Slashdot Mirror


Apple Finally Approves Google+ App For iPhone

CWmike writes "Apple approved the Google+ app for the iPhone on Tuesday, and posted it to the App Store. It's unclear whether Google has created an iPad-specific app. Two weeks ago, a Google employee said that the company had submitted Google+ to the App Store ... on July 4. According to that timeline, Google's app took twice as long as the majority of submitted apps to win Apple's approval."

162 comments

  1. !news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, how is this even remotely news? Why would Apple not approve Google+ app when there are Facebook app and tons of other social networks apps? Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe? Please explain me. It's not like Apple has any kind of relationship with Facebook. Microsoft does, and I would still be fairly certain that even Microsoft would accept it to Windows Phone 7 app store.

    Oh, it's ComputerWorld and I guess they needed some visitors from slashdot again.

    1. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more important... why couldn't an iphone user just access Google+ from its web browser? Do you really need a dedicated app?

      Apple dragging their feet on this is still inexcusable. It's not like Google is some new upstart that no one has ever heard of. Why does the app approval take so long? Did Google fail to comply with the requirements? Did Apple think it might contain malware or something? What is the problem here?

      If you're gonna have this walled-garden thingy then you need to not take so goddamned long to perform the gatekeeper function at least not without a really solid reason.

    2. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh no! Two whole weeks! It's all part of Steve Job's sinister plan to take over the world! If the app had been approved in one week instead of two, his plans would have been foiled! Call the FTC! Antitrust! Break up Apple! Evil! Evil! Evil!

    3. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would still be fairly certain that even Microsoft would accept it to Windows Phone 7 app store.

      Accept it? I think they'd have to beg for it.

    4. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wasn't Google+ supposed to be in private beta testing? Why is there a public app for a beta available for download? Is it beta or not? For a beta 10 million users sure is a lot too.

    5. Re:!news by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I am not familiar with the approval process but is 2 weeks considered "a long time". I have no idea and I don't know how complex Google+ app is which might have caused the app to take longer than usual.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:!news by garcia · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was simply that the app sucks. Plenty of sources are reporting that it's buggy (I wonder if that means it's better or worse than their Google Voice app which is terribly unstable). Maybe the reason for it taking so long was because Apple was deciding whether it was worth it to allow a buggy app to be released to the world.

      Or, perhaps they wanted to wait for the application to be useful to more people as Google opened up the service to more and more people?

    7. Re:!news by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Why would Apple not approve Google+ app when there are Facebook app and tons of other social networks apps?

      For their own mysterious/nefarious purposes. Why would they initially not allow users to change the background on the iphone? Apple likes control.

      Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe?

      Perhaps Apple was deliberately holding up the app to sabotage Google + launch. Major holidays? Give me a break. Had apple been playing nice to Google and iphone owners, this would have been fasttracked for approval.

    8. Re:!news by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 2

      Why does the app approval take so long? Did Google fail to comply with the requirements? Did Apple think it might contain malware or something? What is the problem here?

      An extra week? Maybe caused by holidays, sickness, a couple of tougher calls that were ahead of it in the queue... this is a complete non-story.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    9. Re:!news by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Even more important... why couldn't an iphone user just access Google+ from its web browser? Do you really need a dedicated app?

      They could use it through safari, but certain features were lacking. Photo uploading from the iphone, and the chat feature "huddle" didn't work before.

    10. Re:!news by Altus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you know they were dragging their feet on this? I bet that the google + app is more than twice as complicated as the average app on the iPhone, especially when you consider all the total bullshit fart apps that probably take minutes to approve or deny. Whats more it makes extensive use of a lot of features, it communicates externally, it uses the camera for stills and video and probably also the GPS system. These are sensitive areas and even a cursory check to make sure the app is doing what it claims to do is going to take time. There is a lot of ground to cover there that is unnecessary in some other apps. I'm sure apple has some automated tools that tell the people doing the approval what APIs are being used and ones that are not using many important APIs probably get approved a lot faster.

      Basically, you have no idea if this is reasonable or not, you have simply decided that it was unreasonable so you can complain about it.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    11. Re:!news by Medevilae · · Score: 1

      It's at the point where it's not really a private beta, and the private tag is just to make it feel exclusive.

    12. Re:!news by TheClarkster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, Apple accidentally published an older buggy version Google had submitted for testing. It was swapped out after about 2 hours with the release version.

    13. Re:!news by interkin3tic · · Score: 1
      They updated it within 2 hours, saying the one initially up was a test version.

      Maybe the reason for it taking so long was because Apple was deciding whether it was worth it to allow a buggy app to be released to the world.

      They've never had that standard before with the app store, not sure why they would start all of a sudden.

    14. Re:!news by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

      It seems silly to expect larger v1 apps to be approved as quickly as the average shovelware. It's obviously going to contain a lot more new code and functionality than the average app.

    15. Re:!news by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Of course it is not news. It is merely an additional opportunity for us all to beg for invites. me@gmail.com pretty please? Oh, shucks! They are on to us...

    16. Re:!news by ynp7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Probably just took them that long to get an invite to G+ so they could test it.

    17. Re:!news by Altus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So perhaps part of this delay was Apple telling Google to get their shit together and publish a decent app before they would approve it.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    18. Re:!news by Altus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You really believe that not being able to change the background initially was because of control and not simply because they had limited developer time and decided that time would be better spent on a different feature or on fixing bugs?

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    19. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burr Apple they don't give back to opensource like Google with their opensource operating sys- oh wait nevermind!

    20. Re:!news by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Yes. For one thing, it's not complicated. For another, it's one on a long list of standard features missing from the iphone that were introduced only after great delay.

    21. Re:!news by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Of course no one considers the fact that they are backlogged with iOS5 apps. They immediately assume the worst.

    22. Re:!news by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Apple and Google do not like each other even though they share some board of directors. Google lost out on really valuable Nortel patents (which could have immunized Google against threats of lawsuits against Android) to a consortium of companies that was funded in large part by Apple. Also, don't forget that Apple is also suing HTC, Samsung, and other large manufacturers and importers of Android smartphones.

