I think the parent post was asking "Why would Apple want to sell an app in their store which is designed solely to promote a competing product?"
Err, the magazine is about discussing Android platform news, reviews etc. It might even contain bad reviews about bad Android devices. How did you decide it was for solely promoting?
Maybe it's for users with iPads and Android phones. Or iPhones and Android tablets.
And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."
Same principle.
Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.
It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.
in a column that dealt with Jobs’ recently announced intention to police apps for violations of Apple’s new (and undisclosed) rules against porn. I suggested that Jobs was overreaching—and, maybe too, a little messianic and off his nut. (I did not know then that his cop mentality would soon enough involve actual police action.)
The stated reason for the rejection of my free app is that Apple requires "sufficient amounts of content to appeal to a broad audience." Putting aside the fact that this pretty much makes specialty content ineligible for iPhone or iPad apps, it’s also a pretty fudgy standard. For instance, I get a bigger readership for my online columns than I do for my Vanity Fair columns—so Vanity Fair shouldn’t make the cut?
I've started a company dedicated to making unique mobile apps -- the current product has no peer among Android apps because it's literally impossible to do the same thing in the current Android APIs, and so it's iOS-only. Do you think Google will let my company advertise in their conferences and meetings, or include my company's logo among the others they show off when they're advertising Android? Given that Android can't do what my app does, we're not even direct competitors and should therefore be brothers-in-mobile-innovation. Surely, they'd welcome us as an advertiser (if not highlight us among developers) and let us have a presence on the floor of any Android conferences, because to not would be evil or -- according to you -- it'd be lashing out at me in anger. I like Google, so that would be hurtful.
Could you tell us what the functionality is literally impossible in current Android APIs but possible on iOS? Also, you can submit an app to Android market which does nothing but promote your iPhone app. It will get on the Android Market place because there's no approval process. Sure, it may get bad ratings. Even if it's taken off the store, Android users can still download it from your website without jailbreaking their device.
and rejects apps that change it or threaten it in any way
Yeah, no, that is complete and utter nonsense. You need to stop listening to the bullshit the Internet feeds you and start paying some attention to the real world.
However, there exists another key to Apple's success: its products are built around giving people freedom in the user experience. Apple lets you figure out how best to make use of their handhelds. The App Store is a beautiful demonstration of this--it's all about choosing what you want to do with your iPhone or iPad, and not being badgered into using them in a particular way.
Err no. Apple locks down the user experience and rejects apps that change it or threaten it in any way, like widgets and alternate browsers etc.
By way of a demonstration of how not to do it, take a look at Windows Phone 7. Everything is built-in, making for a very focused device. You want Facebook? It's built-in. You want Gmail? It's there. It feels like Windows Phone 7 is trying too hard.
Although it might sound like built-in tools present a lot of usability, what Microsoft is actually doing is limiting the user by pushing them into particular usage scenarios. It's feels too limiting. The user has little freedom to adapt the phone to their way of working without a significant amount of tedious configuration.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Slow news Saturday?
Like Apple bought FingerWorks(for multi-touch on iPhone and iPad) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks. They also bought iTunes and a bunch of other innovative companies and continue to do it. Google bought Android and a ton of other companies. So, according to you, Apple and Google are not innovative, right?
First Google Instant and now this. What's the value in seeing a small thumbail of the page? The text is too small to read anyway and this will only add to the distraction. You can't evaluate a page based on the layout or how it looks. You're usually looking for content when you search.
The application itself went for $2.99 in the App Store, and it provided upwards of 1.8GB of US map data. However, it sounds like people didn’t have long to download it, or enjoy it for that matter, before the application itself was pulled from the App Store. And then subsequently pulled from customer’s iPhones as well..
Customers on forums are reporting the same thing, such as those on Apple Discussions, saying that the app was on their device, but now it’s just gone.
This is not the result Microsoft would have hoped for, but the writing was on the wall when we heard last week from CEO Steve Ballmer that IE9 was downloaded only 10 million times within 6 weeks after launch. That is a big number, but given the expensive marketing campaign, Microsoft surely needed much more. We remember: Apple got 11 million Safari 4 downloads within one week and with a simple press release.
