How To Get Rejected From the App Store

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister catalogs 12 sure-fire ways to get your app rejected from Apple's notoriously fickle App Store. From executing interpreted code, to using Apple's APIs without permission, to designing your UI, each transgression has been abstracted from real-life rejections — for the most part because Apple seems to be making up the rules as it goes along. 'It'd be nice for Apple to make conditions for rejection clear,' McAllister writes. 'Apple has been tinkering with the language of its iPhone SDK license agreement lately, but that hasn't done much to clarify the rules — unless you're Adobe. For everyone else, the App Store's requirements seem as vague and capricious as ever.'"

Comments

this book can't be a complete set

[Michael Kristopeit]

with the current open ended terms, there is no way this book could be a complete set... "just 'cause" will always still be an option for apple.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[The Qube]

I have no problem with "just cause" if there are avenues for communication and appeal. However...

My app was kicked out of the App Store after 12 months. It was the best app for cricket scores out there - #1 app in almost all cricket-playing countries, great online and offline reviews, featured by Apple several times etc. All of the scores etc for it were obtained from legal sources. However, the developers for the official app of the Indian Premier League (sort-of international cricket competition in March/April every year) complained to Apple that my app infringed on their exclusive rights to provide information on IPL matches and, after a bit of back-and-forth arguments between myself and them, Apple pulled the app.

Now, it's not the fact that they pulled it without "just cause" that upset me, but that they refused to comment and communicate about it in any way. I repeatedly sent emails to various official (and unofficial) contacts at Apple to seek clarification, complain and get the app re-instated, but not a peep from anyone. I even sent an official DMCA Counter Notification and not a single response on that either.

After no word from anyone for a long while, I had to close the service even for existing users who already had the app on their iPhones 'cos I couldn't afford to keep paying for the match data feeds with no revenues. Apple's decision has cost me thousands of dollars, but again, what really upsets me is the total lack of professionalism and common courtesy that they have displayed in this.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[goose-incarnated]

What exactly were you expecting? They aren't democratic about this, and they have never pretended to be - whining about their policy now is foolish, you should have rather just developed for a different platform.

I suppose it's too much to ask if you learned your lesson - for all I know you're busy working on another iApp instead of just competing on an even playing field on a different mobile platform.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[The Qube]

It's not about being democratic or not. I can look at it from their point of view - they probably received legal threats from the other party and they went down the path of least resistance - it was easier to pull my app then to argue about it.

It's about communication. They are marketing themselves as being developer friendly etc, but don't actually look after the developers or even communicate with them.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[idontgno]

The number one problem with Apple marketing is that some people accidentally believe it.

It's interesting that the sages of ancient wisdom understood Apple long before it was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but the updated version relevant to apple is called "The Douche and the Moron."

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[getNewNickName]

Communication to the small developer is a lose-lose situation. If they're not careful about how they officially communicate the rejection then they are open to litigation from the small developer as well. So again they're going down the path of least resistance by not saying anything. I'm sure if you decide to litigate they'll discuss the reasons very thoroughly via a lawyer.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally you made an Android version before you gave up on it, right?

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[The Qube]

They've left themselves open to litigation regardless, especially by failing to communicate to the DMCA Counter Notification letter. Based on the legal advice, I would definitely win the case against both the Apple and the the other party, but, the cost of the litigation would be more than my current losses (unless massive punitive damages were awarded). So, live and let live...

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[eulernet]

what really upsets me is the total lack of professionalism and common courtesy that they have displayed in this

That's because they don't have an app for that.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[getNewNickName]

So like you said, regardless they lose, so why not just keep quiet? You've already established that they stand less of a chance of being litigated by a small developer. If it makes you feel any better, from one developer to another, I feel for you. Being bullied out by big corporations would be more than frustrating. If you're looking for an apology, might I suggest you try to email Jobs directly; the MyFrame developer got one.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[Anonymous Coward]

go to small claims court and sue for loss of revenue. costs 50$ or abouts.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[iconic999]

One word: Jailbreak

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[Lehk228]

file a complaint against IPL and Apple with the FTC.

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[RMH101]

So you're at step two of your signature?

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[HopefulIntern]

Now, it's not the fact that they pulled it without "just cause" that upset me

I get what you're saying, but the person you're replying to said "just 'cause", not "just cause". The two are very different.
It seems to me Apple can reject an app "just 'cause" (just because..[we feel like it]), which is quite the opposite of "just cause".

Re:this book can't be a complete set

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Apple will always retain the right to do as it see fits when it comes to pulling apps for any given reason, assuming the government doesn't end up telling them they don't have that right.

That said, It think Apple is figuring out how to go about this - they feel they have an obligation to defend the quality of their platform, and whether or not you agree with their ends or means, it is their right. Ultimately I think they will publish clearer standards and review/appeal processes will be introduced. They're just not in place yet.

I e-mailed Steve Jobs about it and he wrote me back stating precisely this.

Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[elrous0]

No one is making anyone buy an iPhone. No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone.

This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS. They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them. You want to compete so bad? Go make your own phone or pad.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[bigstrat2003]

You know, the fact that there are other options is not a valid reason to simply shut up and accept Apple's capriciousness. Merely taking other options is worthless as a force for change unless you also make it known why you took the alternative.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Turzyx]

I can understand both sides to this. On the one hand, Apple is trying to regulate its 'image' and reputation when it allows apps to be sold on their store. On the other hand, you have developers who, by all accounts, followed the vague rules and got their hard work rejected.

You put it nicely when you said "No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone" and given the tiny margins people make on apps, I'm surprised anyone bothers.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[gad_zuki!]

>This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS

No, its the 2000s and one of the largest smartphone OSs is iPhone (50 million units sold). Lets not forget their near perfect monopoly on music players, which are little more than smartphones sans phone and are binary compatible with ipod/ipad.

Also, in the 1990s no one made you buy Microsoft. You could always have bought a Mac or run a maturing Linux, like today. Harmful monopolies are funny things. In retrospect they are easy to spot, but when you in the midst of one its easy to justify them.

>They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them.

I dont think anyone is suggesting that, but pointing out Apple's rotten policies is a social good, at least in my book. It keeps the consumers informed and the bad publicity will hurt them enough in the long run. We're pretty much witnessing Steve Jobs circa 1980s all over again. He's going to fight for closed and expensive while his competitors will fight for open and cheap(er). Closed and expensive has early advantages but not much staying power.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[arth1]

No one is making anyone buy an iPhone. No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone.

This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS. They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them.

You may be wrong there. Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products.
And the share of the smartphone market that Apple holds might just be big enough, especially when seen in the context of their market share of the music player market.

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[NiceGeek]

Troll? Really? So making a factual statement gets downmodded but trashing Apple is a guaranteed +1 Insightful...got it.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[nomadic]

And by that logic movie critics should never write bad reviews, because nobody's forcing them to watch those movies. If Apple is acting immorally, what is wrong with calling them out on it?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[flyneye]

Yes, but, this is a group exercise in admonishing poor business practices by a dishonest company duping suckers as though it were a cult.
When, if ever Sour Apple Macincult can be a stand up company offering value for dollars, I'm sure they will get the respect they have coming.
Till then, they can feel free to continue on their path and endure the public badmouthing and disrespect they have coming.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Darkness404]

On the one hand, Apple is trying to regulate its 'image' and reputation when it allows apps to be sold on their store.

And their image has come down to a fundamentally broken OS and related technologies which claim "revolutionary" new features which are really things that people said that iPhone OS needed from day one.

Even the non-geeks are starting to realize it, when they can get the full web experience from Android and not from Apple, cheaper, more available devices from Android, they are switching to Android.

Apple has had several chances to have redeemed itself and each time has thrown away their chances. From not allowing multiple carriers in the US, not allowing various apps, refusing to allow Flash, being so slow to implement things that every other smartphone OS has like copy and paste along with multitasking, etc.

Really, how many times have you thought "I'd really like to get this smartphone platform, but there are a few apps in here that I don't agree with and it drags down the entire platform" . My guess is never.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[flyneye]

I agree. No one is making anyone develop for Iphone.
                          No one should be developing for Iphone.
                          No one should continue developing for Mac until they come down to earth, get real, get a life and get rid of Jobs.... For good.
The greater good.
                          Every line of code written for them enables them to continue to behave like jackasses.
                          When they only have hardware to sell, see if their attitude changes.
                            But gosh, I guess their hardware is really only a P.C. anyway.
                          I guess when you alienate your developers, your employees, your customers then it just becomes about Jobs and the Board of directors. Well we have P.C.s , We have Linux, various BSDs and even Microcrud. Steve Jobs and henchmen are not necessary for this scenario.
                      Apple: Think Drama

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[NatasRevol]

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

You mean besides abusive contractual obligations to third parties, like Pay for a Windows license even if you're shipping Linux on a computer, or else we'll take away all your licenses?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think anyone is suggesting that, but pointing out Apple's rotten policies is a social good, at least in my book. It keeps the consumers informed and the bad publicity will hurt them enough in the long run. We're pretty much witnessing Steve Jobs circa 1980s all over again. He's going to fight for closed and expensive while his competitors will fight for open and cheap(er). Closed and expensive has early advantages but not much staying power.

DItto!

And let's not forget that no one lives forever and we already saw what happened to Apple without a strong and charismatic leadership.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[mikael_j]

You may be wrong there. Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products.

Of course, MS had a 90+% market share on the desktop OS market, what's the iPhone's market share? Even if we're looking at smartphones I have yet to see any stats that even put it above 50%...

As for the music player market, they don't hold a majority on that either, if you narrow down the criteria enough I suppose you could give them a majority market share in part of that market but it's not like MS and operating systems where it was basically "almost completely owns the market except for the server market which they're advancing into strongly".

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[s73v3r]

Tiny margins? They make 70%, and don't have to worry about hosting or credit card processing fees. Those are better terms than most of the other mobile app stores. Definitely much better than what you'd get from the carriers themselves.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Tiresome argument is tiresome.

Repeating like a parrot that "nobody's forcing to buy something" is simply flawed logic aiming at dismissing any kind of critics on no grounds. Yes we are not forced to buy it, yes we still have all rights to point out sleazy practices.

Anyway, nobody's forcing you to share a point of view against your cult...

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Kielistic]

Kind of like don't put OS X on anything but Apple hardware, or else we'll take away your licenses and sue you into submission?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[donny77]

I could understand if Apple was rejecting developers because they also release on other platforms. THAT is what Microsoft was doing. Instead they are rejecting certain applications based on the application. If these apps are available on other platforms and users want them, then Apple shouldn't be getting all that market share. I can't demand Sony support playing XBOX 360 games on a PS3.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Bobfrankly1]

Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products. And the share of the smartphone market that Apple holds might just be big enough, especially when seen in the context of their market share of the music player market.

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

This is what has been floating in my head, but I've been unable to put into words. Excellent comment!

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[ArsonSmith]

Are you saying that movie critics should be able to halt the playing of movies completely just because they didn't like it?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[rpresser]

"Near perfect monopoly on music players"???? WTF? Between my friends and I, we use ten different portable devices to play music (not counting CD players, just digital files). NOT ONE OF THEM WAS MADE BY APPLE. And we don't feel the lack AT ALL.

You just want to play music, there's no need to suck Apple's dick. There are plenty of alternatives. GOOD ONES.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Bobfrankly1]

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

You mean besides abusive contractual obligations to third parties, like Pay for a Windows license even if you're shipping Linux on a computer, or else we'll take away all your licenses?

Yeah, that's nothing like an absent set of rules for the biggest smartphone OS and it's locked in store. There's nothing abusive when Apple chooses to reject apps that do what Apple does, or wants to do in the future. How about rejecting an app that was previously approved based on an update? Don't update your app, Apple might revoke the entire thing!

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Bobfrankly1]

Troll? Really? So making a factual statement gets downmodded but trashing Apple is a guaranteed +1 Insightful...got it.

Welcome to /. Here's your tinfoil hat.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[yurtinus]

While I still disagree with the monopoly theories, the biggest leverage you're missing is leveraging iTunes and the iPod dominance to gain smartphone market dominance. Playing your iTunes purchased music is (typically) more effort on non-apple smartphones and may even be impossible on some. Personally I don't think anything is to the point of screaming at the Feds to get involved (iPod and iPhone market share are each significant but not a monopoly), but it is worthy of the raised eyebrows it's getting.