      Perversely, Microsoft makes more money off Android than it does off Windows Phone 7. It's estimated that HTC pays Microsoft $5 in licensing fees for each Android handset it sells.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    23. Re:!news by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      The last two apps I worked on were approved around the one-week mark. However, there's a lot of variance (sometimes it's same day, sometimes three of four weeks if the reviewers find bugs or UI issues.

      Being google+, it's entirely possible the reviewer had to wait 2 weeks before he was able to activate his g+ account to test it.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    24. Re:!news by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Actually they do. It's right in the developer guidelines that they verify if apps are stable (aren't crashing all the time and they do what they are supposed to do).

      http://developer.apple.com/appstore/resources/approval/guidelines.html

      If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your first practice App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour.

      2.1
      Apps that crash will be rejected
      2.2
      Apps that exhibit bugs will be rejected
      2.3
      Apps that do not perform as advertised by the developer will be rejected
      2.4
      Apps that include undocumented or hidden features inconsistent with the description of the app will be rejected

    25. Re:!news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      are backlogged with iOS5 apps

      Do you believe that the App for Google+ was only submitted two weeks ago?

      What would you be saying if for two weeks apple.com disappeared from search results?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:!news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Being google+, it's entirely possible the reviewer had to wait 2 weeks before he was able to activate his g+ account to test it.

      So you think the Apple app tester was the last geek in Silicon Valley not to have a Google+ account?

      Is there any reason not to believe that this was not just a little pissing contest between the masters of the high-tech universe?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:!news by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Apple have rejected low quality apps for almost two years.

      http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20090807-apple-cleans-up-app-store-rejects-low-quality-apps.html

      And they openly admit to rejecting buggy apps:

      Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications. When there is an issue, we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.

      From http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/

    28. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps Apple was deliberately holding up the app to sabotage Google + launch. Major holidays? Give me a break. Had apple been playing nice to Google and iphone owners, this would have been fasttracked for approval.

      Not fast tracking a client for an online service still in a limited trial phase is the same as sabotage? You'll need to bring in the jews or the UN if your expecting to take your conspiracies to the next level.

    29. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that have to do with the length of time an app took to be approved at Apple?

      Seriously, you guys need a hobby...

    30. Re:!news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      So perhaps part of this delay was Apple telling Google to get their shit together and publish a decent app before they would approve it.

      Funny that they don't tell the thousands of half-assed game developers who sell buggy iPhone games to "get their shit together". Dinofarm Games is just the one of the worst offenders. When you buy a $5 iPhone game, you've got about a 1 in 8 chance that it doesn't have bugs that make it completely unplayable.

      I notice the worst one I ever saw, a game called "Rebellion" that wouldn't even get to the start screen without crashing, has finally been taken off the app store after six months or so. I don't know if the developer took it down or Apple pulled the plug.

      So I seriously doubt that making sure the app developer gets his "shit together" was any part of the equation in the matter of Apple's approval of a free Google+ app.

      But perhaps Apple will notice your valiant willingness to fight for their honor (which is more than they've ever done). You never know, there might be a little something in it for you down the road. Probably not, though.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re:!news by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Do you understand how the development process works? "not complicated" and "not feature dependant" and "not a sales checkbox" means the feature is pushed to the bottom of the stack. It then only gets into a release build when the developers have completed all higher priority tasks. If enough potential customers complain, "not a sales checkbox" is removed, and the feature is bumped up on the list. If it was one on a long list of features missing, Apple was likely waiting to see which "standard" features people really wanted. Personally, a functional clipboard was much higher on my list than changing the background.

      Apple is NOT an agile dev shop. This means that they are unlikely to pop background theming to the top of the queue because someone can hammer it out in a couple of days. They're more likely to have that person working on getting the interface interaction and cross-app stability issues addressed, and then off to other interface improvements on the next point release.

    32. Re:!news by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Not fast tracking a client for an online service still in a limited trial phase is the same as sabotage?

      Not actually what I said, was it?

    33. Re:!news by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      They could access Google+ from the web browser. And as a BlackBerry user, that's my only option... but I prefer apps to websites, because apps can take advantage of many of the social networking abilities of the BlackBerry... they can tie into the camera and video camera apps, they can provide push notifications for various events and expose those events separately to allow other applications to set custom alerts, etc. Not sure how much of that applies to iOS... as it seems several places where Twitter is integrated in iOS5 are things that other mobile operating systems expose to a lot of various applications...

    34. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the important one :

      If you don't suck Steve Jobs' dick, your apps will be rejected.

    35. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your mommy know your on the computer?

    36. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem more than a little desperate, Altus. Why? It's not like Apple's stock is tanking or anything.

    37. Re:!news by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      How are those two things even remotely related?

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    38. Re:!news by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Do you understand how the development process works?

      No, you're right, I realize I was speculating about what was going on when I don't even know how the industry works, let alone what was going on with that specific instance. Having said that, I'm skeptical that every feature that was left out and added back later was purely due to the development process and deadlines. I think some non-essential but standard features were saved for a later time so that apple could offer them later for more publicity.

    39. Re:!news by CapuchinSeven · · Score: 2

      ...er, yes it was.

    40. Re:!news by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      How do you know they were dragging their feet on this? I bet that the google + app is more than twice as complicated as the average app on the iPhone, especially when you consider all the total bullshit fart apps that probably take minutes to approve or deny...

      But what then would I complain about? I mean, come on! Steve Jobs is worse than Gates, right?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    41. Re:!news by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      The Google+ app also crashes immediately after signing in and clicking on Stream under iOS5. Apparently version 1.0.1.1809 was supposed to be more stable. Unfortunately that's the version that's also crashing for me under iOS 5.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20080767-501465.html

    42. Re:!news by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So you'd rather believe that 1 week more than normal = pissing contest rather than it took longer because it was more complicated.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    43. Re:!news by fusiongyro · · Score: 2

      If apple.com were an invite-only social network released publicly just a few weeks ago and rate-limiting subscriptions I guess there would be no comparison, right?

    44. Re:!news by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      BS. Apple doesn't need to resort to such methods to get publicity. They already have more than they could have imagined.

    45. Re:!news by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how is this even remotely news? Why would Apple not approve Google+ app

      Because Apple maliciously chose to block Google's previous apps (Voice, Latitude etc) due to their spat with google, abusing their power over the iOS marketplace to attempt to shut out a competitor. So they may have chosen to block Google+ with some spurious explanation too. Thus the fact that it was accepted is news as Apple may have become a bit more reasonable with their reviewing process.

