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

You sound as if you weren't born before the MacBook Air.


I sound like someone who is less than a year old? And you know this based all of the other 1 year-olds you've met online?

Try going back to 1995 please.


So I'm an infant... with a time machine that will allow me to travel 13 years into the past?

This is what passes for an insult amongst Mac users?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple vs Google
by walnut tree on Thu 25th Sep 2008 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple vs Google"
walnut tree Member since:
2005-11-15

Firewire is a really good standard, and it only didn't catch on [in the PC world] because of cheapo PC manufacturers not wanting to pay the licencing cost.


Well, there are two ways to spin this story - one is to say that PC manufacturers were too cheap to pay the royalty fees that Apple wanted. The other is to say that Apple set their royalty price too high for component manufacturers (who were already operating under tight margins). See these stories for more details

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19990115S0019

http://news.com.com/2100-1040_3-220209.html

Intel offered component makers the USB technology royalty-free which no doubt helped USB gain ascendancy despite its initial inferiority in terms of speed.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Apple vs Google
by tyrione on Wed 24th Sep 2008 10:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple vs Google"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I hope Apple meets their history here - would serve them right. So, Apple phone, please go the way of Firewire, which co-coincidently is the way of the dodo, too... Apple really learns its lessons harder than a retarded child and you guys are no help in buying their crap ;)


Somehow, somewhere, in your mind a highspeed serial transport that is taking over the auto, aerospace and other fields that already has the DV camcorder industry and it's commercial breathren is not successful because your freakin' external drives, music players and cheap digital cameras don't come with Firewire?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Apple vs Google
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 24th Sep 2008 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple vs Google"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Firewire is so successful that even Apple has been phasing it out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Apple vs Google
by Kroc on Wed 24th Sep 2008 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple vs Google"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Yup, phasing it out by including Firewire 800 ports on MacBook Pros, 2x800 & 2x400 ports on Mac Pros - and developing the Firewire 3200 standard to boot.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Apple vs Google
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 25th Sep 2008 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple vs Google"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Yup, phasing it out by including Firewire 800 ports


...which almost no one uses, because Apple didn't have the sense to keep the cables / connectors compatible.

on MacBook Pros, 2x800 & 2x400 ports on Mac Pros - and developing the Firewire 3200 standard to boot.


So where can I find a MacBook Air with Firewire? Or an iPod? Apple's not one of them "cheapo PC manufacturers not wanting to pay the licencing cost" now, are they?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple vs Google
by kaiwai on Wed 24th Sep 2008 08:22 UTC in reply to "Apple vs Google"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Both approaches have their merit of course. Should be interesting to see how the users react to these two approaches. While I'm a Mac user, I'm rooting for Google on this one.


At the same time I hardly think that the majority need to have their phone restricted because there are a small number of idiots out there who load their phone with dodgy garbage.

If there are troublesome phones that are being used as 'spam bots' because some idiot has loaded their phone with crap - boot them off the network! when I was at an ISP and we had idiots infected with virus's, we would boot them off the network - when they wanted to know why they couldn't log in we would tell them that they were sending virus's out from their computer and needed to install updates and update their virus checker.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple vs Google
by mickrussom on Thu 25th Sep 2008 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple vs Google"
mickrussom Member since:
2006-05-13

This is the same guy who loves DRM, Securepath and Microsoft's totalitarian autocratic authoritarian government-colluding monopolistic oligarchical collectivist illegal anti-individual anti-libertarian thug-like strong arm tactics.

Seems you need to brush up on what individual liberty is and re-read 1984 a for more times. You more or less parrot for the oligarchs while telling everyone how stupid they are.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Apple vs Google
by kaiwai on Fri 26th Sep 2008 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple vs Google"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

This is the same guy who loves DRM, Securepath and Microsoft's totalitarian autocratic authoritarian government-colluding monopolistic oligarchical collectivist illegal anti-individual anti-libertarian thug-like strong arm tactics.


On what evidence do you make that accusation? you do realise that I wasn't defending DRM or SecurePath - if you are going to debate the issues, stick to the facts and stop trying to resort to lies to back up your case. Lying only makes you look like hypocrites.

Seems you need to brush up on what individual liberty is and re-read 1984 a for more times. You more or less parrot for the oligarchs while telling everyone how stupid they are.


