Slashdot Mirror
Apple Rejects iPhone App As Competitive To iTunes
DaveyJJ sends news of yet another rejection of an iPhone app by Apple, with perhaps a chilling twist for potential developers of productivity or utility apps. John Gruber of Daring Fireball writes: "Let's be clear: forbidding 'duplication of functionality' is forbidding competition. The point of competition is to do the same thing, but better." Paul Kafasis (co-founder of Rogue Amoeba Software) makes the point that this action by Apple will scare talented developers away from the iPhone platform. And Dave Weiner argues that the iPhone isn't a "platform" at all: "The idea that it's a platform should mean no individual or company has the power to turn you off."
``Paul Kafasis (co-founder of Rogue Amoeba Software) makes the point that this action by Apple will scare talented developers away from the iPhone platform.''
I hope it will, but I doubt it. I hope the talented developers will favor open platforms over closed ones, help create and improve open platforms, and help making the world more open.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The last comment clearly has it right. The iPhone is not a platform, it's Apple's toy that you're allowed to use. Is anybody really surprised?
You're never going to be allowed to use alternative hardware, obviously, and with the subscription status and deals with phone companies, you're going to be seriously restricted when it comes to software. How long did it take them to allow any third party programs on their phone?
So, hopefully iPhone devs do something about it. Ars's John Siracusa proposes boycotting the iPhone category at the Apple Design Awards. Makes sense to me; like he says, it'll cause a blemish on Apple's reputation without damaging the pocketbooks of those devs who have invested in this platform. (And for Chrissake, yes it's a platform, just a badly restricted one at the moment.)
OMG! Wau!
This reminds me, in one single way (and only that way; cue replies that ignore this line) of religious people who want to use law to force their beliefs on others -- such people do not believe in the power of their own message. When a company goes out of its way to forbid competition, they are saying that they don't believe their own sanctioned offerings are good enough to compete. Otherwise they would welcome competition and allow it to lead to a superior experience for their customers.
For the knee-jerk types out there (I can see it now: "but its theirs and they can do that if they want so nyaa!"), I will point out that whether Apple has the right to behave in this way is an entirely separate question; my post here is assuming that they do.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I hope this trend ends soon. The screening of apps started not long ago and I think was a result of the amount of crap that Apple allowed to sell on the store. Between the numerous "flash light" apps and the infamous "I am Rich" app a lot of people were annoyed at the signal to noise ratio. Then there was "Netshare" which was pulled because it violated ATTs terms of service (luckily I got my copy early.)
My guess is that Apple responded to all this by making it some middle manager's responsibility to come up with a set of ground rules to "improve" the situation. He/she/the committe or whatever obviously went way overboard. As a potential iPhone developer it gives me the chills that you could spend months on a project just to have it rejected for a rediculous reason like the one here.
I have stated multiple times on Slashdot and have multiple times be called a troll...
THIS is EXACTLY the same behavior Apple exhibited with the Apple and their token program!
Ah, but this is so old news (over 20 years ago) that people tend to have forgotten!
Now Apple is all good and dandy! BS!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Apple has created an embedded device and is choosing to tightly control the available applications for it. If you think this is a bad thing, don't develop for it and don't buy an iphone, it's that simple. Things like the gameboy and xbox live tightly control the available content, and I don't see nearly as much bitching about them as I do about the iphone. People jailbreak/develop home brew apps for the devices and don't expect to be embraced by the hardware creators. If you want to develop for an open platform develop for the PC or another device which actually wants and maintains good relationships with independent developers.
To ensure that developers keep using their platform?
To make sure that the Latest and Greatest apps are developed, first and foremost, for the iPhone and not for the Android or another platform?
Tell me again why this phone is so cool?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Here's what's going to happen. It'll happen because it always happens.
Apple gets caught with its pants down. Everyone condemns Apple while its PR teams huddle together to find a way to deal with the issue. Finally, Apple announces that the issue was to do with an oversight caused by a miscommunication caused by an unrelated issue that actually was a case of the application not being approved yet, not that it was really rejected.
People outside of Apple circles will laugh, but then be flamed endlessly for laughing to the point that we no longer want to talk about it any more.
