Slashdot Mirror
Apple Bans iPhone App For Competing With Mail.app
recoiledsnake writes "Another submission has been rejected from the iPhone App Store, this time for 'duplicating the functionality of the iPhone Mail application.' The author claims that his application allows the user to log into their multiple web email accounts and that Apple seems to be confusing Gmail and Mail.app. This comes on the heels of Apple rejecting an application for competing with iTunes and rejecting other silly but harmless apps as being of 'limited utility.'"
ComputerWorld has an update to the rejected Podcaster app mentioned above. It seems the developer has used Apple's "Ad Hoc" service to begin distributing the software despite the fact that they blocked it from the App Store.
Reminds me of this article about releasing Maniac Mansion for the NES
http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/maniac.html
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The Iphone is an orwellian police state where everything you do on it is carefully censored and controlled by Apple. Certainly i would never use one. I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based on a completely open OS like Linux and where people can write their own programs and so on for it. People often fear government as a threat to their freedom, but right here we see with Apple, an obvious violation of peoples rights to use a device that they purchased in a way they wish, and a corporation deciding what people can and cant use it for. This leads in fact to stagnation, a lack of innovation. Many interesting developments and innovations come from innovation and improving and tinkering with an existing platform. A platform that allows a person to develop software provides excellent conditions for new innovations, like new games or mail apps to be developed.
Isn't duplicating functionality the basis for competition? The 45 different flashlight applications don't exactly support the claim that duplicate functionality is why these applications were rejected.
Seems to me like they're trying to reserve the right to develop their own alternative to any application on the store and pull the third party version. Don't you just love closed platforms?
"Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it's pretty and it's cool and it works. It's not like you'll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!"
http://rocknerd.co.uk
What do you expect from a company that wouldn't even let others write apps at all at first?
I eagerly await the first Android phone, regardless of how crappy the hardware may be.
Self interest if nothing else. Developers will be less likely to develop for such a closed, restrictive platform especially when more open alternatives (like Android) will become available and possibly just as widespread (if not more).
It's a waste of investment. It's just that simple. The moment Apple wants to do something you're doing, they just get rid of you. No serious business should ever invest money into the iPhone because they are completely at the mercy of Apple here, in a way that makes Microsoft look like they're selling an open source platform.
It's Microsoft's platform, Microsoft's SDK, and Microsoft's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business? Why should they allow useless products? You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City. You don't get mad at Circuit City for not selling empty cardboard boxes for $999. Why should Microsoft's store be any different?
Sound's pretty silly now, doesn't it?
Anyone got a light for my sig?
Because it's pissing people off in a way that's bad PR, firstly to the developers and secondly to the users. There's a reason why so many of the latter have jail-broken their iPhones - Trusted Computing sucks to be bent over for.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Apple, I don't know how to tell you this, but Mail.app sucks. Seriously. I put up with it on my Mac because it's not my primary computer and I don't use it enough to install Thunderbird. If I actually needed a good mail reader on OS X, though, Mail.app would be gone in a heartbeat.
So now I know that if I were to get an iPhone, I'd be stuck with a crappy mail reader. The silver lining is that now people know that in advance.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Why don't you just contact your national antitrust department? E.g. in Europe we have a simple consumer form.
Despite all the Apple hype their platform is the most proprietary. A golden cage.
⦠Your application duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application Mail without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion. â¦
So the 30 different versions of Voice Notes is acceptable, since it doesn't compete with Apple, but having two versions of mail applications are unacceptable?
What bothers me more than this is that the AppStore restricts any frameworks that one _could_ use to write good applications, like movie players (CoreSurface) and programs that interact with iTunes. If you look at older versions of the firmware, these were all public frameworks until the AppStore rolled out.
Same old apple ... still won't play well with others, which is why I never buy anything Mac. In my view all this is, is elitism and market tyranny and simply isn't worth paying for. However, if others choose to buy into the scheme, well, whatever.
I am an Apple fan to the highest degree, but this has to be the stupidest analogy I've ever heard. It's one thing for Apple to ban apps that violate privacy, harm the network, or even that go against AT&T's TOS (like the tethering app). But to ban an app that competes with Apple's free included apps? If Best Buy won't sell your software, you can always try getting Circuit City to sell it or if that doesn't work, sell it from your own site and pay for advertising. If Apple won't sell your app on the App Store, you have no alternative. I have a regular old Samsung flip phone on the Sprint network. The included web browser sucks. I went over to Operamini.com. downloaded it, and now I have a great browser. Apple would never allow a competing browser,
It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business?
How does a product that they would sell in their own app store compete with their business, pray tell? They are the gatekeeper. Any application could, potentially, help them sell more iPhones if it's good enough, and at the very least, they make money from the sale of the app. Even free apps encourage people to go to the app store, thus increasing the odds they'll buy something.
Why should they allow useless products?
Like 100 flashlight applications? Like the "I am Rich" application? Like more failing social networks then you can shake a stick at? I'm failing to understand how apple has prevented useless products from arriving at the app store.
You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City. You don't get mad at Circuit City for not selling empty cardboard boxes for $999. Why should Apple's store be any different?
Because, if I choose to buy a piece of electronics, Best Buy is not my only option. I can choose to go somewhere else. If Apple restricts an app for no viable reason, then I have no recourse. If I own an iPhone, I am absolutely restricted by the whims of Apple, and that is absolutely ridiculous. They call the iPhone a platform, then they need to treat it as a platform. Since you sound like a Mac person, let me ask you this: What if Apple came out with their own massively powerful graphics editor, and then they told Adobe to take a hike because Photoshop was competing with their app on OS X. No one would stand for that. Yet everyone seems to accept it on the iPhone. It's unacceptable. [For the purposes of disclosure - I do own an iPhone and I do own a MacBook running OS X, so I'm definitely not Anti-Apple. This whole App Store thing, though, is incredibly dangerous precedent and disturbs me greatly.]
That makes no sense. Most iPhones actually do what they're supposed to do. They're not supposed to be an open platform. If that's what you want, get something else!
You seriously think that? Corporations are not evil for evil's sake, they actually want something specific: more money. How on earth could Apple spontaneously cutting off users at all help their sales? Sure, there have been complaints of bricking jailbroken phones, but they can't be expected to be responsible for non-standard phones. Users knew what they were getting into when they (jail)broke their phones. I guess Apple could in theory just ban whatever they want, but in actual, real terms, they wouldn't want to, for fear of lawsuits and drops in sales.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store.
It's also my iPhone (were I to have bought one).
Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business?
What are they selling Mail.app for these days? Oh, wait - it's included for free. So, let's rephrase your question so that it makes sense: why should they allow any product on the shelf that enhances part of the OS? Answer: because then it makes their OS more attractive to users. This is generally regarded as a good thing. At least they thought so when they offered Firefox for OS X for download from their own site, even though Firefox "competes" with their own Safari.