So no, the link isn't fundamentally different, but the results are. When the Apple market dominance in music players and smartphones rivals Microsoft's in OSes and web browsers, then take action. Until then.... business as usual I suppose.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

You mean besides abusive contractual obligations to third parties, like Pay for a Windows license even if you're shipping Linux on a computer, or else we'll take away all your licenses?

You are refering to the practice that was ended* with the DOJ consent decree of 1995? It was definitely something that needed to be stopped, but this is now more than 15 years ago, time to move on?

(* if anyone had proof of this going on after 1995, they would have been able to hurt MS really really bad. DOJ would not have taken that lightly)

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[c_forq]

What if you want Apple to fail? If you are hoping to punish them it is better to leave them trying to guess what feature caused an exodus of users. That way as they take stabs at changes and features they will (hopefully) continue to lose users until they finally get it right.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar to Pay for a Mac if you're developing for the iPhone -- and if you use a different SDK we'll take away all your licenses?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

"Near perfect monopoly on music players"???? WTF? Between my friends and I, we use ten different portable devices to play music (not counting CD players, just digital files). NOT ONE OF THEM WAS MADE BY APPLE. And we don't feel the lack AT ALL.

You just want to play music, there's no need to suck Apple's dick. There are plenty of alternatives. GOOD ONES.

You don't have to have a lack of alternatives to have a monopoly market power (there was always alternatives to Windows as well), and there isn't necessary anything wrong with that as long as it isn't abused. Example of such abuse would be if Apple is using their totally dominant position in the online music business to pressure labels away from doing daily deals with much smaller competitor Amazon (which is being antitrust investigated right now, google it).

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[DragonWriter]

You know, the fact that there are other options is not a valid reason to simply shut up and accept Apple's capriciousness.

No, its a reason to vote with your dollars (whether as an end-user or someone investing in app development) and reject Apple's capriciousness.

Whining while rewarding Apple's capriciousness has counterproductive effects.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[hitmark]

it may be the tight bundling of the two, making them feed of each other.

microsoft got in trouble not over the windows marketshare, but when they started bundling IE with windows.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[DragonWriter]

No, its the 2000s and one of the largest smartphone OSs is iPhone (50 million units sold).

"One of the largest" != "the largest". They don't lead in either US or global marketshare, nor are they improving their position in either.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[rpresser]

"Their totally dominant position in the online music business" is not "a near perfect monopoly on music players". They are totally different things: one is the sale of content through a particular type of channel, the other is the sale of devices you hold in your hand and plug earphones into.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[obarthelemy]

1- Does that make them right ?
2- Does that invalidate attempts at trying to try and understand their logic (if any) and not be banned from their store ?
3- Does that make efforts to publicize their behaviour superfluous ?

Apple isn't MS: MS never treated their devs this badly.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[hitmark]

lets not forget how microsoft replaced novell in the office directory server business.

bundle a mail client with windows, then sell a product, exchange, for the server rack.

thing was that at the time, novell only cared for the server side of netware, and allowed microsoft to implement client support in windows.

while not directly bundling abuse, their bundling of IE with windows was not the first time they used such tactics to get ahead.

and the real battle of the browsers was more about the web servers, and their proprietary extensions to the html specs.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[mikael_j]

Yes, but the reason that caused trouble for MS was because they were using their near-complete monopoly in one market to kill off competitors in another market by bundling their product for that market with their "monopoly product".

A suitable car analogy might be if Ford manufactured 95% of all trucks but didn't sell them with trailers, then one day they decided to enter the trailer market by buying licensing "trailer technology" from some other company and bundling a trailer with every truck, that would pretty much kill the trailer market. The dishonest part basically being that they were basically giving their new product away to kill off the competition and gain complete control over the trailer market.

Ok, not the best car analogy ever..

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[superdave80]

"No, its the 2000s..."

Man, how do I break the news to him that we're in the 10's now?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Monkeedude1212]

It's not?

I don't need to force a change on anybody. I am 100% fine with Apple being Capricious.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[obarthelemy]

True, but it's not what Apple is doing. Apple is
1- forcing devs to learn THEIR dev tools, so that they get invested in Apple's ecosystem
2- enforcing control of what is sold, and above all who's selling it. Like for the "risque" but not porn" apps, it seems there's significantly less risk of being banned when you're big/official... My take is, they don't care for the little guys, only big names get attention.

The "cross-platform dev tools lead to bad apps" line bunk: a majority of all available iPhone Apps could have been developped with whatever, with no loss of functionnality, and they're clearly NOT vetting apps on quality.

Let's all pray Android ends this greedy madness. MS is now taking the same "Welcome to MY playpen" tack, which should mean it's on its last legs ^^

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[PopeRatzo]

this is a story about a guy who was stealing content from a source

It's not so cut and dried.

It is not universally accepted that sports scores are the property of the sport any more than I can charge people for looking at a tree that grows on my front lawn. Or charge them for taking pictures of that tree and selling those pictures. Google makes money by providing a map that shows my address. Do they owe me something or do they need my permission to do so?

I can learn the score of today's baseball game without having anything to do with any Major League Baseball property. I could have heard them from a friend. I could have heard them on TV, on the radio or seen them on the front page of the newspaper sitting in the paybox on my streetcorner. I could have been at the game myself.

So, if I post here on Slashdot that the Chicago Black Hawks are now leading the Philadelphia Flyers in the Stanley Cup series by 2 games to 1, can the NHL come after me? Can they come after Slashdot? How about if I mention that my White Sox beat Tampa Bay 8-5 Sunday night? Can MLB come after me?

"Stealing content from a source"my ass. Do you believe newspapers should have to pay Major League Baseball to print last night's box score? The guy was selling an application that displayed the same information that was available in hundreds of other sources for free. How can the cricket association now claim that it is proprietary information?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Wrath0fb0b]

Funny, I just bought an Android phone and I had to go through ridiculous hoops just to get a root account on it. Where's the freedom in that?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[bigstrat2003]

At what point did I ever suggest one should do otherwise? Indeed, I have done as you said, and voted with my dollars. However, I also don't see that as a reason not to complain as well.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[NiceGeek]

Oh golly, however will I sleep at night knowing you don't approve of me.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[nomadic]

Are you saying that movie critics should be able to halt the playing of movies completely just because they didn't like it?

Are you equating "that director makes really bad movies, and should stop doing that" with "that director makes really bad movies, and will be compelled to stop."

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[NiceGeek]

Really, this gets you that upset? That's cute.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[jjohnson]

1. It's not an issue of right or wrong. It's a commercial transaction, both buying the device and developing for it. Don't like the terms of the transaction? Don't do it.

2. Their logic has always been perfectly obvious to everyone who wasn't a /. reader. Apple provides a walled garden experience with strict controls. It's carefully limited in scope to provide a particular premium experience that Apple thinks will sell well--and it does. All of the restrictions on apps make sense in light of Apple's desire to avoid poorly written apps being on their phones--because when the app doesn't work well, Apple and the device take a hit for it.

3. No, but it makes all the whinging about it irritating because the stench of /. reader entitlement is noxious.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[jjohnson]

Bundling IE with Windows was problematic just because of the Windows marketshare. If Windows had only 50% of the market, antitrust regulators wouldn't have cared. Bundling isn't illegal; bundling for the purpose of monopoly extension is.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

More specifically, no one is making anyone exclusively use or sell through Apples App Store.

Jailbreak is currently a very easy 30 second process (In the future that may change with changes in 4.0, but we dont know yet), the process automatically installs an alternative App installer which isn't subject to Apples conditions.

Of course trying to make money in the jailbreak market has problems, the same problems as you will face in the PC and Android markets. But really think about that, App Stores restrictions are what actually make it possible to turn a significant profit in there with apps which would go nowhere in the "free world".

People cant complain that Apples restrictions are keeping them down, when it is those same restrictions which provide the environment for their app to be commercially viable.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that action is called trolling and that seems to be the mentality around here when approaching any type of product that gets popular.

Quick... somebody mention how great their N900 is

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple dos not have anything like a monopoly on MP 3 players. Ever been in a Best Buy?
You obviously have no idea what Jobs did or did not do in the 80's. for one thing he wasn't even at Apple during most of the 80's.
Rotten social policies? Puh-lease. Most people think keeping porn out of the app store is a great social policy. Most people also think paying attention to what apps work, are secure and those are not are also excellent "social policies". The by far vast majority of iPhone owners could care less about how Apple runs the app store and if anything approve of their policies.
Maturing Linux in the 90's? You have a serious issue with dates. You should really know what you are talking a bout before you post such blather.

As to the article by Mr. know nothing Mc Allister it is typical of Info World to post such nonsense since they became Engadget and lost the respect over everyone in IT who used to consider them an authoritative source.
Jobs always said there would be native apps. Right from the beginning.
The use too much bandwidth is also wrong since many approved apps do use a lot of bandwidth. i don't think Apple cares much whether AT&T likes it or not.
He does not understand what api's are available and what are proprietary. Newsflash. Android also has proprietary api's. Because its a phone and they have to keep certain things untouchable for reliability and regulatory reasons. This is why not all of Android is open source contrary to what many people would like to believe. Oh and try to contribute to the Android source code and see how far you get. Google isn't interested.
Also Google doesn't not allow all apps on Android.

For the record my phone is an HTC Incredible but only because AT&T sucks.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

No, its the 2000s

umm, it's the '10's

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[protektor]

If you vote with your dollars and not buy something, especially hardware. They will just claim you pirated it, not that people thought it sucked and didn't buy it.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[protektor]

oops I meant software.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[aiht]

What? The movie critic is the analogy for the customer, not for Apple.
I don't think anyone was saying that the customer should be allowed to stop Apple selling iPhones. Did I miss something?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[ArsonSmith]

Programmer = director
Critic = Apple
user = movie goer

I don't see how it could have been interpreted any other way.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[mgblst]

You are both idiots. Microsoft was a convicted Monopolist, and abused their position for many users. They would pay PC companies to not sell any computer with other OS. How does this compare to anything Apple has done? Sure, apple do some shitty stuff, and they deserve to be given shit for it, but you guys are just being stupid and ignorant.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[unkiereamus]

Playing your iTunes purchased music is (typically) more effort on non-apple smartphones and may even be impossible on some.

You know, I've seen people comment on this, and I'm personally surprised I've never seen someone comment on the readily apparent link.

People get locked in to apple products because of their investment in iTunes purchases. Why are they locked in? Because Apple uses DRM! Why do they use DRM? Because the RIAA (et al) insisted!

Thus either Apple is the patsy of the RAAI (et al) or the RIAA (et al) is the patsy of Apple! Or \more likely, both are patsies of the Freemasons, or maybe the Illuminati.

It's beautiful! It's elegant! It's irrefutable!

Well, maybe it's just a rum-fueled flight of fancy, at any rate, I'm pretty sure Jobs was on the grassy knoll...or do I mean Ballmer?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Lord of the Fries]

Nope. This is patently not Microsoft. What this is Apple circa 1984 all over again.

The original Macintosh computers were revolutionary, better, yada, yada, all that. They really were. Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 were a huge joke compared in many ways. But Apple killed themselves with a thousand cuts, that all make me feel like the clock's been wound back 20 years. Thread running through it all, was an arrogance (real or imaginary isn't important), that the media ran with, and the masses slowly but steadily flock to. It started with the developer community, and it trickled outwards. None of the actual "technical" or "business" aspect matter. The fact is, the amount of bad press engendered by all of this, would take miracles in price reduction and technology to overcome now.

I own 6 Macs. 2 laptops, 2 iMacs, and 2 iPhones. I love all 6 of them. I've been an Apple faithful for a long time, though I spend a lot of time loving Linux too. I've only been able to recently reconcile how I feel about Apple these days. I decided there are really two Apples. There is Mac OS X apple, which I still love and think highly of. And there is iPhoneOS Apple. And when my next contract cycle comes up, I'll look at something else. Tired of the games from Apple. Being faithful, waiting for them to return 16 years later, a kinder, better, more open, underdog phone vendor isn't what I'm in the mood for a second time round.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Xest]

"it's not like the itunes store is an entity in the void. music labels asked it to be the way it is, with all the limitations and device restrictions and stuff."

Yet they didn't ask Amazon and Play.com to have their stores that way when they opened their DRM free, device neutral stores long before Apple even considered removing DRM?