    46. Re:!news by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      You really believe that not being able to change the background initially was because of control and not simply because they had limited developer time and decided that time would be better spent on a different feature or on fixing bugs?

      I believe you can look at the iphone (and almost all apple products) as if they were being tailor-made for SJ himself. I say this in a respectful way, and in fact it appears to be a very successful strategy since the man obviously has fairly good and well-accepted taste in what makes a great device.

      I would suggest you are correct in that certain seemingly essential features were dropped because SJ either didn't think it was necessary or like you said, prioritized other features. In the case of the ability to change the background, I'm guessing it was that he felt it was unnecessary.

      Apple are all about giving you only the features they think you need. Read that carefully. And for many people, they're right on the money. The complaints about Apple products tend to come from people who are not (or at least not directly) Apple's target market, including myself, although I find myself edging closer to iOS development every time Google stuffs me around on my Android Developer Console (its almost always broken somewhere, including now).

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    47. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. For one thing, it's not complicated. For another, it's one on a long list of standard features missing from the iphone that were introduced only after great delay.

      So if your intention is to develop an innovative new phone that will revolutionize the entire market, you should start by copying the same features that everything else already has?

    48. Re:!news by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      How do you know they were dragging their feet on this? I bet that the google + app is more than twice as complicated as the average app on the iPhone, especially when you consider all the total bullshit fart apps that probably take minutes to approve or deny.

      As an iOS dev, I wish people would stop perpetuating this myth. Applications are complex, difficult things to develop on every single platform, everyone seemingly having an expectation that "oh it's only an iOS app, all it'll do is fart" makes it very difficult to convince people that if they want their app made well it'll take a little time.

    49. Re:!news by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Yes. For one thing, it's not complicated. For another, it's one on a long list of standard features missing from the iphone that were introduced only after great delay.

      You realise that lots of small tasks can quite easily take more time than a few large ones? I would much rather they spend time getting the large things right than fucking about making sure I can change my desktop rather than receive send an SMS.

    50. Re:!news by kevinmenzel · · Score: 1

      And yet they've managed to design and ship one of the least reliable phones for actually using as a phone. So apparently they don't give a damn about arbitrary major features either. And if you just say "Well, the features they shipped with - those are what they cared about, and you should be satisfied with that," well that's pretty useless too, isn't it? I mean, if some company released a word processor without support for bold type, because they spent time getting the large things like saving a document to a disk right, you wouldn't give that company flack for not including a standard feature of modern word processors? I mean, not everybody needs to make text bold, right? That's just cosmetic.

      Apple does this stuff all the time with the iPhone. I mean, look at the alarm clock problems on the iPhone during particular times of the year. They've had multiple problems on special days of the year, like the daylight savings time change, or the change to a new year. Sure they got the main task of "Make alarm clock go beep when the user wanted it to" - for the most part... but they really cocked it up when it came to the basic outlying cases that repeat year after year, are probably handled by some already extant clock library that they should have been using... I mean, if every other alarm clock doesn't fail on those dates and then require a patch, but the iPhone does... certain small tasks may take time to complete, but if you don't have the small standard features, well, frankly... comparison is important, and you do have to ask why, if every body else has managed it, this one particular company couldn't swing it in time. Especially a company that has a large functional code-base, much of which might be adaptable for the new products they release, when it comes to implementing relatively standard features.

    51. Re:!news by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      And yet they've managed to design and ship one of the least reliable phones for actually using as a phone. So apparently they don't give a damn about arbitrary major features either.

      While I know geeks love to bash them for this, I don't think I've ever met a single iPhone user (yes, even 4 users) who has an issue with their phone working well as a phone. Looking at it too, I don't see any issue - are there really phones out there that are easier than simply making one gesture and typing a few letters from the name of the person you want to call?

    52. Re:!news by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 1

      Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe?

      Nothing to do with statistics - this is clearly a high profile app, so your first level drone isn't going to approve it herself. That means it has to be bumped up to the higher level panel which inevitably takes a bit longer.

      Nothing to see here - just an artifact of the approval process.

    53. Re:!news by Geeky · · Score: 1

      Seriously? There's a a feature called "huddle".

      I wonder if huddle.com are happy about that...

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    54. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happens to me every day at work. They request a design, I handle out the paperwork explaining the tasks and the time they will take and they scrap everything but the bare minimum. This includes features, testing, performance enhacements, etc.

    55. Re:!news by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >Why would Apple not approve Google+ app when there are Facebook app and tons of other social networks apps?

      Retaliation for the million and one proxy wars they have with Google right now? Not sure if you guys know about this thing new called Android, but its pretty hot, and Apple is competing against it the only way it knows how: via patent lawsuits.

    56. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps Apple was deliberately holding up the app to sabotage Google + launch. Major holidays? Give me a break. Had apple been playing nice to Google and iphone owners, this would have been fasttracked for approval.

      As an app developer, I know it can take quite a while for an app to be approved by apple, the longest being 5 weeks for me. I also know as a developer, I can submit it for approval with a set release date in mind. So, i can submit an app for approval in July, and set the release date for Christmas day. It is Google's own fault that the app wasn't released sooner.

      FYI, I am huge fan and supporter of Google products.

    57. Re:!news by Altus · · Score: 1

      Well then, maybe it was Google getting their shit together all on their own.

      What I cant understand is why apple had a buggy version in their hands to being with, I would expect google to not release the app to apple until they had thoroughly tested it (not that it would be bug free, but at least not a mess).

      It is possible, however, that google was actively working with apple on this, providing pre-release versions for feedback to help the approval process along and avoid any issues. Of course if we assume that it blows away the whole conspiracy against google theory so thats no fun.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    58. Re:!news by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Of course no one considers the fact that they are backlogged with iOS5 apps. They immediately assume the worst.

      I don't think anyone 'assumed the worst' at all so im not sure how you interpreted those posts to give you that impression, the 'worst' it got was someone asking why it took so long, not jumping to any conspiracy theory conclusions or anything like that. I'd say the upcoming iOS5 release probably is the reason for the delay, I wonder if other developers are experiencing longer-than-usual approval times (not suggesting any conspiracy, just wondering).