You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City. You don't get mad at Circuit City for not selling empty cardboard boxes for $999. Why should Apple's store be any different?
Last I checked, Best Buy and Circuit City haven't gone out of their way to prevent me from installing software I've bought elsewhere.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The average consumer just wants something simple that works and is secure and looks great. They don't care if they're making things worse for themselves. Just look at MS' monopoly. People love it.
By closing the system up it's more secure and they can guarentee their software remains popular on their system.
Sound's pretty silly now, doesn't it?
Nope. Not to Apple Fanbois. kthxbye.
I can't think of any reason other than Microsoft is a monopoly, and users have next to no choice but to use Windows for many purposes. However, if you're talking about Windows Mobile, or some other MS platform that isn't a monopoly, then it really doesn't sound as silly as you might think it does.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
that's right, they'd make more money. Indeed, if Apple's management wasn't so closed-minded and irresponsible, they'd have more customers and greater sales, all without having to compromise anything.
What Apple is doing is both ethically wrong and complete mismanagement. Apple is a shade of what it should have been.
How about submitting hello world app which could transform / upgrade itself into mail client, music player, browser, etc. :)
This is why I am waiting for Android... And not the T-Mobile rendition, but Android on a real carrier.
I think it was fairly clear that the grandparent was talking about developing software for the iPhone, not just using one. And I agree completely with his points. Of course, any company can develop a free program that duplicates yours, but being able to ban your software from the only place you can sell it is much worse. Even as an user, I find their attitude unacceptable, and will not buy their stuff.
Free market, bitch, do you understand it?
Although I very much disagree with the grandparent, your "analogy" also doesn't work because, at least in the PC OS market, Microsoft are, all together now, a monopoly. Apple are not one in the smart phone arena. If you do not like Apple's device, services, distribution model, etc. you can go buy one of dozens of devices form a dozen manufacturers, claiming they do more than the iPhone. So, although massively stupid move on Apple's part, it's fair game.
Back in the day late 80s to early 90s, when Apple was charging folks waaayyy more up the ass then they are now, their customers would recite the Apple mantra that "Apple controls the hardware and software giving us a superior, A SUPERIOR, product I TELL YOU! MS sucks because THEY don't control the hardware and PC companies don't control the OS!"
I explain that MS controls the hardware anyway because companies want the "Windows Compatible."
And every pro Apple argument is an excuse Apple uses to charge you up the ass.
And if Apple were so "superior" then how come the MAC crashes all the time? Hmmmmmm?
Today, things are a little better with the MAc but still in no way justifies it's price.
One might have thought you were trying to make a reasonable point, right up until your Apple fanboism shone through:
Because clearly, once Apple has created a product it's PERFECTION! Nobody should even bother to do anything encroaching on so much as the realm surrounding the vision of the idea that Apple coded. By golly, if we were to have more than one email client on a computer the whole technology thing would never have picked up steam!
Or, perhaps competition is good? Perhaps there actually ARE multiple products that do essentially the same thing and the world hasn't coming crashing down on our heads? Perhaps we have these concepts of markets and supply and demand that are capable of weeding out useless products without bothering our Beneficent Apple Overlords with having to take time out of their day? I wonder why nobody's ever tried such a thing? Customers deciding whether they like a product or not? Whoddathunkit?
But I'll give you better than you deserve and actually look past the Jobs worship to reply.
For starters, competition is good for consumers and stifling it is wrong--sometimes legally, sometimes "just" morally. The idea that we should permit it to chase every last dollar is what's wrong with this country. Corporations exist and are given all sorts of benefits by our government. Our government is supposed to exist to do the things which are best for its populace as a whole. Holding up the idea that two products competing on their merits and one being crushed by the power of the company who produced the other as somehow equally beneficial to us is ridiculous. Would we be having this discussion if it were Microsoft or IBM of a few decades ago that was crushing its competition beneath its heel?
Beyond that, Apple isn't creating these things to be generous to you, even within the context of the iPhone. They're using your work to make money. A cursory glance at their developer program page shows they take a 30% cut off the top. But more to the point, they're using you to populate their application library so more people will shell out hundreds of dollars to get that shiny new iPhone.
There's nothing wrong with this, but all previous objections aside (and let's face it, storing a few Kb on their servers for apps that never sell isn't going to hurt Apple) the least they could do when you actually DO agree to let them use you that way is not spit in your face, wave their arms and scream "oh no no no! *WE* coded something like that already, you can't!" If it's so useless, let it languish in obscurity. Don't ruin somebody's hard work. If it's not useless, if it's something people actually would want and they're squashing it... well, maybe that Apple glow dims because that's no better than anything Microsoft ever did.
The better example, of course, would be "you don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling Circuit City's products." My response is simple: Best Buy doesn't have a program whereby they let you store your products on their shelves, integrate with their system and take a cut of your profits either. If they did, I would be equally pissed at them if they decided that nobody could produce anything that they already stocked. It's all a crappy example, though, since physical goods and digital ones vary in so many important ways. This IS Slashdot, I'd expect you to be aware of that. It comes up in every damn story about copyright infringement, which is like every other story as it is.
"duplicating the functionality"?! How can anyone put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) and write such utter nonsense? All other platforms have competing products that try to achieve the same or similar functionality in a better or different way, so does Apple really think their shit is going to fly? Do they think their users are idiots?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
They're not supposed to be an open platform. If that's what you want, get something else!
Apple released an API for developers, but ban applications between the investment and return stages, making it possible for companies to invest and be deprived of their return at Apple's discretion, regardless of how much potential customers might want the application. Your argument doesn't make sense. Why did Apple release the SDK if they didn't want developers to write applications?
How on earth could Apple spontaneously cutting off users at all help their sales?
Have you even checked what this article is about? Most people who have are a bit puzzled about where the financial incentive for Apple is in all of this, but that's irrelevant because they ARE spontaneously cutting off applications!
the grandaprent obviously means that developing on the Iphone is a waste of investment. Most people do that kind of investment with a plan for a small reasonable return and a reasonable hope for great riches if their application happens to hit a sweet spot. With the iphone the situation is that, if you do hit that sweet spot, Apple can, and will just eliminate your application whilst introducing their own one. You end up doing free (or even profitable) R&D for Apple.