Err, that's 10 million beta downloads according to the linked article, making it the most popular IE beta ever(according to Ballmer). That's in contrast to the Safari number which was a regular version launch.
And the drop in IE8 numbers was:
This trend is even more puzzling as IE8 shed market share for the first time in its history and fell from 29.06% to 29.01% (a number that does not included shares of IE8 fragmented versions as Net Applications recently decided not to publish this data anymore.)
A drop of 0.05%? That seems to be well within the margin of error and might have to do with the non-inclusion of IE8 fragmented versions.
The article is bad and the title and summary of the Slashdot are even worse. Lets save the news of IE9's death after it has been released(in Spring 2011), okay?
Yes, and it does not prevent burglary either. If you mess up the transport & application protocol you are in trouble, but what has that to do with secure *programming*? Christ, I bet you can make programs with it that display your password in 10 feet high numbers as well (given a large enough monitor).
If you read the title and summary, it talks about security, not secure programming.
The compiler enforces the security policies and will not allow the programmer to write insecure code
Even if it works perfectly, it will stop only a small subset of insecure code. For example, this tool would do absolutely zilch to stop the attack like FireSheep on Facebook.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the parent post was asking "Why would Apple want to sell an app in their store which is designed solely to promote a competing product?"
Err, the magazine is about discussing Android platform news, reviews etc. It might even contain bad reviews about bad Android devices. How did you decide it was for solely promoting?
Maybe it's for users with iPads and Android phones. Or iPhones and Android tablets.
So, there's no censorship in China because anyone there can fly to Tokyo and access what they want without the Great Firewall?
Bad analogy. Would you be okay with Microsoft banning iTunes and Safari from Windows?
And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."
Same principle.
Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.
It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.
That has already happened http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/451/creepy-steve-jobs-may-not-want-you-to-read-this-or-will-break-down-your-door.html?utm_source=otg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100427
in a column that dealt with Jobs’ recently announced intention to police apps for violations of Apple’s new (and undisclosed) rules against porn. I suggested that Jobs was overreaching—and, maybe too, a little messianic and off his nut. (I did not know then that his cop mentality would soon enough involve actual police action.)
The stated reason for the rejection of my free app is that Apple requires "sufficient amounts of content to appeal to a broad audience." Putting aside the fact that this pretty much makes specialty content ineligible for iPhone or iPad apps, it’s also a pretty fudgy standard. For instance, I get a bigger readership for my online columns than I do for my Vanity Fair columns—so Vanity Fair shouldn’t make the cut?
Truth is stranger than fiction.
I've started a company dedicated to making unique mobile apps -- the current product has no peer among Android apps because it's literally impossible to do the same thing in the current Android APIs, and so it's iOS-only. Do you think Google will let my company advertise in their conferences and meetings, or include my company's logo among the others they show off when they're advertising Android? Given that Android can't do what my app does, we're not even direct competitors and should therefore be brothers-in-mobile-innovation. Surely, they'd welcome us as an advertiser (if not highlight us among developers) and let us have a presence on the floor of any Android conferences, because to not would be evil or -- according to you -- it'd be lashing out at me in anger. I like Google, so that would be hurtful.
Could you tell us what the functionality is literally impossible in current Android APIs but possible on iOS? Also, you can submit an app to Android market which does nothing but promote your iPhone app. It will get on the Android Market place because there's no approval process. Sure, it may get bad ratings. Even if it's taken off the store, Android users can still download it from your website without jailbreaking their device.
Utter nonsense. G1 sold 1 million after 6 months. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10226034-94.html
And how can you compare iPhone 3G to the first release of a new platform?
Also, TFA extrapolates sales from one deals site in the UK to the rest of the world.
There are 75K openings on Dice right now. 20K over 2 years is a drop in a ocean.
and rejects apps that change it or threaten it in any way
Yeah, no, that is complete and utter nonsense. You need to stop listening to the bullshit the Internet feeds you and start paying some attention to the real world.
Oh really? So you mean this not out of the real world?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/01/apple_boots_widgety_apps_from_app_store/
Maybe it's not real in the RDF zone.
However, there exists another key to Apple's success: its products are built around giving people freedom in the user experience. Apple lets you figure out how best to make use of their handhelds. The App Store is a beautiful demonstration of this--it's all about choosing what you want to do with your iPhone or iPad, and not being badgered into using them in a particular way.