    59. Re:!news by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Seriously? There's a a feature called "huddle".

      I wonder if huddle.com are happy about that...

      I doubt they have any say in it, huddle is just a word.

    60. Re:!news by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Need I go on?

      What would you be saying if for two weeks apple.com disappeared from search results?

      Is there any reason not to believe that this was not just a little pissing contest between the masters of the high-tech universe?

      So I seriously doubt that making sure the app developer gets his "shit together" was any part of the equation in the matter of Apple's approval of a free Google+ app.

      If you don't suck Steve Jobs' dick, your apps will be rejected.

      Perhaps Apple was deliberately holding up the app to sabotage Google + launch. Major holidays? Give me a break. Had apple been playing nice to Google and iphone owners, this would have been fasttracked for approval.

      Because Apple maliciously chose to block Google's previous apps (Voice, Latitude etc) due to their spat with google, abusing their power over the iOS marketplace to attempt to shut out a competitor./blockquote

    61. Re:!news by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Need I go on?

      None of that is even in this comment thread so isn't relevant, you've just gone and taken a bunch of irrational replies from other places (that likely also contained perfectly rational rebuttals, hence the reason for a comment thread).

    62. Re:!news by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Actually they are all from this article (just read below), which is what makes it relevant.

    63. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I know geeks love to bash them for this, I don't think I've ever met a single iPhone user (yes, even 4 users) who has an issue with their phone working well as a phone.

      Wow, steve jobs really did a number on you, next you'll be saying anyone that has an issue is 'holding it wrong'. Even apple admitted there were problems so now it's safe for you to snap out of your denial and admit that too.

    64. Re:!news by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Actually they are all from this article (just read below)

      Hence 'comment thread'. But if you want to make a point about people assuming the worst then the obvious thing to do is to reply to those people rather than the people doing exactly the opposite.

    65. Re:!news by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Actually it was a reply to Anonymous (second in this thread), and an agreement with the third poser in the thread.

    66. Re:!news by exomondo · · Score: 1
      That's what i thought, he's done the opposite of jumping to any conclusions or assuming the worst, by instead posing a bunch of questions:

      Why does the app approval take so long?
      Did Google fail to comply with the requirements?
      Did Apple think it might contain malware or something?
      What is the problem here?

      See, no 'assuming the worst' at all.

    67. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, apple went, "yes, there's a problem, but look... all these other phones do it too", which is true, all those other phones do do the same thing. Somehow everyone gets along just fine making calls on all those phones, but geeks single out the iPhone as being utterly impossible to make a call on. Could it be that SJ didn't "do a number" on me, but that you have just a *tiny* bias against apple products ;)

    68. Re:!news by Xest · · Score: 1

      Because Facebook is really neutral to all mobile phone platforms - it has no real interest in the market, only to make itself accessible everywhere.

      Google, with Android, might potentially decide to ensure the Android experience of Google+ is far better in the future to coax people onto the Android platform, hence, if Apple allows it's users to use Google+ and move to it from Facebook it might find that it's something being used to convince people to move away from it's platforms in the future.

      Of course, it's worth pointing out that Apple has dragged it's heals on app approval or dreamt up arbitrary and contradictory excuses in the past from companies it simply does not like for seemingly no real reason other than it does not like them, so it wouldn't be far fetched for Apple to do this.

      Whilst I agree the time taken for the approval process was no big deal and nothing to really moan about I think you'd have to be rather naive to think that this delay wasn't related to Apple examining the potential impact it could have on their business and weighing it against the PR damage it would cause if they rejected it with yet another arbitrary excuse. When you're someone like Apple and facing an application from someone like Google that might gain a real serious following, then it's simply good business sense to examine the impact on your business, that takes time, and that is likely the cause of the delay.

      Anyway, sorry to interrupt your ill thought out rant, you can carry on now.

  2. Mild censorship by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    I understand Apple's philosophy of only allowing the best apps in their istore. However, what they don't realise is that exactly the same can be achieved with decent rating system if it's done relatively well (Slashdot, or download.com though not perfect, spring to mind). That way, people can choose the best, and we don't have a mild form of censorship. It also cuts out the maintenance.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:Mild censorship by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      Aww that's just Apple being Apple. They understand how to make your user experience better than you do.

    2. Re:Mild censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Come on, that's not their philosophy. If that were the case, their store wouldn't be littered with utter garbage.

    3. Re:Mild censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's completely wrong. No rating system is going to let you know that the app silently uses its network permissions to send data it shouldn't be sending. Only reading the source code will let you do that.

    4. Re:Mild censorship by Cabriel · · Score: 2

      This requires aging and use before an app can be determined to be good and/or malware-free. Many early adopters will get the short end of the stick which they will blame on Apple instead of their own idiocy.

      Apple took the approach that made the most business sense because it also keeps up the reputation of their products, and *that* is their goal here. The same cannot be done with Slashdot's rating system.

    5. Re:Mild censorship by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      what they don't realise is that exactly the same can be achieved with decent rating system

      Please cite an example of a competing app store which has been anywhere near as successful and generated $2.5bn in revenue for developers by using such a rating system.

      To help Apple 'realise' I'll then drop them a note with the details to apple.com/feedback

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    6. Re:Mild censorship by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I understand Apple's philosophy of only allowing the best apps in their istore.

      Have you been on the appstore lately? Since its inception it's been filled to the brim with crap. Finding decent apps consists of downloading featured apps or looking at the top 100 list. Anything beyond that is probably junk. Make no mistake the app approval process is all about control of the content on the app store, not the quality.

    7. Re:Mild censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commercial driven rating systems always fail. Amazon, Netflix, Apple App Store, Android Marketplace, XBox Marketplace ... all of them are undermined by hundreds of millions of fake ratings and reviews.

    8. Re:Mild censorship by robmv · · Score: 1

      Amazon, I hear that a lot of people buy applications there and better yet, they get something called a physical disk that they can resell later if they want

    9. Re:Mild censorship by maschinetheist · · Score: 1

      Of course you think that everyone and their grandmother know how to use wireshark or tcpdump :|

    10. Re:Mild censorship by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Have you been on the appstore lately? Since its inception it's been filled to the brim with crap. Finding decent apps consists of downloading featured apps or looking at the top 100 list. Anything beyond that is probably junk. Make no mistake the app approval process is all about control of the content on the app store, not the quality.

