The difference, of course, were Apple to implement it is that they wouldn't end up having to field support calls related to failed syncs caused by code over which they have no control. It's not like people are going to call the developer for support if their phone gets bricked, and, human nature being what it is, their ire will end up directed at Apple, however unreasonable that might be. It's entirely appropriate for them to reject an app performing such a basic system operation, just as it would be entirely appropriate for them to implement it themselves if they so decided.
What a BS answer. If Word crashes, I'm not blaming OS X or Apple, I'm blaming Microsoft. Why would this be any different? Right, because you have to defend Apple's every decision. And those that don't agree are either Apple haters, trolls, Android lovers, Microsoft fan boys or some combination of those categories.
It's old and tired. Apple does make mistakes. Deal with it.
True, but there is a symbiotic relationship that Jobs often appears to hold in less regard than he should. Unwittingly or not, he fosters the perception that he feels developers should be grateful for his platform, and they should be thankful he allows them to sell apps in his store. I'm not saying he does/doesn't believe that, but that his actions can be taken as such by some. "Some" include companies (people) who invest time, energy, creativity, and intellectual/monetary capital to put products on "his" store. How many apps does Apple create? Without the efforts of developers to populate "his" store with things people want to buy, there would be no reason to buy "his" phone or "his" iPad.
iPod—yes, it's a great stand-alone music player and iTunes is a terrific, convenient way to purchase and manage digital music (though, Apple does not create music either) with or without apps. The iPhone without apps is just a not-so-special phone that costs more than most, and is tied to one carrier with questionable coverage. Without the apps, the iPad is an expensive portable but overly heavy email/web browsing, video and music device that has too small of storage capacity to be worth the price for the latter two functions.
What I'm getting at is that Apple, as far as keeping it's edge as a mobile device maker, needs app developers as much, and yes probably more, than they need Apple. As Droid becomes more evolved and ubiquitous, developers will invest their time, energy, and money in the platform that yields the greatest profit and is the least pain in the as$ to develop for. The only reliable constant in life is the fact that everything changes. Right now Apple is the mobile king, so Jobs can afford to be a bit of a bully. If and when (probably when) the worm turns, developers will remember the present atmosphere Jobs is creating. Better to be a little pushy with a smile and a bit of understanding, than to be an obnoxious bully with no empathy on the day people in that symbiotic relationship whom you've been trying to get your way with, realize they outnumber you.
I think that many of the developers realize that Apple and Steve Jobs have created an ecosystem for mobile devices like none that existed before.
With a small dollar investment and small time investment, to learn the tools, a developer can can develop apps and put them in front of millions of potential customers.
Further, Apple will handle the validation, marketing, selling and distribution of these apps. The developer need not spend tens of thousands of dollars to set up a merchant account, or even need to establish the financial capacity to support one. in 1999, to qualify for a merchant account, I had to maintain an account with a minimum balance of $25,000-- I suspect it is higher now.
Additionally, because of the app store evaluation, validation and approval process, an app accepted and sold through the iTunes store has a certain added value-- an assumption of a level of quality, ease of use, familiar interface, and implication that it will do no harm to the user, his device, or his data. Certainly there exceptions to this... but they are few.
To the bulk of iPhone users, non-techinacal users, this provides a comfort that if they purchase an accepted app, it will perform as advertised.
While setting the bar high, establishing a new standard, Apple has established another first for developers-- they get to set the price and keep 70% of the revenue from apps sold through Apple's store. Apple's 30% allows them to cover costs and make a slight profit-- basically running the store as a break-even proposition.
Think back to the environment before the app store. Developers had to buy expensive tools, had less flexibility, to sell to a fraction of the potential customers. For this, they were able to keep a lower percentage (40%, 50% were common).
Yes, the Apple app store has some bad apps, has made some poor decisions rejecting good apps. But those are exceptions.
Apple has provided a stable and consistent platform, and the infrastructure to deliver quality apps to millions of customers.
Apple has provided the developers with the tools and capabilities to sell into the best app store in the world to millions of targeted, qualified customers.
No one else is even close!
More than a few developers have taken advantage of that opportunity to make hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.
I say that Apple has done quite a lot for mobile developers-- a lot more than any others [platforms/stores] you can cite!
Certainly Apple must be agile and remain competitive to attract the best developers to write the best apps...
I suspect they will... and they will set the bar even higher!