Sorry but Steve's speech about hating DRM was nothing more than showmanship, he loved it, selling proprietary Apple only DRM tunes in iTunes meant he could force people to keep buying Apple devices when they upgrade their devices. The only reason Apple had to backpedal on DRM is because the DRM free stores were gaining traction rapidly, and he was left with a stark choice of losing customers but keeping lock-in, or losing lock-in and keeping customers.

"you can argue that the iphone is leveraging the app store, but then again debian is leveraging it's repositories. there are no functional differences."

This makes no sense, software from the repositories don't have artificial restrictions that prevent them being used elsewhere, the very fact that it's free, and open source, means that anyone can take and use stuff from the repositories as they want to. Importantly though, Debian has less than 1% share of the OS market, so isn't even close to having a monpoly, whilst Apple very much has a monopoly on portal media devices and arguably just about has a monopoly in terms of content sales for portable devices. It's certainly been leveraging that monopoly to push the iPhone and that's where it enters shady territory- as has been said above, this is absolutely not any different than Microsoft using Windows to push IE. Even the use of the iPod to push iTunes and vice versa is the same.

The problem is you're ignoring important points in your attempt to try an suggest Apple is an entirely innocent company, specifically the percetange stranglehold it has on certain markets, and how it's trying to leverage those strangleholds to force it's way into other markets. The iPad only adds to this- they're now using their monopoly position on media players and content to push into the tablet market, and most blatantly, to force the likes of Amazon out of the eBook market with their price fixing deals.

Apple is very much an illegal monopoly, it's really only a matter of time before it comes to court now, and their market cap overtaking Microsoft's just puts them under the scrutiny required for the likes of the FTC to begin to seriously engage in this.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Richard_at_work]

You are both idiots. Microsoft was a convicted Monopolist

You can add yourself to the idiot list - there is no such thing as a 'convicted monopolist', as the monopoly law is civil law and does not deal in convictions. Microsoft was found to be a monopolist, and was found to have abused that monopoly, and a civil judgement was handed down on that basis - there was no criminal conviction.

'Convicted monopolist' is simply a Slashdot marketing term.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[BlueWaterBaboonFarm]

Worse than Blackberry AppWorld's 80%. But the startup cost is $220.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Richard_at_work]

Your point is valid, except for the fact that Outlook was never bundled with Windows, Outlook Express was - using OE with Exchange gained you nothing of note, you needed the (non-bundled) Outlook to work with Exchanges enterprise features.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally facts can not be copyrighted - therefore the results of games are not protected, only the presentation of them set down in some form of media.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[hitmark]

if the rest was 5% here 10% there, microsoft bundling could still be up for investigation (tho how the outcome would be is anyones guess, as it seems to be just as much politics as keeping a level playing field).

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[hitmark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Exchange_Server

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_Messaging.png

observe, it started out with windows exchange (later windows messaging), actually a mail client bundled with late win95 onwards, outlook and outlook express only showed up later once microsoft started taking internet seriously.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Richard_at_work]

Except that that series of events does not collaborate your earlier post - the bundling of the "Microsoft Exchange/Messaging" client did not support the release of the later "Microsoft Exchange" server as you still needed "Microsoft Outlook" to use its features, so the two events are not linked as you suggested they were.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Go buy an android and then call in a bomb threat to the nearest apple store with all your opinions and regards on the matter. Do not use your home phone. Use your new android to prove your point.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Xest]

"amazon came way after and got a better agreement. play.com started the music business in 2008, before that was selling drm laden content (dvd)"

So why didn't Apple renegotiate theres? It's not like they couldn't have. DVDs are a standard and not limited to a single manufacturer so I'm not sure why you bring them up other than as a straw man.

"and that is ignoring, of curse, that itunes is drm free too."

Yes, but if you'd read my post, you'd have seen the relevance of that.

"nonsense, how does that differ from the app store?"

Because Apple only let users of their products use the app store, in contrast, Debian can install apps from any source. The GPL is incompatible with the app store, Apple removes apps using GPL'd code so your assertion that you can use app store apps anywhere else is simply wrong.

"same argument as before: you can load movie to the ipad from everywhere, and you can load itunes movies to every devices where the manufacturer had provided the required conversion program. it's not like the explorer situation at all: itunes is not forcing you to buy ipad and apple is not preventing itunes file to be available to other manufacturers"

You didn't have to use Internet Explorer, you could use Netscape, you didn't have to use IE on Windows, you could use it on the Mac. Your arguments make no sense in the context of this discussion because they're entirely irrelevant.

"ipad requires itunes but what crime would that be? reverse leveraging? using a item that has no market share at all to increase the install base of something that already is on a lot of apple fanboy (the ipad prime target)?"

The crime is using an existing monpoly, i.e. iTunes to push into a different market. In this case, Apple are using their iTunes monopoly, which still contains proprietary DRM'd content (although not music now at least) to push into the tablet space. The mechanism is vendor lock-in- you have to go through iTunes to use the device.

"this is the best of all: what is an 'illegal monopoly'?"

A monopoly which abuses it's monopoly status to gain unfair advantage in the marketplace.

It seems a lot of your problems with this discussion is that you don't understand what warrants an illegal monopoly, so I suggest you go read up on it before trying to discuss further as opposed to trying to discuss without actually understanding what you're discussing.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[arth1]

Outlook 97 was definitely "late win95" period, wasn't it, and not "later" like you claim?

Outlook 97 didn't even talk to non-Exchange mail servers without a patch! Then came Outlook 98, which (for a long period) was free from Microsoft, precisely to take market share from the competition, and get them to buy Windows NT with Exchange, and the rest of the Office programs that Outlook called automatically. Then Outlook 2000 arrived, and everybody who had taken Microsoft up on the earlier offers were well locked in, and now had to pay a small fortune.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Pictish Prince]

No one is making anyone buy an iPhone. No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone.

This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS. They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them. You want to compete so bad? Go make your own phone or pad.

... and get sued for patent infringement? Having your app rejected is one thing - being litigated into bankruptcy after investing in a major hardware project is quite another.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Xest]

It's best if you cite which Wikipedia article you're referring to, because that doesn't come up in sections on monopoly abuse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Law

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly

However, I searched for some of the terms and it seems you oddly picked the article on Tying, which is not what we were talking about here.

I'm not sure why you had to resort to an unrelated article, I can only assume it was another attempt at using a straw man to divert from the fact you are wrong, but oh well.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[obarthelemy]

In the greater scheme of things, a computer is like a TV/radio: it lets you access content, in the form of apps and data instead of shows.

Granted, the immaturity of the OSes and Apps complicates the issue a bit, but at its core, that's what it is. Hopefully, we will soon standardize computer platforms the way we did for radios, and hopefully it won't be Apple's way, but a way that's both safe, open, reliable, and uncensored. MS is out, too ^^

Would you like your radio or TV set to ban some stations ?

Apple's attitude feels like a mix of totalitarian regimes' censorship and hotel pay-per-view - without the porn.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[multimediavt]

And you over simplified for the sake of your argument.

It is not universally accepted that sports scores are the property of the sport any more than I can charge people for looking at a tree that grows on my front lawn. Or charge them for taking pictures of that tree and selling those pictures. Google makes money by providing a map that shows my address. Do they owe me something or do they need my permission to do so?

A tree growing naturally, viewable from a public thoroughfare is not the same thing as a baseball score from a game played on a private field where patrons have to pay money to view the game, press have to pay licensing fees to cover the game and report the scores, etc. Do some homework on that front and you'll find out that people are paying for the rights to post the scores and stats to Major League Baseball games. Sorry, that analogy doesn't hold water, except to help illustrate why Apple yanked the application.

I can learn the score of today's baseball game without having anything to do with any Major League Baseball property. I could have heard them from a friend. I could have heard them on TV, on the radio or seen them on the front page of the newspaper sitting in the paybox on my streetcorner. I could have been at the game myself.

Again, shot holes in your own argument. The newspaper paid for the right to publish those scores with advertising money. You paid money for a ticket to go to the game and not only see the game, the scores and stats, but also gave them the right to use your likeness any way they see fit. Check the ticket and the license terms thereof. You could have heard the score of a game from a friend, but they had to have heard it from a licensed source. Sorry.

So, if I post here on Slashdot that the Chicago Black Hawks are now leading the Philadelphia Flyers in the Stanley Cup series by 2 games to 1, can the NHL come after me? Can they come after Slashdot? How about if I mention that my White Sox beat Tampa Bay 8-5 Sunday night? Can MLB come after me?

I'd have to further research on the MLB rights, but possibly, yes. Is this silly and egregious? Yes, but it is legal and it is how the current intellectual property and legal system works. Sorry again. The issue isn't whether or not it makes logical sense, it's whether or not you can be sued for it. In this particular case, and others like it, the information is licensed. Sure, you can go to the Sports Illustrated or ESPN website and get scores and such, but they paid for the right to do that. It wasn't free for them even if you can see it for free. They are paying for it with ad money. It's just how things work right now. You want to do something about it I suggest you start making an effort to change the laws. Until then, you're pissing in hurricane force winds.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[jjohnson]

Would you like your radio or TV set to ban some stations ?

No, but I simply wouldn't buy such a TV or radio. I'd buy a competitor's that doesn't ban anyone, unless I looked at the censoring TV and decided that I didn't care about losing what's banned in light of the higher quality of programming that's available. I might buy a second, uncensored TV, or just live without what's banned. What I wouldn't do is buy the TV and then complain about it banning some stations.

I largely agree with the rest of what you wrote.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you used Android to browse the web?
Its clunky, slow and a pain in the arse to use in comparison to the iPhone OS.
Android may be a good competitor in the future, but for now its just a phone that does the web too. It does not compare to a Jailbroken iPhone.
How many flash websites do you really have to hit on your phone? I mean, one's that can't wait for a laptop/desktop?
Windows 7 does not have copy and paste, does not support flash and also will not support silverlight either.

How is the iPhone OS broken? It does everything it claims to?

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[PopeRatzo]

but they paid for the right to do that.

Do you think newspapers pay for the right to list MLB scores?

ESPN has to get rights to show highlights from games, yes, but you can't copyright facts. If I use an MLB logo, or a team logo, or footage from the game, I have to pay or get permission. But I don't need permission to write, on my blog, that the Flyers beat the Black Hawks 3 to 2 in game three of the Stanley Cup finals. I don't need permission to say that a certain ballplayer is hitting .283 or that a different ballplayer got a hit in last night's game.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[Leynos]

Damn, I thought you were being satirical.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[jabbathewocket]

This app was far more than "just scores" and regardless of what it was.. he was paying a third party for the data as a "user" with a subscription.. which he turned around and resold.. This was not a guy getting scores from newspaper, or watching games, or any other method.. Think of it more in the line of me setting up a site with a paywall and using abc/cbs/nbc/fox content from their website as the "paid content" Regardless of the copyright issues, or anything else "after the fact" the guy was violating his license to use the data he paid for as a single user.. the company got pissed, told him to give them more money.. and when they had their own app ready they (the content owner) reported to apple that his app was in violation of their terms (the guy and the company.. not apple) This would have happened on all the OS that are out both desktop AND mobile .. even android..

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[jabbathewocket]

Ever use the guys app? It was far more than scores.. regardless of what it was (copyright wise) the fact that he was taking a feed he was paying for as a single user, and reselling the data violated his terms with the company in question) The company then asked for more money (hence why he mentions paying thousands over the last several months)

The fact that they reported this to apple, who proceeded to remove the app.. is not really relevant.. nor is it iphone specific..

Go make an android app that repackages data from starwars.com or disney owned properties (espn or any other doesnt really matter) the app will be removed from app store instantly, and you will have lawyers all over you..

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[hitmark]

sadly the name "exchange" have been used on both clients and servers over the years, so it seems now that perhaps i and my sources had the various software confused.

still, the bundled client did support mapi, the same protocol used between outlook and exchange server. And the history of outlook appears to lead back to the original client, by ways of various names and capabilities.

Re:Go buy an Android if you want freedom

[multimediavt]

Do you think newspapers pay for the right to list MLB scores?

I know they did. They got the scores from either UPI or the AP. Those services are not free, for anyone.