Pardon, again, the law is the law. You raging against the machine makes people who advocate civil liberties look like a pack of jack asses. DRM is a mess, it is a nightmare, but if you want people to back you - stop resorting to half truths.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple vs Google
by theTSF on Wed 24th Sep 2008 10:43 UTC in reply to "Apple vs Google"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

The part I disagree with Apples lockdown is a lot of their reasons arn't for technical problems more the just don't want them.
Java, Flash, Other Web Browsers. Anything that competes with what is currently there. However there is about 100 flashlight applications (Aka a white screen)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple vs Google vs Nokia
by jabbotts on Wed 24th Sep 2008 12:36 UTC in reply to "Apple vs Google"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'm more curious to see how the Maemo platform continues to develop. Apple was never an option for me with it's closed OS and non-removable batteries. Google, well, they're realy open on the software side but I just don't want that much of my life blindly handed over too there databases. There is nothing compelling from the Maemo competitors right now.

I just hope Nokia and the Maemo developer community can stand up to the Cult of Mac consumers and freight train that is the Google brand.

Reply Score: 5

First rule
by zdzichu on Wed 24th Sep 2008 08:09 UTC
zdzichu
Member since:
2006-11-07

The first rule of rejections: you don't talk about rejections?

Apple AppStore becomes more and more hostile, won't the scare developers?

Reply Score: 12

RE: First rule
by _txf_ on Wed 24th Sep 2008 08:58 UTC in reply to "First rule"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I would say the majority of of iphone developers have either been pretty spineless or just don't care.

The fact that everything so far related to programming for the iphone has been nda and developers just suck it up and continue developing (despite complaining about it) says a lot.

However as android starts ramping up, the iphone will bleed lots of developers if this state remains the same...

Reply Score: 5

v RE: First rule
by tyrione on Wed 24th Sep 2008 10:43 UTC in reply to "First rule"
RE[2]: First rule
by Soulbender on Wed 24th Sep 2008 11:00 UTC in reply to "RE: First rule"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's not about wether it was there or not, the questions is wether it's even valid.
Just because a clause is in a contract or license and you have agreed to it doesn't mean it's necessary valid.
What's the natural connection between licensing an SDK and not being able to talk about why your app was rejected from a store entirely unrelated to the SDK?
This is a stretch at best (perhaps even a violation of free speech) and a great example of how companies tries to avoid bad publicity by any means by putting insanely restricting clauses in contracts. Anyone else remember Oracle's license that stated that a review of their product could not be negative?

Reply Score: 6

Valid contract in place?
by cjcoats on Wed 24th Sep 2008 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: First rule"
cjcoats Member since:
2006-04-16

IANAL, but the first principle about contracts is that there must be an exchange. In the requests for Apple-store marketing of iPhone products, where is the exchange: what was given back to the developer in response to his request to have a product sold by the Apple store? Nothing! So there is no valid contract at all, hence Apple's NDA claim has no legal standing. Or so it looks to me... and that should be plain to anyone who has had the slightest exposure to either business-school or law.

Reply Score: 3

Apple fanboys, express yourselves
by Lobotomik on Wed 24th Sep 2008 08:31 UTC
Lobotomik
Member since:
2006-01-03

Lets see how you can spin this (again) into Apple's greater greatness and Apple critic's lower lowness. I'm sure you can.

Reply Score: 10

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Someone call me?

There's no spinning. This is a thoroughly disgusting act of contempt for the hand that feeds them.

Apple are painting the lines such that developers have to literally gamble with their livelihood. You can spend months developing an app, with the hope of making a rapid and sizable income by being part of the App Store crowd; but you could be rejected and all your time and effort be wasted, and you not even be allowed to talk about it.

Nobody is going to bother producing a highly polished app in that case. Apple have made it clear that only shovelware and large corporate back-handers (like EA) are welcome on the App Store.

If the lack of features didn't put me off the iPhone already, this certainly seals the deal.

Reply Score: 13

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Lets see how you can spin this (again) into Apple's greater greatness and Apple critic's lower lowness. I'm sure you can.


I'm sure MacDailyNews and RoughlyDrafted (also known as RDF extension and amplification stations Alfa and Beta) will weigh in with some story on how this is all a conspiracy against Apple.