I see the trolls are out in full force today. I bet if this gets popular, Apple will implement it anyway in a later update. But the real question is, even though wireless syncing is cool, what happens if you just want it to charge and transfer data fast at the same time? Sometimes wires are still better than wireless. I mean, you'd still have to plug in a wire for power anyway, so it might as well be the wire leading to your USB port.
Yeah who would want the choice eh? Choice is the enemy, it's probably communist or something. Heil Darth Steve, he knows what's best for everyone!
"According to a post over at Engadget, Greg Hughes, the author of the Wi-Fi sync, has claimed that the app does not use any private APIs, which would be a violation of Apple?s developer agreement. The company seemed to agree; they reputedly called Hughes to tell him that while the app didn?t technically break the rules of the App Store, it did skirt the boundary of what?s allowed and could present security issues."
Should it really surpise you anyway? This isn't the first time it's happened. This has been going on all the way back to Netshare. Apple can ultimately reject any app that they please.
"According to a post over at Engadget, Greg Hughes, the author of the Wi-Fi sync, has claimed that the app does not use any private APIs, which would be a violation of Apple’s developer agreement. The company seemed to agree; they reputedly called Hughes to tell him that while the app didn’t technically break the rules of the App Store, it did skirt the boundary of what’s allowed and could present security issues."
Should it really surpise you anyway? This isn't the first time it's happened. This has been going on all the way back to Netshare. Apple can ultimately reject any app that they please.
Emphasis mine! He claims but has, no proof... rejections are sent by email... he should publish Apple's response to have any credibility.
BTW, to do, or not do, a backup (see video) requires private APIs on the iPhone (and, likely on the Mac).
I have Netshare (DLoaded from the app store) which Apple approved and ATT made them remove because it violated ATT-Apple agreement.
If this kind of thing continues, no dev is going to waste time and money (for some tens of thousands of dollars) creating an app that might get rejected. All the iPhone will become is a glorified game machine this way.
This does not make sense. History does not support this conclusion.
It is Apple's store but they have to show some respect to the devs. He broke no rules. Period.
He says he broke no rules. So far we have exactly one side of the story (we are still missing the other two sides).
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3
It's not even like there is a chance to sell his app on the web to iPhone OS users unless they jailbreak.
And the funny thing about the jailbreak crowd is that some not-infinitesimal percentage is there solely to pirate apps. I wouldn't look to the Cydia route to try to make any real money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3
If this kind of thing continues, no dev is going to waste time and money (for some tens of thousands of dollars) creating an app that might get rejected. All the iPhone will become is a glorified game machine this way.
Many of the devs are making decent money, some of the devs are making money hand over fist. It usually doesn't work that way for a small developer in desktop application development where the big names like Microsoft and Adobe and even Apple rule the roost. The App Store is a complete game changer and and every entrepreneurial developer on the planet is at least thinking how they can get a piece of that. (Where, by "entrepreneur" I mean "risk taker".) Do you think there aren't hundreds of programmers a day, every day that don't at least make the first efforts to try their hand at this? Or that they are all somehow going to throw in the towel before starting because somebody else had their app rejected?
I can't address that other persons' comment, but a sync every couple weeks is plenty fine for me, keeps me somewhat up to date. Sometimes I connect to update podcasts about every week. Podcasts are a bit of a tape-delay kind of medium, usually it's not a big deal to be a little behind.
There's no porn, no copyright or trademark issues. it's not just calling web based content, doesn't use any private APIs, is totally written in native code (which technically doesn't kick in until 4.0 is live). it isn't app spam etc.
How can you write such an app without using private APIs??? It would mean that you have access to pretty much everything on your phone from inside an app, in terms of read & write. Thats the part I'm really wondering about.
Edit: I believe the access to the calendar on the iPhone is a feature of OS 4.0, so how possible can he write to it without using any kind of private API or other hack?
"According to a post over at Engadget, Greg Hughes, the author of the Wi-Fi sync, has claimed that the app does not use any private APIs, which would be a violation of Apple?s developer agreement. The company seemed to agree; they reputedly called Hughes to tell him that while the app didn?t technically break the rules of the App Store, it did skirt the boundary of what?s allowed and could present security issues."
Should it really surpise you anyway? This isn't the first time it's happened. This has been going on all the way back to Netshare. Apple can ultimately reject any app that they please.
Apple has typically rejected apps for violating the SDK terms, not for 'any app they please'.
I'm still looking for evidence that they guy doesn't use private APIs. What the app is doing almost certainly requires private APIs. Apple sends their rejection letters by email, not by phone. If he publishes the email saying that it doesn't break the rules, he'll have some credibility.