As for an individual score or stat, you may be correct about the display of that stat or score by a private individual, but I will have to dig a little deeper in that one. Posting things on the Internet is considered publishing and if like the NFL the MLB or NHL has the same restrictions on accounts and stats then you would be in violation of their copyright. They may not be enforcing that right at this time, but I wonder how long it will take before they start. Again, I am NOT agreeing with the practice. I am simply stating that information like that may be copyrighted and if you don't do your homework before you publish that information yourself you may be putting yourself in a very actionable position.

Innovate too well, Apple kills it.

[sethstorm]

Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

It probably would be better to have a plan to offer it to jailbroken iPhones to at least reduce losses.

Re:Innovate too well, Apple kills it.

[pizzach]

Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

You mind telling me what exactly Apple has forgotten that they said? It will make it easier for people who don't pay that much attention to the iPhone and I am not exactly sure what to google to check and get irate about. Apple is a corporation, and with all corporations their PR departments love to forget things.

On a side note, are cut-paste and tethering really the best examples for innovative? You have to be able to come up with better examples of innovative than that. Copying features from other cell phones is not innovative even if you are a 3rd party. I would dare say that the devs of apps that do those two things were worried about "when" they would be implemented in iPhone OS, and not "if". There was enough complaints from consumers that it was a matter of time for those features..

I wish more people would complain about the Nintendo Wiiware store, but meh. It has a lot of similar problems to the App Store from what I can tell.

Re:Innovate too well, Apple kills it.

[sethstorm]

Those were ready examples of things that Apple put in later-generation revisions of their software and/or devices that they said were not important.

Apple just wanted to gauge importance by seeing how much someone will protest about its non-presence.

Re:Innovate too well, Apple kills it.

[obarthelemy]

cut and paste, and tethering, are innovative ?

Re:Innovate too well, Apple kills it.

[RocketRabbit]

Are you seriously suggesting that Apple stole cut and paste? Apple, who has had cut and paste for over a quarter century?

They didn't have it in the iphone, now they do. As long as we are ripping on phones that are copycats, how about all the phones that are all screen, just like the iphone? How about all the phones that auto-rotate, just like the iphone?

I could go on all day but it's pointless. The real point that needs considering is that on Android or the Palm Pre, things are sluggish, shitty, and ugly, and on the iphone they are slick, quick, and nifty.

People notice this stuff.

Well, duh?

[MindlessAutomata]

It's because each app administrator just Thinks Different.

using vendor API's !welcome?

[TheLevelHeadedOne]

...to using Apple's APIs without permission...
Didn't Micro$oft have API's that they used and didn't want anyone else to use? Didn't they get lambasted for that?

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[TheoCryst]

The problem with using Apple's private APIs is that they tend to be unstable, and there are no guarantees that they won't change. Apple would very much rather that half the apps in their store didn't break because of an OS update that changes an undocumented API. And they've always been good about making private APIs public once they stabilize, so it's not as big a deal as this guy makes it sound.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[ianezz]

Didn't Micro$oft have API's that they used and didn't want anyone else to use? Didn't they get lambasted for that?

Apple is not (yet?) a monopoly.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[MBCook]

Microsoft has the same problem. If you read The Old New Thing, you'll get a lot of stories over time about things that people start doing in Windows/DOS that weren't documented, that were private APIs, etc. But they had to keep them working because otherwise some really important program would break. Microsoft generally seems to try to keep that stuff working.

Apple is exercising control that Microsoft didn't have over Windows. Since Apple controls distribution, they can prevent people from doing these things, and save themselves hassle later.

Just because someone discovers that a specific microwave can also open their garage door doesn't mean that all new versions of that microwave should have to do that forever.

Apple (and Microsoft) never said "If you do this, it will work." Usually they say "DON'T do stuff unless we say it's OK, 'cause it will break."

Apple just has a chance to force the issue.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[david_thornley]

The issue there was that Microsoft app writers (like Microsoft Office) were able to use private APIs and nobody else was. This meant that no other competing software could be as efficient as Microsoft's. That was a clear case of using a monopoly in one area (the OS) to stifle competition in another (the apps).

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smart phones, and given the vigorous competition I doubt they'll get one. More importantly, as far as I can tell they aren't competing in apps. They aren't trying to sell their own software through the app store and relying on private APIs for a competitive advantage. (I haven't been following what's available for the iPad, so if they're selling iPad apps please let me know.)

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[Anonymous Coward]

people attribute the double standards to the whole monopoly thing WAAAAAY too much. I don't see how this is related to monopoly. Are they using their market control to push other products? That falls under monopoly's umbrella. Are they using API's that they don't want others to use? I can't see how that has anything to do with the market. Monopoly is about business, not about the technology. They could have good reasons for not wanting others to use APIs that they didn't approve for general use as they ARE a proprietary product.
 
Can we stop it with the whole monopoly thing? That is generally *NOT* the reason for most double standards between Microsoft and Apple.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[Lunix Nutcase]

The issue there was that Microsoft app writers (like Microsoft Office) were able to use private APIs and nobody else was.

Except that according to people like Raymond Chen, the Office folks were just crappily reverse engineering those private APIs and doing things they weren't supposed to be doing by having done so.

From a a comment in this article posted by him:

The functions were exported only by ordinal. There was no documentation, there was no LIB file to link against, the function wasn't named; you had to reverse-engineer the LIB file and link with it. Surely that must've been a clue that what you were doing was the slightest bit dodgy. Office probably found those undocumented functions the same way you did. In the Windows division, we treat Microsoft applications the same as any other company's applications. In fact, earlier versions of the programs now known collectively as Office were such problems that -- I hope the Office folks' feelings aren't hurt by this -- we made up insulting names for them just to keep our sanity. The only one that comes to mind right now is "PowerPig". (I must point out that in the intervening years, the Office folks have done a fabulous job of getting their act together.)

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[UnknowingFool]

One main difference that people complained about was that MS may have been using those undocumented APIs for their own products like Office but would not release them to 3rd parties. Could Apple be doing the same thing? Yes, but could it is also likely that those undocumented APIs are unstable.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[twidarkling]

My question is, why should they be allowed to? Just slap a warning on it, and let it go. Last I checked, image management wasn't a valid reason to restrict other peoples' actions.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[steveha]

Didn't Micro$oft have API's that they used and didn't want anyone else to use? Didn't they get lambasted for that?

Oh yeah. I worked at Microsoft in the early 90s, and I even worked on one of the flagship applications (Microsoft Word for Windows). I never saw any "secret backdoor" APIs, and I firmly believe that those rumors were wildly overblown.

But Apple is actually doing it. They have undocumented APIs that they won't let anyone else use. Even on the Mac they have them, and they have been known to break the undocumented APIs seemingly just to burn apps that dare to use them. Now that they have the "app store" it's even more up front: if Apple figures out that you are using their double-secret APIs, they will reject your app.

Microsoft was widely flamed over rumors of doing this, while few people care that Apple actually does it a lot.

Feh. Give me Linux, please.

steveha

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[obarthelemy]

Let's not be indiscriminate haters. I disagree about a lot of things Apple does, but the one about only official APIs being allowed does not bother me:

1- private APIs should not be needed. Is there any example of an "allowed" feature that can only be integrated in one's apps by using "unofficial" APIs ?
2- indeed, "unofficial" APIs are subject to change at any time.I understand Apple insisting people avoid them, to avoid an MS-like compatibility mess over time, and to protect their customers. I'd be pissed if some apps broke each time there's an OS update.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[obarthelemy]

I don't get your point. To me it IS the reason: MS used undocumented APIs on its monopoly OS to give an unfair advantage to its non-monopoly apps, which kinda justified others using those APIs too. Apple doesn't really sell its own apps, so their reason for disallowing the API's use is probably more valid (along the lines: may change at any time and break our customers' apps).

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[John Hasler]

> Except that according to people like Raymond Chen, the Office folks were
> just crappily reverse engineering those private APIs and doing things they
> weren't supposed to be doing by having done so.

But once they had done so Microsoft was not going to ship a version of Windows that broke Office.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[obarthelemy]

Maybe true at the beginning. But guess what happened for the next version of the OS, whan OS engineers are to choose which unofficial APIs to keep, and which to do away ? Hint: "DOS isn't finished until 123 won't run".

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[obarthelemy]

To advantage which of it own Apps does Apple use its OS advantage ? Does Apple even have any own apps for sale ? Any 123 or Wordperfect to eradicate ?

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[steveha]

To advantage which of it own Apps does Apple use its OS advantage ?

On the iPad, only Apple software can multitask (this article has a list: email client, SMS text client, and other apps). On any of their platforms, only Apple software may use the APIs that let you customize the way the UI widgets display. Only Apple software can use the full functionality of the accelerometer. Here is a blog post discussing some undocumented OS X features that made Safari much faster than Firefox 3. And here is a blog post discussing how several apps were rejected for using undocumented functionality. And here is a whole article discussing undocumented Apple APIs, with examples of cool stuff that only Apple's own software is allowed to do. And here is an article discussing cool things that Safari can do, that Firefox isn't allowed to do. And here is a column that claims that Apple inserts undocumented APIs and uses them in its own code for years, without ever documenting them (but presumably without breaking them because it would break Apple's own code). Even the APIs for the WiFi are undocumented.

I understand the argument that Apple doesn't want to commit to supporting these APIs forever, like Microsoft has had to do with even obscure APIs in Windows. If you use these undocumented APIs to do cool things, and Apple revises the OS, your app may break. And Apple doesn't want the customer to think it's Apple's fault that your app broke.

But I also understand the argument that some of these APIs allow for really cool stuff, which is currently reserved only for Apple. People don't like this.

As for me, give me Linux anyway. No such thing as an "undocumented" API, and there is no entity that has an unfair advantage over everyone else, and I can install any software I want.

steveha

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[Splab]

Linux has loads of undocumented APIs, I've written several. Documentation is usually just: "//Fixme: Write documentation later"

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[steveha]

Linux has loads of undocumented APIs

I'm not sure if you are joking, you didn't understand me, or you are disingenuous. So I'm going to give you three answers.

If you were joking: sorry dude. I do have a sense of humor, honest.

If you didn't understand me: then I will simply point out that Apple controls app distribution for iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad; and if you use any APIs undocumented by Apple, your app will be banned from distribution. So, in this context, "undocumented" carries a special meaning: something that has not been officially documented and blessed for use by Apple, and apps use undocumented APIs at their peril. There is no such thing as a Linux API that we are all forbidden to use because some entity is trying to keep that API secret, and especially there is no entity that can insert APIs into Linux and use them exclusively while simultaneously forbidding us to use them.

If you were disingenuous: then you already knew the explanation above, and just were pretending not to, in which case I am sad. (I have met Apple fanboys who are this zealous in their fanatic defense of Apple.)

steveha

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The problem with using Apple's private APIs is that they tend to be unstable, and there are no guarantees that they won't change."

Funny, that's what Microsoft said too.

So again, what's the difference, why did Microsoft get lambasted for it and Apple not?

Don't worry, I actually agree with MBCook's post as to the reasons why it was done, I actually think the reason is valid. What I agree with the GP about though, is the fact that people ignored this reason and lambasted Microsoft for it, yet Apple gets a free ride over it.

The perception that Apple is less evil than Microsoft needs to end, because that's very much not the case, with Steve Jobs now even defending the factory that makes his products where 14 workers have killed themselves in the last few months alone, rather than doing the right thing and finding a more responsible supplier, even if that cuts his profits a little.

Apple is without question the most evil tech company on the planet now. Perhaps the price of a higher market cap is the loss of all ethics and morals.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[drinkypoo]

Apple just has a chance to force the issue.

So does Microsoft. It's called .NET. If you can sell "managed code" to developers as a feature then you can get them out of your Core APIs where they don't really belong. (Sure tamper with them all you like, but don't sell products based on this tampering, you fools. That's how we got basically every backwards compatibility nightmare we live with today.)

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was an epic fail.

• It's "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run". Note that it scans and rhymes (more or less).
• And it's not true anyway.

But you did get a consolation Troll mod. Well done!

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[obarthelemy]

I don't dispute that Apple OS has private APIs, nor that Apple uses them. I don't think Apple uses those to make money though. Safari does have an unfair advantage over other browsers, but Safari is free. I failed to see instances of paid Apple apps in your answer ? THat's in direct contrast to MS, who WAS using private APIs to SELL more Office.

