MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Sep 23, 08 - 03:09 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

Ahhh ... "oops?".

Oh, I think Apple will be on fine legal footing.
I mean, Sony doesn't allow just any old crap to be sold for its Playstions. Or Nintendo for its systems.

What exactly makes the iPhone any different?

Apple wasn't required to ever open up the ecosystem in the first place. They chose to. And now they're choosing the apps that can run on it.

If you ask me, I think developers ought to put more thought into what they write for the device before they assume it'll pass Apple's litmus test. I mean, duh. Did they think they'd be allowed to put a competing service on the iPhone?

Sep 23, 08 - 03:14 pm Comment from: stormy

If this is true its time for Apple to get slapped by the legal system.

Lame, Apple. Podcaster does something that the iPhone version of iTunes doesn't do, namely allow you to browse and view the iTunes store's video and audio podcasts directly on your phone without using a computer. Perhaps Apple is killing this because they're developing the same thing? Even so, I'm angry about it.

Sep 23, 08 - 03:21 pm Comment from: Anonymous©

Podcaster puts AT&T;'s 3G network bandwidth at risk. How difficult is that to understand?

No apologies for Apple this time MDN.
Apple had better be careful what their next moves are going to be concerning this touchy topic. So far, I'm not liking what I'm hearing. I didn't know that there was more than one sales channel. If Apple said there was going to be more than one sales channel and suddenly go back on this....well....
Its just not a good thing for Apple in the long run.

Sep 23, 08 - 03:24 pm Comment from: Anonymous©

If someone is downloading a 200MB HD video podcast, say from the Washington Post, like I do, and if they do it over Podcaster using the 3G network, imagine what that does to all those people using the same cell tower?

I would like Apple to ban bandwidth hogs, until AT&T;has the capacity to handle this. Until then, good riddance. Of course, if Podcaster were to limit their downloads to wifi, that would be fine.

My understanding was this was to give developers a way to distribute BETA software for testing, not a way to SELL and distribute iPhone software outside the app store.

Podcaster is lucky that was all that was pulled.

I think article, or at least the summary provided here, is quite incorrect. The purpose of the Ad-Hoc distribution mechanism was not so developers could "sell it to customers directly". It was designed to answer the needs of the developer to have beta testers of the application without putting it on the iPhone.

imo its well within Apple's rights to do this, but it still stinketh to high heaven.

officially off the bandwagon.

Let them hack or install what ever they want on the iPhone and just pop up a warning that this is not recommended and will void Apple's responsibility and or warranty. If they do it, a small message is sent to Apple and the iPhone is tagged as hacked if there is a return issue.

Done!

Sep 23, 08 - 03:27 pm Comment from: Cowboy

Apple has every right to block outside installs. They have to make sure iPhone users have a good, consistent experience with apps.

However, I do think that their approval process needs to be spelled out. They often seel to be acting very capriciously when it comes to app approval.

I don't like what Apple's doing here and I hope they lose this battle. Allowing for alternative sources of apps will be good for consumers. Apple is being far too greedy!

</i> "Oh, I think Apple will be on fine legal footing.
I mean, Sony doesn't allow just any old crap to be sold for its Playstions. Or Nintendo for its systems.

What exactly makes the iPhone any different?

Apple wasn't required to ever open up the ecosystem in the first place. They chose to. And now they're choosing the apps that can run on it.

If you ask me, I think developers ought to put more thought into what they write for the device before they assume it'll pass Apple's litmus test. I mean, duh. Did they think they'd be allowed to put a competing service on the iPhone?"<i>

Could not agree more!!!

Hey, we're Apple Inc. Remember when we shot ourselves in the foot about twenty or so years ago with the Mac, well, we are at it again!

Have a nice day and don't %$&^ touch that %^$%& iPhone without our permission!

Smile!

If you do not like it ... make your own phone. Morons.

Sep 23, 08 - 03:38 pm Comment from: Bobby Skinner

As a developer, I think that Apple needs to rethink things. They should ban things that violate the AT&T;service policy. Other than that they should allow anything - but place a disclaimer on the ones that they would have banned, stating that it does not meet this quality standards.

They should also make their rules clear as it is not right to wait till a person has developed something to disallow it - unless they wish to repay the development costs.