Reply Score: 10

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

That was an unnecessary and empty comment. Why don't you let those sites speak for themselves? it would be slander otherwise.

In fact, since you've invited them, maybe they could write some disparaging things about OSNews to return the favour.

Reply Score: 1

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Well .. when Thom is right, he is right (or will be.)

Those sites are most extreme fanboy sites there are ( for anything. )

Just one example:

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/18564/

Reply Score: 9

Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

That was an unnecessary and empty comment. Why don't you let those sites speak for themselves? it would be slander otherwise.


You don't know what slander is, do you?

Reply Score: 4

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"Verb [ trans. ]
make false and damaging statements about (someone)"

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Verb [ trans. ]
make false and damaging statements about (someone)"


Keyword: false.

Stating the bloody obvious can never be slander. It's no secret to anyone that MDN and RD are run by the worst kind of Apple fanatic there is.

Reply Score: 3

Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

"Verb [ trans. ]
make false and damaging statements about (someone)"


Libel and slander are legal terms and not the same. Get a better dictionary.

Reply Score: 2

Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

Lets see how you can spin this (again) into Apple's greater greatness and Apple critic's lower lowness. I'm sure you can.


Here you go:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=91301

Reply Score: 4

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

In the 10.2 days I was trying to build a font browser that worked like iTunes. Apple beat me to the punch with font book.app I could at that point have ranted and pitched a bitch or moved on to the next project. It was just something that I was doing for fun. SO that is what a GROWN MAN does. Besides most of my good ideas came from the Aaron Hillegas book.


And did Apple prevent from releasing your application? Or did the prevent end users from running it?

For a self-proclaimed "GROWN MAN," you're having a bit of trouble grasping the concept of analogy.

Reply Score: 2

What a Company
by moondevil on Wed 24th Sep 2008 09:13 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

I still like Apple, somehow, but I shudder just to think how the computing landscape would be if they had a bigger market quota.

A Microsoft like company with Apple NDA's policies, no thanks!

Reply Score: 8

RE: What a Company - no need to shudder
by jabbotts on Wed 24th Sep 2008 16:29 UTC in reply to "What a Company"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

With the current market, there would still be BSDs, Linux based distros and a handful of other OS to choose from. Apple can only control those who choose it's products.

If Apple and MS had swapped market share percentages back in the day, I think Unix like platforms would still have developed to provide an alternative choice. After all, osX is a fork of a Unix like platform that came before it.

I'd shudder for those who think they have only the choice of two brand names. The rest of us would be just fine either way.

Reply Score: 2

Naughty Apple
by REM2000 on Wed 24th Sep 2008 09:15 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

I think apple is being a little over protective over the apps being allowed on the app store.

The idea is a solid one, ensure that only good apps are allowed onto the store.

However apps which crash have been allowed onto the store, apps which are in competition with the supplied iPhone apps are being rejected for no reason (podcast app).

NDA's on rejections is getting a little harsh now, and as many have said this is not going to give apple a very good image.

However it's worth bearing in mind that the app store is in it's infantsy, so hopefully apple will grow and learn from it's mistakes, as will competitors.

However the iPhone is still a very innovative product and has brought a breath of fresh air to the whole mobile phone platform. We now have Android so things are looking really good to the consumer and business consumer.

I still love my iPhone it is the first phone which does everything i need incredibly well, surfing the net, receiving emails, sms, pictures and a variety of other things are done so well with the iPhone.

On a side note it is slightly annoying that anyone wishing to defend or produce an argument for apple is instantly labeled a fanboi. Where comments even pre-empt this by suggesting that if anyone has anything good to say about apple then instantly you must be a blind fanboi. There is a reason why a lot of people use Apple products, as there is windows and linux products, it comes down to that they work the best for us. As ive said i use an iPhone and obsolutley love it, my mum has an iphone and loves it also, in fact everyone i know (real life, not on the internet) loves their iphone. I use Mac OSX because it works well with me at home, i use Windows at work as it works best.

Im all up for constructive discussion's but without the name calling and with the chance for some people to provide a for argument, not just an against.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Naughty Apple - "which are in competition"
by jabbotts on Wed 24th Sep 2008 16:32 UTC in reply to "Naughty Apple"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I think that's one big reason rigth there. It's not rejected for no reason, it's rejected for competitive reasons. I'd much rather Apple allow competitive programs provided they met the quality standards required. It would push Apple to maintain truly competitive products of there own. Either the end user gets some great third party program or they get a better Apple program; end user wins both ways.