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[steveha]

I failed to see instances of paid Apple apps in your answer ?

So, this is your standard then: as long as Apple is not stepping on a large company, it is okay for them to do this? All the small companies and individuals who developed now-rejected apps can take solace in the fact that Apple doesn't charge extra for any of the affected Apple software?

Was it also okay when Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by offering Internet Explorer for free? IE wasn't a "paid Microsoft app" so according to your standard Microsoft must not have been evil.

I don't actually know whether Apple's paid apps use "undocumented" APIs or not. And I don't really care, because I think this whole "paid apps" standard is disingenuous.

THat's in direct contrast to MS, who WAS using private APIs to SELL more Office.

Did you miss the part in this post where I said I worked at Microsoft, in the early 90's, on Microsoft Word for Windows, and I never saw any secret private APIs?

I'm going to assume you missed that, and didn't mean to imply that I'm lying about my direct personal experience.

So, I've got direct personal experience. What evidence have you got to the contrary?

P.S. As I keep saying, give me Linux rather than Windows or Mac. Microsoft has done some bad things, like buying an ISO standard for their XML file format. I just think it's stupid to bash Microsoft over false rumors, while at the same time giving Apple a free pass to actually do what Microsoft was accused of doing. Bash Microsoft over the things they actually did, please, and don't have one standard for Microsoft and a different standard for Apple.

steveha

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[Splab]

It was a joke, but also a way of pointing out you yourself are blinded by the light.

While Linux is certainly more open than Apple API, claiming that Linux API's are documented is BS - no there aren't hidden stuff like the original discussion went on, but as I said, I've written several API and they are largely undocumented since I'm the only user of those API.

Just pointing out the fallacy of your claim - also any good joke leaves the mark confused :)

Re:using vendor API's !welcome?

[steveha]

Just pointing out the fallacy of your claim

Not so, friend! I talked a bunch about Apple's use of "undocumented" as an excuse to deny all non-Apple software the ability to use APIs, and I made it very clear that I was using the word "undocumented" the way Apple is using it. I even put it into those scare-quotes to make sure it was clear I was using a specific meaning.

There is a difference between "undocumented", as in nobody wrote documentation, and "Apple Computer undocumented", which means that if you use the API, they send trained ninja cats with laser claws to assassinate you in your sleep. And they remove your apps from the App Store, which is even worse.

steveha

Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[Kabuthunk]

Could we PLEASE try to go even a single day without some apple-based story? My god, there's more to the world of science and technology than a single company!

Canada attempting to pass a bill to put filesharing along the same lines as in the USA?
Info on the oil leak?
Hewlett-Packard cutting 9000 jobs?

To hell with all of that, someone somewhere posted something about Apple!

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always time for a daily story as a club to bash Apple with. I hated Apple before it was cool to hate them.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[Anonymous Coward]

Could we PLEASE go one day without someone yammering about how he hates to see Apple stories?

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[Cathoderoytube]

You know full well they just posted a story about Frank Zappa!

Give it a rest! Slashdot's clearly focusing on proper science and technology stories.

Lord almighty.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[alfredos]

Well, I just posted a story about Ballmer saying bad things about the iPad. Does that count?

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[shutdown -p now]

Could we PLEASE try to go even a single day without some apple-based story?

Would you prefer Microsoft-based story?

There will always be a flamebaity topic for articles on Slashdot, if only to drive visitors to the site. Like it or not, but most are here for the comments, not the stories. It just so happens that, these days, Apple generates most controversy, and its user demographic is somewhat specific in that any Apple-related story is a virtually guaranteed 500+ comment flamewar.

Canada attempting to pass a bill to put filesharing along the same lines as in the USA?

There was a /. story for that, actually.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[s73v3r]

If you don't want to see it, then go into your preferences and uncheck Apple. Poof. You won't see any more Apple stories.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[Anonymous Coward]

Could we PLEASE try to go even a single day without some apple-based story? My god, there's more to the world of science and technology than a single company!

Canada attempting to pass a bill to put filesharing along the same lines as in the USA? Info on the oil leak? Hewlett-Packard cutting 9000 jobs?

To hell with all of that, someone somewhere posted something about Apple!

You do know you can just deselect Apple in prefs?

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[barkingcorndog]

I'm sorry that someone forced you to read and comment on this story. I truly am.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[BlueBoxSW.com]

If you were here, I would buy you a beer.

I can't agree enough.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[Trip6]

But Steve Jobs had cancer once, you insensitive clod!

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[Upsilonish]

That doesn't work for feeds.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[identity0]

My god, there's more to the world of science and technology than a single company!

Yes, there are two. Apple and Google.

Re:Enough with the Apple stories for a bit

[Raul Acevedo]

Some of us actually don't mind. Apple's behavior is a big deal, and could have far reaching effects that affect everyone. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Streaming

[nemasu]

There's no internet radio streaming? FTFA # 5. Use too much bandwidth - Internet radio apps are off-limits. I listen to waaay too much internet radio on my current phone to give that up. Driving to work, driving back, uuh....guess that's it... Anyway I'm surprised though that this wouldn't be allowed though...I would think they would let the user determine how much data they can/can not use.

Re:Streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

One app got rejected. There's plenty other ones, including Pandora.

It's just some fluff article to get them clickthroughs.

Re:Streaming

[1000101]

I don't get that one either. I'm listening to Pandora Internet Radio on my iPhone right now.

Re:Streaming

[Lunix Nutcase]

*gasp* You mean a an article by McAllister might twists facts around in an article for nothing more than to drive hits to his blog? Say it ain't so!!!!

Re:Streaming

[shutdown -p now]

The article calls that out:

Return7 seems reasonably upset about this. After all, every other Internet radio site remains in the App Store, and, again, three previous versions of CastCatcher were approved. It claims there is nothing in this new version that would require more bandwidth than any of the other streaming radio services.

It's just Apple's app review as usual. At this point, with all the evidence we have, I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's based mainly on wave function collapse.

What's the point?

[Sir Holo]

Ummm, If they are so notorious for rejecting apps, is there really a point to a recipe for getting rejected?

Re:What's the point?

[Bugamn]

So you can avoid this recipe?

iMaxpad app should about do it

[chronoss2010]

CANCELED

Apple is Evil

[mschaffer]

I just don't know why people aren't boycotting Apple.

Re:Apple is Evil

[bky1701]

The reality distortion field that Jobs invented works well. Too bad Microsoft never got one.

Re:Apple is Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they do not give a shit about app rejections and just want a phone that works?

Re:Apple is Evil

[Bugamn]

Most people don't care if developers can't send their apps to Apple. They know they can do the things their friends can, it looks nice and shiny and it's an Apple product, it must be good, it isn't cheap., they must know what they are doing.

Re:Apple is Evil

[AnonymousClown]

I just don't know why people aren't boycotting Apple.

I never thought I'd see the day on Slashdot when someone called Apple evil and then get modded up.

What next, a black President?

Re:Apple is Evil

[Samalie]

Because people (read, not us /.'ers) fucking LOVE Apple.

From our standpoint, they're far too propriatary, far too closed, and far to like Microsoft of 10-15 years ago. (and yes, I know we have another 5 million arguements of why Apple sucks beyond that)

From the general public's standpoint, they make shiny esteticly-pleasing gadgets that are relatively high-quality, durable, and have high resale values. They are easy to use, and most of the public don't care if someone is tightly controlling their user experience, because they LIKE the iDevice user experience.

I mean shit, how many of us don't use iPods as our portable MP3 players? If you have one, do you hate the device itself (forget the suckery of iTunes for a minute)?

Shit, I have an iPhone, and while I hate Apple's policies on the app store & the like, I bloody well love the phone/device itself (and thankfully I'm not in the USA so I don't have to fight the suckery of AT&T with it...I have no dropped calls, full tethering, etc).

Re:Apple is Evil

[c_forq]

High resale is a huge point. I've known dozens of people that bought an Apple after seeing a friend sell an Apple that was a year or two old. If it is in good condition you can almost always get over 50% of what you paid for it. On the other hand I have had Toshiba, HP, and Dell laptops I couldn't get practically anything for (one I even gave away to get rid of it). I've NEVER been able to sell a used desktop. I've seen friends sell iMacs, iBooks, MacBooks, and PowerMacs for a good chuck of money - some even completely paid for a refurbished machine that replaced it.

Re:Apple is Evil

[mjwx]

The reality distortion field that Jobs invented works well. Too bad Microsoft never got one.

MS coded their own RDF, it works as well as any piece of Microsoft software.

Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes

[retardpicnic]

They used to have a game called Calvinball where the rules were made up as they played the game and ever changing. Dealing with Apple (or even thier bedmate ATT) is a lot like playing CB....sigh

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes

[schon]

No, it's nothing like Calvinball.

In Calvinball, both players got to change the rules. With the iphone, only Apple gets to.

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes

[shutdown -p now]

Developers can change the rules, too. Just make sure your next version runs on Android, too... for now. And the next one after it might be running on Android only - if need be.

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes

[IANAAC]

With the iphone, only Apple gets to.

Not entirely true. That's why we have jailbroken iPhones.

All this complaining is from a developer's point of view. Users aren't really complaining about app rejection.

And if users really are complaining about app rejection (or a lack of apps for sale) and continue to buy iPhones, well, all I can say is - tough for them. There *ARE* other options out there. And good ones, too.

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes

[Bobfrankly1]

No, it's nothing like Calvinball.

In Calvinball, both players got to change the rules. With the iphone, only Apple gets to.

Wait...there's rules? I've only seen judgments, if you've got the current set of rules, you should post them!

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes

[Draek]

Rule number one is, you do not talk about the rules.

C'mon, you were asking for it.

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes

[drinkypoo]

Developers can change the rules, too. Just make sure your next version runs on Android, too... for now. And the next one after it might be running on Android only - if need be.

Given that Android requires a Java UI, while Apple prevents it, this seems like something of an arduous co-development path.

Re:Does anyone else remember Calvin and Hobbes

[shutdown -p now]

No-one said it's going to be easy.

Then again, Android doesn't require Java UI. Ultimately, it requires Dalvik bytecodes, so a translator or a compiler for another language is possible.

Also, you could probably wrap Android Java UI APIs into C or C++, and code against them, if needed.

See Netflix

[Bob9113]

One that I find moderately frustrating as a developer; the Netflix app. Fire it up and within the first one or two screens you see a pile of UI issues that would get any mere mortal rejected. I understand that the lax approval for Netflix is all about the benjamins, but it is still a little irritating to the free market economist in me. Perfect competition is tarnished when some are a little more equal than others.

Re:See Netflix

[cowscows]

Oh come on. How can a free market economist complain about how a private company decides to run their own store?

Re:See Netflix

[drinkypoo]

Oh come on. How can a free market economist complain about how a private company decides to run their own store?

A user might well complain about Apple's incompetence. What Apple is selling is an experience, a smugness that you have bought the best available. If they were really that competent, if they were so fucking slick, they could come up with some non-moving target that developers could expect to hit and to have their app remain in the store. A standard to which all developers, including themselves, could be held to. Instead it's arbitrary and capricious and you have to be ready and willing to be abused to even consider developing for iWhatever.

Re:See Netflix

[Bob9113]

Oh come on. How can a free market economist complain about how a private company decides to run their own store?

Much as Free Software is different from free software, free market is different from laissez-faire. A free market presupposes, among other things, perfect competition. Neither perfect competition nor a free market evolve naturally from laissez-faire. Adam Smith documented the core concepts in The Wealth of Nations, including many cases of necessary government intervention.

One quick example: Do you believe in any amount of patent or copyright? Those are cases of government intervention.

A GDP-maximizing free market economy is not as simple as laissez-faire.

Another Onion Article Painfully Close to the Truth

[eldavojohn]

Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

I found this article hilarious over a decade ago. Now it's kind of sad how Apple is treating innovative third party developers on the iDevices. Think outside the box, but not too far outside the box!

Just don't coopt the Brand

[GodfatherofSoul]

If your app does anything that might make it bigger than The Phone, then you screwed up. Apple wants their customers to always have in mind that they're using an iPhone; not your apps on an iPhone. Same reason Valentino Rossi won't get to race on a Ducati.

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand

[Fantastic Lad]

Thank-you!

Now I don't need to spend ten minutes trying to think of a clever way to word what you just explained.

