Slashdot Mirror
Apple Blindsides More AppStore Developers
For a while now Apple has said it doesn't want "widget-like" apps in the store; but where is the boundary of that fuzzy statement? The developers of My Frame, of which three versions had already been approved for the iPhone/iPad, found out that they had already crossed it when Apple informed them their app would be pulled. My Frame had options to overlay data on whatever photo was displaying: a Twitter stream, weather, etc. When one of the developers wrote to Steve Jobs on a whim to ask what unwritten rule their app had violated, Jobs wrote back: "We are not allowing apps that create their own desktops. Sorry." "I see now why people are so angry at the 'murky' nature of the App Store, and I'm starting to agree with them. My Frame was approved by Apple 3 times (once for each version we released), and ... now, at version 1.2 they decide it's to be removed? How can a company be prepared to invest into a platform that can change at any time, cutting you off and kicking you out, with no course of action but to whine on some no-name blog[?] There is no alternative platform, despite what others may say about Android, it's immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare. It really is Apple's way or the highway...." A few blogs have picked up the story.
It's time to retire the Bill Gates Borg photo and replace it with a Steve Jobs Borg photo for Apple stories.
As long as the userbase remains as large as it is, that means leaving a lot of money on the table for many developers.
As sucky as the terms are, it's hard to walk away from that.
How can a company be prepared to invest into a platform that can change at any time
I don't know. Why don't we ask someone who ha ---- Oh wait, that's you!
Years later, after it's been documented in to oblivion that Apple dicks app store developers over. The developers either know full well what they are getting themselves in to or they are completely retarded. Yet we here we are, hearing the same tired $@%&ing story once again. The insignificant details are different but nothing else is.
App store devs, you KNOW you have two options: Deal with it or don't. Now, please, kindly tell your story on Twitter, Facebook status updates or somewhere else no one is paying attention and quit robbing the rest of us of our mental bandwidth.
Whale
Or Steve Jobs in a sheep suit.
There is no alternative platform, despite what others may say about Android, it's immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare. It really is Apple's way or the highway...
This just isn't true anymore. Yes, the market does have its issues, but it is certainly an alternative if the app store won't allow your app. Android will overtake iPhone in the near future as far as overall market share goes (since it's on all sorts of low-end devices nowadays, as well as multiple carriers, not to mention the very best phones these days run android, not iPhone OS, and it doesn't look like this summer's iPhone will be any better than them).
While it may have its downsides as compared to the app store, completely ruling out the android market is just foolish.
I don't think Android even needs a market app. I don't have a market app for my PC, and I don't have any trouble finding and installing software. And the lack of such an app doesn't seem to be dissuading anyone from developing desktop apps.
The Android thing is definitely just whining. It's a great platform and even I, with my modest skill, can code up stuff that works on multiple devices. Planning for different screens is nothing new... it happens in the PC and web world ALL the time.
Good aps are NOT hard to find even if it involves a little more community involvement to see what people are using for some given task. On top of it *I* get to decide what I put on my phone, not some nameless Apple employee, and that is very important to me.
Android isn't perfect, but neither is iPhone. I think it has a lot more potential than Apple in the long run, especially if they hurting developers with their Ivory Tower style decisions on high about what apps stay and what apps go.
Hard to walk away from it yes. But it seems the choice here is to walk away from it on your own terms, or be arbitrarily and randomly kicked to the curb without having had the time to develop a go-forward plan.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Sucks to be you. Don't write for iStuff.
I kind of agree with you on this. The blurb quoted basically reads to me as "there isn't an easy alternative that allows me to do almost no marketing in order to have people buy my app."
While I sympathize with the author(s)' feeling that the AppStore's rules border on the completely arbitrary, there *are* alternatives, just not brain-dead, no-work easy alternatives.
I really have to wonder if there is more than meets the sound-bite here. It sounds absurd yes. But then again it would be absurd to be so capricious. Maybe were not getting the full story? Apple is if anything not illogical in their choices. You may vehemently disagree with their choices but the choices all have an internal logic. I can't see any logic here. I suspect this may be a BS story.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Given that the devs are pissed about the vendor's control of the platform(which Microsoft plans to emulate), rather than the platform's technical prowess, I'd say that anybody who is hoping that Windows Phone 7 will save them is moderately delusional.
Admittedly, since MS will be coming at the market from a position of significant weakness by the time any WP7 handsets actually make it out the door(oh hai! Our revision 1 product, missing most of the enterprise stuff that kept people on WM6 despite the fact that it blew, is being released into the face of iPhone OS 4, and android 2.2, if not 2.3 or later...) they will likely be inclined to be merciful masters. At first.
However, if they experience any significant success, there is no reason to expect that they won't abuse their power just as hard as Apple. If they experience little or no success, they might well double-down on the crackdown, and vertically integrate even harder, screwing over any remaining 3rd parties(this is barely hypothetical, we all know what happened to the 3rd-party "playsforsure" ecosystem when MS decided that they weren't doing the job against Apple...)
