Google admits violation. Will Apple do the right thing and pull the app?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10...ubj=News-Apple
Now we will see how fair Apple really is. Will they pull the app as required or will they be hypocrites and let the app stay?
Now we will see how fair Apple really is. Will they pull the app as required or will they be hypocrites and let the app stay?
Comments
They break their own rules to make their partners happy. No reason whatsoever under the rules they made the app store for preventing tethering apps for the iphone. I can even tether my computer to a cheap Pay as you Go phone. What difference does it make to hook up a computer to the iphone? If they go over their fair usage limit then let them know. Otherwise, there's no problem.
They'll leave it. You have to treat your most significant partners differently than your average developer. Certainly one as large and as significant as Google you would give preferential treatment.
Plus, Apple has already shown that they will make and bend the rules as they see fit. Ultimately, they feel they have their best interest in mind and Google's app needs to compete with the Microsoft Live voice recognition application on Windows Mobile.
Plus, Apple has already shown that they will make and bend the rules as they see fit. Ultimately, they feel they have their best interest in mind
That's the problem, their best interest is profit. People who have jailbroken their phones now have the freeedom to use the contract they are paying for with a computer:
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37612/139/
AT&T are planning to offer an official package, which they will no doubt charge for on top of the already pricey contract when the end user might not even go beyond the data usage the iphone would normally have.
Regardless of whether they have a right to treat their business partners differently from other developers, it is still defined as hypocrisy when you strictly enforce a set of rules on one party and not another.
That's the problem, their best interest is profit. People who have jailbroken their phones now have the freeedom to use the contract they are paying for with a computer:
Their best interest should be profit, no?
AT&T are planning to offer an official package, which they will no doubt charge for on top of the already pricey contract when the end user might not even go beyond the data usage the iphone would normally have.
ATT charges Blackberry users for tethering so they have to charge iPhone users as well. Plus, this gives ATT an additional revenue source.
Regardless of whether they have a right to treat their business partners differently from other developers,
Thats the crux of the question on this thread
it is still defined as hypocrisy when you strictly enforce a set of rules on one party and not another.
Then your definition of hypocrisy is different than mine. Apple is being a bit biased in enforcing their rules but I guess I wouldn't refer to it as hypocritical
Their best interest should be profit, no?
ATT charges Blackberry users for tethering so they have to charge iPhone users as well. Plus, this gives ATT an additional revenue source.
Thats the crux of the question on this thread
Then your definition of hypocrisy is different than mine. Apple is being a bit biased in enforcing their rules but I guess I wouldn't refer to it as hypocritical
Exactly. Appleistas have different rules for Apple as opposed to the rest of the world. If this was Nokia, or Microsoft, Apple fans would be screaming bloody murder, but because Apple does it, well rule bending is okay because it suits Apple. Hypocrisy and the pathetic Appleistas are the real problem here not just a bending of the rules.
I really hope the Apple Store to change to a free non-moderated all-in-one-site (not in terms of quality). Symbian has tried the restriction of APIs and have failed. Now, when Nokia is moving it to open-source, I wish Apple would soon follow.
BTW, I bet Google (and Android) has had a great time admitting to have bypassed the Apple rules for the iPhone
Really, once being passed the Apple Store test, Apple will never admit the test is a joke by removing the application. What is more - will they dare to make Google angry?
I really hope the Apple Store to change to a free non-moderated all-in-one-site (not in terms of quality). Symbian has tried the restriction of APIs and have failed. Now, when Nokia is moving it to open-source, I wish Apple would soon follow.
BTW, I bet Google (and Android) has had a great time admitting to have bypassed the Apple rules for the iPhone
For sure, for sure. Have you noticed that none of the Apple faithful of this forum have bothered to stop by? They would have to admit Apple's hypocrisy and that is something this forum is not about. Drink the kool aid, cheerlead and berate other brands. Personally, I understand the policy. Apple had to kiss butt however this will come back to bite them. They are lucky this has not taken off in blog-land. As I said, had this been Nokia, or Microsoft, you would see easily a 200 post thread deriding Nokia or Microsoft. Speaks volumes about many Appleistas.
Really, once being passed the Apple Store test, Apple will never admit the test is a joke by removing the application.
Apple have already removed applications from the store. It's been well documented.
What is more - will they dare to make Google angry?
Nobody on this forum, and especially you, have any idea if Apple was aware of what Google was doing
Apple have already removed applications from the store. It's been well documented.
Nobody on this forum, and especially you, have any idea if Apple was aware of what Google was doing
Didn't know that they've removed it... Very interesting... I really could never know whether Apple was aware or not. Seems you did not understand me. My line of though was that by having verification process in order to let programs on the Apple Store means that Apple would at least check what the application does and how it uses the phone. Not discovering that 'secret' APIs are used means that nothing is checked and Apple really simply holds tight the chain of the application variety (and does not allow MMS applications, for example); and that it would only allow applications that are financially "advantegous" for it and its partners.
Of course they could have known, but had let the application stay just because it's Google.
And something else - what does 'secret API' mean? If it is so 'secret' shouldn't it be 'restricted' as well? You know - in programming if something is there, a time will come when it will be used. Especially if it does something that no other API call would let you. If the API is not meant to be used freely - then restrict it; use signatures; use password-access...