Apple Inc. is not a stupid company, they are making these decisions based on sound information... granted, this is information they are not communicating to the public. I am perfectly fine with this. I don't know how in America we got to the point that everybody and everything must be 100% transparent. It could be that reality TV and celebrity publications and entertainment new shows have created this perception that all information is public domain and that privacy is a thing of the past. Apple Inc. is a consumer company and they are not going to make decisions to harm the consumer or to limit the rights of consumers. However, they will make decisions to limit certain functions of thier products to protect their customers. The argument seems to revolve around the idea that a consumer should be able to do whatever they want with the product they purchase, even if that action were to harm other consumer's purchases. Apple Inc. is protecting us from each other. All you have to do is look to Microsoft and it's Windows OS to find a company and a product that does not care about protecting it's customers. This is becasue Microsoft is not a cmsumer company, it's business centric company. Microsoft is counting on large teams of IT people to run and organize and update the software. All this to say, all will be revealed in time, but Apple is doing the right thing protecting its App Store and its customers. The App Store is a couple months old and the iPhone is only a year old... give it time to mature, Apple is.

I do not like trolls :-(

As a 'developer' you are nothing more than a private contractor. You are selling your hot dogs at the stadium. If you piss and moan, that is okay ... There are thousands just like you, that make shit just as good or better than you, waiting in line for your spot. So WTF? Play by the rules and do not be a dick and you may become a somebody one day.

Sep 23, 08 - 03:55 pm Comment from: rocklebee

what about downloading and installing at our own risk? hasn't that been part of the game for a while now?

You start to wonder how many of these clowns are actually developers and how many are just being jack offs? If you are a developer and you have something worth while, you are making a boatload of cash off the iPhone. But if you were just a useless dick head, you would be complaining in forums like this all day.

Downloading and installing at your own risk is why the windows world is so f*cked up. No accountability. Is that what we want all over again?

Ah, yes. You can compute anyway you like with Apple...as long as it's Stevie Jobs' way.

Think Similar

If you are a developer, you COULD be making lots of money on the iPhone. Except the idea you have for an application may or may not be permitted by Apple, and you only find out about it AFTER you have completed the app. And now Apple is including their rejection letters to their NDA, so you can spend man-months or man-years of effort on an application, then get it rejected, and all you can do is, start working on something else and hope it won't be rejected.

Another IT guy worried about losing his job when his shop goes Apple. The boss will not need you any more as soon as she ditches the whole windows cluster bang debacle. The IT industry is afraid. Why else would they be at places like this shooting off like loose canons?

Sep 23, 08 - 04:38 pm Comment from: Demon

Everyone (especially media types and punters) loves to banter around the term Monopoly. Like the term is a catch phrase or some big bad illegal thing. The problem is they have no clue as to what the word means... They have no clue has to the legal definition of the term... The new word that punters are flogging these days is "anticompetitive", picked up from the socialist EU no doubt, but, even in EU terms "anticompetitive" doesn't fit Apple control over the iPhone, it's like they glam on to a word and then look for ways to use it to scary up hits to their websites and blogs.

The Mac is a PC, the iPhone is a Cell Phone they are not markets unto themselves. That is what everyone conveniently forgets. If an iPhone developer does like the way Apple does business take your App and port it to another cell phone. I hear Google is looking for Android applications, as is Microsoft what all Developers as Windows Model only.

Yes, Apple does need to do a better job at documenting what is and is not acceptable in terms of the AppStore. They need to spell it out.

And back when Apple reject the Podcaster App, Apples reason for the rejection, according to the Developer, was the App duplicated iTunes functionality, and allowed direct download of podcasts to the iPhone without a size limit or restriction of the network. So, Podcaster could suck a podcast(s) of hundreds of megabytes over the G3 Network. If Podcaster had been willing to make some minor changes like check the network type and then restrict podcasts over a certain size to a WiFi Network and provided a unique user feature set. But, the developer was unwilling to modify the App so, Apple rejected it.

The NDA thing has always been there - they have not changed it - you just have never read it - if you spend no time on attention to detail, your apps must suck and you are a gonad that needs to return to the windows world anyway.

Absurd. Apple needs to be specific about what types of applications cannot be written. Developers should have a reasonable expectation that their work will be published when they complete their projects.