It's much like the Google "Apple banned our apps" nonsense. Notice that Google has STILL never provided any evidence. Since Apple rejects apps in writing, they should be able to do that if it were a true statement.
I'm not inclined to believe a developer who goes out of his way to pre-announce an app (which makes it look like he's setting Apple up) and then has his app for sale on another service less than 24 hours after the rejection. Just sounds fishy, but I'd be willing to believe him if he publishes the letter.
Just because it's not on Android Market doesn't mean you can't download and install it. Android does not stop users from installing any apparently.
Not by default. According to the TWiT team, you specifically have to go into the buried settings to enable unsigned apps. Non-tech-savvy users aren't likely to do that.
Anyways regarding the backup issue, I went and found my iPhone backup, it's only 150MB. On a Mac, it's in your account, Library/Application Support/Mobile Sync/Backup folder.
Running the numbers, assuming Wireless G's practical speed (20Mbps), it should only take a minute to back up by WiFi. This tells me that the connection speed is NOT the limiting factor, because a backup takes about that long with the USB 2.0 dock cable too. I confirmed in system Profiler that the iPhone is hooked up to the full 480Mb/sec speed USB data connection, so it's not like the connection failed over to 11Mbps USB 1.1 speed.
Seems as though many useful Apps never make it, while the simple Apps with short Longevity to them do. Unfortunately Apple seems to be not approving anything that might compete with their business orhas the potential to be pirated.
Looking at it both ways I still really don't agree, even though I can appreciate the need for security and integrity of the device.
Do NOT expect ANY support from Greg Hughes if you encounter any problems with his Wi-Fi Sync software. I purchased the Windows version of Greg?s Wi-Fi Sync software and attempted to install on several PC?s with the same results ?application failed to start?. I submitted a friendly trouble ticket on Greg?s support site over a month ago and Greg has made NO attempt to respond. A second trouble ticket also went unanswered as did a request for a refund. PayPal will only assist if the software was purchased via EBay, not Cydia. Jay Freeman of Cydia also didn?t respond to my email requesting assistance. BUYER BEWARE!
Comments
Never?
How do you get your podcasts?
And you answered:
So I am to understand that your 'Perpetual Motion Charger' does not charge your iPod, but you can download podcasts with it?
yes...
The difference, of course, were Apple to implement it is that they wouldn't end up having to field support calls related to failed syncs caused by code over which they have no control. It's not like people are going to call the developer for support if their phone gets bricked, and, human nature being what it is, their ire will end up directed at Apple, however unreasonable that might be. It's entirely appropriate for them to reject an app performing such a basic system operation, just as it would be entirely appropriate for them to implement it themselves if they so decided.
What a BS answer. If Word crashes, I'm not blaming OS X or Apple, I'm blaming Microsoft. Why would this be any different? Right, because you have to defend Apple's every decision. And those that don't agree are either Apple haters, trolls, Android lovers, Microsoft fan boys or some combination of those categories.
It's old and tired. Apple does make mistakes. Deal with it.
True, but there is a symbiotic relationship that Jobs often appears to hold in less regard than he should. Unwittingly or not, he fosters the perception that he feels developers should be grateful for his platform, and they should be thankful he allows them to sell apps in his store. I'm not saying he does/doesn't believe that, but that his actions can be taken as such by some. "Some" include companies (people) who invest time, energy, creativity, and intellectual/monetary capital to put products on "his" store. How many apps does Apple create? Without the efforts of developers to populate "his" store with things people want to buy, there would be no reason to buy "his" phone or "his" iPad.
iPod—yes, it's a great stand-alone music player and iTunes is a terrific, convenient way to purchase and manage digital music (though, Apple does not create music either) with or without apps. The iPhone without apps is just a not-so-special phone that costs more than most, and is tied to one carrier with questionable coverage. Without the apps, the iPad is an expensive portable but overly heavy email/web browsing, video and music device that has too small of storage capacity to be worth the price for the latter two functions.
What I'm getting at is that Apple, as far as keeping it's edge as a mobile device maker, needs app developers as much, and yes probably more, than they need Apple. As Droid becomes more evolved and ubiquitous, developers will invest their time, energy, and money in the platform that yields the greatest profit and is the least pain in the as$ to develop for. The only reliable constant in life is the fact that everything changes. Right now Apple is the mobile king, so Jobs can afford to be a bit of a bully. If and when (probably when) the worm turns, developers will remember the present atmosphere Jobs is creating. Better to be a little pushy with a smile and a bit of understanding, than to be an obnoxious bully with no empathy on the day people in that symbiotic relationship whom you've been trying to get your way with, realize they outnumber you.
