Who told us that AT&T network is busy? It seems that Apple is going to increase data consumption. For example, there is a simple weather application that gets small piece of XML feed, parses it, and displays weather information for a few cities on the single screen.
How many data I need to download to get all this information by myself? Much more! Even web-application optimized for iPhone will require to download more data against the specialized application.
And you know pals, you can add paid services to your web application and you don't need to share apy part of your revenue with Apple. Isn't smart move for Apple
I think improving overall UX is a smarter move than making the quick buck.
There are a lot of Mac OS X widgets that are little more than RSS feeds wrapped up in a pretty interface too. But those are okay. Hmm. Anyway. Whatever.
You are missing the point.
Apple is banning apps that are nothing more than a verbaitum regurgataion of a web page (i.e. an app that has a single UIWebView and nothing else).
They should go as it's just crapware.
The Dashboard widgets and Weather and Stock apps bring a completely different user experience than the web site do, so they are actually adding something of value.
Apple is banning apps that are nothing more than a verbaitum regurgataion of a web page (i.e. an app that has a single UIWebView and nothing else).
They should go as it's just crapware.
The Dashboard widgets and Weather and Stock apps bring a completely different user experience than the web site do, so they are actually adding something of value.
But if the apps in question have adhered to all of Apple's guidelines, should Apple have the right to get rid of those apps? Do Apple compensate the developer and refund them their developer fee? We absolutely should not support a company who changes their terms and conditions willy nilly as it sets a very dangerous precedent that they can just do what they want, when they feel like it.
If I were to become an apologist for a multinational corporation, would that make me as much of a big guy as they are?
Ask some of the Windows apologists/trolls who hang out here - they're more qualified to answer.
Quote:
Did you notice that Steve made exactly the right choice of attire at the Oscars? I would have picked EXACTLY the same tuxedo. He does everything in the best possible manner!
But if the apps in question have adhered to all of Apple's guidelines, should Apple have the right to get rid of those apps?
Yes, just like Wal-Mart can choose to stop selling a particular product. It's their store, they can sell what they want. It might be frustrating for the developers, but that's the way it is.
Quote:
Do Apple compensate the developer and refund them their developer fee?
The developer fee does not entitle developers to a free pass onto the App Store, as clearly explained by the terms and conditions that so many of them didn't read.
Quote:
We absolutely should not support a company who changes their terms and conditions willy nilly as it sets a very dangerous precedent that they can just do what they want, when they feel like it.
Again, they can do what they want because it's their store. It's not "dangerous" at all, and I doubt they changed their terms and conditions - the T&Cs would already permit them to do what they want to with their own App Store, i.e. throw the crap off. I just wish they'd done it much sooner.
I think this is ultimately a good thing. Why does someone need a proprietary iPhone app to look up the current weather, or any other single-dimensional bit of data?
I've been wondering that about Dashboard for years.
Yes, just like Wal-Mart can choose to stop selling a particular product. It's their store, they can sell what they want. It might be frustrating for the developers, but that's the way it is.
The developer fee does not entitle developers to a free pass onto the App Store, as clearly explained by the terms and conditions that so many of them didn't read.
Again, they can do what they want because it's their store. It's not "dangerous" at all, and I doubt they changed their terms and conditions - the T&Cs would already permit them to do what they want to with their own App Store, i.e. throw the crap off. I just wish they'd done it much sooner.
Under your opinion then, should Microsoft be able to get out of its multi-million pound fines by changing there mind on applications that run on windows and say they have to first be approved and then not approve any that they feel could degrade the Windows user experience?
I get that the iPhone is classified as a phone, not a computer and therefore doesn't have to follow the same rules. But the iPAD is going to sit next to other tablets and be viewed as equivalents, yet half will have to follow one set of rules and if Apple can continue to act in this way, seemingly that means they follow a different set.
Personally doesn't really effect me, but I can see how in a few years time they could end up in trouble and if they do they will be stuck where Microsoft is now. In a situation where they have to be giving a browser choice screen and make IE uninstallable, while at the same time Google can plan to make an OS entirely based around its browser (although obviously not with browsers).
i don't care if there are 100 million apps. i never just browse through random apps, i search for what i need. apple doesn't need to get rid of apps that quack like a duck [my daughter laughed out loud at that one, and anything that entertains an 14 month old is an awesome app]
apple should focus more on enhancing the search in the app store than on throwing out apps that adhere to their published standards. they should also start using ESRB ratings to let people know that the bikini app is going to show them scantily clad women...
It's actually quite funny to read how much of a pedestal you tech-heads put yourselves on. What's good for you must be what's good for everyone else. The real truth is that a company that bases their decisions on your whacked-out input would never survive in the real world for too long without being demoted to junk-status.