      While I do not dispute your assertion in general, it implies that Apple's review process does nothing to improve matters. Which is very easily to verify if you just look at the free-for-all Android Market. And guess what? The amount of crap there is so overwhelming that App Store is a Japanese rock garden in comparison.

    11. Re:Mild censorship by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Ok, so on either platform you can find good stuff in the top 100, and lots of garbage after that. What benefit does Apple bring?

      This sounds like complaining that you ran a Google search and hit the next button to get to page 185, and you found a lot of irrelevant stuff.

      I don't look at the garbage in the Android market, just like you don't look at the garbage in the App Store. The difference is that if I want I can install an alternative Email client or browser....

    12. Re:Mild censorship by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The difference is that if you do a search on something you're interested in, e.g. "RPG", in App Store you'll find most results to be relevant, even if some might be crappy. In Android Market, you'll find a few actual hits interspersed between spam submissions (same app submitted N times, slightly renamed) and downright malware and porn.

    13. Re:Mild censorship by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      Because I really want to run wireshark on my freaking phone.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    14. Re:Mild censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since its inception it's been filled to the brim with crap.

      The first 'fart app' was blocked on the basis of taste and limited utility. It wasn't the public at large that demanded fart apps; it was the vocal internet whiners complaining about Apple's control over the market and lack of 'freedom and openess'.

      So we have fart apps; and whiners.

    15. Re:Mild censorship by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Really? For their android devices? You can get boxed software?

      Oh what? You're talking about something entirely unrelated and might as well be comparing k-mart/walmart/costco/target to the App Store?

      Did you know that Ford will sell you discs too?

      See how all of thats related and relevant?

      No? Thats because its not, and neither was anything you said.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    16. Re:Mild censorship by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yea, actually, rather often.

      I've spent ~$200 on the app store in the last month, and not one of the apps I've gotten have been crap, and only one of them was in the top 100 list, which interestingly enough is the one that is most expensive and most disappointing to me.

      Apple is tightening down on crappier apps over time, of course at that point you'll start screaming stupid shit like 'censorship' or 'control!' because you simply don't like them. Don't think so? Take a look at the slashdot reaction every time in the past they've cleaned up.

      Not liking them is fine, but you're just acting like an illogical ignorant fanboy, do you even own an iPhone?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    17. Re:Mild censorship by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Er...there are plenty of alternative browsers on the App Store. What are you on about? I personally prefer Atomic (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/atomic-web-browser-browse/id347929410?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D4)

      Email clients? ... well I don't know because I've never looked. So you might have a point there.

    18. Re:Mild censorship by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      Wrong example, that doesn't compete with Apple's app store (iPhones and iPads and Android equvilants have no use for a physical disc, but even if they did you'd have to wait for the disc to arrive in the post vs immediate download)

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    19. Re:Mild censorship by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Precisely what leads you to believe that Apple doesn't realize this?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Mild censorship by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      No, I own an iPad. Maybe that's the difference.

  3. iPhone ONLY. by jaskelling · · Score: 3, Informative

    Does not support or work on iPod Touch or iPad. Makes this app completely worthless to me. The rest of Google's apps support them...why the *$#( doesn't this?

    1. Re:iPhone ONLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this took me forever to figure out. It was very frustrating.

    2. Re:iPhone ONLY. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Does not support or work on iPod Touch or iPad.

      Maybe that's why it took so long.

      I believe part of the criterion for approval is it must work on the iPad (using 1x and 2x mode for non-iPad, non-Universal apps) and possibly iPod Touch as well (unless it uses features that are iPhone only - e.g., SMS, dialer). Perhaps most of the 2 weeks (which I thought was the average time for app approval - has Apple gotten the turnaround down to 1 week already?) was spent dicking around with Google on why their app only works on iPhone and nothing else.

      Or has Google decided they needed everyone's phone number?

    3. Re:iPhone ONLY. by arkhan_jg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a separate ipad app, it's still awaiting approval by apple
      .

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    4. Re:iPhone ONLY. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      It -is- still in beta. Real question is why has facebook still not put out an ipad app? The iphone app scaled up is just plain ugly.

    5. Re:iPhone ONLY. by ethergear · · Score: 1

      Same here. I was really looking forward to that app too.

    6. Re:iPhone ONLY. by Trolan · · Score: 1

      Checking the app's plist, it's iPhone only because Google's developer on it decided that it would require the following:
      - gps (includes GSM/CDMA iPads)
      - location-services (all devices since wifi can give you some form of a fix)
      - sms (iPhone)
      - telephony (iPhone)
      - wifi (all devices)

      As the only items which match all of it are iPhones, that's all it'll install on. Now why they decided it required telephone and sms, and didn't just gracefully downgrade when they're lacking, I have no idea. It's kind of sloppy.

    7. Re:iPhone ONLY. by earls · · Score: 1

      Apple just hasn't approved that functionality yet.

    8. Re:iPhone ONLY. by Threni · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they don't want G+ sullied with a sucky experience on inferior platforms? Those requirements are hardly cutting edge, are they?

    9. Re:iPhone ONLY. by Trolan · · Score: 1

      I might understand it if G+ on the web had any use for sms or telephony... but it doesn't. It'd be a pretty easy check to not enable certain functionality and then it's no diff from the website. And if they're doing an iPod/iPad version anyway, they won't have those features available either.

    10. Re:iPhone ONLY. by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet my computer does not have all of those and they still allow me on G+.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    11. Re:iPhone ONLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried it on the iPad browser? The only quirk I've noticed is the find people screen, appears to be expecting you to use a mouse wheel to scroll... But you can do that with 2 fingers on iOS, though most people don't know that.

      Other then that, works great. Probably why they haven't rushed an iPad version, which is good because iPad apps with lots of attention can be quite nice.

    12. Re:iPhone ONLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remind me, you had a full featured browser?

      My HP Touchpad works just fine in the web.