I think that many of the developers realize that Apple and Steve Jobs have created an ecosystem for mobile devices like none that existed before.
With a small dollar investment and small time investment, to learn the tools, a developer can can develop apps and put them in front of millions of potential customers.
Further, Apple will handle the validation, marketing, selling and distribution of these apps. The developer need not spend tens of thousands of dollars to set up a merchant account, or even need to establish the financial capacity to support one. in 1999, to qualify for a merchant account, I had to maintain an account with a minimum balance of $25,000-- I suspect it is higher now.
Additionally, because of the app store evaluation, validation and approval process, an app accepted and sold through the iTunes store has a certain added value-- an assumption of a level of quality, ease of use, familiar interface, and implication that it will do no harm to the user, his device, or his data. Certainly there exceptions to this... but they are few.
To the bulk of iPhone users, non-techinacal users, this provides a comfort that if they purchase an accepted app, it will perform as advertised.
While setting the bar high, establishing a new standard, Apple has established another first for developers-- they get to set the price and keep 70% of the revenue from apps sold through Apple's store. Apple's 30% allows them to cover costs and make a slight profit-- basically running the store as a break-even proposition.
Think back to the environment before the app store. Developers had to buy expensive tools, had less flexibility, to sell to a fraction of the potential customers. For this, they were able to keep a lower percentage (40%, 50% were common).
Yes, the Apple app store has some bad apps, has made some poor decisions rejecting good apps. But those are exceptions.
Apple has provided a stable and consistent platform, and the infrastructure to deliver quality apps to millions of customers.
Apple has provided the developers with the tools and capabilities to sell into the best app store in the world to millions of targeted, qualified customers.
No one else is even close!
More than a few developers have taken advantage of that opportunity to make hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.
I say that Apple has done quite a lot for mobile developers-- a lot more than any others [platforms/stores] you can cite!
Certainly Apple must be agile and remain competitive to attract the best developers to write the best apps...
I suspect they will... and they will set the bar even higher!
.
Nope. This is why sophisticated users prefer Android. No bullshit.
Is this why Android phones are named to appeal to 13 year old boys, like The Incredible, or Droid?
I see the trolls are out in full force today. I bet if this gets popular, Apple will implement it anyway in a later update. But the real question is, even though wireless syncing is cool, what happens if you just want it to charge and transfer data fast at the same time? Sometimes wires are still better than wireless. I mean, you'd still have to plug in a wire for power anyway, so it might as well be the wire leading to your USB port.
Yeah who would want the choice eh? Choice is the enemy, it's probably communist or something. Heil Darth Steve, he knows what's best for everyone!
Is this why Android phones are named to appeal to 13 year old boys, like The Incredible, or Droid?
I think Nexus One is a *very* cool name personally. But then, Blade Runner is my favourite movie, so I may be biased.
He didn't? How do you know that?
From Macworld:
"According to a post over at Engadget, Greg Hughes, the author of the Wi-Fi sync, has claimed that the app does not use any private APIs, which would be a violation of Apple?s developer agreement. The company seemed to agree; they reputedly called Hughes to tell him that while the app didn?t technically break the rules of the App Store, it did skirt the boundary of what?s allowed and could present security issues."
Should it really surpise you anyway? This isn't the first time it's happened. This has been going on all the way back to Netshare. Apple can ultimately reject any app that they please.
From Macworld:
"According to a post over at Engadget, Greg Hughes, the author of the Wi-Fi sync, has claimed that the app does not use any private APIs, which would be a violation of Apple’s developer agreement. The company seemed to agree; they reputedly called Hughes to tell him that while the app didn’t technically break the rules of the App Store, it did skirt the boundary of what’s allowed and could present security issues."
Should it really surpise you anyway? This isn't the first time it's happened. This has been going on all the way back to Netshare. Apple can ultimately reject any app that they please.
Emphasis mine! He claims but has, no proof... rejections are sent by email... he should publish Apple's response to have any credibility.
BTW, to do, or not do, a backup (see video) requires private APIs on the iPhone (and, likely on the Mac).
I have Netshare (DLoaded from the app store) which Apple approved and ATT made them remove because it violated ATT-Apple agreement.
That all you got?
.
If this kind of thing continues, no dev is going to waste time and money (for some tens of thousands of dollars) creating an app that might get rejected. All the iPhone will become is a glorified game machine this way.
This does not make sense. History does not support this conclusion.