Reply Score: 4

ND Agreement?
by elmimmo on Wed 24th Sep 2008 09:28 UTC
elmimmo
Member since:
2005-09-17

I wonder where is the A of NDA, i.e. agreement, from your side, in a letter you could or could not receive. Does the original SDK NDA allow for such an extension without modification?

Reply Score: 5

Not legiment
by Karitku on Wed 24th Sep 2008 10:41 UTC
Karitku
Member since:
2006-01-12

Atleast far as I know putting ND clause in e-mail without otherside approval doesn't make it legiment. Example: Lawyer sends e-mail to me and demands something, in the end of message lawyer puts ND clause. Now I can freely post that message since I never agreed on that NDA. Atleast in Finland, dunno America. Does Apple demand NDA when you post them applications?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not legiment
by lelutin on Wed 24th Sep 2008 13:03 UTC in reply to "Not legiment"
lelutin Member since:
2008-07-17

If your app is rejected, then you have no more contract with the apple store for this app. am I mistaken?
If so, the NDA is not legitimate because NDAs apply in the context of a contract.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not legiment
by rrife on Wed 24th Sep 2008 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Not legiment"
rrife Member since:
2006-12-12

Your "contract" was with the development of the application via the SDK and whether or not it is allowed on the App Store is irrelevant.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not legiment
by rrife on Wed 24th Sep 2008 13:10 UTC in reply to "Not legiment"
rrife Member since:
2006-12-12

I'm pretty sure the first agreement you have to acknowledge and agree to states that you'll follow any rules they make up after the fact.

Reply Score: 1

Or...
by leo_ on Wed 24th Sep 2008 12:01 UTC
leo_
Member since:
2007-09-04

>Sadly, it appears that you broke some invisible rule, or you duplicated default functionality even though you didn't, or you inadvertently came up with an idea Apple was already working on for a future iPhone revision - and your application is rejected. And you're not allowed to talk about it.

Or, this way: you have developped an interesting concept that Apple could integrate into the iPhone to increase its value... So they can simply refuse your application, develop their new application, and include it, saying "now you can do that with your iPhone", and you can't say a word about it !
You've been stolen, you wasted time and money, and all, I mean *all* the benefit goes to Apple.
Actually they already did that with several MacOSX components, but now this is going even further...
But that's ok, it's not like if it was Microsoft, it's Apple... So we shouldn't say anything about that, and stick to the "Vista sucks" and "Microsoft is evil" instead ;)

Question: how do I quote text ? seems like bbcode doesn't work, and the FAQ of the site doesn't say anything about that..

Edited 2008-09-24 12:04 UTC

Reply Score: 8

Who's going to gamble on iPhone???
by rrife on Wed 24th Sep 2008 13:09 UTC
rrife
Member since:
2006-12-12

What company/person would knowingly make a gamble and invest money and time in the iPhone platform not knowing whether or not Apple will allow them to sell their products. Outside of game developers, this will almost certainly kill off lots of 3rd party productivity applications. Hopefully somebody can make a real competitor to the iPhone (sorry, but the first android phone kind of sucks).

Reply Score: 1

Bad News, Good News
by fretinator on Wed 24th Sep 2008 13:38 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

The Bad News --- Apple is increasing its death-grip on power, growing ever more paranoid and power hungry. The iron fist is squeezing tightly.

The Good News --- They are doing it to save the empire from the rebel alliance.

Reply Score: 4

Surrender Your Rights ....
by dindin on Wed 24th Sep 2008 13:49 UTC
dindin
Member since:
2006-03-29

If you want to develop for the iPhone, Please sign on the dotted line to surrender your rights. Thank you.

Reply Score: 6

continue
by collinm on Wed 24th Sep 2008 14:12 UTC
collinm
Member since:
2005-07-15

developper, continue to program for iphone... it like you

Reply Score: 1

Apples New Mantra
by MightyPenguin on Wed 24th Sep 2008 14:55 UTC
MightyPenguin
Member since:
2005-11-18

Do All Evil

Reply Score: 6

RE: Apples New Mantra
by sbergman27 on Wed 24th Sep 2008 14:59 UTC in reply to "Apples New Mantra"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I object to your use of the term "new".