Others have compared this with Windows, but actually it's very similar. Microsoft has shown a willingness to kill any partner which gets too big for it's boots by competing against them. E.g. look at Borland which was wiped out by microsoft's compiler suite; look at Netscape; look even at Oracle: they were only saved because they had other platforms. Even so Oracle is in a much worse position because of MSSql than it would be otherwise.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
I agree with you that this is a very stupid thing for Apple to do. It will needlessly alienate a lot of people - not enough to hurt sales, but, again, needlessly many. However, I am very much against jail-breaking, especially as a result of Apple doing something wrong. It simply doesn't send Apple a message that whatever they've done is not going to be tolerated by the market. Once they've sold you the device, they couldn't care less how much you disagree with them. And they'll do the same thing again.
Parent is another fool (or a paid-for shill) that thinks apple is some saviour and somehow very different from micro$oft.
The fact remains apple is every a bit as evil as micro$oft. M$ even owns some apple shares. It's the same racket.
If you're looking for something different, try http://gnu.org/
Apple bans your app from the App Store doesn't mean you can't still develop and sell it on your own. You won't get the mass appeal of the store but you can still get it out there.
People here know that Apple is commercial enterprise, right? Google has open source apps because apps are not their core business, advertising is. Apple sells software to drive hardware sales. The have a need to ensure that their application site remains unique and that they control the entire experience because that is what differentiates them. By offering up a competitor to iTunes or even to Mail.app (which offers unique integration into THEIR ecosystem), Apple would undermine their own ability to make a profit. Which is important in a commercial venture. I do wish there were just a few more calculators, though.
Erm, don't buy one then and stop moaning. geesh.
Apple LOVE closed systems, DRM and total control, the only thing that surprises me is the reaction. The lock down is SOP for Apple you know this when you buy into it (same as microsoft, in truth apple are much worse but MS is more visable).
I think that at the very least Apple need to issues solid guidelines for what they will accept and what they wont. Its bang out of order to let devs spend the time and effort creating an app that they have no idea will be accepted. Id prefer the appstore be a bit more open but it aint goin to happen (this is Apple, see above). at the very least you should know ur app is going to be accepted BEFORE you start to write it, thats the real problem here.
Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
it's stupidity. You can already setup your mail through Mail.app. It IS confusing to a lot of customers. I think now is the shock time when we find out that there are people who aren't computer literate who are vast majority who use these things.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Did anyone *REALLY* think that the Apple store would all the sale of software that would cut into sales *AT* the Apple store?
Fools.
Apple controls the iPhone.
They do whatever they want.
This is making me not only completely refuse to ever buy an iPhone, but also making me wary of buying more Macs in the future.
Apple was moving in a good direction with Mac OS X by basing their platform on BSD and building it on open source software. Now we see them pulling stuff like this.
How long until they start restricting what can be installed on Macs?
I may just return to using Linux on the desktop. Many of the issues I was annoyed with that caused me to switch to OS X in 2003 have been worked out, and I can probably deal with the remaining ones.
*grumble* just when Apple was starting to get really awesome, they pull stuff like this. Very disappointed in them.
The depressing thing is that they did exactly the same thing on the desktop in the '80s, and it cost them a market that they came close to completely controlling. Many of us assumed that Steve Jobs had learned this lesson at NeXT, but apparently not.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
When was a device built by Apple a democratic system?
Just to answer, when the Apple ][ was sold, the documentation included full schematics and a listing of the ROM. It also included a section on how to build an interface card that would work in one of the 8 slots. I don't think I have owned a machine that was more open than the Apple ][.
It's a waste of investment. It's just that simple. The moment Apple wants to do something you're doing, they just get rid of you. No serious business should ever invest money into the iPhone because they are completely at the mercy of Apple here, in a way that makes Microsoft look like they're selling an open source platform.
Agreed sounds seriously close to being illegal. Like it's breaking some anti-competition law.
The difference, perhaps, is that FireFox is free. It would give people a negative impression of the platform if they paid money for something that didn't give any useful features not present in the original software, while no one would be too upset if they downloaded FireFox and decided that they liked Safari more.
Removing software from the App Store because they don't like it isn't the evil thing here. The evil thing is that the App Store is the only way other than jail-breaking or paying $99 to be a developer of getting software on to your phone. No one complains about Apple deciding not to put various OS X applications on the Apple Store, because it's easy to buy them elsewhere.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is why I won't buy an apple. Although superior to Windows products, their propriety nature and desire to control after purchase decisions makes me want to continue to buy open products which I can control what I do with it after I buy it.
Tell that to the developer who wrote Trism and made 250.000 dollars in two months: http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/app-store-is-a.html
You mean like the XBox?
If you don't like it, don't buy it. From any vendor.
It's also my iPhone (were I to have bought one).
Very true, but you also (theoretically) bought one knowing it's capabilities. Or I should hope so, at least. When they first went on sale (when I got one), there were exactly sixteen apps included, and one of them was Settings. There was no App Store, nor was there a promise of one. Of course nobody expected for a second that Apple would let something with so much potential go to waste, but up until the day it was announced you couldn't reasonably claim that you were "owed" one. You bought one (or didn't) knowing what apps were included, and what the limitations may be knowing that's all you got.
And then after months of continual whining *cough*digg*cough*, it was announced and then several months later actually arrived. There was never a promise of any kind of app within the store, etc. It was made quite clear that not everything would be allowed into the store.
What's my point from this? Anyone with a sense of entitlement from the App Store is being completely idiotic. You didn't pay for the thing* - it was added after the fact, and just like the iTunes Store is not all-inclusive.
Don't get me wrong here - I think Apple's being irrational and, lacking a better word, dickish. But at the end of the day, it's their decision to do things that way. I'd love to see an app that deals with multiple email accounts (especially gmail) better than the built-in Mail.app
*at least on first-gen phones, though even on the newer phones you'll still get some debate about buying hardware vs software. As software updates on the iPhone are free, I'm sure Apple would argue that you're paying for the hardware and the software is free, so if you don't get what you like in a software update than you can fuck right off. It's certainly their business model for Macs. The fact that their generally-good software is the REASON you're buying the expensive hardware just makes them more clever than you for not having thought of it first. Now I don't necessarily agree with that approach, but it's what they use.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
cph1> dial bob
Caller "bob" unknown. A)bort, I)gnore, R)edial? R
Caller "bob" unknown. A)bort, I)gnore, R)edial? *Cancelled*
cph1> list numbers
Phone list:
0001 bob
0002 bill
0003 ted
0004 betty
0005 cindy
0006 joe
6 numbers found.
cph1> dial bob
Caller "bob" unknown. A)bort, I)gnore, R)edial? *Cancelled*
cph1> fuck
Command "fuck" unknown. A)bort, I)gnore, R)etry?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I am an Apple fan to the highest degree
That's rather like admitting in public that you have herpes. It's not fatal, but most people would rather not know.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You let me know when Microsoft starts selling Macs or Linux boxes on their website and we can discuss Apple not wanting to sell competing products. Hell, even better, let me know when I can download OpenOffice from Microsoft.com. Or maybe when they put the whole myriad of Exchange replacements on their website.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store.