It is Apple's store but they have to show some respect to the devs. He broke no rules. Period.
He says he broke no rules. So far we have exactly one side of the story (we are still missing the other two sides).
It's not even like there is a chance to sell his app on the web to iPhone OS users unless they jailbreak.
And the funny thing about the jailbreak crowd is that some not-infinitesimal percentage is there solely to pirate apps. I wouldn't look to the Cydia route to try to make any real money.
If this kind of thing continues, no dev is going to waste time and money (for some tens of thousands of dollars) creating an app that might get rejected. All the iPhone will become is a glorified game machine this way.
Many of the devs are making decent money, some of the devs are making money hand over fist. It usually doesn't work that way for a small developer in desktop application development where the big names like Microsoft and Adobe and even Apple rule the roost. The App Store is a complete game changer and and every entrepreneurial developer on the planet is at least thinking how they can get a piece of that. (Where, by "entrepreneur" I mean "risk taker".) Do you think there aren't hundreds of programmers a day, every day that don't at least make the first efforts to try their hand at this? Or that they are all somehow going to throw in the towel before starting because somebody else had their app rejected?
If you think Android is open, you're wrong!
Android indeed is open, you can install any software you like whether it comes from the official app store or not
Never?
How do you get your podcasts?
I can't address that other persons' comment, but a sync every couple weeks is plenty fine for me, keeps me somewhat up to date. Sometimes I connect to update podcasts about every week. Podcasts are a bit of a tape-delay kind of medium, usually it's not a big deal to be a little behind.
If you think Android is open, you're wrong!
That page doesn't explain anything about Android's open-ness or closed-ness, so it's not informative or persuasive.
There's no porn, no copyright or trademark issues. it's not just calling web based content, doesn't use any private APIs, is totally written in native code (which technically doesn't kick in until 4.0 is live). it isn't app spam etc.
How can you write such an app without using private APIs??? It would mean that you have access to pretty much everything on your phone from inside an app, in terms of read & write. Thats the part I'm really wondering about.
Edit: I believe the access to the calendar on the iPhone is a feature of OS 4.0, so how possible can he write to it without using any kind of private API or other hack?
From Macworld:
"According to a post over at Engadget, Greg Hughes, the author of the Wi-Fi sync, has claimed that the app does not use any private APIs, which would be a violation of Apple?s developer agreement. The company seemed to agree; they reputedly called Hughes to tell him that while the app didn?t technically break the rules of the App Store, it did skirt the boundary of what?s allowed and could present security issues."
Should it really surpise you anyway? This isn't the first time it's happened. This has been going on all the way back to Netshare. Apple can ultimately reject any app that they please.
Apple has typically rejected apps for violating the SDK terms, not for 'any app they please'.
I'm still looking for evidence that they guy doesn't use private APIs. What the app is doing almost certainly requires private APIs. Apple sends their rejection letters by email, not by phone. If he publishes the email saying that it doesn't break the rules, he'll have some credibility.
It's much like the Google "Apple banned our apps" nonsense. Notice that Google has STILL never provided any evidence. Since Apple rejects apps in writing, they should be able to do that if it were a true statement.
I'm not inclined to believe a developer who goes out of his way to pre-announce an app (which makes it look like he's setting Apple up) and then has his app for sale on another service less than 24 hours after the rejection. Just sounds fishy, but I'd be willing to believe him if he publishes the letter.
And therefore, we are not allowed the choice?
You buy an iPhone, you buy the rules that come with it.
If you think Android is open, you're wrong!
Just because it's not on Android Market doesn't mean you can't download and install it. Android does not stop users from installing any apparently.
Just because it's not on Android Market doesn't mean you can't download and install it. Android does not stop users from installing any apparently.
Not by default. According to the TWiT team, you specifically have to go into the buried settings to enable unsigned apps. Non-tech-savvy users aren't likely to do that.
Anyways regarding the backup issue, I went and found my iPhone backup, it's only 150MB. On a Mac, it's in your account, Library/Application Support/Mobile Sync/Backup folder.
Running the numbers, assuming Wireless G's practical speed (20Mbps), it should only take a minute to back up by WiFi. This tells me that the connection speed is NOT the limiting factor, because a backup takes about that long with the USB 2.0 dock cable too. I confirmed in system Profiler that the iPhone is hooked up to the full 480Mb/sec speed USB data connection, so it's not like the connection failed over to 11Mbps USB 1.1 speed.
Looking at it both ways I still really don't agree, even though I can appreciate the need for security and integrity of the device.