Happened when Apple was using cheap third world labour to build iPods. Happened when Apple stopped releasing source code to Darwin. And it's going to happen again. Apple will, as with those issues, completely reverse itself, while making it sound like it was its policy all along.
So I'm not even going to bother. Here's the thing though: this is Apple's mentality. They will try to lock down iPhone if they can. They do in many areas already, and they will continue to do so. I can swap out a SIM in an iPhone and tether my laptop to a real cellphone instead, and it'll work, but Apple bans applications that allows you to use iPhone for this. I can install any application I want on my Motorola V635 - which isn't even something most people would describe as a "smartphone" but is, thanks to J2ME, completely programmable and has oodles of storage space thanks to microSD - but I can only install "approved" applications on an "smart" iPhone.
So yes, Apple will reverse itself on this issue, and all of you criticizing it now will be criticized as lying Apple haters who misrepresented what Apple was doing. But iPhone will always be a locked down platform. And as long as it is, there will be many of us who will just steer clear of it.
And if what you want is a locked down platform, don't start whining when you hear some app developer has been screwed over because of it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
By the way, I've cut and paste what I found to be relevant to this topic, two paragraphs of the Terms and Conditions of the iPhone SDK download Agreement and the first paragraph of the iPhone Application Submission Agreement.
SDK Terms and Conditions
1. Relationship With Apple Inc. ("Apple"). You understand and agree by becoming a Registered iPhone Developer, no legal partnership or agency relationship is created between you and Apple. Neither you nor Apple is a partner, an agent or has any authority to bind the other. You agree not to represent otherwise. You also certify that you are of the legal age of majority in the jurisdiction in which you reside (at least 18 years of age in many countries) and you represent that you are legally permitted to become a Registered iPhone Developer. This Agreement is void where prohibited by law, and the right to become a Registered iPhone Developer is not granted in such jurisdictions.
9. Apple Independent Development. Nothing in this Agreement will impair Apple's right to develop, acquire, license, market, promote or distribute products, software or technologies that perform the same or similar functions as, or otherwise compete with any other products, software or technologies that you may develop, produce, market, or distribute. In the absence of a separate written agreement to the contrary, Apple will be free to use any information, suggestions or recommendations you provide to Apple for any purpose, subject to any applicable patents or copyrights.
iPhone App Submission Agreement
1. iPhone GTM Programs. The web applications you submit will be considered for inclusion in Apple's iPhone product pages, ADC web pages, Apple eNews programs and other related Apple developer and marketing web pages and programs (collectively "iPhone GTM Programs"). You understand and agree that Apple has complete discretion over whether to include your web applications in any iPhone GTM Program. You also understand and agree that Apple reserves the right, at its complete discretion and without prior notice to you, to remove your web applications from any and/or all iPhone GTM Programs. Should Apple decide to include your web application in one or more iPhone GTM Programs, you agree that Apple shall have the right, and you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive right and license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, reference, link to, and distribute in connection with such iPhone GTM Programs, your web application URL and all related information and materials (including without limitation images, trademarks, and logos) you provide with your submission to Apple (collectively, the "Submitted Materials").
End Result
Apple covered themselves very well on this topic and basically, if you are going to develop an app for the iPhone, you should be well aware of the risks and they are fairly, clearly stated.
Come on in, the water's fine in the Openmoko pool! A truly free platform, and anything compiled for Linux on an ARM CPU will run (assuming the dependencies are also present).
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
It is just one guy who is being over cautious and denying the apps. There's a few instances of this person at Apple denying perfectly legitimate apps. Normally they will go through and review the decision, and allow it into their store.
You can. The problem is that if you want to make money, selling iPhone apps is the way to go, not selling Symbian Apps. At this time there are far more Symbian smartphones out there than iPhones. But for the most part owners don't buy any software that doesn't come with the device.
Apple have made it so easy to purchase applications that lots of people do.
Oh, and I spend years writing Symbian software. The iPhone SDK and tools are about 100 times nicer and faster to work with.
It is up to customer. If they have rejected to buy iPhone because of how Apple handles it, things could change.
Are they happily buying and lining up? Oh, some percentage of them hacks their iPhone, it doesn't matter to Apple at all. In fact, Apple would be happier since they have all void their warranty ;)
I still don't get the point of Android and I am a Symbian/J2ME user. Google should explain why they don't put their force behind Symbian and J2ME instead.