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Apples New Mantra
by google_ninja on Wed 24th Sep 2008 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Apples New Mantra"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Once upon a time, they were an awesome company

http://folklore.org/index.py

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Apples New Mantra
by sbergman27 on Wed 24th Sep 2008 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apples New Mantra"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Once upon a time, they were an awesome company

Once upon a time, I had an Apple II+.

That photo from back when they were awesome looks like something out of the Ottawa Linux Symposium or something. Coincidence?

Edited 2008-09-24 17:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

this is frustrating
by Morgan on Wed 24th Sep 2008 15:47 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

Ok, I've been an Apple user off and on for a few years now, and my workflow is centered around the OS X way of doing things. I tried the iPhone back in March, and it was great until the 2.0 software came out and caused stability issues, so I sold it and I'm now on a BlackBerry Pearl which is working out well.

During this time I also parted with my beloved eMac and built what I intended to be a Hackintosh. However, I am appalled at Apple's recent treatment of the iPhone developers and I'm not so sure I want to use their OS anymore, especially in a quasi-legal capacity; seeing how they treat good-intentioned users, I doubt I'd fare any better if caught in their radar.

Slackware runs exceptionally well on the new hardware, and given time I may be able to approach the same level of productivity as on the Mac. I'll miss the ease of use, the tight integration (Linux is sadly lacking in this) and most of all the great apps. I won't miss the UNIX backend as this is present in Slack, nor will I miss the few proprietary traps inherent in a closed OS. Besides, I'll save the cost of buying a Leopard license which is always nice.

Reply Score: 5

From a developer point of view
by Guillaume Maillard on Wed 24th Sep 2008 16:18 UTC
Guillaume Maillard
Member since:
2007-02-08

As a developer publishing on appstore, Apple's policy is IMHO not a real issue because the 'moderation' is not a surprise. We are concious that our apps could be banned, that's the game from day 1.
Refused apps are about 0.1% (3 / 3000 apps?).

The biggest problem is how to find or how to promote appplications, in our case, a quick and dirty screensaver-like we did is our best seller, but our game (and IMHO not a bad one, called 'White Letters' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY0VNiPI9uA ) is cursed.

The behaviour of the 'in the news' and 'staff favorites' sections is a bigger issue, it impacts all the small developer teams (maybe 80% of the developers).

Reply Score: 1

RE: From a developer point of view
by Morgan on Wed 24th Sep 2008 17:09 UTC in reply to "From a developer point of view"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

It may only be three out of thousands of apps, but the issue is why those apps were pulled, combined with the speech suppressing "NDA". I really like Apple's products but their business practices of late have left a bad taste in my mouth. They are treading dangerous ground here, and as a user I'm disgusted by their anticonsumer attitude.

Reply Score: 3

Guillaume Maillard Member since:
2007-02-08

I agree with you, it's a not the right attitude from Apple, but it's far from being a major issue for developers. Developers care about the number of apps they sell and how they could finish their app ASAP (and without bugs too).

99.9% of the developers are not concerned by a kind of censorship and are aware of the risk
99.9% of the users are very happy with Spore and iBeer ;)
and half of user's comments are about price (0.99$ is always too much...)

That's life.

Reply Score: 1

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm right there with you on users' perceptions of "high priced" apps. I guarantee you at least a few of these same users who balk at paying $1 for a functional, useful iPhone app were paying $2 or more for a single animated .GIF file from Jamster on their previous phone.

Now that I've had a BlackBerry for a little while, I've found that there are very few free or even cheap (under $10) apps worth having on that platform. This stands in stark contrast to my past experience with the iPhone and PalmOS based phones. Given that the BlackBerry uses Java apps almost exclusively, I don't see why there aren't more good ports. I guess the advantage to this is that there is no central clearing-house for apps; RIM isn't going to delete my third party address book app next time I sync just because it's better than the inbuilt version.

Reply Score: 2

This is utter BS....
by kryogenix on Wed 24th Sep 2008 19:34 UTC
kryogenix
Member since:
2008-01-06

The people defending Apple's actions here need to have their head examined.

