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.
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?
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
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Because it's not a monopoly. You can abuse a minority market share as much as you want. The iPhone is, currently, the nicest phone I've played with, but it's still a tiny player. It's not even the best selling touchscreen phone. Giving up certain freedoms in exchange for a nicer user interface is a choice that individuals are free to make.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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).
"...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.
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.
And they are calling the people buying an iPhone "fanbois".
Quick logic lesson for ya; the existence of google fanbois does not disprove the existence of iPhone fanbois.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.