Not that I technically needed to say anything. But this iPhone thing is like an obsessive itch; It bugs me because it's a major piece of social engineering in progress and it's being run by a control freak dick whose dream of reality just pisses me off. The fact that Apple calls its lead tech PR staff, "Evangelists" is creepy on so many levels. . !

-FL

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand

[twidarkling]

Wow. This has got to be the single best thing I've ever seen someone say on the topic.

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand

[Anonymous Coward]

By making it so they pretty much only runs stupid little apps that cost $5 or less, they're keeping iPhone/iPod/iPad customers (ignoring zealots) like any other consumer electronics customers -- only very weakly loyal. Most people buying a computer, even if they don't really know what an operating system is, still care that it runs the right one so they can use their software. With only a few bucks tied into their mp3 player or phone's software, most people will buy whatever mp3 player or phone seems the best and not care if they lost $15 in apps. I've only ever bought Apple computers and develop full-time for the iPad, and odds are I'm not going to replace my current iPhone with a new one; I'll look around and if there's something competitive but without AT&T, I'll most likely go with that.

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand

[Anonymous Coward]

What gave you that BS idea? The mods must be in fanatic mode today.

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand

[GlassHeart]

The fact that Apple calls its lead tech PR staff, "Evangelists" is creepy on so many levels. . !

A quick search on linkedin.com shows me people working for Rovi, Sybase, OgilvyInteractive, Gryphon, Elgato, Adobe, Addictive Mobility, Microsoft, Prezi, Nokia, AOL, Mozilla, IBM, HP, and as you point out, Apple, with that word in their job titles. Perhaps you just don't get out much?

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand

[Fantastic Lad]

A quick search on linkedin.com shows me people working for Rovi, Sybase, OgilvyInteractive, Gryphon, Elgato, Adobe, Addictive Mobility, Microsoft, Prezi, Nokia, AOL, Mozilla, IBM, HP, and as you point out, Apple, with that word in their job titles. Perhaps you just don't get out much?

Wow. Yeah, that's news to me.

But it doesn't alleviate the creep factor. Rather, it's more like the scene in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" where you realize the problem is a great deal bigger than you first thought. Though, I can't say it's out of character with most of those companies. But Mozilla? That one hurts.

Oh dear; when did all my heroes die?

-FL

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand

[mjwx]

If your app does anything that might make it bigger than The Phone,

Just dont mention any other platforms or use a language thats easy to port to other platforms.

It's not like Apple is doing everything short of outright banning of cross platform applications to maintain application exclusivity.

Re:Just don't coopt the Brand

[drinkypoo]

Oh dear; when did all my heroes die?

Now you know where all the cowboys have gone: they grew beards. You may love or hate someone like RMS but he's out the on the front lines fighting for freedom, the sun glinting off the food particles in his beard rather than off the chrome of his revolver. It doesn't get you the girls, but you get to sleep at night.

Number 5 - Network centric apps

[TyFoN]

Why then did they approve the Spotify client?

Re:Number 5 - Network centric apps

[GuldKalle]

When Benjamin told them to? Or when they realised that they couldn't afford to not have that app?

Re:Number 5 - Network centric apps

[TyFoN]

Maybe they couldn't. But its even more strange because spotify is in direct competition to itunes. You can buy songs in DRM free mp3 or just have the regular subscription and listen to whatever you want (even offline on the phone) without having to buy individual songs :)

let's look at each one.

[fermion]

I think we can say at the outset that Apple's policy is outlandish, but let's look at this as we move towards the computer appliance and not back to the mainframe.

1. If it don't work, then don't sell it. This has been the bane of computer programs for years. No warranty, if it trashes your business, it is your fault.
2. I have little problem with this. It does not prevent Skype, but prevents a million look alike apps
3. Look and feel is why we buy Apple. We expect to do certain things in certain ways. There are some things that will always be wanted. It is like cup holders. Just because some consumers buy cars based on cup holders does not mean that we should all have to drive car with 23 cup holders.
4. This has been discussed ad infintum. I think battery life should take precedence over developers wanting to take the easy way out. I pay for code to be good.
5. I have no idea on this one. I think if people had not felt they had a god given right to infinite bandwidth ATT would still be selling unlimited plans.
6. Objectionable content is truly silly. Gowalla is 4+ while netflix is 12+? WTF?
7. Those of us who programmed in MS DOS knew that MS did not document API. We had buy books that reversed engineered those hooks. Apple was pretty open with the details, the Mac Books were a huge set of volumes. The risk with used unsupported API was that Apple would pull it without noticed. It happened a lot. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use unsupported APIs, but when the program breaks, we can't blame Apple.
8. When Apple posted GPL content and then removed it, the general rational EFF cried foul, even though Apple really did nothing wrong. People assume that if it is in the Apple store, then Apple can be blamed.
9. I wish Apple would enforce this. It would raise the level of the Apps.
10. As for the rest of these, we are at a junction from WIMP to touchscreen. One thing that continues to make MS Windows so dreadful is that it never made the jump to an efficient WIMP interface. This is why we have 35 button mice, and windows does not work well with a touchpad. There are Apps that still assume they are using a pure WIMP interface. For instance the Grey's Anatomy app requires you to click a button to move to the next screen rather than just use the finger to drag. It should have been rejected until it was fixed. I can see developers in 10 years still using widget where a gesture would do, and defending it as the way we have programmed for generations.

Re:let's look at each one.

[shutdown -p now]

Look and feel is why we buy Apple. We expect to do certain things in certain ways. There are some things that will always be wanted. It is like cup holders. Just because some consumers buy cars based on cup holders does not mean that we should all have to drive car with 23 cup holders.

It is a flawed analogy. No-one is asking for that. What people want is the ability to add extra cupholders to their car in case they need them (and apparently many people do!). But Apple only lets you install anything into your machine in its own service centers, and they only offer a limited range of options.

Also, "iTunes sync over WiFi" = "cupholder", seriously?

This has been discussed ad infintum. I think battery life should take precedence over developers wanting to take the easy way out. I pay for code to be good.

The Flash aspect has been discussed ad infinitum. However, there isn't any good reason why a user cannot run an application which is an interpreter (and advertised as such), rather than uses an interpreter internally (and does not advertise it).

I mean, seriously, what does a HyperCard implementation - which the user would have to explicitly feed code to run - have to do with battery life?

I have no idea on this one. I think if people had not felt they had a god given right to infinite bandwidth ATT would still be selling unlimited plans.

Bandwidth usage is something that should be strictly between the user and his mobile provider. Then, of course, if Internet radio is a serious network strain, then iPhone "3G" is a misnomer.

When Apple posted GPL content and then removed it, the general rational EFF cried foul, even though Apple really did nothing wrong. People assume that if it is in the Apple store, then Apple can be blamed.

A GPL violation is a definite copyright infringement, though; there's no shady ground here. But a BitTorrent client? They're not illegal. And the app in question isn't even that - it's simply an UI to control a BitTorrent client running on a computer remotely.

Re:let's look at each one.

[s73v3r]

I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use unsupported APIs, but when the program breaks, we can't blame Apple.

Because when Joe User updates their phone, and then their favorite fart app won't work (or more likely, some app they've come to depend on), then they're going to blame Apple, not the developer, even though it is entirely the developer's fault. Not allowing private APIs avoids this problem altogether.

Part of the problem: *not* sure-fire.

[DdJ]

Part of the problem is that these ways are not sure-fire.

The app reviewers are overloaded and the app review process gets gummed up, and so sometimes mistakes are made and things are not enforced consistently. So, you can have an app that gets through the process just fine for a while, and then gets rejected. Sometimes, it should have been rejected to begin with, but wasn't, and that makes people think that what they're doing is okay, and they got an explicit "wink" and approval.

The (specific, not only) problem is that inconsistent enforcement makes it seem more like there are inconsistent rules than is actually the case.

Costco

[drumcat]

Another day, another /. bag on Apple's policy article. I don't get it; those crying monopoly are insane. This is no different than a Costco. No one makes them carry a certain kind of anything. They have buyers, a submission process, a fickle price negotiation for margin, and a decision about whether the company should carry a specific product. Why is this any different?

Re:Costco

[twidarkling]

Because there's still stores other than Costco to get stuff at legitimately. If you own an iPod/iPhone, and you don't want to Jailbreak it, you can ONLY get things through the app store. Either Apple needs to open up the marketplace, or they need to open up a legitimate alternate channel for app purchase. If I buy it, it's my phone. Why does Apple get any kind of say at all as to what I put on it?

No, that's a serious question. It's not a specialized device like a console. It's capable of running lots of different things, and doing it well. As long as I'm not violating someone else's copyright, why should anyone care what goes on my phone?

Re:Costco

[jedidiah]

No. It's the Apple apologists that are insane (or just plain stupid).

I am free to patronize another merchant other than Costco if I so choose.

Apple specifically conspires to remove this option. As much as I personally
like Costco, I think it would suck egregiously if it were my ONLY option.
Fortunately, Costco doesn't seem interested in being this sort of dick.

OTOH, Apple does. Apple wants to set itself up as Big Brother. This is why
their arbitrary policies are a problem. Developers put a lot of time and
effort into helping to build the value of the Apple platform only to be
discarded in a rather random fashion.

Re:Costco

[jjohnson]

Why does Apple get any kind of say at all as to what I put on it?

Why shouldn't they have a say, or 100% control, for that matter? It's their product to sell to you; by buying it, you accept their terms. Don't like the terms, don't buy it--get an android phone instead. The iPhone's capabilities are beside the point.

Put another way, you can run whatever you want on your iPhone if you jailbreak it, or install Linux on it, or whatever, or even if you figure out how to hack it so that you can install your own apps through iTunes, say. Apple goons aren't going to show up at your door and reclaim your phone if you do those things. You own the device itself, but the software on the phone is an ongoing service provided by Apple. You're free to reject that service at any time, but you then can't expect the service to continue to function as Apple designed it and intended it to.

Really what you're complaining about is that Apple isn't offering something else to you--an alternate channel for apps. They're offering product X, and you want product Y. I don't see why Apple has any obligation to sell you a different product than they offer.

Apple doesn't care if you put something on your phone. What they care about is not supporting you in doing so if it's not something they choose to support. The whole idea of Apple products is that you're buying a walled garden--limited and beautiful. Don't like the limits? Don't buy Apple products.

Re:Costco

[sgage]

You are free to patronize another merchant besides Apple. Honestly, you don't need to have an Apple i-Thingy. But if you think you do, be prepared to be controlled.

Re:Costco

[jjohnson]

An iPhone isn't your only option. You can buy an Android phone, you can buy a Blackberry, you can buy a device running Windows Mobile.

Developers put a lot of time and effort into helping to build the value of the Apple platform only to be
discarded in a rather random fashion.

Then smart developers won't develop for the iPhone because it's too much of a gamble.

Really, Apple's arbitrary and capricious rules for the app store are a perfect case of where the free market should rule: If Apple is too whimsical, devs won't develop; if devs won't develop, the apps won't be available, and customers will buy other phones.

Yes, Apple wants to set itself up as Big Brother, and a lot of end users like that because Big Brother provides a consistent and high quality experience. Don't like the fact that it's Big Brother doing it? Don't buy an iPhone, and start writing Android apps.

One of the most sickening things in these threads is the normally libertarian types here whinging about a private seller selling something that isn't what they want, and arguing that the seller has some obligation, perhaps government enforced, to offer them what they want.

Re:Costco

[twidarkling]

I don't buy Apple products, and one of the reasons is the whole walled-garden thing.

Apple goons won't show up at my door, but they also won't fix my phone if anything unrelated happens to it if I do anything against their terms. Again, I ask, why do they get that kind of say? If it's a defective product, then it's defective, and they should still be forced to abide by any portion of the warranty still valid. But they don't. You jailbreak your phone, they won't service it. Even if your problem is the battery's shot, or the speaker died.

As for why they shouldn't get 100% control, that's blatantly ridiculous, and damn near trolling. You're not buying a service from Apple. You're buying a product. I've never heard of "hardware as a service." Does Ford have any kind of control over your car? Does Kenmore have any control over your fridge? So again, why should Apple get any kind of control over my hardware purchase? Don't give me some kind of "If you don't like it, don't buy it," bullshit. I want an actual justification beyond "controlling the user experience."

Re:Costco

[jjohnson]

I've never heard of "hardware as a service."