Where is the integrity in a developer knowingly creating an application to do something a product already does? You mean to tell me that in the marketplace of ideas that developers are so bereft of creativity that they cannot think of something unique?
You're either not serious, or out of your mind.
Are you seriously trying to say that a developer should never develop an application that does something another application already does? Even if it does that something much better than the original?
In that case, we don't need Firefox or Opera because we have Safari; we don't need Adium because we have iChat; we don't need VLC because we have Quicktime.
Screw competition! Right?
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Fuck 'em. There's competition licking at their heals, and short of the semi-retarded Apple fanbois, folks will go to the competition, and leave the mental midgets that dream of giving blow Jobs, Apple will be fucked.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It can also eat away at their bottom line just as easily.
Its a business risk they don't feel is worth doing.
I think that's inherently part of the problem. When you're an upstart company or at least new to a particular market (especially in a market full of established, entrenched competitors), you're more willing to take a risk like that because the very business itself is a risk that could easily fail. When your brand becomes well-known and you become more and more established, there is also a tendency to become more and more conservative because you like your current position and are interested in keeping it. I'm sure I am greatly oversimplifying things but I think this is largely responsible for the general perception that "it was great until it got really popular; now it sucks". I think what we're seeing here is something in-between, as Apple is not a Microsoft-type juggernaut but they're certainly not unknown either.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I'm a fan of Apple hardware. I've got an iPod Touch. I'd never use the app in question because I'm happy with the way iTunes handles my podcasts.
But I don't see why Apple should care about this app. I assumed the Slashdot summary was way off base, which more often than not is the case nowadays - but it's pretty accurate in this instance. So why is Apple doing this? As far as I know they don't make money off of podcasts - heck, most of them are free. So why should they care? Are they worried that, somehow, this will be used to move other files onto the iPod/iPhone? I just can't figure it out (and yeah, I'm discounting with prejudice the conspiracy theories that seem to be rampant here today - those don't really stand up to any sort of analysis either).
It just doesn't make sense.
#DeleteChrome
From a business standpoint, why should they allow it?
1) Make iPhone more useful
2) Sell more iPhones
3) Profit
"And Dave Weiner argues that the iPhone isn't a "platform" at all: "The idea that it's a platform should mean no individual or company has the power to turn you off.""
I disagree. All of the modern game consoles are clearly platforms, yet you must have approval in order to develop and sell software for them. You have to submit your game to MS, Sony or Nintendo and they have to approve it. They can (and will) refuse authoring and certification of your game if you fail to meet their criteria. Granted, I don't think they've ever refused a game due to competition (only technical issues) but they can still refuse. The iPhone is a de facto platform. Whining about how it isn't open enough won't change that.
This is Apple after all, they've been locking people into developing software *their* way for as long as I can remember. Apple stopped being about openness a long time ago.
"They told me it was impossible. I replied with maniacal laughter." http://www.mydailyrant.com/
... there's freedom, for developers, and users as well:
"Our license gives developers and users freedom to cosmetically customize their device or radically remix it; change the wallpaper or rebuild the entire house! It grants them the freedom, for example, to transform a phone into a medical device or point of sale device or the freedom to simply install their own favourite software. Beyond freeing the software on our devices we have also released our CAD files under Creative Commons. And at Linux world 2008, we announced the release of the schematics for our products."
http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page
The court system doesn't decide facts. They are used as an attempt to discover facts. Every company that was found to be a monopoly by the courts was already a monopoly before the courts weighted in.
Seriously, you're being fairly silly. While it's probably completely within Apple's rights to do this, it's a total shoot-themselves-in-the-foot move. The computer world is full of competing software, and for every Apple written application out there, there's a big pile of competing apps available. More often then not, the Apple apps are be able to stand successfully on their own. Apple doesn't need to lock out competitors to be successful, they just need to keep making quality software, and that plus their brand name pretty much guarantees them success.
But even if I took your silly "developers should know better than to make a competing application" idea as valid, try to think ahead a little. What if I write a completely original application, and then six months later Apple comes out with their own version. Do they shut down my competing app then? Is my user base then unable to get updates? What if some other third-party developer pays Apple for the right to be the only notepad available? Will Apple kick all the other notepad apps out of the store?