That from a guy who said "I wasn't about to ask permission from Microsoft to use something that I bought and paid for."
Seriously dude, your fanboism reeks.
How on earth could Apple spontaneously cutting off users at all help their sales?
They would have me and many others as customers if it werent' for all that is wrong with the iPhone. There is much more wrong with the iPhone than just the app store. I live in Europe (NL to be exact), and the iPhone is the ONLY phone out here that can't be bought without a SIM lock. I don't want to change providers to get an iphone, and I want to choose my own subscription. And why doesn't the thing synchronise using bluetooth? Does Apple really expect me to carry yet another cable everywhere I go? Anyway, as you see the iPhone is absolutely not for me.
-- Cheers!
One word: competition.
Best Buy and Circuit City compete with one another. That means that if consumers want something and Best Buy refuse to stock it, then chances are Circuit City will start selling it.
If you want an app for your iPhone, though, you don't have any choice: either Apple sell it in their store, or you can't easily get it, period.
If the iPhone was an open platform that anyone was able to set up a store for, then it would be fair and reasonable for Apple to have these restrictive policies in their own store. But it's not. Which makes it unfair and unreasonable.
That's not to say Apple aren't perfectly within their rights to do this. Of course they are. There's no law against being a dick -- but just because it's legal doesn't mean you aren't being a dick.
Once again an Apple product is strongly controlled and any community contributions must be vetted by Apple. Apple claims to be innovative, and encourage creativity, but what they say and what they do is just the opposite. They just don't get it. All they have is a good design team, and a restrictive developer framework.
As a seasoned developer I will never develop for the iPhone. I'm looking forward to Moblin & the Ubuntu Mobile editions. And I love the encouragement that MS offers with Windows Mobile.
You don't get mad at
Who's getting mad at them? People are simply pointing out that the platform has restrictions that users generally don't expect of a smart phone and that limit the functionality.
There is tons of stuff you can't do with an iPhone that you can do with just about any other smart phone, and people should know and understand that before they waste their money.
I had thought about developing iPhone apps. Even tinkered a bit with the SDK, but then all of the news about how blatantly they are rejecting anything that would be profitable/competing has changed my mind.
quote: "It's also my iPhone (were I to have bought one)."
So? Go ahead and install whatever you like on it. Go on! Nobody's gonna stop you.
But don't bother asking Apple for help with that (and that includes expecting them to distribute stuff they consider detrimental to the platform).
I would jump right on that app because Apple is NOT responding to a growing concern of users (including myself) who have been growing frustrated by the lack of support we're getting here (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1708956&tstart=0) so the least they can do is give us OPTIONS for using an alternative application to check our email!
They are just scared of people making apps that are better than what they do because if everybody used the "improved" apps they would:
- look bad for not doing the "best" application for X
- don't look innovative when they add X functionality
- be scared with the possibility that the new famous and considered better app is migrated to android and steals iphone buyers
- look nonprofessional when a third party developer can patch bugs in days and they wait months between iphone software releases.
I own several macs and I'm happy with their products but they should stop this retarded policy.
iMagine a world in which apple and not MS controlled the desktop OS market...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Android certainly has potential, but so far I see a number of things that prevent it from being an iPhone killer.
First off, it's entirely Java based. This is just plain silly. Why not have the APIs with bindings for Java? Google has completely cut off other languages. Furthermore, while speed normally isn't an issue with Java these days, there is overhead. Could one really build the X-Plane[1] simulator in Java like they did for the iPod? It's pretty CPU and i/o intensive (calculating force vectors and loading textures, building 3-d models etc, at 30 frames a second). While the iPhone's SDK is mainly objective-C (which I think is pretty silly too), there are a number of languages that you can use to develop with including Python, using an objC bridge. Currently this is not the case with Android. It's only Java. Part of what made the iPhone and Touch so cool early on was that they were little unix systems and one could install python or ruby or any other language and hack together neat scripts and things. Of course Apple has kind of put an end to much of that though, with their official SDK. While Python and probably Ruby can be used, the guts of the iPhone are once again off-limits. It may as well not even be a unix system anymore for all the good it does developers and users. Very sad. Android is open and happens to be able to run on a Linux core, but with core APIs all in Java, there's currently no way to interface from a shell script or to build ad-hoc applications. JPython isn't the solution either since Android's jvm is completely incompatible with Sun's and JPython emits bytecode directly.
Secondly, I have yet to see that Android really does support multi-touch operations. Demos I've seen so far look fairly conventional, using buttons to zoom, and so forth. I've also seen a fair number of pop-up menus in use in Android apps, which just don't work as well as the way that most iPhone apps typically do it. Perhaps this is mainly do to the poor way in which the UIs have been constructed in the Android apps that I've seen video demos of.
[1] http://www.x-plane.com/iPhone.html
I think the original poster was saying that Apple doesn't like you using their App Store to distribute competitive products. I'm not sure about this but doesn't the iPhone allow you to install apps locally? Also you can write apps yourself if you download the free SDK. Apparently there is a way to distribute the app using their Ad Hoc service.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
AFAIK Mac OS X has become less open over time as well (which is allowed by the BSD license).
Once I had the idea of checking for an OS X driver for the ATI Radeon9600 that might be ported to X or have at least its low level functionality extracted. What I found out was that only parts of OS X have their source available for download, graphics drivers among the missing parts.
People on various forums also complained that the trend was towards less OS X components being available as source code, and that Apple contributed little to BSD.
So it seems that OS X as open source was a marketing ploy rather than a serious effort at being open.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Insightful? Don't drink and mod!
You know, this is one area Microsoft could really do some damage to Apple in their "I'm a PC" movement. And, (wait for it...) they'd be right to do it!
The iPhone is one of the most draconian platforms ever produced for a consumer market, gradually stripping away more and more of the end-users rights and abilities until they all become a singular monolithic platform where no one user has capabilities other users do not. This is probably the furthest thing away from what Steve Woziak envisioned when he developed the first personal computer.
Strange how the company he originally co-founded on the idea of bringing personal computing to the masses is now pushing the masses toward a mainframe/dumb terminal relationship with their computers.
When you look at the direction the iPhone has taken, it scares me to think what future technologies like cloud computing could end up as, if they developed from this same context.
I'm not suggesting that Microsoft is now the "good guy" in all this, but when their methods of locking everything down seem relatively minor when compared to the Apple Inc. way of doing things, something has definitely gone in the land of Jobs.
8==8 Bones 8==8
So Microsoft gets into trouble about their practices with bundling their apps with their OS. Why does Apple get to do it? I think it is begging for some lawyers to get involved when Apple releases an API, but then denies that the apps access to their platform on the reason that it might be better than what they did.