Neither have I, and that's not what I wrote. The software is the ongoing service, not the hardware--updates to the OS, app store, access to the network.

Does Ford have any kind of control over your car? Does Kenmore have any control over your fridge?

Yes: There are specific terms to the warranty, and if you do something that voids those terms, they won't fix your car or fridge. That's established commercial law going back decades at least. I don't see why this becomes problematic when it's a phone.

I want an actual justification beyond "controlling the user experience."

There is no profound moral or legal justification for it. From Apple's perspective, the practical justification is protecting the premium experience they're selling, and their sales figure provide more than enough evidence that their view is justified. From your perspective, the justification is that you accepted those terms when you bought the phone. You freely chose the walled garden, so you give up your right to complain that there's walls around your garden. That's all there is to it.

I'm not sure why you think that you're entitled to anything beyond what they advertise and what you pay for. They're not defrauding you.

Re:Costco

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't they have a say, or 100% control, for that matter? It's their product to sell to you; by buying it, you accept their terms.

No. By buying it, you acquire property on it, in other words: the right to do with it whatever you want (provided it's legal, of course). Apple restricting your usage of it is therefore theft.

Re:Costco

[jjohnson]

the right to do with it whatever you want (provided it's legal, of course)

Correct: You can do with it whatever you want. Use it as a coaster. Install linux on it. Jailbreak it. Apple can't stop you.

What you don't have a right to is Apple's continued support of the product. You don't have a right to continued access to the app store. You don't have a right to make Apple continue to service your iPhone.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

designing your own UI?

[Anonymous Coward]

>...to designing your UI...

This is not mentioned anywhere in the article, why is it in the description?

apple better look out as M$ got in a big mess over

[Joe The Dragon]

apple better look out as M$ got in a big mess over stuff like this.

WGN gets around the no Internet radio apps rule

[Joe The Dragon]

WGN gets around the no Internet radio apps rule as they have a live feed on the app store.

Re:WGN gets around the no Internet radio apps rule

[EricWright]

Not to mention the AOL Radio app and a local (to me) not-to-be-named radio station with their own streaming audio app.

Still...

[joh]

I certainly totally hate it when some useful app vanishes or new rules pop up out of nothing, but on the other hand I can somehow understand that Apple has to make the rules as it goes along. I mean, if they'd put up clear rules and would stick to these, developers would instantly start to find loopholes and to work around them, naturally. And for Apple the iPhone/iPad platform is what they bet their future on. And this platform is still at a very early stage. They do not want to be the dog with which the tail waggles.

Apple (and the Mac and OS X) has more than once suffered from others having too much control over things. Like Adobe with taking ages to port their apps to Intel Macs because they did not use XCode in the first place. Imagine Apple allowing Flash and any kind of programming language and compilers and middleware and then, 4 or 6 years on, they try to go to a totally different hardware platform (which *will* happen sooner or later, be assured). Suddenly they'd have a large amount of apps they couldn't offer any migration tools for then and be at the whim of some third party (or worse, hundreds of them). Look at Microsoft -- Windows and all its apps are married to Intel and the flood of ARM platforms for tablets is totally out of bounds for MS here. There is absolutely no way to port Windows and all applications to another platform. Trapped.

For Google, Android itself and its apps is still a minor thing. Google does not sell systems. As long as they get your data and your eyes, they can allow Android apps to go whereever they go. They don't actually care.

Really, I'm somewhat happy that there's more than one way. All of this is a large experiment and attacking the problems from more than one angle is good. Freedom is not when everyone does the same.

Re:Still...

[Xyrus]

Apple (and the Mac and OS X) has more than once suffered from others having too much control over things. Like Adobe with taking ages to port their apps to Intel Macs because they did not use XCode in the first place.

That's not Apple's problem. That's Adobe's. If Apple was worried about keeping their "best apps" running then they would work towards that goal. However, Apple does not like to constrain themselves in such a way. That has advantages (not tied down to the past) and disadvantages (no guarantee of backwards compatibility).

Adobe supports software across multiple OS's, and therefore relying on the travesty known as XCode is counter-productive, especially since XCode is very rarely updated or up to date. And FSM forbid you want to remain current with java development.

If Apple was really concerned about app portability they would use a VM based language like C# or Java, maybe with some custom libs thrown in. If VM runtimes are not an option, then you're left with adhering strictly to their API and hoping that API does not change, which is no different than programming for any other OS or platform.

There is absolutely no way to port Windows and all applications to another platform. Trapped.

Unless the apps your talking about are written in assembly code, use machine specific features, or otherwise directly accesses low level hardware, then you are not "trapped". If the libs your app relies on have been ported, then your app should require few if any changes to compile and run. There are plenty of open source projects that compile and run on multiple OS's and hardware without issue, including Windows. For example, it's pretty easy to write a Windows app that uses Qt that will work equally well on Linux. If you start using Windows or Linux only APIs, well then you're not going to be portable.

You'll need some better excuses than this.

Re:Still...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine Apple allowing Flash and any kind of programming language and compilers and middleware and then, 4 or 6 years on, they try to go to a totally different hardware platform (which *will* happen sooner or later, be assured)

Irrelevant - if Flash complies with the technical requirments currently (i.e., runs according to published APIs), it is no different to any other application. Supporting flash on a future iPhone is therefore no different from supporting any current, well-behaved, application that downloads additional data as it runs on a future iPhone.

Windows, ironicially, isn't really trapped on Intel - if you really want to know, Windows NT was originally written for MIPS and ported to x86. And it ran on Alphas and Itanics. It's just the applications (ecosystem, really) that are 'trapped' - of course, well written applications have no problem, but the issue is there's about five of those. (I would not be surprised in the slightest if there's some lab somewhere buried deep in Redmond that *has* ported Windows to ARM; just like Apple had MacOS running on x86 all the time.)

MS have learned though -- I think this is half of MS's drive towards .Net. Remember that Windows Mobile 7 devices will have silverlight-only as the execution enviorment; which if anything, puts them in a stronger position to change processors than Apple (although on par with Android with Dalvik.)

A flash engine written in Silverlight should run on any Win Mobile 7 phone and desktop PC irrespective of processor.

The easy solution:

[kuzb]

Stop writing software for the iPhone, start writing it for Android. End of problem, write what you want!

Re:Another Onion Article Painfully Close to the Tr

[hitmark]

"think outside of their box, not our box" (their being "big bro" of the day, IBM, microsoft, take your pick).

Covering all the bases

[XiaoMing]

He forgot to include:

Write perfectly good, previously accepted, well-supported code that doesn't violate any of the explicit SDK agreement terms.

But I mean, I guess that one's so obvious it goes without saying!

It is hard to respect Apple

[erroneus]

They are a moving (some might say evolving) target and are most definitely an unknown quantity. Some might say that their "keep'm guessing" style is to their benefit and keeps fans champing at the bit, but for people who are interested in operating a business on their platform, they are anything but stable, reliable or predictable. If there was ever any wonder why Apple hasn't taken over, this paints the most clear and current picture as to why. People bought into iPod and iPhone but it won't be long before Apple pushes enough developers away that those same developers start making really great things for other platforms. Once that happens, all the slick commercials and designs won't keep new customers coming.

Apple is like a controlling, abusive spouse. You either live with them or you divorce them. In time, though, people will start pitying you and questioning your judgement as to why you stay with them.

Re:It is hard to respect Apple

[mjwx]

They are a moving (some might say evolving) target and are most definitely an unknown quantity.

for you perhaps.

Apple is trying to gain control of an entire market, much as MS did back in the 90's. The only real difference is that MS did it by crook (manipulation, backroom deals, strong arming suppliers) and Apple is doing it by hook (changing the rules for developers, forcing people into their way of doing things, excessive amounts of vendor lock-in). Apple is setting itself up to make the same mistakes it made back in the 90's with the Lisa and the "Look and Feel" lawsuits. Their direction is quite obvious, they've gone from innovate (marketing) to litigate. We all know what happens when a business does that.

Apple is like a controlling, abusive spouse. You either live with them or you divorce them. In time, though, people will start pitying you and questioning your judgement as to why you stay with them.

The we stop feeling pity for you, we tried to help and failed, one can only help the battered wife so much before one has to just give up.

deal with the devil

[Weezul]

You got what you deserved for working with oligarchs. What did you expect?

A little life advice, you know that girl you call every 2-3 days for 2 weeks, but never actually meet? Well, she's just not that into you. Apple'a App store is a pretty similar situation. You should either (a) get a job writing an app for people who have the clout, like say a newspaper, or (b) just changing fucking platforms.

Maemo and MeeGo are kinda a moving target right now, but one might try expanding GnuSTEP to aid porting iPhone apps. Or, if your really crazy, try writing tools to help port iPhone apps to Qt. I'm sure many iPhone developers would love having their apps run natively on Symbian phones.

Btw, GnuSTEP was originally developed by SLAC to help port HippoDraw away from the dying NeXT platform, but they eventually gave up on Objective C and NeXTSTEP's, instead choosing Qt.

Re:deal with the devil

[The Qube]

You think Google would have been better? Yeah right... So, (b) is out of the question.

Yes, (a) is the way to go (whatever the platform). It's not just a problem with this situation, but the fact that unless you have a massively successful app (and those are rare), it's very difficult to recover your costs by selling to consumers.

Re:deal with the devil

[Weezul]

Android phones will run unsigned apps, right? I'd assume you could maintain your Android app outside the marketplace, which isn't the same revenue stream, but might pay for the data feed.

In any case, I actually suggested developing a business around porting existing successful iPhone apps to Qt on Symbian, which probably goes way beyond the abilities of out iPhone developer, but nevertheless represents a solid business model with many potential corporate customers.

In fact, I specifically mentioned Symbian because Nokia still kinda owns the lower tier smartphone market outside the U.S., including all Cricket playing countries. But WebOS, Blackberry, and Windows Mobile are also all perfectly viable platforms, but you just better know your target audience.

Re:deal with the devil

[Psaakyrn]

Microsoft's coming out with Windows Mobile 7 in a couple of months.

I know it's Microsoft, but considering we're talking about Apple here, I can't see how it'll be any worse.

They are in charge.

[mosb1000]

I think Apple feels that it is their job to guarantee a consistent user experience on their product. It's good business, because as long as users feel safe downloading the apps, they will keep buying them and keep buying iPhones. Sure, it sucks for the few who would be willing to wade through dozens of bad apps to find one good one, but for everyone else it works great. Developers need to learn that it's not all about them, Apple is genuinely trying to keep its users happy.

What's the problem?

[NicknamesAreStupid]

With just innovation and marketing chutzpah, Apple has created its own kingdom, not unlike Disneyland, where they get to make the rules. That is one of the big rewards of success in business. They have the right to do what they want with the product they sell, including confusing business practices that competitors can use to beat them. As I recall, many were complaining about Microsoft Windows Mobile until Apple came along and helped destroy Microsoft's dominant share in the mobile market. As for the AppStore approval process, I find it perfectly clear when compared to the federal tax code.

Re:What's the problem?

[mjwx]

. As I recall, many were complaining about Microsoft Windows Mobile until Symbian and RIM came along and helped destroy Microsoft's dominant share in the mobile market.

There, fixed that for you, both of these players came along before Apple. Symbian helped unseat MS outside the US, RIM took over inside the US.

They got #1 wrong...

[LittlePud]

#1 should read: Provide any functionality that bypasses bullshit carrier (AT&T) charges such as tethering, VPN, etc.

He missed one

[Anonymous Coward]

He missed "if your app is offensive to muslims"

What if they had a war and nobody came?

[Gaian-Orlanthii]

What if they had a closed-source proprietary product of comparatively inferior quality fiercely guarded by the capricious and draconian rules of a corporation which transparently wants to conquer and control the I.T. media world, and nobody could be arsed to develop anything for it?

What if media developers weren't so damn greedy and shortsighted and none of them rushed to stake a claim in Apple's walled garden?

There're plenty of reasons (for example: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/02/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-think-you-shouldnt-either.html/) why noone should be bothered with Apple but in all the whining and sounds of dismay everytime Apple does something anti-consumer and anti-developer, I don't hear a lot of people saying they're going to give away their iPhone or go to Android or whatever.

It's just a gadget, people. Your life was fine before you got it and it'll be a lot finer after you've forgotten about it. Assuming Jobs doesn't rule the world by then....

