It is clear what you're trying to say, but I think you've gone a bit far. There are plenty of 3rd party apps available for purchase from 3rd parties. (Just not for the iPhone)
I sympathize with your dislike of corporations wielding too much power over their customers. In one sense, customers aren't "free" to do whatever they want.
On the other hand, I also don't want the government telling people what to do. In this case, "people" also refers to the "people" running companies. If I were running a company, I'd want to be "free" to do business without government intervention.
Without doubt, there is a delicate and debatable, optimal balance between the two "freedoms". I think you'd have more credibility in this debate if you at least acknowledge that it is indeed a tradeoff. Consumer protection and state controlled markets are one and the same. The real question is... where to draw the line?
Has competition been hurt by Apple's entry into the mobile phone market with their entirely vertical device? So far I'd say that the product you're criticizing for being a closed platform, has actually raised consumer choice. The danger comes later, if apple were to kill off the competition, they could use their vertical product to prevent new entrants into the market. US law accounts for this dichotomy by making certain practices illegal for companies in a monopolistic market position.
I definitely understand your point, and I definitely have wondered about that line, but the way I feel is that if buying one product limits me to buying unrelated products (the apps) through the same vendor, I would say that the line is drawn a little too far in favor of the vendor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You keep coming at this from the position that the iPhone is the only player in town. If you don't like it then you have a right to choose another phone. If I don't like the analog channels my cable company pushes for ch2 thru ch98 I can go with Verizon, satellite providers, OTA digital or nothing at all. If I want a channel that my cable company doesn't provide or one that they only offer for the most expensive cable plans I have the same choices as listed above.
Cydia is just a bonus for those who want more out of their device. The App Store is not something that Apple is required to provide to their customers. It's done simply to add value to the device. If the rules or offering don't appeal to you as a customer you have the right to choose another phone. If the rules don't appeal to you as a developer you have the right to choose a different mobile platform in which to code. The iPhone is not the only game in town. If they rules are too stringent for coders and customers alike then the iPhone's 3000 apps won't be growing much and we'll see other mobile platforms advancing even further in the future.
I would normally agree with you... but the App-Store isn't anything Apple *needed* to do. They did it to broaden the appeal of the iPhone and, unfortunately for Apple, when they launched the App-Store, the function of the iPhone changed from a multi-purpose device, to a platform. The difference, if you catch my drift, is that the pre-app iPhone was basically an over-glorified swiss army knife, limited to a couple of advertised functions... You can slice, you can file, you can clean your fingernails, but in the end, there are still only 12 functions. At this point, of course Apple would have no obligation to allow 3rd party add-ons/apps. Since the launch of the App-Store, however, the iPhone has become, like I said, a platform, very much like the Mac.
On the Macintosh platform, there is a very clear line between what is OS and what is Application. They are two independent entities. You can buy any Mac OS X-compatible application, install and run it at will, no matter how much Apple might want you not to. Apple can't barricade your house from the UPS guy delivering MS Office, they can't DoS-attack Adobe's website to prevent you from buying CS3. Since it is an open software platform, Apple has to allow any 3rd parties to compete against them in the software market.
Enter the iPhone: It's another software platform open to 3rd-party development, just like the Mac. Again, we all know the difference between OS and Application, but a user cannot buy, install and run any iPhone OS X-compatible application he/she wants. Why have the rules changed all of a sudden? Why can Apple say, "Everyone can come develop for the iPhone!!! ......oh, except you... and you... oh, and that app competes with ours, so you can't either."
I'm sorry but Apple can't have it both ways. They either have to deal with all apps or no apps. That's just the way it works.
You are all correct that it is not illegal to "unlock" your phone until January 2009 when it will be voted on again.
You are stealing money from Apple that would have recognized profit from the App Store. So ultimately you are hurting the Apple Community as a whole because great Apps aren't making the store.
-Old Timer
I don't see a huge problem with jailbreaking the phone. It does give people the ability to experiment with software development. Many of the original jailbroken apps have become approved app store apps. As far as I've seen most none of the jailbroken apps compete directly with app store apps.
Apple isn't helping the situation with its approval policies. Apple should not reject apps because of is own personal taste or because they compete with Apple's apps. The only criteria Apple should use in app approval is security, stability, and carrier agreements. Apple should allow the users to set standards among good or bad apps.
Even for violence or sexuality. Apple should tag those apps as mature the way it does music. Parents are able to set their childs phones to not accept mature content.
I haven't jailbroken my own phone because its not all that serious for me. I don't need the complexity. I want the iPhone to simplify my life not make it more complex.
I'm sorry but Apple can't have it both ways. They either have to deal with all apps or no apps. That's just the way it works.
-Clive
No, they don't, and it's not the "way it works".
No matter how we may define it, it is still a phone with computer-like functions.
Apple can do whatever they like with the concept.
The only determining factor is how successful it will be.
If it proves to be as successful as they hope, then they don't have to change what they are doing one whit. Only if it proves to not be that successful will they have to reconsider where they are going with it.
Jailbreaking your iPhone is like Tuning up your car. Get some kick-ass rings, add extras to your exterior, change your tires, change your muffler, get a good audio system, you know, stuff like that.
If you ever want to return your car to the dealer, just remove anything you installed in your car yourself and you're good to go. You can even, in some places, change your current engine if you'd like to. It isn't illegal, it isn't unethical, and it isn't violating or offending anyone.