There are many products in the App Store that duplicate and extend the Apple-created iPhone built-in applications. How many calculators, contact managers, note takers, map searching apps, weather tools, and clocks are there in the App Store? All of them should have been rejected and the developers told to stuff it when they complained about how many man-hours it took to develop their product.

For those who are joining the charge to protect AT&T;'s precious 3G bandwidth, I believe Apple should remove the YouTube app from the phone. And remove these apps, as well, from the App Store: AOL Radio, Simplify Media, Pandora, Tuner Internet Radio, Stitcher, Last.fm, and FlyCast. All of them carelessly use bandwidth that should be reserved especially for you.

Yeah - like the grocery store should stop selling Bud because you want to sell your piss brand there. Get a life dick head developer.

MDN's use of the trojan example is both laughable and disturbing - in that this is the same "FUD" tactic they so despise in every other entity besides Apple.

The limitations of the ad-hoc method (and yes, it was only intended for beta use rather than an outside distribution channel) don't allow any significant adoption - no virus or trojan profiteer would bother with this tack, because even if they did there just wouldn't be significant adoption or damage.

Apple is screwing up royally here, and needs to publicly explain themselves. At this point I've ceased buying Apps through the App Store, and now I've cancelled my plans to upgrade to 3G (passing my 1st Gen to the wife). We'll go with something else instead. Good job, Apple. :(

Maybe Apple's okay legally on this one.
But it is stupid stupid stupid.
Stupid enough that I actually believe the lawyers are behind it... ("If we allow this kind of duplication in functionality, we'd have to allow XXX to be duplicated")

Apple is guaranteeing that Android will have a richer software base. The fundamental issue here is the risk of spending large amounts of time and treasure on an iphone app with the risk that Apple will reject it. It's the worst possibly story for a developer. And the one app rejected is getting more publicity than the 1000s accepted.

They really need to find a better way to do this.

And yes, I'm a developer, and yes it has affected my plans.

Sep 23, 08 - 09:52 pm Comment from: thethirdshoe

There are rules.
Play by the rules and you will be fine.

dave22,

your an intrinsic part of the American tragedy if you think 'Bud' is good beer.

Do yourself a favour, come to Germany and give your taste-buds a treat.

That should have been 'you're'

"There are rules.
Play by the rules and you will be fine."

Such remarks were typical in Stalinist Russia, communist east Europe, and Nazi Germany.

And now in Bush's America?

It's amazing that someone can build an amazing app for the iPhone and yet not be able to read and understand the limits placed on iPhone apps that are clearly outlined in the 'NDA' covered agreement they signed when they got the iPhone App developers package.

Just how stupid are these gifted coders?

Yea, what da hell is wrong with these MacHeads? This a an capitalist society (at least it will continue to be if we get the Bush/McCain Admin out of office) ... competition and freedom of choice are hallmarks of our economy.

How dare Apple limit where people can buy products for the iPhone, etc. What if GM forced you to only buy gas for GM distributers because they didn't want other companines gas to sully the performance of their vehicles? This just doesn't work.

Hopefully these products will appear on Apptism and well be able to circumvent the Apple/iTunes worlds all together!

No matter what excuses Apple gives, there is one and only one thing Apple is trying to do here: make as much money as possible! I don't fault them in that, but they way they do it, successful or not, is wrong. They seek to block developers from making money if it will compete with Apple, and they believe that they own the consumer and the consumer has little to no rights to the product they paid hundreds of dollars for. Essentially, Apple uses the freedom they have to make a product and then they seek to take away the freedom of developers and consumers! Imagine if the car companies said you could not put a new soundsystem or even new tires on their model unless they approved it.

To clarify one common misconception from this article's reporting...

Podcaster was not pulled because of its data usage on AT&T;'s network. If that were the case, the developer can easily modify the application to use Wi-Fi only (as many iPhone apps do, such as VoIP applications).

Instead, Apple explicitly said Podcaster was pulled because it competed with functionality inside of iTunes. That's clear anti-competitive behavior.

In our opinion, Apple going a step farther and blocking non-App Store distribution of Podcaster, makes it illegal, anti-competitive behavior.

- Christopher Price
PhoneNews.com

I thought ad-hoc was so a company could distribute in-house-written apps to their employees without having to put them up on iTunes.

Ya have to wonder if Apple was beat to the punch by podcaster. If any memos come out on this from the halls of Apple we will have a scandal that typically only MS produces.