All those questions are valid concerns for developers. A lot of people are motivated to spend the time making things because they're interested in sharing them with others, whether for profit or for free. If they aren't convinced that they'll be allowed to share those apps, then they'll go make their software for a different platform. I don't know why Apple would want that.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
You overlook something critical. Apple does not have a monopoly. Rules are different for monopolies, pure and simple.
You're also comparing a phone to an operating system, which is a stretch. I can install Firefox and VNC on OSX any time I want.
Hello, antitrust lawsuit. Welcome to Microsoft's shoes, Apple.
I don't think the iPhone is popular enough for that yet. They aren't leveraging a monopoly, because they don't have one.
I think it's much more likely that we will see antitrust action about the lock-in between newer iPods and iTunes (Only iTunes can put music on those, because a special hash has to be generated). Apple is very dominant in the mp3-player market, and they are using that to dominate the market for media player software -- and to promote the iTunes store.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Agreed. Feature wise, the iPhone is probably the best phone on the market now.
Freedom wise? It's not the worst, but pretty close. The phone can only be purchased locked from certain providers. Your limited with what you can do with it. Developers have to follow a strict platform toolset, and applications can ONLY be downloaded (legitimately: jailbreaking phones doesn't count for non-slashdot readers) through iTunes.
Take most Windows Mobile phones on the other hand, and you have all the developer toys, loads of applications, and the ability to upgrade (in some cases even to the truly open Android as it matures)
By the way, this is not the first publicized instance of Apple banning an iPhone app (ie:that rich-person ruby screensaver), just the first with a legitimate purpose (that we know of).
Right from day 1, Bill Gates knows that it's 3rd party developers who make his OS successful. That's why Ballmer goes around shouting "developers, developers".
They should allow it, and sell zunes in the apple store.
The competition honesty isn't up to scratch yet. The vast majority people care about how well the device works and how the interact with it, not the business policies of the manufacturer and carrier (God knows that no carrier would be in business if that was the case). I'd absolutely love to see more genuine competition in this area, as the iPhone certainly has a number of shortcomings. But most of the companies are just trying to hop on the touchscreen bandwagon and completely miss the point. My iPhone experience has been for the most part very positive (AT&T much less so, but again, that's true of all carriers) - it's got some small things that bother me, but for the most part nothing major (that isn't specific to AT&T).
Now I've got the original model, and the 3G model seems to be having quite a number of other things causing problems so I've been relatively unaffected. I've experienced the slow backups and some unstable apps (some are better than others, to say the least, though on the whole the 1.x jailbreak apps were somewhat more solid for whatever technical reason) which has been mostly addressed by the most recent firmware. My two issues that remain are a lack of CalDAV calendar support directly on the device (the desktop iCal supports it, but you can only sync local calendars and one subscribed calendar via Exchange/MobileMe) and some weird WiFi issue that I think are more related to bad signal strength than something software-related.
Point being that on the whole, the device is fairly solid. Competition is a very good thing, no questions about it. But I've seen and played with the "competition". While some of those devices have things that some people bitch about (MMS and video recording to name two; I care about neither), they still tend to have clunky software interfaces and other arbitrary restrictions put in place by the carrier in order to charge you that much more. Hell, as far as I'm aware Verizon still disables Bluetooth data access on most phones so they can charge you $1.99/mo for their proprietary phonebook syncing (I didn't think to ask despite being in one of their stores today; my father was getting his second-time-broken Blackberry replaced by a lying and mostly incompetent albeit attractive sales rep). That kind of stupid nickel-and-diming BS is half the reason I left Verizon for AT&T in the first place. Of course, they're guilty too for the most part, but Apple negotiated some pretty reasonable deals for the first-gen phone, at least as far as the cell industry is concerned.
I'm NOT defending Apple here - I think blocking an app for this reason is absolutely despicable. I hope competition comes along and applies some real pressure. I hope that Android comes along and starts kicking ass. But that hasn't happened yet. There's no denying that Apple raised the bar on cell phones in quite a number of different areas and they've seen a lot of success as a result - but I certainly hope that information is used against them to create even better products. Like you imply, competition is absolutely a good thing. It's just not all there yet.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Unlimited distribution
not really. It's limited to whoever can buy from the iPhone App Store. You can't -also- distribute it via a third party vendor, or on your own website. Now if you could, then it's unlimited.