Indeed.
What I find fascinating is the same people who claim to want something different criticize Apple for doing something different
I like the concept of the app store. I like the concept of an entity such as Apple acting as gate keeper and enforcing minimal standards. I like the concept of a reliable computing experience that is enforced by such minimal standards.
All you have to do is look at the morass that is Windows and to a lesser extent on Mac OS X and conclude there has to be room for improvement. Is Apple perfect? No. Could it be done better? Sure. But at least they are trying something different, and the goals of what they are attempting are valuable enough to continue.
If it bugs you so much, go move to one of those "superior" platforms - but enough with blanket criticism of Apple for the "walled garden". I am one who (for the iPhone/iPad anyway) considers the walled garden a significant pro.
The good news is Apple does too and they don't seem to be that swayed by people who just don't get it. There is plenty of room for both models out there.
If the ones making the ruckus about this want to leave to Droid, let them. I will gladly keep the door open for them.
"Real" developers know where the market is and they will continue developing for App store. The average joe-consumer will not take notice of what Apple is doing or not doing with the App store by removing crap apps. They will see high-quality, "real" apps and not the copy-kiddie amateurs.
It's actually quite funny to read how much of a pedestal you tech-heads put yourselves on. What's good for you must be what's good for everyone else. The real truth is that a company that bases their decisions on your whacked-out input would never survive in the real world for too long without being demoted to junk-status.
Even with tens-of-millions of iPhone buyers, you'll keep forecasting the doom-and-gloom of Apple's business practices. You've been proven wrong on so many levels.
Android will succeed to but only up to a point. Should Marketplace increase considerably in size, it would not surprise me at all if Google begins to clamp-down on the crapp-quality apps in their store too.
Keep up the good work Apple. You're known in the tech-world as the provider of a high-quality experience. You have more supporters than naysayers!
First of all, I'm not a tech-head. Second, it's just a matter of fundementally believing in letting the market sort out what's good and what isn't, not Apple. Third, there are apps, like Facebook, that simply do a much better job than the mobile and full websites on the iPhone. I'd much rather use the app than either of the other two. So, under Apple's guidelines, the Facebook app should go? It's not what I, as a consumer, want. I'm sure there are many other cases of the same thing. There are some, however, that are complete crap, I agree. However, I think the public can judge that on their own - so let them. Apple should protect the public from scams, porn, and such, but not for something like this. This is simply too far.
Yes, just like Wal-Mart can choose to stop selling a particular product. It's their store, they can sell what they want. It might be frustrating for the developers, but that's the way it is.
In this case though, the developers should have no right to be frustrated. They hoped to make money by putting in a minimum amount of effort.
I hope this purges a huge amount of apps from the store because there's far too much of this junk floating around.
I saw one company selling a notes app or something and they made a separate one targeted to different members of the family. There was about 10 apps: notes for brother, notes for mum, notes for dad etc and this was allowed to go through.
I'm glad they are taking an active role in managing the apps on the store but it's going to be a huge task. Sifting through 140,000 apps won't be easy.
I've purchased a few ITIL and Project management references on the App Store that were virtually useless, but showed enough promise to get me to buy (4.99 - 9.99 btw).
I would love these thing weeded out as they are nothing more than embedded web references or embedded PDF pages that have no unique functionality, and in fact look like they were no more than a thursday afternoon project - done after work but before bed.
Perhaps then we'll start to see some real apps in that category.
First of all, I'm not a tech-head. Second, it's just a matter of fundementally believing in letting the market sort out what's good and what isn't, not Apple. Third, there are apps, like Facebook, that simply do a much better job than the mobile and full websites on the iPhone. I'd much rather use the app than either of the other two. So, under Apple's guidelines, the Facebook app should go? It's not what I, as a consumer, want. I'm sure there are many other cases of the same thing. There are some, however, that are complete crap, I agree. However, I think the public can judge that on their own - so let them. Apple should protect the public from scams, porn, and such, but not for something like this. This is simply too far.
I agree somewhat with your premise, but in actuality, letting the market sort itself out is not the only solution. In fact what you are saying is you favour chaos. EVERY market is managed to some degree. A truly free market is a black market - no taxes, no controls, and malfeasance bordering on criminality runs rampant.
I have no time to be researching the details on one app I need when it seems like 500 of them have spammed the descriptions in order to be included when they don't apply to the terms I've chosen to research. If I am looking for a reference book I want a real reference book, not partial or wrong definitions pulled from content freely available on the web or wikipedia.