The iPhone is a platform like the Playstation is a platform. The control what goes on it. At least Apple is allowing anyone to try to create applications for it.
The iPhone does allow Ad Hoc install of an Application to 100 phones for the purpose of beta testing apps. Podcaster is using this to sell the App outside Apple's control. I can't imagine that Apple will allow this to continue. They simply have to throw the kill switch on the App and it will vaporize from the phone, and since the purchaser bought the App outside of the App store, they will have no recourse. Apple does not allow local install of Apps. Ad Hoc and the App store are the only games in town.
Since you sound like a Mac person, let me ask you this: What if Apple came out with their own massively powerful graphics editor, and then they told Adobe to take a hike because Photoshop was competing with their app on OS X. No one would stand for that. Yet everyone seems to accept it on the iPhone. It's unacceptable.
The only, and very valid reason, that is acceptable on the iPhone is because it is a completely undeveloped market, unlike OSX or Windows which are both very developed markets.
What about all the weather apps on the phone? Don't they compete with apple's weather app? Or the notes apps? Or the zillion map apps that duplicate the search functionalty of google maps?
Apple seem to be making an exception for mail.app - which one of the suckiest parts of the phone (second, next to the SMS app) and really needs a 3rd party replacement.
Every week I come across this sort of ranting on various mailing lists. I have worked as a J2ME developer for over 4 years, and I have dipped my toes into the console world as well. Currently I work on iPhone, and it is a dream. I don't like the paranoia and bullshit, but the cellphone / console world is basically just as bad.
Please don't rant about "police state" mentality or make silly analogies. You already live in that world if you own a console. Don't rant about anti-trust lawsuits, the console makers have been doing it for decades, it is totally legal.
You cannot even get dev tools for consoles such as PSP or Wii. The companies won't even talk to you. It doesn't matter how many stores carry PS3 games, you won't ever have a chance to make one without the backing of the right company.
In the J2ME world, most of the sales are on carrier sell decks. To get on those decks, you have to get the attention of corporate behemoths such as AT&T or Sprint. Cell phone development companies hire people whose entire job it to manage "carrier relations". That 70/30 split people complain about is better than any deal you will get from a carrier, assuming they even deign to talk to you.
J2ME - dev tools are free, but you have to deal with literally hundreds of different devices, all with their own unique undocumented bugs, not to mention radically different implementations of the J2ME spec. The only plus is that you can theoretically set up your own e-commerce system and bypass the carrier decks. Last I checked, some carriers were requiring apps to be digitally signed, and limited the APIs you could access.
BREW - The apps have DRM in them; I believe you have to go through a propriety system developed by Qualcom to sell anything
Symbian - none of the 4 companies I've worked for have ever given a shit about this platform, so don't even mention it.
Android - Maybe it will be great, at this point it is vapor ware
Consoles - you need an expensive and difficult to obtain developer box. Every piece of documentation is under NDA. The companies have total control over which games get approved for sale, and the experience of getting final approval is time consuming and stressful.
I wasn't an "Apple fanboi" until about 3 months ago, when I went all in with a Macbook pro (in fact, I once vowed to never use Macs again after bad experiences developing on them in the mid 90s).
MS sold hardware that can run Linux, it's called Xbox and Xbox 360.
... but 2008 is looking pretty good.
cause it was an insulting flame?
This is Apple, which has a long track record of doing exactly what it's doing right now. How can anyone be so utterly stupid as to be surprised by their current actions?
sure, you can _try_. But once after you have invested all your time, effort and money on creating an application, they can just yank the carpet out from under you for any reason at all. Like, if they think you application competes with theirs, or if they like you application just a bit too much and want to make their own version, or someone there is just having a bad day. You'd never know, and poof, there goes your investment.
And the worst part, you don't even have an alternative way to sell your product.
It's interesting that your irrational hate for Steve Jobs compelled to write a loooong diatribe why people shouldn't buy an iPhone.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
You mean like the XBox?
If you don't like it, don't buy it. From any vendor.
When did MS disallow a FPS game competing with Halo on the XBox. Imagine sinking millions into a game and THEN get denied because it's competing with another game, that would suck balls, just like what happened in the TFA. Come back when that happens.
This space for rent.
You let me know when Microsoft starts selling Macs or Linux boxes on their website and we can discuss Apple not wanting to sell competing products. Hell, even better, let me know when I can download OpenOffice from Microsoft.com. Or maybe when they put the whole myriad of Exchange replacements on their website.
You let us know when Microsoft App store is the only way(via DRM like on the iPhone) to get Windows applications, and when the only way to get Open Office running is to have a unsupported hack on your machine that breaks everytime you do a Windows update. People can easily(without jumping through hoops to hack stuff and without paying a 30% Apple tax) download any Windows program out there and install it with a few clicks. Whereas Apple rejecting an App leaves the vendor with hardly any options to get it running except for the 0.1% of jailbroken phones.
This space for rent.
It's Apple's platform, Apple's SDK, and Apple's store. Why should they allow any product on the shelf that competes with their own business?
How does a product that they would sell in their own app store compete with their business, pray tell? They are the gatekeeper. Any application could, potentially, help them sell more iPhones if it's good enough, and at the very least, they make money from the sale of the app. Even free apps encourage people to go to the app store, thus increasing the odds they'll buy something.
With Steve Jobs, it's more about control than money. With Bill Gates it's the opposite.
This space for rent.
Honestly, how many people would buy an apple computer if the osx only allows you to run apple's mail.app (no thunderbird/entourage), only safari (no firefox), only iwork, only finder etc? I guess probably nobody would, except a few brain dead people.
So we can conclude that apple's computers and iphones are substantially different. The former lets you use competitor's software (eg firefox instead of safari) which the latter won't.
Another conclusion is that apple can leverage their obsessive control on iphones, which to be frank, don't have much of a direct competition, but in the field of personal computers (where the competition is much greater) the situation is very different and they have to do their best to stay afloat.
Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
So you agree with me then right? Because Apple sold the iPhone, a device that can run all kinds of other stuff. But do you see MS selling XBOX Linux discs?
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Here...wait...let me try this...Don't buy an iPhone.
So because one vendor of one device in a sea of similar devices does something to protect their own interests its suddenly high treason right? Now, if someone was holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy an iPhone I might be a bit more understanding (well, except I would think you are a moron for bitching about application distribution when someone has a gun to your head).
To me it sounds like petty bitching by the antimac club (who are just as loud and irritating as the fanbois). Apple has done some sketchy things, but this isn't one of them.
