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

"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?

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: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

[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.