    13. Re:iPhone ONLY. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You can perfectly well just use the mobile web app from Mobile Safari. So far as I can see, the only reason to get an app is to have push notifications (it does have them, I hope?).

    14. Re:iPhone ONLY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or has Google decided they needed everyone's phone number?

      If I remember correctly, you need to provide your phone number when you register for Google+ anyway.

    15. Re:iPhone ONLY. by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      It also gives you photo uploads. And yes, it has notifications.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    16. Re:iPhone ONLY. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Perhaps most of the 2 weeks (which I thought was the average time for app approval - has Apple gotten the turnaround down to 1 week already?)

      its 2 weeks right at the moment because OS X Lion 10.7 apps is being released. All the OS X App Store apps are being resubmitted (well, all the ones that matter) to verify they work in 10.7.

      Before Apple started the 10.7 push, say late may or early june, it was possible to get an app submitted on Monday to be approved by Friday, but only for a pretty trivial app. Larger apps take more time.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    17. Re:iPhone ONLY. by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Sounds like they've got 'app permissions' and 'device requirements' muddled up, if you ask me.

    18. Re:iPhone ONLY. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Real question is why would you need an app? These are websites, they ought to just be tailored for specific mobile devices.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:iPhone ONLY. by DanTheManMS · · Score: 1

      Real question is why would you need an app? These are websites, they ought to just be tailored for specific mobile devices.

      A mobile website can't access the camera to upload a photo, or send you push notifications when you get a reply, for starters. Facebook's mobile website is good, but there are uses for a separate app.

    20. Re:iPhone ONLY. by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      They are working on an iPad app.

    21. Re:iPhone ONLY. by z1ppy · · Score: 1

      After having some time to play with the dedicated iPhone app yesterday evening, it's not much better (performance-wise) than the HTML5 version that runs nearly identically in mobile Safari. Give that a shot if you haven't already. Menus, swipe to change categories, etc...all work just like the app.

    22. Re:iPhone ONLY. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I thought these problems were solved for iOS devices back when Apple wasn't even going to let you write real apps.

      On platforms with flash this ought to be solved with flash.

      WTF?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Summer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know how big of a factor it is in the US, but July is prime vacation time here in Sweden, probably 70+% of the office I work at is on vacation.. It wouldn't surprise me if something like that cause the delay, probably doesn't have anything to do with policy, Apple doesn't have a competing social network after al...

  5. Unclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "It's unclear whether Google has created an iPad-specific app."

    Journalism at its best. What's so hard about going into the app store, and searching for it in iPad apps?

    "It's unclear whether the pope is Catholic" might well be an equivalent question.

    1. Re:Unclear? by EboMike · · Score: 1

      "Has created" != "has been published on the store". Particularly because the most newsworthy part of the article is that it took longer than normal to get the app approved, so a search in the apps won't tell you whether or not Google has *created* an iPad-specific version that is currently going through the approval process.

    2. Re:Unclear? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Except ... it didn't take longer than normal, it in fact, took an average amount of time.

      How do I know? Welp, one of my apps was approved yesterday as well.

      Just for reference, you're kind of an idiot if you expect a blog named 'Android Power' where the author says he's 'out to irk iPhone users' to be a reliable source of information, even more so for trying to defend them.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  6. iPhone-only by Jabrwock · · Score: 1

    Boo-urns, no iPad/iPod Touch version. Why?

    --
    Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
    1. Re:iPhone-only by Trolan · · Score: 1

      Because the Google dev decided that they absolutely needed sms and telephony, and the app shouldn't work if those two items weren't there. At least they specified such in the proper way, so it'll at least tell you at install-time that you're SOL instead of bombing out randomly.

  7. Approval time is around 2 weeks for all right now by cstromme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've had several apps awaiting approval the last weeks, and it all seems to average out to around 10-20 days. So it's not some special delay for Google. My guess is that they're swamped with updates for Mac OS apps before Lion hits tomorrow.

  8. So? by Lysander7 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I loathe Apple. There's been evidence time and again of their questionable (to put it mildly) business tactics. However, I fail to see why this matters in any way whatsoever. In the end, Apple still approved it. Sure, they took a while. Perhaps there was a reason? They could just pull a Facebook and try to impede G+ by not allowing it at all (though in the end it wouldn't do much). ...or we can all be outraged in typical /. fashion at how evil this corporation is, regardless how pedantic the reason might be.

    Yeah, let's go with that.

    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience is the larger more complex apps take more time to approve. I've had a simple soundboard app (and other similar ones) approved in a matter of days, but I also helped develop an app to aid bariatric surgery patients' recovery and weight loss; That one was big, complex, and took almost a month to approve in the same time I saw a little duck-hunt style game that one of the other developers on the project wrote, approved in a week.

      Google+ is not a simple little app, and falling outside the 'average' is a pointless metric when the app itself falls outside the average.

      Average download time for a movie on my internet connection is 30 minutes, but if I download 11 hours of Lord of the Rings and find it takes several hours, it's not evidence of my ISP throttling or discriminating against Peter Jackson.

    2. Re:So? by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      So you're saying Google, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft and others are all really nice people who play fair with others?

      Google's Android is the main competitor to iOS, they are entitled to closely examine Google+ just in case they have slipped in something that would hurt Apple's own business.

      Perhaps if Apple, Google and Microsoft all stuck to just building OSes and let everyone else do the software then things would be fairer.

    3. Re:So? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      just in case they have slipped in something that would hurt Apple's own business.

      Personally, I don't think it's possible to hurt Apple's business. They have a near religious following that can see no wrong in Apple or their tactics. If Apples products started exploding and removing people's appendages in the process, these same amputee's would go right back to Apple to get a replacement, and pay to dollar for it in the process, just so they could log back onto /. to defend Apple's honor.

      I've been around a long time, but I don't recall ever seeing anything like it. Certainly, I like Apple's products, though I think they're overpriced and too locked down, but whatever floats your boat. I like Windows 7, though it's got it's share of quirks and prickly thorns and I'm no fan of MS's business tactics. I REALLY like Linux and the whole FOSS movement, but I'm first to admit there's a lot that needs to be done with it to make it as user friendly as Windows or OS/X. My point is, I can like a product or company, but still be critical of it because criticism and competition is what forces innovation. Patting your favorite company on the back does nothing to make them want to invest more time or money. Threatening to choose a competitor's product does.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    4. Re:So? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Google's Android is the main competitor to iOS

      You guys keep saying that, but its simply not true.