The idea that this is somehow anticompetitive is insane. When Apple owns the entire market on cellphones then we can talk about anticompetitive behavior. But, for the moment, they dont. They built the iPhone, they wrote most of the base applications for it. Why the hell should they be forced to allow a 3rd party to use their cellphone platform AND their app delivery platform to compete with their own software? Did you know that there are stores that don't sell Apple software or hardware?! Can you believe it! Did you know that you can't buy an MacBook from the Dell website? How unfair and anticompetitive is that!
Now, I don't think it is a terribly bright idea to keep such a tight grip on things, but that is how Apple behaves. All of their products have been that way. Windows gets a shit reputation when most of its problems are 3rd party drivers. Apple doesn't get that shit reputation because they control the platform and stop that kind of garbage from happening. Even if it is draconian at times, it is about protecting the consumer experience and their image.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Ben Reubenstein Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Have you conversed with Apple regarding the rejection? I have had success with a rejected app and rejected version of an app by responding with a good email addressing their issues.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Sounds like the Zune.
>1. Multitasking? This is 2008, all other phones
> can download stuff while the user talks and
> surfs. Not iPhone.
*ALL* phones can do that? False.
The iPhone *CAN* do voice-calls while browsing
the net. Voice + Data = no problem.
> 4. Memory card slot? - forget it.
I already have 16 BILLION BYTES built in
(soon to be 32).
Why do I want to spend money for memory cards?
>5. MMS? - forget it unless you buy an MMS app.
There are 2 totally free apps that do MSS.
> 7. Really good signal reception? - forget it.
I've had a total of 0 problems with mine.
> 8. Want to use your phone as a wireless modem
> for your computer? Forget it.
*YOU* signed an agreement that said you wouldn't.
(But I have a free app that does it anyway.)
> 10. Want to transfer files to/from iPhone
> without installing special software? -
I downloaded a small app called "air share" and
didn't have anything "special" to do. Just drag-and-drop all the files you want... in/from any
iphone.
Apple is engaging in anti-competitive behavior. It's equally wrong whether or not you have a monopoly, I don't give a damn if the law agrees. Using your leverage to prevent others from competing against your products is wrong.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
"...i mean, how does a fancy screen transition improve usability in any way?"
You may think they're "just" eye-candy, but they contribute to the UI in a major way. Sliding screens back and forth, zooming from an icon to a screen and back, minimizing to an icon or trash can at the bottom of the screen, super-smooth list scrolling, "inertia", and more, all contribute to a sense of place. Yes, they're "sexy", but they also provide significant visual cues that help tell you what just happened, where the document or object went or where it came from, or where you're currently located or positioned within a document or a process.
It's far, far more than just looks. So, in answer to: "does it improve efficiency or make the software more intuitive?"
Yes.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Monopolies, because they are the only game in town, can easily get away with anti-competitive behaviour without losing significant market share, because they're the only game in town. When someone who isn't a monopoly tries something like that, then they could well be digging their own grave, because consumers don't have to put up with it. The issue is that companies can sell what they want with any baggage attached, so long as consumers have a choice. It is, after all, a free market out there.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The iPhone does allow Ad Hoc install of an Application to 100 phones for the purpose of beta testing apps. Podcaster is using this to sell the App outside Apple's control. I can't imagine that Apple will allow this to continue. They simply have to throw the kill switch on the App and it will vaporize from the phone, and since the purchaser bought the App outside of the App store, they will have no recourse. Apple does not allow local install of Apps. Ad Hoc and the App store are the only games in town.
I think some web site showed Apple's actual rejection letter for Podcaster and that letter _did suggest_ that the "ad hoc" installation method could be used to sell the application. What you suggest would change things from "Apple doesn't help you selling" to "Apple prevents you from selling" which might make a significant legal difference.
"I think the Apple II was proof that you can have a commercial product that can also be open."
Yeah, back in the glory days of 1977, back when there was no internet, no networking protocols, no security issues, no viruses, no hackers waiting to turn your computer into a spambot, no hard drives, when 64 KILOBYTES was an astounding amount of memory, when there wasn't thousands of manufacturers making printers, scanners, and other devices that all are expected to plug-and-play and "just work".
If you have to go back thirty years to find sufficient proof-of-concept I suspect you're reaching just a little bit...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
True, it is a huge difference, but I can't imagine Apple giving up control of App distribution. Still, they might allow Ad Hoc distribution and sale because of the 100 phone limit(which podcaster got around through slight changes in the code per 100 machines.)
No one is going to use a third party mail app, or music app, or other app that competes with your offerings, unless it is substantially better. Compete on your merits.
I'm a big Mac fan; switched to a MacBook and there's no going back. I love OS X, the hardware, the general approach and leadership of Jobs.
But this app store stuff is ridiculous. It's reminiscent of MS in the early days. "We encourage your development on our platform, until we get into the space." Just like MS started picking off app areas one by one, killing third party vendors supporting their platform (Spreadsheet, Word Processors, even TCP/IP stacks), Apple is going to cannibalize themselves if they keep this approach up. Even as a Mac Fanboi, I'm thinking this is outrageous and has to stop.
I'm also a developer, and was seriously considering dedicating myself to iPhone apps, but am putting that on hold until I see some change in policies. (Or at least more visibility as to the policy.)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Or flaming truth?
While we're at it, let's just imagine if major supermarkets were to stop selling anything but their own pitiful 'value' items!...
I am waiting for the first AppStore anti-trust lawsuit myself.
Keep killing apps for no other reason than competing with Apple and you have the ingredients of an anti-trust lawsuit.
Apples' legal division should be preparing for this.
You don't get mad at Best Buy for not selling maps to Circuit City.
Your analogy sucks, so heres a better one. If I bought a PC at Best Buy, and then found it refused to run my software, because said software had been purchased at Circuit City, would I get mad? Damn right I would.
*runs*
My itouch is jailbroken and at 1.1.4 and will stay that way so I can access a terminal and run the software *I* want on it, if Apple doesn't like that they can bite me.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I am really unhappy about the buggy support in the iPhone for communicating with Exchange, native, imap, or pop, the support doesn't work reliably and I am taking heat about it at the church where I help out with IT. We have a huge darn server, Windows Server, exchange, and a bunch of iPhones, and it is still impossible to get the mail flowing with regularity. The only reason I am not swearing about this is I am a pastor.
I would pay real money today for an email client that could fetch mail from an exchange server with SSL using imap, and would work reliably for more than a few minutes. If Apple is blocking the distribution of an email program, perhaps they should examine why anyone would pay for an email program and enhance their own Mail User Agent and compete instead of blocking. I am a programmer and an iPhone developer. Maybe I should write my own and distribute it privately at my church. We probably don't need more than 100 copies running anyway. That would solve my immediate problem today.
