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.

Comments

iphone is a police state

[Eravnrekaree]

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.

Re:iphone is a police state

[David Gerard]

It's a general-purpose computer that's been DRM-infected to hell.

It's what Trusted Computing would actually be like: capricious, arbitrary and overpriced.

Re:iphone is a police state

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what is expected of Apple fans: Denial. Obviously the iPhone isn't a police state. For one, it isn't a state. That should make it clear that you're looking at an analogy. The programs are the people of that "state", and they are indeed censored and controlled by Apple.

Unfortunately the central authority model is on the rise everywhere: Even Mozilla has its one stop shop which is tightly integrated into Mozilla's products and where developers are at the mercy of the admins (without the DRM though).

Re:iphone is a police state

[mrsteveman1]

And yet I can still slam Apple on online forums and while phoning friends while using an iPhone.

Except for Apples forums, they can't handle criticism even if its just an attempt to resolve a problem.

Re:iphone is a police state

[erroneus]

You know, while I resent and dislike this scenario for all the same reasons most people here do, I have to think about this from the other side of it. My CEO loves his MacBook pro. He loves it so much, last year, he got Macs for the whole family and bought every Apple device to support it -- airports and the like -- and went full-bore Apple at home and didn't look back. It was total commitment. It was part experiment and part disgust and frustration with the misery that Windows brings.

Apple works to keep confusion out of the Apple world. They do this by controlling the environment carefully. It is imperfect in areas; faults and holes are found and closed. And it is speculative to say that Apple excludes things for anti-competitive reasons, but it is unquestionable that they do work to control the environment. But for many people, the results of this provides exactly the experience people are seeking out of Apple.

And I think the fact that Apple's philosophy exists in the form it does is useful if for no reason than to observe the practices and the results they yield.

Apple isn't in 100% control though. Apple HAS to allow Microsoft to behave like assholes in their world. By that, I am specifically talking about the difficulty of setting up Entourage to connect to a Microsoft Exchange server using SSL without getting the invalid certificate error. It's a Microsoft app and a Microsoft server. You'd think they would be able to get it right but for whatever reason, Microsoft hasn't fixed it. If Apple had their way, they would exclude Microsoft entirely from their environment... it just wouldn't be a wise business decision. Microsoft applies other limitations and broken behaviors in its products for Apple as well. This is not something that Apple easily tolerates... but they will from Microsoft and probably from Adobe as well.

Other opinions aside, I find it interesting to observe the various dynamics surrounding Apple's philosophies applied.

Re:iphone is a police state

[ScrewMaster]

Unfortunately the central authority model is on the rise everywhere:

It's the mainframe mentality expressed on a global level. And yes, it's unnerving, particularly for someone like me who was there thirty-odd years ago when the personal computer was born, and has long since been accustomed to doing whatever the hell I want with my systems.

Re:iphone is a police state

[novakreo]

When was a device built by Apple a democratic system?

Oh I don't know, the entire Mac range?
I can run any software I please on my MacBook Pro, even format and install Windows or Linux if I want. On an iPhone, I can only run Apple-approved software, unless the phone is jailbroken.

24 years after their iconic '1984' ad, Apple look like hypocrites with their complete about-face on the iPhone.

Re:iphone is a police state

[TheSpoom]

No, your examples are not DRM.

Your examples restrict the permissions of a service, or of closed information.

DRM is an attempt to restrict permissions of software or information on the system of a user who otherwise has complete control because it's their system.

To give an analogy, permissions restrict normal users because normal users don't have an expectation of control. DRM attempts to restrict root.

Re:iphone is a police state

[Dlugar]

I didn't mod you troll, but I do think you're full of it.

Look at the term. Passwords are a form of DRM. CHMOD is a form of DRM.

No, they are not. DRM is when you give the key and the content to someone, and expect them to only be able to view that content under certain circumstances.

If I password-protect something, then I have two choices: (a) give you the password, (b) don't give you the password. If (a), you can't access the content at all. If (b), you can do anything with the content you want. Period. DRM is the foolish attempt to do both.

If a chmod a file, I have two choices: (a) give you read access, (b) don't give you read access. If (a), you can do anything with that content you want. You can read it, you can copy it, you can run it on another machine, whatever. If (b), you can't do anything with the content. You can't read it, you can't copy it, you can't run it on another machine. Again, DRM is the idea that you can have your cake and eat it too.

I am aware that this next statement might seem like trolling but I've been wanting to ask/say it for a while now.

Go ask all those people who claim that information wants to be free what their social security number is if they have one and, if they don't, then ask for their local equivalent.

This is either trolling or completely misunderstanding the issue. I will be generous and assume the latter.

This falls perfectly in line with the other two categories above. I have two choices with my SSN: (a) I can tell you what it is, (b) I can keep it secret from you. If (a), you have full access to my SSN and can copy it, tell others about it, post it on the interwebs, etc. If (b), then you can't do anything with it, you can't copy it, you can't use it to screw over my credit rating, etc. DRM is the idea that you can, given enough technology, tell someone what your SSN is and, at the same time, prevent them from doing anything bad with it. I hope it is obvious to you why this is impossible.

You might think that DRM would be a good thing in some cases if it were technologically feasible, such as being able to give people your SSN and ensuring that they can't do anything bad with it. But DRM is not anything like passwords or chmod or "normal" access restrictions that do not give people access to the content and then expect to control it.

Dlugar

"Duplicating functionality"

[mrbah]

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 time to face a simple fact about the iPhone

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:Why should Apple open up?

[gaderael]

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?

Re:Why should Apple open up?

[David Gerard]

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.

Re:Why should Apple open up?

[Karlt1]

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? 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 Apple's store be any different?

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,

Re:Why should Apple open up?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Why should Microsoft's store be any different?

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.

Re:It's time to face a simple fact about the iPhon

[stg]

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.