      Android users are not the same group of people that would use iOS. If you've used both, you'd know this already and understand why.

      You might as well say Linux is competing with OS X. Yes, it technically may be true, but its still a retarded statement to make considering they target different groups.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  9. Is it any suprise this is from"Android Power" blog by joeflies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the author clearly states his bias - the name of the blog is called "Android Power". His bio states he's out to irk apple fans.

    there is no information in the article whether the delay is Apple's fault or Google's fault. Yes, you can have delays in the approval process of your own doing, not because of a conspiracy that Apple caused.

    And all in all, google+ is not even a service that's available to the majority of people. It's in limited beta, meaning that the affected user base who didn't have access to the "delayed" client is small.

  10. No major holidays, and not about Facebook by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe?

    The app was submitted ON the 4th. What "major holidays" were from July 4th to today?

    It's not like Apple has any kind of relationship with Facebook. Microsoft does, and I would still be fairly certain that even Microsoft would accept it to Windows Phone 7 app store.

    Who said it's about Apple's relationship with Facebook? It's about Apple's antagonistic relationship with Google (historically over patents and Google Voice):

    http://google.com/search?q=apple+google+lawsuit

    http://google.com/search?q=Apple+google+Voice

    1. Re:No major holidays, and not about Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The app was submitted ON the 4th. What "major holidays" were from July 4th to today?

      The 4th of July?

    2. Re:No major holidays, and not about Facebook by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

      You mean like the Google maps app that comes with every iPhone? Or the fact that Google employees use either Linux or Macs, and not Windows PCs?
      People seem to want a soap opera with every relationship. Each company may have issues with the direction of the other, due to vastly different business models, but "antagonistic" describes human relationships.

    3. Re:No major holidays, and not about Facebook by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      The app was submitted ON the 4th. What "major holidays" were from July 4th to today?

      Actually in the European sense, the major holiday was the week of the 4th - in that a lot of people take that week off, undoubtedly app store reviewers too.

      However my money is still on the poster who said that he thought the delay was because of a flood of Lion apps on the app store.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:No major holidays, and not about Facebook by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      The app was submitted ON the 4th.

      Wrong. Read the original announcement again, and check the date.

      sometime prior to today

  11. Apple Finally Approves Google+ App For iPhone by brim4brim · · Score: 1

    2 people died during the wait... See then it would be news :P

  12. Slashdot using trolling titles now? by blahbooboo · · Score: 1

    Slashdot must be hard up on money or something to post such an incendiary topic title?

    2 weeks from submissions to Apple to release is hardly worthy of a "FINALLY", 2 weeks is about the normal lenth of time for new app review by Apple.

  13. Re:I'm fed up with these conspiracy theories by tycoex · · Score: 1

    By real computer I assume you mean overpriced POS.

    Unless you are going to argue that a $1,000 custom-built gaming pc isn't a real computer.

  14. Re:!new(s) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a wild guess, but the often hyped (but very real) rivalry between Google and Apple might have people assuming that Apple would play underhanded in the app approval process. Now, we know that's just silly; Apple only plays dirty when it comes copyright claims.

  15. stability? by chaim79 · · Score: 1

    Maybe it took so long to get through because the Apple people kept having it crash on them.

    I experienced my first crash using the Google+ app for 2 min... I mean... I know Google is the "Beta" Company but come on now! Between the few friends I have on Google+ with iPhones, and myself, I think we've racked up maybe 10 to 15 crashes on the first afternoon of use. We've also experienced issues with it properly updating comments and such.

    Hopefully they will get crackin and improve the stability quickly.

    --
    DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
    AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
    Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    1. Re:stability? by creativeHavoc · · Score: 1

      If you were one of the first to get it, Apple released an early buggy version for the first 2 hours roughly. There was a better version available, but not used for the market until 2 hours after launch.

      Suggestion was to delete and reinstall.

      --
      insight through the mind
    2. Re:stability? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      From the developers:

      We discovered an issue with the version of the iPhone Google+ App that was on the App Store. When we launched, the App Store started serving a previous test version of the App which didn't have the stability and fixes that the latest version had. It started serving the correct version a little later. If you downloaded within the first 1 hour 40 mins, you may have downloaded the older test version.

      To check:
      - Click on the gear icon on the top left of your App's homescreen and look right above the Help button, the version number of the App should be: 1.0.1.1809

      - If that is not the version number, then please uninstall and reinstall by clicking on the link below: itunes.apple.com

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:stability? by J+Isaksson · · Score: 1

      If you use ios 5 beta (3), the app will crash right away. Not that I can rightly complain with a beta service on a beta OS :)

  16. Oh, well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was a nice social network we used to have before they let the riff-raff in.

  17. NO support for my touch though WTF by KowboyKrash · · Score: 1

    ok to be fair i am using a gen 2 mc model but i am runing ios 4.2.1 so again I say WTF, I really like google+ but since i mainly use my touch for facebook linkedin twitter and wordpress, i really don't want to have to use the mobile web page all the time. but I guess I am just whining.

    1. Re:NO support for my touch though WTF by vlm · · Score: 1

      ok to be fair i am using a gen 2 mc model but i am runing ios 4.2.1 so again I say WTF, I really like google+ but since i mainly use my touch for facebook linkedin twitter and wordpress, i really don't want to have to use the mobile web page all the time. but I guess I am just whining.

      No, its not fair at all, since the hardware is identical, minus the telephony peripheral which I'm sure the app doesn't use. Even my brand new ipod touch running the latest ios won't run it. I'm currently researching my jailbreaking options to see if I can fool the app into running, balanced against the fact that the screenshots of the app don't look much different than just using safari...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  18. Re:I'm fed up with these conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get back to your moms basement and fiddle with your clock speed while I fiddle with this hot blonde student I picked up at Starbucks whilst surfing on my Mac Book Pro.

  19. Re:I'm fed up with these conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enjoy your hot blonde student. I'm sure he can make you forget the shame of being one of Steve's good little lemmings. Maybe one day's you'll be able to think for yourself. Nah - not a chance.