I am a developer and have committed sort of to Apple. But for all my developer tools standing ready, I am still unwilling to write in Objective C with proprietary frameworks that comprise a single vendor solution. I am a TRANSPORTABILITY EXPERT and I am not sure why I bought an Apple computer, or an iPhone. OK I use the iPhone 50 times a day, and it is cool. But as for designing and building software that only runs on the Apple hardware and the possibility that Apple might take a dislike to me and kill my product/business out of spite is keeping me behind the starting line, and I don't see things changing any time soon. At this point it is likely that my one year iPhone Developer status will expire and I will not have committed to a development yet. It is really a sad state of affairs, and if Linux would take off, that would provide a good platform for a transportable product. Except that Linux users don't want to buy software. Between Microsoft and Apple wanting to write all the software, and the Linux crowd wanting software to be free, it is not surprising that the United States cannot compete in the technology realm any more even though we have a generation of engineers with lifetimes of experience waiting to apply themselves and produce solutions. Well by now you might even know who I am, if you have been paying attention to my postings for a while. :-) | :-(
If you cannot load your Xcode developed program onto an iPhone unsigned, you cannot even distribute 100 copies. The certificate only lasts six months, and if they don't renew it, you are out of business. It may be that these apps will have to be revised, if only to get new signatures periodically. I am not sure about this, but it would give Apple a lot of control to have ALL apps with a maximum lifetime of six month, and new versions required for continued operation. Does anyone know for sure?
Actually I did have to pay $19 for the priv of paying more to load further programs. The upgrade that provided that feature for the iPod at least, costed money.
You say that if you dont like what you get at one american store that you can go elsewhere, but if you have an iPhone you are stuck with it? Isnt that like buying a desk from Store A and then not liking the accessories they have to put on it? But you cant find any nice stuff from Stores B and C either, they are all too big to fit on the Desk from Store A? Is it Store A's fault?
Sorry for the funky attempt at a metaphor, but if you dont like the iPhone you could always get one of the other hundred phones on the market. So many whiners about Apple stuff, you see them going on about "I wont buy a Mac until they make it 50 dollars cheaper and give it a Blu Ray Drive", even if Apple did that they would soon find something else to complain about.
Im not an Apple Fanboy, even though I love my 12 inch Powerbook more than life itself. I do hope that they let more stuff onto the iPhone. I just wish it was perfect, hardware wise it certainly must be close! Theres no other phone I would have.
---
Heh... where's the "forgiveness"? I love religious people; somehow believing their religious affiliation makes them 'better people' having exclusive domain over goodness and righteousness...
I didn't say I was better, I was saying that Microsoft stresses me out and challenges my sensibilities. That's all I meant.
Further down there's a reply that seems to address your quoted comment perfectly:
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
As for people mentioning OpenMoko, it's not only the "software stupid" but nobody outside of the nerd community wants to put up with crippled hardware just because the OS in fully open source.
Android also appears to have issues and there is no coherent "app" store for that platform yet. The Apple app store is popular because it is easy for basically anyone to use.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The Podcaster issue is a real issue because it's something that iTunes doesn't do. It's something that has real utility.
This app though is just a wrapper around a WebKit view and therefore I'm not surprised that it's been booted. Examples like this (limited web views) were actually specifically mentioned to me last week by Apple Dev Support as the sort of app that Apple was unlikely to let through as it's too trivial.
In America, once you purchase a cell phone you are almost always locked into it by a contract. While you could purchase an unlocked phone (for an exorbitant amount of money), no one I know does this. Instead, you buy a subsidized phone from a cellular provider, and in return you guarantee them that you will use them as your carrier for a certain period. In the case of the iPhone, that's 2 years.
I got the iPhone as a gift. It's on the gift giver's family plan. So, I'm kind of stuck on that plan (not with the phone, but I'd have to buy a full price phone to replace it.)
What I was referring to specifically was the app store. If you're locked into a contract, you have no choice but to get your apps for your iPhone from Apple's app store. I was aware of that going in, but I don't think anyone was truly aware of the limitations Apple was going to put into place. I certainly wasn't aware that Apple would install a kill switch in my phone, as that wasn't disclosed by Apple at all until it was revealed to the public by a third party.
On a day to day basis, I'm happy with my phone. I rarely use a cell phone for making calls. It's generally a portable mail client and web browser for me, and it's hard to beat the Safari Web browsing experience on the iPhone. It is a very capable browser. I am concerned, though, about Apple's restrictions in the app store. I'm waiting for the Android phones to become available, and if I'll wait for a decent model. Then, if they are as good as I expect they will be, I'll buy an unlocked Android phone, and use the iPhone as a fat iPod Touch.
While I despise Windows Mobile Phones (though to be fair, I've never owned one), I seem to recall that you can install third party applications on them without any sort of prior approval. There is no app store for Windows Mobile that I know of. I wish the iPhone was more like that, but that'll never happen. Apple will never give up their control.
iPhone is the flavor of the moment. Apple has their place in the sun for now, but it will go away. Nothing lasts forever in the technology world.
I'm not whining about Apple's hardware. I tend to think it's awful good. The computer I use every day is a MacBook (I also run an XP box and a Linux box for various things.) It's their policies that I find disturbing at this point. I've jailbroken the phone twice, and I'll probably do it again, simply to neuter the Kill Switch and to have the ability to install apps that are not Apple approved.
Telecom are shutting their CDMA network down to make a GSM network, maybe they will be able to run the iPhone then.
I bought my original iPhone for $790 NZ, thats $540 of your US money according to google. I put my sim in and it just worked, my sim was already on prepaid, I put 20 dollars or so on and that will last me a couple months since it costs 20 cents for each txt I dont use my phone much :) It was incredible having an iPhone before it was in my country, I got lots of attention from the ladies.
Your locked plan situation really sucks, in NZ you can get the iPhone 3G legally, it costs about 980 NZD, google says thats $663 USD.
---
Actually, we can get an iPhone without the contract. It's very expensive though (Seven or eight hundred American dollars, I think, as compared to 2 or 3 hundred for a phone in contract.) The problem is, it's not unlocked. You would still have to go to AT&T to use it, and that means you'd still be locked into a contract (they don't do month to month or prepaid with the iPhone that I'm aware of.) You could unlock it, and that is 100% legal, but Apple doesn't make it easy.
The analogy with MS in inapt because MS eliminates competition by competing with them. It's not like they could prevent Netscape from running; all they could do was make IE good enough for people to use it instead (and that wasn't hard -- Netscape 3 was crap). MS can't prevent you from running anything that follows the rules of the API.
Apple is like the mob, eliminating competition by not letting you even exist. At any time they can put you out of business just by fiat.
dom
Becoming a monopoly is a _good_ problem to have in our market system - then it just becomes about managing the government.
Was Microsoft _punished_ for being a monopoly? They have a consent decree, sure, but they're still growing revenue, and weren't split up.