Comments
Who told us that AT&T network is busy? It seems that Apple is going to increase data consumption. For example, there is a simple weather application that gets small piece of XML feed, parses it, and displays weather information for a few cities on the single screen.
How many data I need to download to get all this information by myself? Much more! Even web-application optimized for iPhone will require to download more data against the specialized application.
And you know pals, you can add paid services to your web application and you don't need to share apy part of your revenue with Apple. Isn't smart move for Apple
I think improving overall UX is a smarter move than making the quick buck.
There are a lot of Mac OS X widgets that are little more than RSS feeds wrapped up in a pretty interface too. But those are okay. Hmm. Anyway. Whatever.
You are missing the point.
Apple is banning apps that are nothing more than a verbaitum regurgataion of a web page (i.e. an app that has a single UIWebView and nothing else).
They should go as it's just crapware.
The Dashboard widgets and Weather and Stock apps bring a completely different user experience than the web site do, so they are actually adding something of value.
You are missing the point.
Apple is banning apps that are nothing more than a verbaitum regurgataion of a web page (i.e. an app that has a single UIWebView and nothing else).
They should go as it's just crapware.
The Dashboard widgets and Weather and Stock apps bring a completely different user experience than the web site do, so they are actually adding something of value.
But if the apps in question have adhered to all of Apple's guidelines, should Apple have the right to get rid of those apps? Do Apple compensate the developer and refund them their developer fee? We absolutely should not support a company who changes their terms and conditions willy nilly as it sets a very dangerous precedent that they can just do what they want, when they feel like it.
If I were to become an apologist for a multinational corporation, would that make me as much of a big guy as they are?
Ask some of the Windows apologists/trolls who hang out here - they're more qualified to answer.
Did you notice that Steve made exactly the right choice of attire at the Oscars? I would have picked EXACTLY the same tuxedo. He does everything in the best possible manner!
Yours would have been a different shape in order to accommodate the enormous [url=http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/chip-on-your-shoulder.html]chip on your shoulder[/quote].
But if the apps in question have adhered to all of Apple's guidelines, should Apple have the right to get rid of those apps?
Yes, just like Wal-Mart can choose to stop selling a particular product. It's their store, they can sell what they want. It might be frustrating for the developers, but that's the way it is.
Do Apple compensate the developer and refund them their developer fee?
The developer fee does not entitle developers to a free pass onto the App Store, as clearly explained by the terms and conditions that so many of them didn't read.
We absolutely should not support a company who changes their terms and conditions willy nilly as it sets a very dangerous precedent that they can just do what they want, when they feel like it.
Again, they can do what they want because it's their store. It's not "dangerous" at all, and I doubt they changed their terms and conditions - the T&Cs would already permit them to do what they want to with their own App Store, i.e. throw the crap off. I just wish they'd done it much sooner.
I think this is ultimately a good thing. Why does someone need a proprietary iPhone app to look up the current weather, or any other single-dimensional bit of data?
I've been wondering that about Dashboard for years.
if apple thinks they have to clean up their store they should do it rigorous but then they have to tell developers which programs are acceptable.
perhaps they have to reconsider the whole appstore...
Yes, just like Wal-Mart can choose to stop selling a particular product. It's their store, they can sell what they want. It might be frustrating for the developers, but that's the way it is.
The developer fee does not entitle developers to a free pass onto the App Store, as clearly explained by the terms and conditions that so many of them didn't read.
Again, they can do what they want because it's their store. It's not "dangerous" at all, and I doubt they changed their terms and conditions - the T&Cs would already permit them to do what they want to with their own App Store, i.e. throw the crap off. I just wish they'd done it much sooner.
Under your opinion then, should Microsoft be able to get out of its multi-million pound fines by changing there mind on applications that run on windows and say they have to first be approved and then not approve any that they feel could degrade the Windows user experience?
I get that the iPhone is classified as a phone, not a computer and therefore doesn't have to follow the same rules. But the iPAD is going to sit next to other tablets and be viewed as equivalents, yet half will have to follow one set of rules and if Apple can continue to act in this way, seemingly that means they follow a different set.
Personally doesn't really effect me, but I can see how in a few years time they could end up in trouble and if they do they will be stuck where Microsoft is now. In a situation where they have to be giving a browser choice screen and make IE uninstallable, while at the same time Google can plan to make an OS entirely based around its browser (although obviously not with browsers).
apple should focus more on enhancing the search in the app store than on throwing out apps that adhere to their published standards. they should also start using ESRB ratings to let people know that the bikini app is going to show them scantily clad women...
It's actually quite funny to read how much of a pedestal you tech-heads put yourselves on. What's good for you must be what's good for everyone else. The real truth is that a company that bases their decisions on your whacked-out input would never survive in the real world for too long without being demoted to junk-status.