Exaggerated?

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,
I have no doubt that there are issues with the way Apple handles this. However I consider this article as bad journalism. About much stuff I have a clue, and the article makes no attempt to give any explanations on how or what is going on and what is so bad about it.

However articles like this one: http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/how-get-rejected-the-app-store-854?page=0,0/ only lead to confusion and are not really helpful (as half the claims there are arguable wrong)

I work down the list as presented in said article.

1. we all agree that (crashing) software like that has nothing to do on my mobile device, I assume?
2. I agree with Apple. Why should they allow to have several Mail, SMS and what ever programs on the device that ruin the platform look and feel?
3. Well, neither the article, not the linked article make clear what this is about. So I would call this bad journalism. Again: what exactly is the Wi-Fi synch thing wee are talking about here? You want to tell me if I want to synch my iPhone with my Mac it wont work over Wi-Fi? Are you sure? And Apps that make this possible get rejected? Are you really sure? If that is the case, we have a point here, but if that is truly the case what is so hard in making this explicit for noobs like me?
4. Execute interpreted code. Your comments are wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with "interpreted" or "not interpreted". Apple considers the iPhone an End-User-Device. You can not program on it, and you should not. That is their stand of view. It has nothing to do with interpreted. Imagine a C64 Emulator that has access to the Mac OS X API and is able to "format" the "HD" of the iPhone. Nightmare!
5. Use too much bandwidth. The whole explanation makes no sense at all. First of all internet radio streams only us 2 or 3 times the bandwidth a phone call does. Secondly, a provider like AT&T perfectly knows which connections over his network do what. So instead of dropping a phone call because of network saturation the provider easily can drop a true bandwidth hogger. Blocking an App because it might use bandwidth makes no sense ... that sounds like bullshit to me.
6. No idea about this. All I can find about this is pretty weird. I had expected that the author of this article had worked on that so we as his readers get an ida what is really going on. However: The App Store is no democracy, which might be why Apple doesn't feel inclined to support free speech. First off all: Free speech or not free speech is something different. Supposed there is a ruler and some citizen says: "that ruler sucks." In a society honouring free speech that citizen can say this unharmed. In a society not honouring free speech the ruler might call for his head. Why do you want to imply that an App that does not get published, for what reason ever, is somehow violating "free speech principles"? Claims like that are a slap into the face of people all over the world that fight for free speech in their countries. You dare to compare a not published App in a Store that belongs to Apple, where Apple has all rights to do what they ever want (not rights: privileges even) with "free speech issues"? Hello, get a real live man!
7. Use Apple's APIs (without permission). Oh my god. The biggest bullshit in this article. First of all the (without permission) part. It implies that some Programmers have the permission to use those APIs. If you have an App on your iPhone, you expect it to continue to work after a system upgrade, or not? If that App uses a "secret API" and that API got changed during the upgrade, the App will likely crash, or not? Whom do you blame? The stupid moron who used secret/unofficial/undocumented APIs or the System Upgrade? Stuff like this bullshit only one who has no clue about programming can write.
8. Use someone else's stuff. No comment about this but I doubt the

And this is why I use Cydia almost exclusively

[mykos]

I think people with popular "rejected" apps should put them (maybe they already are?) on Cydia. My iPhone has been much more useful (and has a prettier interface) since I started getting my apps from there.

Re:And this is why I use Cydia almost exclusively

[jez9999]

For those not in the know, Cydia is a 'directory of applications usable on a jailbroken iPhone or iPod Touch. Adds custom sources to APT.'

Walled Garden & Owning the content

[protektor]

Apple is trying to create a walled garden and are desperate to own the content because they know that pretty soon everyone is going to catch up with OS X in terms of usability and then they will just be another also choice. I give it another 5 maybe 10 years at the outside until most OSes are pretty much the same in terms of look and feel and usability, baring anything stupid in terms of software patents.

So Apple knows that since its days are numbered they need to own or control the content. Which is why the do everything they do. They don't care about the OS any more, they care about owning and controlling the content now.

As for the walled garden, we all know how well that worked out for AOL and other similar companies. The walled garden approach almost never works because there ends up always being something outside of the walled garden that people want. Walled gardens will never work in the long term.

I think Apple is just scared to death of the future repeating itself and Apple being a nothing on it last legs in 5+ years, like it was 5-10 years ago. So they are willing to do anything to try and make that not happen, including doing stupid things that make it happen faster.

If it is all about the OS then Linux is going to eat Apple's lunch given enough time, and every time. There is very little that OS X has currently that isn't available in Linux. Plus Linux being open source and free means more and more companies who don't want to pay an OS tax are using it. Linux is showing up everywhere on every kind of device you can think of, and neither Apple or Microsoft can hire enough programmers to combat that level adoption or features being added by so many companies and developers. Is Linux perfect? No, but it gets better all the time, and what is clear is that Linux is good enough for a lot of things currently. Perhaps Linux isn't prefect for everything, at least not yet, but that will change in time.

Steve Jobs knows he won't be at the head of Apple forever and probably won't be around after another 10 years, so he has to do whatever he thinks he can to make Apple be able to survive when he is gone so they don't have a repeat of what he sees as the past failures while he was gone. In the end the more he or anyone else tries to put a tight grip on things to control them, the more they lose control of the very thing they want to control.

Microsoft learned long ago, you want your platform to succeed then you need to win the minds of developers. It seems Apple never really learned this, or at least not well. The more Apple pisses off developers the faster they will become an also or a has-been.
 

Re:Walled Garden & Owning the content

[walterbyrd]

If it is all about the OS then Linux is going to eat Apple's lunch given enough time, and every time. There is very little that OS X has currently that isn't available in Linux.

Not as long as Linux uses X11. I am a Linux user myself, I am using Ubuntu right now. But, the sad truth is: X11 graphics are substantially inferior to Apple's graphics.

Of course, on Android, that's not a problem.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Rule #1 to get rejected

[Raul Acevedo]

1. Apply

Remember the 3 Ps.

[Anonymous Coward]

> With the iphone, only Apple gets to.

And everywhere is a Pernicious Poem Place.

Think different..

[EmagGeek]

.. as long as it's like us and the same as everyone else.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Stop whining and develop for android already...

[msevior]

Hey, if Apple want a walled garden you don't want to play, don't. They're not the only game in town.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Damn

[Pictish Prince]

After all the work I did on my "download random porn & cartoons via bittorrent & put it on your desktop" widget!

Re:Fuck it

[walterbyrd]

Why is parent post considered a troll? Just because of language?

Frankly, I think the parent post has a perfectly valid point.

Is Android ready for prime-time yet?

[walterbyrd]

I know there are some great Android phones, that have come out fairly recently. But, I don't see many other Android devices that are worthwhile.

I keep reading $99 Android devices that are coming out, but I have to suspend judgment until I can actually buy one.

Wny should they clarify anything?

[hey!]

Developers are still writing apps for the platform, aren't they?

Here's the deal. You get access to the iPod and iPhone user base ... maybe ... for as long as it pleases Apple for you to have that. You take the calculated risk that Apple will accept your app, and continue accepting that app long enough for you to recoup your investment. There are no guarantees that it will please Apple to continuing doing so, any more than there are guarantees that users will buy your app.

I don't understand why people agonize over this like its some kind of betrayal, or like Apple owes them something. As far as Apple is concerned they own not only the platform, but the customers for that platform and every aspect of the user experience. What part of that hasn't been made abundantly clear yet? Oh, there are certain well known things you can do to avoid getting your app banned, but Apple could decide tomorrow to change the rules. They could even ban your app because they decide it's not consistent with the image they want to project.

As long as there are plenty of app developers who willing to develop on those terms (basically nothing is guaranteed), and Apple has never pretended otherwise, why should Apple do anything for you? It'd be different if they'd promised you anything like control over your own destiny, or openness, or transparency, or even a fair shake. But they haven't. They promised you a crapshoot, and that's what you get. It's their rules, and those rules are "what we say goes, and we don't owe you any explanation." The only people who might in some conceivable scenario have any cause for complaint are the stockholders, but those circumstances haven't arisen yet.

So, iPhone developers, if you don't like Apple's terms, eat it, or move on. Apple never forced you to develop for the platform, and they aren't forcing you to stay.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

All I can say is...

[drsquare]

Thank fuck Microsoft won the battle for the desktop. Apple get a good reputation because they're the underdog, but shit like this makes Gates the much lesser of two evils.

Couple Questions...

[multimediavt]

I am also an iPhone OS developer and have had no problem working with Apple and the App Store so I am curious about the fervor surrounding rejections. I have some simple questions to ask you:

1. How much research did you do into the information licensing that may surround the data you were aggregating?

I ask this because I created a drink recipe and general bartending app and I had to do quite a bit of research into what is and is not copyrighted, trademarked, etc. before we began development. I found out through that research that drink names can be copyrighted, but recipes cannot, for instance. As a parallel to your case in the sporting world, the National Football League (NFL), retains the rights to all information, statistics, visual and audio accounts of games, etc. You CANNOT reproduce any American football game, publish stats, etc., etc. without the "express written permission of the NFL". Now, a developer may have a problem with that, and if they created a NFL app for the Apple App Store it would probably be rejected and they might face legal action from the NFL, but that's not Apple's fault. Frankly, that was just well intentioned ignorance on the developer's part for not doing their homework.

2. How many applications have you self published?

Again, I ask this because there are TONS of legal issues that surround publishing applications, especially those that aggregate the work of others or otherwise rely on a pre-existing event, creative work, etc. I don't deny that your application was a "good idea", but it wasn't well thought out from a legal perspective and it eventually caught up to you. I have personally rejected app ideas from my developers and business partners specifically because they were based on someone else's idea in another arena. I rejected a "Wrap It Up" app because I was worried that Dave Chappelle's people would come after us and sue us for ripping off his idea. There have been a few others along those lines, where the idea sounded good in a vacuum, but would potentially create legal issues in the real world and get us sued. Don't want that.

I will admit, that there have been some odd rejections in the App Store from time-to-time, but a majority of the cases I've seen are clearly violations of Apple's SDK Agreement, or are targets for copyright or trademark infringement. I think your ire in this case would be better directed at the IPL, but if it's anything like the NFL ... good luck with that! This certainly wasn't a case where Apple did something wrong. They pulled an application that was clearly violating a legal copyright to information and its distribution. In this crazy intellectual property hoarding world we are currently in you have to do your homework and make an educated decision about what applications may or may not violate someone else's rights.

Re:Couple Questions...

[soppsa]

This is +3 and the GP is +5... Typical slashdot apple hatred. The guy infringed on some Indian trademark. Apple respected said trademark. You need to take it up with the Indians, not Apple...

We're lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

We are lucky Apple doesn't have a hard and fixed rule set but instead continues to evolve the criteria. It would be far worse to deal with them if they simply hard lined it all.

Apple Plays Favourites

[meehawl]

I don't think Apple uses those to make money though

Microsoft didn't "make money" with Internet Explorer. It was and is a free app. It was still part of the primary evidence for Microsoft's illegal monopoly behaviour.

Didn't you read the Gruber link from the message almost immediately before yours? If even a notorious Apple Polisher like Gruber thinks something like this is worth calling out Apple on, then I for one am impressed. Undocumented API functions apparently do exist, and Apple lets favoured corporate partners use these APIs for competitive advantage. In other words, outside of the *public* terms of its developer contracts, there's obviously a whole less public sphere where influence and favours are being traded for access to the Iphone's innards. Apple is playing favourites and preferentially granting access to an effective monopoly to create a syndicate or cartel network. This is the same shite Standard Oil was doing back in the day, and it's the same shite Microsoft was pulling in the 1990s, and part of what eventually resulted in the entire company of Microsoft being judged a criminal monopoly. It's not crime to become a monopoly through fair competition, the crime emerges when you use that monopoly illegally to maintain market dominance for you and your cartel buddies through unfair competition.

Re:Fuck it

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Cuz his comment doesn't really tell us anything?

I mean, there's already several "Well, then build on Android" comments above that actually have substance. Some reasoning like:
"If you don't like Apple's policies/actions/whatever/circlesomethinghere, then there's Android."

For me, I'm trying for a 2nd time to learn to build on Android just because I like to tinker. But damn, the Android SDK experience is feels kinda shitty after I've used the iPhone SDK.