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
you are all straight heterosexuals who like the insertion of cock into pussy and nothing else ever. Ha ha ha ha ha
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But don't make it out like this is immoral. To a lot of us this is not a limitation, its a feature. I like the closed system. I prefer to know that every application is vetted by apple, even if it means waiting or paying more for some functions, it means I'll never have to worry about viruses or malware. This has always been what I've liked about apple - I don't want twenty different applications that do the same thing, I want one good one.
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.
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.
"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();
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.
The Mail app on the phone is fine..... the only problem i have is that I cant see my flags.....
other then that its great...... personally all those stupid apps in the app store that mimic other apps should be taken out......
and I dont blame apple for pulling apps that mimic their stuff..... it is there business..... if you want unstable and unsupported jailbreak your phone
and If you dont make apps because you think that apple is going to steal them thats just stupid. little apps that do mininmal stuff are bringing in 1000's of dollars a month for there developers.... just stay out of the apple area and reap the benefits
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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).
... but 2008 is looking pretty good.
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?
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
>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.
"...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.
screw apple, i hope they go away sooner rather than later, and screw all the fanboys too, everything, limited, locked down, it COULD have been REALLY cool if they would OPEN there systems a little
The apple store isnt the only place to get iphone stuff. Go to http://www.TaskR.com and get the best to-do list app EVER!
"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.
Wall Street Survivor is the Webâ(TM)s best fantasy stock trading game and investment contest portal where players can manage their own fantasy stock portfolios and compete risk-free against friends, peers, colleagues or other players for the most lucrative cash prizes on the web http://borsegame.cjb.net/ See rankings: [img]http://i38.servimg.com/u/f38/11/28/59/10/1110.jpg[/img]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is why I wish that Google Android Platform does well... Hope T-Mobile G1 go well.
There's a simple solution to your dilemma: buy an iPod Touch and switch to a free(ish) crappy phone for your communication needs.
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
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.
Copy and paste. No smartphone can legitimately hold the title without this most basic feature.