  20. Canada? by digitallife · · Score: 1

    Not available on the Canadian app store. Is it only in the US?
    This is ridiculous.

    1. Re:Canada? by J+Isaksson · · Score: 1

      Available now in Sweden a few hours after Us availability, so may show up in a bit.

  21. no ipad app? by bobm3 · · Score: 1

    has google submitted a ipad app?

  22. oh the excitement ! by swell · · Score: 1

    So I was looking at the program on my iPhone and ready to download it when it suddenly disappeared from the store. That was about 3 hours ago when 400 users said it seemed OK.

    Now it's back at the store and I'm downloading it. About 900 users gave it the same average (3 of 5 stars).

    I have no idea what I'll do with it, but I suppose it's a bit of history that I can tell the grandchildren I was a part of. Damn shame I missed Woodstock.

    Woohoo, it's here! And it wants a username and password and god knows what else. Do I really want this? I can still tell people that I had it on that first day on the iPhone, without having to actually use it.

    OK, you're probably thinking I'm silly. Well f you. You probably do and think very similar things.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  23. Re:Is it any suprise this is from"Android Power" b by simmonsjeffreya · · Score: 1

    Well, just to give you an idea, there are already over 10M G+ users. While I wouldn't put them at the level of FaceBook or Twitter, that is quite the userbase, built in a matter of weeks. There have already been predictions of 20M by next weekend, 100M+ by years end. I wouldn't call the user base small at all, based on these figures and predictions. Hell, my parents are already on Google+, while joining FB just this year.

  24. Re:Approval time is around 2 weeks for all right n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God, I wish there were an extremely rare +6, Insightful mod for posts like this, something that would automatically promote a voice of reason up to the top of all the other comments. The delays are all about Lion, not some sort of Jobsian conspiracy against Google... but Slashdotters, being Slashdotters, won't let something like a new operating system being released tomorrow stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory about delaying and hindering Google+.

  25. I bet... by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

    I bet it's cause Apple decided to pick thru the code line by line in a desperate attempt to find something, anything they could use against Google -- either a reason to deny the app or even better, sue them for some patent or copyright infringement.

    Cause y'know, if you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

    1. Re:I bet... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You should probably not talk considering you have no clue what you're talking about.

      You as a user get the EXACT same 'source code' as Apple does when an app is submitted ... i.e. you don't get any.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:I bet... by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

      Pish... you think something like that would stop Apple?

  26. And this is completely normal and logical by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    "Apple approved the Google+ app for the iPhone on Tuesday, and posted it to the App Store. It's unclear whether Google has created an iPad-specific app. Two weeks ago, a Google employee said that the company had submitted Google+ to the App Store ... on July 4. According to that timeline, Google's app took twice as long as the majority of submitted apps to win Apple's approval."

    Yea, and if you had even a quarter of a clue you'd know why ... the submission system is backed up with apps being recertified for OS X 10.7.

    ALL APPS are taking a long time right now, I also had an app approved yesterday, that was submitted on the 8th of July, and its a trivial silly game thingy with no useful functionality that would require testing.

    The submission queue always gets backed up when a new OS release comes out. In a few months, when they start rectifying for iOS 5, you'll see the exact same sort of thing.

    Considering even the most trivial of apps now days wait several days to a couple weeks to START the process of being reviewed after submission, then take a minimum of a week on average for a normal review, I'm not entirely sure where any of the statements made in the summary came from ... certainly not from any basis in reality or on fact.

    It blows me away how so many people that should be 'in the know' are utterly ignorant of the environment they work in.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  27. Re:Is it any suprise this is from"Android Power" b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And all in all, google+ is not even a service that's available to the majority of people. It's in limited beta, meaning that the affected user base who didn't have access to the "delayed" client is small.

    Invitations are open, anyone of the 950.000+ people who are on there can get you in. That's not what I call limited.

  28. They're lucky by Glint · · Score: 1

    Our app took 142 days to be approved. It's a basic financial data app for a large-ish financial data firm in NYC and does nothing more than allow you to access content and our site via the app when the user is logged in.

    When we got rejected, it was for violating a rule that all purchases and subscriptions had to go through the Apple in app purchasing system, which was kind of ridiculous. We sell 10,000 seat licenses to large banks -- nobody is going to pay for that with a Visa through their iTunes account. Plus, you literally couldn't do anything with the app until you logged in through our service, so it was clear we were bringing all the users. But they wouldn't budge.

    In the end, they requested we remove any sort of link to pages within our platform (which removed a ton of functionality we were counting on) in order to release it. So, thanks Apple. I love basically everything about that company but their app review policies make zero-point-none sense and the result is that we made a shitty app and are playing catch up to rewrite many of our existing webpages in Objective C.

    Any other horror stories out there about this?

    1. Re:They're lucky by vlm · · Score: 1

      So, in summary, you were trying to ship an app that replicates the functionality of "add to home screen" in safari, then apple made you remove that too, leaving you with ... ? An icon and a name?

      We sell 10,000 seat licenses to large banks -- nobody is going to pay for that with a Visa through their iTunes account.

      I guess this explains why there's no Treasury Direct app. No one wants to buy multiple $10K federal treasury bonds thru itunes. I haven't bought on treasury direct since rates dropped to about zero (in other words, several years), maybe they do have an app? Do stock trading apps like "td-ameritrade" require you to use itunes for all stock purchases and/or cash deposits? The idea of getting a 5 figure itunes credit card bill is kind of funny.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  29. True. But... by Lord+Kenja · · Score: 1

    We don't actually know how long it too to approve the Google+ app anyway. As apps are not automatically made available when Apple approves them.

    And as a matter of fact, there was two versions of the Google+ app inside of a hour. So there is the possibility of them having submitted a second version and waiting for that one to be approved - and then by accident releasing the older version first.

  30. Updated the same day by WankerWeasel · · Score: 1

    Google also pushed an update for the app the same day it was released and it was approved in a couple hours. Much faster than the typical update approval.

    1. Re:Updated the same day by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      Google also pushed an update for the app the same day it was released and it was approved in a couple hours. Much faster than the typical update approval.

      Further up the discussion, people are saying that a previous app version was released onto the market by mistake for a few hours, and replaced with the proper version soon after.