Mod me down but Android an immature wild west platform? My ass.
There is no alternative platform, despite what others may say about Android, it's immature and their app store(s) are a wild west nightmare. It really is Apple's way or the highway..."
Somehow freedom != wild west? I'll take the highway thanks.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Where do you draw the line, Mr. Jobs?
Wherever I want. Sorry.
-Steve
Anyone who says Android can't compete head to head with any other mobile OS is either deluded or has not really checked it out.
The sad part is that he's totally wrong. You can't use an Android 2.x device and think of the platform as immature or incomplete. Sure, there are some differences between Android and iPhone OS, but there are also differences between both of those platforms and other mature platforms, such as Blackberry and Windows Mobile.
And I wouldn't call the apps store(s) a Wild West: there's ONE official Android app store. You can, of course, use the unofficial app stores as well, but anyone who buys a first-tier Android handset is going to have the Android Market right there on their phone. The fact that you're not limited to just the Android market is certainly not a drawback; it seems to me that this is exactly what the OP wants: an alternative market that is not controlled by the hardware manufacturer.
Apple is just now including features in the iPhone that were in Android from the start. In fact, every major new feature in iPhone OS 4 is already in another mobile platform. More Android handsets were activated Q1 2010 than iPhones. Android is making its way in to all kinds of devices, not just phones and PMP's.
The last thing I'd call Android at this point is "immature."
Its not unreasonable to ask that Apple publicize what their requirements are. Companies are investing time and money developing apps that increase the value of Apple's product. The least Apple can do is have published guidelines of what is allowed in their appstore. Then a company can look at those guidelines and know if a product they're planning isn't allowed. If its not allowed then the compnay need not waste anymore time on it.
Yes Apple has the power to reject apps from its store. But just because you have power doesn't mean you should be a dick about it.
It's unreasonable to ask Apple to do anything they don't want to. It's their damned platform and they can be as pricky as they want.
It's also unreasonable for Apple to expect their developer base to remain loyal after being ass-reamed by Steve with sandy vaseline.
This sort of thing will work itself out. Likely not to Apple's long-term benefit, IMHO.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
I notice a handful of developers who have a beef with the way Apple runs their App store, but do any users actually care? Are there hundreds of thousands of users who are hating Apple right now because Apple is denying the users access to a killer application that they simply can't live without?
The whole issue surrounding the app store seems really contrived to me. Users who actually care about wanting to run specific types of applications will buy a phone that they can run applications on. Users who want an iPhone will buy an iPhone. Plenty of huge corporations like Starbucks, Bank of America and others have developed iPhone apps. Fandango has an app for finding movies that runs on both the iPhone and the G1 (and probably other Android phones too). If there was a huge problem with Apple exclusivity, I'd expect corporations like BofA and the like to be complaining that Apple is preventing them from offering their customers the same kind of applications that are offered on Android.
Other than some niche apps, there doesn't seem to be a real problem. If app devs really have uber ideas for applications then they should be able to build those apps on alternative platforms and the users will come. If they do build them and the users don't show up, the app obviously wasn't all that compelling in the first place.
I'm not a big Apple fan, but I recognize their right to tailor their product as they see fit. It isn't as if they are the entire mobile device market. They aren't even half of it. There are alternatives. As much as I dislike the Apple fanboys when they trot out their tired, "You aren't the target market" meme, it seems to fit in this case. Apple isn't targeting developers. They are targeting end users.
Anybody bother to check to see if the app has been pulled before providing a billion web hits to this app? No? Great! I have a feeling my app is about to be pulled too.
The problem with Android is the fragmentation.
Fragmentation is needed for a competitive environment. It's an added problem, partly for developers but mainly for google, and they are handling it quite well. Properly accounting for different hardware targets in both the hardware development and in the software development kits is a daunting task. However, and I feel everyone is repeating the fragmentation mantra without giving proper credit to Google, Android handles fragmentation quite well. Apps are always forward-compatible (write for 1.5 and you get ~100% compatibility with existing handsets), and they announce the hardware they need.
Do you need a camera? Declare it on your manifest, and the app appears on the market only to devices sporting a camera. Do you absolutely need multitouch? Declare it. Do you need an SD card? Declare it. The only drawback is that every requirement you add narrows down the range of devices your app appears in.
Would it be better if there were fewer devices all alike? It'd be like the narrowing decision would have already been made for you. Oh, right. That's the Apple way: Users are too stupid, let's decide for them.
In the end, it's different. It's not worse. It's more complicated for the developer, in exchange for a larger user base. Before anyone mentions there are more iPhones than Android devices, please first consider that: a) there are more Android devices than iPhones being sold today and; b) Android covers a much wider range of price-points, and is thus in reach of a much larger user base, so this tendency is likely here to stay (think how Nokia is still king of mobile handsets).
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
I disagree. The approval process is important to filter out apps that don't launch at all and malware (which they don't check right now unfortunately).
No. That's not how society works.
It may be unreasonable to expect Apple to do do anything they don't want to, but it is most certainly not unreasonable to ask.