Err no. Apple locks down the user experience and rejects apps that change it or threaten it in any way, like widgets and alternate browsers etc.
By way of a demonstration of how not to do it, take a look at Windows Phone 7. Everything is built-in, making for a very focused device. You want Facebook? It's built-in. You want Gmail? It's there. It feels like Windows Phone 7 is trying too hard.
Although it might sound like built-in tools present a lot of usability, what Microsoft is actually doing is limiting the user by pushing them into particular usage scenarios. It's feels too limiting. The user has little freedom to adapt the phone to their way of working without a significant amount of tedious configuration.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Slow news Saturday?
Like Apple bought FingerWorks(for multi-touch on iPhone and iPad) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks. They also bought iTunes and a bunch of other innovative companies and continue to do it. Google bought Android and a ton of other companies. So, according to you, Apple and Google are not innovative, right?
First Google Instant and now this. What's the value in seeing a small thumbail of the page? The text is too small to read anyway and this will only add to the distraction. You can't evaluate a page based on the layout or how it looks. You're usually looking for content when you search.
Indeed. Plus Apple have never used it yet but Google have. So who are the bad guys?
From http://www.slashgear.com/ndrive-gps-app-disappears-from-apple-app-store-kill-switch-the-culprit-0893419/
The application itself went for $2.99 in the App Store, and it provided upwards of 1.8GB of US map data. However, it sounds like people didn’t have long to download it, or enjoy it for that matter, before the application itself was pulled from the App Store. And then subsequently pulled from customer’s iPhones as well ..
Customers on forums are reporting the same thing, such as those on Apple Discussions, saying that the app was on their device, but now it’s just gone.
Talk about jumping to conclusions:
This is not the result Microsoft would have hoped for, but the writing was on the wall when we heard last week from CEO Steve Ballmer that IE9 was downloaded only 10 million times within 6 weeks after launch. That is a big number, but given the expensive marketing campaign, Microsoft surely needed much more. We remember: Apple got 11 million Safari 4 downloads within one week and with a simple press release.
Err, that's 10 million beta downloads according to the linked article, making it the most popular IE beta ever(according to Ballmer). That's in contrast to the Safari number which was a regular version launch.
And the drop in IE8 numbers was:
This trend is even more puzzling as IE8 shed market share for the first time in its history and fell from 29.06% to 29.01% (a number that does not included shares of IE8 fragmented versions as Net Applications recently decided not to publish this data anymore.)
A drop of 0.05%? That seems to be well within the margin of error and might have to do with the non-inclusion of IE8 fragmented versions.
The article is bad and the title and summary of the Slashdot are even worse. Lets save the news of IE9's death after it has been released(in Spring 2011), okay?
Unless we're talking about Microsoft, in which any delay is castigated.
Clean room design will protect from copyright claims... but not patents.
GPL'ed code will save Google from copyright claims, not patent claims. This is the case for pre-GPLv3 license which Java is under.
True but the fact that they've been unable to fix it for so many months(six+) does not bode well. It doesn't seem to be rocket science.
You are looking at it wrong.
Yes, and it does not prevent burglary either. If you mess up the transport & application protocol you are in trouble, but what has that to do with secure *programming*? Christ, I bet you can make programs with it that display your password in 10 feet high numbers as well (given a large enough monitor).
If you read the title and summary, it talks about security, not secure programming.
The compiler enforces the security policies and will not allow the programmer to write insecure code
Even if it works perfectly, it will stop only a small subset of insecure code. For example, this tool would do absolutely zilch to stop the attack like FireSheep on Facebook.
You need to get the facts. It was a network outage. Lets see your Linux server serve requests after unplugging the network cable(s).
From the Mac App Store guidelines:
2.24
Apps that use deprecated or optionally installed technologies (e.g., Java, Rosetta) will be rejected
Looks like you're right.
From the Mac App Store guidelines:
2.24
Apps that use deprecated or optionally installed technologies (e.g., Java, Rosetta) will be rejected
And your point is? I don't see any contradiction in my previous post.
But does the 'viable' alternative come with 25GB mailboxes backed by an SLA? Didn't think so.