If MS disallowed a competing product to Pocket Word on Windows CE/Windows Mobile/Whatever people would be calling for their heads on pitchforks even though they CLEARLY have no monopoly in the mobile space. ZOMGWTFBBQ ANTITRUST ANTITRUST ANTITRUST ARRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!

*BTW WinCE really does suck monkey nuts and is quite a joke, I've owned several CE PDA's and they all ended up running NetBSD/hpcmips or embedded Linux eventually*

I'll be damned if I wasted hours of my life banging my head against the wall to learn YET ANOTHER development environment to be treated like writing software for their platform is a privilege and I better toe the party line or ELSE. THEN I spend months writing my cool little app only to have them say it might remotely compete with an Apple app on the phone and it will never see the light of day.

I find this behavior disgusting and really shows how much Apple cares about the people who keep them in business. If it weren't for the handful of people willing to develop software for Apple products, Apple would be irrelevant. It also shows how much love they have for consumers who may like the other app better than the Apple offering.

In most people's eyes, bundled software=crapware. Who cares if an app duplicates the functionality of a built-in app? What if it does the job....*gasp*....BETTER?! Oh wait, the fanboys will come in saying no one could POSSIBLY be more talented than divinely-inspired Apple developers even though most of the initial heavy lifting developing OS X was done in the 80's by talented NeXT developers when Apple struggled and failed to bring a modern competitive OS to market during the 90's.

I love MacOS X and I loved NeXTstep. I will continue to use MacOS X (both on my PPC macs and generic PC's) and will happily develop software for it as it is fairly open to a degree. But this BS with the iPhone is appalling.

I will wholeheartedly recommend to all of my students I teach in my IT courses and anyone I know to buy an HTC phone based on Android and just ignore the iPhone altogether if they value their rights and freedom.

I think they have some neat toys but as a company, Apple is twice as evil as Microsoft and they really don't care about the people who help make them great. Including their customers.

Jobs can suck it.

Reply Score: 4

Business as usual
by deathshadow on Wed 24th Sep 2008 21:04 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Hardly suprising behavior from Apple. When it comes to third party ANYTHING or user side innovation, their motto has always been their way or the highway. The app store and restricting users to only using programs from it is a wet dream for corporate and I'd not put it past them to implement something similar for the Mac if they thought they could get away with it.

Their monopolistic business practices are what continues to keep them squarely in the category of 'also ran' when it comes to computers, and very soon the iPhone looks to be headed down that same road. The only reason the iPod doesn't face these issues is it's too primitive a device to do a whole lot with. (not that it stops many people from saying **** apple and installing Rockbox on them)

... and people complain about Microsoft.

Edited 2008-09-24 21:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by macUser
by macUser on Wed 24th Sep 2008 23:01 UTC
macUser
Member since:
2006-12-15

Has anyone bothered to get to the bottom of this or is this just a big game of telephone?

http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/app_store_rejections

DF has some interesting side notes on this after getting responses from developers on the issue...

EDIT: Post not intended as an apple defense in any way, just want to know what's really going on...

Edited 2008-09-24 23:03 UTC

Reply Score: 1

I said it before.....
by Phloptical on Wed 24th Sep 2008 23:18 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

and I'll say it again. Only a few business decisions made 20+ years ago separates us from calling Apple the Evil Empire, instead of Microsoft.

Way to go Apple, once again showing the world how "progressive" your ethics and business practices are.

Reply Score: 2

so if the app was free
by brain dead hippie on Wed 24th Sep 2008 23:34 UTC
brain dead hippie
Member since:
2007-02-09

I am guessing that they were asking for $$$ for the app, but if the app was for free would it have been still rejected ... i guess the developers don't know at this point.
-BDH

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Thu 25th Sep 2008 09:22 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

The ignorance over Firewire in this discussion is astounding. It must be PC users knocking it since they don't have a Firewire "culture". Firewire is freaking everywhere and it's one of the best available buses.

A drobo on Firewire-800 just smokes. If you PC users think that just because you don't see a lot of devices around that Firewire is dead, you're quite wrong, because you're not looking over the fence where the grass is greener.

Reply Score: 2

wolfe
Member since:
2007-10-26

Apple is ruining their chances for good developers to write applications on the iPhone. Not many good programmers are going to want to write an application if Apple is going to play this communist business tactic.

Reply Score: 2