Indeed.
What I find fascinating is the same people who claim to want something different criticize Apple for doing something different
I like the concept of the app store. I like the concept of an entity such as Apple acting as gate keeper and enforcing minimal standards. I like the concept of a reliable computing experience that is enforced by such minimal standards.
All you have to do is look at the morass that is Windows and to a lesser extent on Mac OS X and conclude there has to be room for improvement. Is Apple perfect? No. Could it be done better? Sure. But at least they are trying something different, and the goals of what they are attempting are valuable enough to continue.
If it bugs you so much, go move to one of those "superior" platforms - but enough with blanket criticism of Apple for the "walled garden". I am one who (for the iPhone/iPad anyway) considers the walled garden a significant pro.
The good news is Apple does too and they don't seem to be that swayed by people who just don't get it. There is plenty of room for both models out there.
If the ones making the ruckus about this want to leave to Droid, let them. I will gladly keep the door open for them.
"Real" developers know where the market is and they will continue developing for App store. The average joe-consumer will not take notice of what Apple is doing or not doing with the App store by removing crap apps. They will see high-quality, "real" apps and not the copy-kiddie amateurs.
It's actually quite funny to read how much of a pedestal you tech-heads put yourselves on. What's good for you must be what's good for everyone else. The real truth is that a company that bases their decisions on your whacked-out input would never survive in the real world for too long without being demoted to junk-status.
Even with tens-of-millions of iPhone buyers, you'll keep forecasting the doom-and-gloom of Apple's business practices. You've been proven wrong on so many levels.
Android will succeed to but only up to a point. Should Marketplace increase considerably in size, it would not surprise me at all if Google begins to clamp-down on the crapp-quality apps in their store too.
Keep up the good work Apple. You're known in the tech-world as the provider of a high-quality experience. You have more supporters than naysayers!
First of all, I'm not a tech-head. Second, it's just a matter of fundementally believing in letting the market sort out what's good and what isn't, not Apple. Third, there are apps, like Facebook, that simply do a much better job than the mobile and full websites on the iPhone. I'd much rather use the app than either of the other two. So, under Apple's guidelines, the Facebook app should go? It's not what I, as a consumer, want. I'm sure there are many other cases of the same thing. There are some, however, that are complete crap, I agree. However, I think the public can judge that on their own - so let them. Apple should protect the public from scams, porn, and such, but not for something like this. This is simply too far.
Yes, just like Wal-Mart can choose to stop selling a particular product. It's their store, they can sell what they want. It might be frustrating for the developers, but that's the way it is.
In this case though, the developers should have no right to be frustrated. They hoped to make money by putting in a minimum amount of effort.
I hope this purges a huge amount of apps from the store because there's far too much of this junk floating around.
I saw one company selling a notes app or something and they made a separate one targeted to different members of the family. There was about 10 apps: notes for brother, notes for mum, notes for dad etc and this was allowed to go through.
I'm glad they are taking an active role in managing the apps on the store but it's going to be a huge task. Sifting through 140,000 apps won't be easy.
I would love these thing weeded out as they are nothing more than embedded web references or embedded PDF pages that have no unique functionality, and in fact look like they were no more than a thursday afternoon project - done after work but before bed.
Perhaps then we'll start to see some real apps in that category.
What part of web app do you not understand? They can be distributed outside the App Store.
Stupidly wrong indeed.
What I don't understand is the part about how I'm supposed to access web apps on my iPod Touch when I'm not connected to a WiFi network.
This was what these "duplicate web page" apps were especially good for.
First of all, I'm not a tech-head. Second, it's just a matter of fundementally believing in letting the market sort out what's good and what isn't, not Apple. Third, there are apps, like Facebook, that simply do a much better job than the mobile and full websites on the iPhone. I'd much rather use the app than either of the other two. So, under Apple's guidelines, the Facebook app should go? It's not what I, as a consumer, want. I'm sure there are many other cases of the same thing. There are some, however, that are complete crap, I agree. However, I think the public can judge that on their own - so let them. Apple should protect the public from scams, porn, and such, but not for something like this. This is simply too far.
I agree somewhat with your premise, but in actuality, letting the market sort itself out is not the only solution. In fact what you are saying is you favour chaos. EVERY market is managed to some degree. A truly free market is a black market - no taxes, no controls, and malfeasance bordering on criminality runs rampant.
I have no time to be researching the details on one app I need when it seems like 500 of them have spammed the descriptions in order to be included when they don't apply to the terms I've chosen to research. If I am looking for a reference book I want a real reference book, not partial or wrong definitions pulled from content freely available on the web or wikipedia.