Furthermore, monopolies are always transitory. They generally don't last in effective marketplaces. Microsoft arguably succeeded and lasted due to the record levels of hubris/stupidity in its competitors during the 1980's (during which time it wasn't really a monopolist, just trying to become one).
-Stu
Look, I don't agree with Apple's current behaviour here, but as you suggest, there's a big difference in "user experience" between a phone and a PC/Mac.
The phone has certain core features that *must* work, such as taking phone calls, messages, browsing, etc. This is arguably why the SDK is locked down to the degree it is (i.e no background processing). It ensures the stability of the phone in the presence of 3rd party code.
The App Store rejections are consistent with this mindset: Apple has decided that rather than confuse people with choice in the areas of core functionality (Mail, Phone, Browsing, etc.), that users must become locked into Apple's experience. Fewer choices, simpler experience.
-Stu
Apple has turned into Microsofts brother, Charge up the wazu and close everything unless they see dollar signs
How could you possibly expect anything different? Does iTunes run on the zune?
Mochasoft Iphone, Ipod app. violates GPL
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/09/22/mochasoft-allegedly-violating
In the end, they (i.e., Mochasoft) will be forced to publish the source code, which Apple does not appreciate too much with apps in the App Store. ;-)
A lot of banning in this iPhone saga. Mind you the iPhone was itself being banned from advertising as found misleading in UK by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Well, you can buy an upgrade from MS Office to WordPerfect Office on Microsoft's store... so what's your point again?
We can't quite go so far as to actually get OpenOffice from them, but as you can see they don't necessarily feel they need to squash competition.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
>Sound's pretty silly now, doesn't it?
Not really, If Microsoft had direct sales outlet like you suggest, I'd expect the same from them.
Should the Apple store sell Dells too?
Or should a Nike store sell New Balance?
Should Circuit City offer Geek Squad services?
The answer to all of those is "they could, but never will."
"I see," said the blind man as he pissed into the wind.
This is why I wish that Google Android Platform does well... Hope T-Mobile G1 go well.
The precedent was set by the mobile operators. They have have been quietly controlling content on their catalogs for close to 10 years now. Try to get your BREW app on a Verizon phone. Next to impossible unless you are EA or someone's cousin.
The nice thing is that the iPhone is bringing some public attention to the fact that the mobile software industry is being held back by this greed.
Here's a hypothetical question for you. What would you think about a contractual clause in an SDK that states that the company can ban your app from their app store if their internal judges declare that your app "just sucks"? Like, it crashes the OS, it deletes user information, it has a mangled and broken UI, it insults the user, it's overpriced and buggy, et cetera?
No excuses about competitiveness, or duplicate functionality, just a clause that goes, "if we think your app sucks, we will refuse to distribute it."
Of course it would be even more draconian than the examples of Apple's banning thus far. Even more unacceptable to developers. But probably closer to the level of control that Apple WISHES it could exert. (It would also, coincidentally, be very close to the licensing terms of the Nintendo Wii, which also stipulate that to receive the SDK you must be a fine upstanding citizen with a bricks-and-mortar business office and a measure of "financial stability". It reads like the criteria for an arranged marriage.)
It may be interesting to consider that this is basically the way book publishers operate. They retain a battery of editors, who make personal decisions about what the company will and won't set to paper. If they reject you, your options are: 1. Rewrite and 2. Leave. No one even thinks of complaining because no one publisher owns the distribution model for books. Does Apple own the distribution model for apps? No. Phone apps? No. iPhone apps? Yes. Depending on where and how you wish to make a profit, you could see their behavior as either totally acceptable, or totally insane.
If Apple exerted THAT kind of control, the first things to disappear would be those idiotic 99-cent "flashlight" apps. A pile of half-assed Labyrinth games would vanish. And a bunch of voice-note apps with awkward UI. Most offline-reader apps would be axed because of their excruciating sync processes. And anything that appears to be one of Apple's own developer examples with the resources swapped out. "I Am Rich" would have been banned before appearing. Et cetera. Of course, that level of control would also have a PROFOUNDLY depressing effect on developer participation, which is why their current terms aren't written that way.
A lot of the anger expressed here comes from people who are (or feel threatened of) being pushed out of what is, currently, the only way to extract a profit from writing an app for the iPhone. They not defending some hallowed ideology, they want an unchallenged slice of that fat money cake. You can still add your app to the Installer manifest and make it available to the many tens of thousands of users who jailbroke - a significant and refined audience - but the expectation there is that it's free. You'll need to make your ramen-money somewhere else. And I'll just bet that when some company declares itself a for-profit distributor for jailbroken apps, Apple will fire lawyers at it point-blank.
Anyway, hypotheticals aside, here's a point for you to consider. The clause about not duplicating pre-existing functionality has bitten a small-time developer in the ass just now. But that clause is probably in place to prevent the bigger players from hijacking Apple's platform. Suppose Microsoft writes a "Zune Jukebox" app for the iPhone, then markets the bejesus out of it. Or more likely, a superior Exchange client that businesses scramble to adopt. Or Internet Explorer for the iPhone. Forced to choose between giving customers "what they want" and losing grip on the reins of its own platform to a direct competitor, Apple would choose the lesser evil.
Opinions vary on whether this scenario is likely. Personally, I think it's very unlikely. Which is why I think the duplicate functionality clause should be axed.
A waste of investment?
Tell that to guy who developed Trism ... and dropped his app into the online store.
A process, by the way, that goes: Fill out two web forms, send an email, and then sit and wait for a hundred thousand dollars to arrive in your mailbox.
No
* contract negotiations
* cold-calling distributors
* combat over shelf space
* surrendering 85% of your profits to an umbrella company (I'm looking at you, EA)
* ASTRONOMICAL fees for using an SDK or a TPM chip (I'm looking at you, Nintendo, Sony, et cetera).
You have no idea how unprecedented the ease-of-use is for a software developer, relative to the exposure. It's easier than putting a t-shirt up for sale on CafePress, and for end users seeking your product, it's even easier than that. The "buy" link is sitting in their hand or pocket, seconds away from the home screen, 16 hours a day.
Many thousands of developers have looked at these golden handcuffs and put their wrists out enthusiastically.
That still makes no sense. Apple makes no money off of the included apps except for the App Store and the Wi-Fi music store. Why would Apple care that someone wanted to write an app that competed with their non-profit generating software? Part of the reason that people are buying more Macs now is because of the ability to run Windows. Apple has even advertised the ability to run Windows and ships Windows compatible drivers with Leopard.
Then what, do you suppose, was the rationale for Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer for free?
Copy and paste. No smartphone can legitimately hold the title without this most basic feature.
To kill a competitor that had ambitions on making the browser a platform and making Windows irrelevant.