You have a mistaken notion of distribution. Just because you cannot physically put the binary on your website and have them download it from you, does not mean you cannot virtually distribute it through your own website, or through an aggregator.
After all, if a user clicks on a link, and gets an application - what difference is it to them if the binary came from Apple or your website? I can place a link on my website that takes them directly to the purchasing page on the phone. I can place advertisements in magazines or online that do the same.
Completely flexible pricing
I would hope so.. it's your app. Or did I miss strong-arming by some mysterious industry when it comes to pricing of Windows Mobile / Symbian apps somewhere?
Do various cell phone companies all allow free apps or do they have a minimum - since after all the phone company gets a cut...
With Windows Mobile you indeed have the freedom to set whatever price you like. After all, only a handful of people will ever even know your app exists. Truly a superior situation, which is why WWDC was full of Windows Mobile developers....
international markets
it's on the web; how much less international can you get
Spoken from someone who has never handled international payments before, or tried to market and distribute internationally. How english centric can you be to declare that simply putting something up on a website is the same as marketing AND DISTRIBUTING internationally. How well is your app going to sell if the web page with the overview is slow as molasses, or even a tiny binary takes a while to get?
hosting
I'll give you that - although if you're serious about your app, then I'm sure the 30% you'd save would go a long way towards hosting your app; these aren't exactly apps that need to be distributed as ISOs.
Hosting is more than just size and bandwidth. It's also availability and redundancy, all of which are expensive. And again we aren't just talking about hosting and distribution but also a channel where the user can easily find your application.
updates
'll give you that as well - although it's not exactly difficult to send your registered users an e-mail, or include automatic update checking (if the platform allows it), or for somebody to write an app for the platform that automatically checks installed apps' versions online.
Users hate marketing email and I hate sending it out (also being a user myself of other apps). Like you say you can work in updating mechanisms, but again this comes down to extra time and effort and more distribution issues.
top 100 list + featured apps
Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. As there -is- only one store for iPhone apps, that store is hugely popular - it could suck ass and it would still be hugely popular, as it is the -only- place you can get (without jailbreaking and so forth and so on) your iPhone apps. So if you were to choose to post your iPhone app on your own site - besides risking getting booted from the iPhoone dev bits - you're not going to be included in the most popular (and only) iPhone app store's rankings.. and people (buyers and sellers alike) looooove them some rankings.
Both of those things are huge sales boosts, but simply like winning the lottery. That is to say, in the practical lives of day to day application developers they are irrelevant. What really matters again is all the infrastructure that Apple is taking care of, and a clear and direct channel to and from the user to your application.
Marketing is much easier if the user has an easier path to act on your message. And that is where Apple has really made things great, by creating what I think is just about the least amount of distance between a user and your application.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... but a "walled garden with land mines." Speaking as a developer, with Apple's terms of service, you not only can't see the land mines in the garden, but you can't even see the walls.
Speaking as a developer, it won't be possible to treat the iPhone as a viable platform for building and running a business until Apple comes clean with its real terms of service and requirements. Right now you have no idea if the app you're working on will ever be allowed to see the light of day.
It's reminiscent of what's happened with eBay over the last few years. Literally thousands of people quit their day jobs to build their businesses around eBay, and now they're finding themselves elbowed aside. eBay altered their deal, and all a small-time seller can do is pray that they don't alter it further. Right now, iPhone developers are in the exact same boat: completely at the mercy of a company whose interests are only coincidentally aligned with the "sharecroppers" who bring the real value to the table.
The competition honesty isn't up to scratch yet.
Not up to scratch?? Well... I guess it depends on your POV.
But I fully agree, that "The iPhone is a piece of shit, and :D
so is your face."!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The last great truly innovative and OPEN product Apple made was the 12 inch G4 Powerbook IMO. Yes I have an ipod touch and a G5 tower but I won't be getting any more Apple products if they become an entirely closed mainly consumer electronics focused company.
Dual booting XP and Ubuntu isn't THAT bad that I'm not wiling to put up with more of this crap on a computer which is supposed to be a UNIVERSAL Turing machine. It's getting worse than Microsoft who I left to get a Mac in the first place.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?