What's being violated here by Jailbreaking your iPhone are your personal ethics or thoughts and your long-term close relationship with Apple.
Say you're this guy that has been buying Apple products since the beginning, been a loyal customer, never ever bought products from the 'other' company, had customized and kept rare computers from 20 years ago and has never done anything that could harm Apple profits (Or the compay as a whole) in any way.
Jailbreak comes with the iPhone and since modifying the internal firmware from a device to be able to fully take advantage of its potential isn't really new with the iPhone you probably don't care if other people think Jailbreaking is the way to go. You're loyal and never modify the way Apple's told you to run their device.
I'm a loyal Google user since 1998 and Andriod is in the way. Since it's the first Mobile platform from Google I don't really expect much from it. But if Android was to be a closed system there sure be Hack teams ready to exploit its potential and as long as *Jailbreaking* my Android isn't illegal I would go for it regardless of how loyal I've been to Google.
Manipulation.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are people out there who just don't see the benefits of Jailbreaking a device, or just don't want to. Their thoughts of violating a device that was meant to make phone calls, take pictures and browse the web are making them dislike the whole idea of Jailbreak to not only do what it was meant to do but much, much more. They will, somehow, be under the protection of an AT&T agreement and won't do anything that Apple wouldn't want them to do. Useless and pathetic apps are in both Stores and if they think it's useless to Jailbreak it's perfectly fine.
But just as Solipsism said, it is NOT ILLEGAL to jailbreak your iPhone. A lot of people got it wrong from the beginning and think that they are violating the law by doing it. And if they ever find out that you're using a Jailbreaked iPhone you're going to Jail. This is total nonsense. It's a way to explore, to really understand what a Smartphone really is about, to see and witness revolutionary ideas from a simple device that was meant to do so little.
Like the Wii, people like Mr. Lee have done extraordinary stuff out of the Wiimote. He modified and edited firmware, made up special programming for the Wiimote and run his software to really understand the first step to 3-D 'Physical' gaming. It wasn't Illegal or Unethical whatsoever. He opened up new doors for the next generation of gamers.
If you think running a recording software, or a fully capable photo camera program, or useless theme customizations, or personalized ringtones are just a pure waste of time then Jailbreaking is not for you. But don't blame the Jailbreak community when you want an app that's only available for Cydia and not the App Store. Remember that not all apps not approved by the App store are illegal or forbidden. And that people not only Jailbreak because they want a Free app instead of spending 99 cents for it. Useful aplications are available in both Stores and I use software from both as well.
If I ever want to change my car's look like when I first bought it I simply click on the restore button and it's good to go. Jailbreaking your phone won't harm anyone, is not illegal, and is not unethical, but if you're concerned about your own personal clean record of never ever violate anythings that's not in the contract then stay with what they want you to have.
I definitely understand your point, and I definitely have wondered about that line, but the way I feel is that if buying one product limits me to buying unrelated products (the apps) through the same vendor, I would say that the line is drawn a little too far in favor of the vendor.
In abstract, I'd agree with this sentiment.
But it is also good to weigh each situation independently. So far... the 1st party app store has been beneficial to consumers. It has raised the bar for all phones in regard to simplicity expected in acquiring additional apps. By controlling the entire widget, Apple has been able to streamline the process.
If apple were to become the dominate market player, and if there weren't other deep-pocketed competitors, then certainly the situation would be ripe for Apple to abuse their monopolistic position. (I'm sure there is an appropriate iPod/iTS analogy in here somewhere)
So I'd agree in so far that the government needs to keep an eye on the situation. If apple comes to control the market, then the net-good on society of their current business model would be different than it does today.
The violent comic book app and now the podcasting app.
I don't anything about the comic book app, but the podcasting app looks to be an issue with the carrier network.
For instance, imagine the late afternoon of October 14th when Apple releases their video podcast of the Mac presentation. All my Apple presentations range from 747MB to 1.21GB. Now consider what would happen if potentially millions of iPhone and iPod Touch users start to DL this ~1GB file over the carrier's network.
It seems to me this is an issue with potential detriment to the carrier's network, nothing more.
No matter how we may define it, it is still a phone with computer-like functions.
Apple can do whatever they like with the concept.
The only determining factor is how successful it will be.
If it proves to be as successful as they hope, then they don't have to change what they are doing one whit. Only if it proves to not be that successful will they have to reconsider where they are going with it.
THAT'S the way it works.
Apple may NOT do whatever they please!
Apple's business conduct must conform to the same rules that all business' must, primarily not engaging in anti-competitive practices! The App-Store clearly is since it bars the the apps that compete with Apple's own services from ever reaching what is *supposed* to be an open software platform!
Apple's business conduct must conform to the same rules that all business' must, primarily not engaging in anti-competitive practices! The App-Store clearly is since it bars the the apps that compete with Apple's own services from ever reaching what is *supposed* to be an open software platform!
-Clive
They can govern the Apps they want to sell providing they follow US laws. I have seen no a signal questionable violation in any way, shape or form. Podcaster does appear to be abiding by the SDK rule 3.3.15.
Nonsense! Apple has a contract with all its developers. That's how that works. We already know that Apple has assumed the right to determine which apps will be approved. In order to get into the store, that has to be agreed upon. A very few developers may not like that, but that's the way it is. It's not likely the courts would overturn that. Apple isn't acting as a regular store, which still has the right to refuse to sell whatever they want to.
If the iPhone/iTouch were the only devices to do what they do, then, possibly, the Justice department might be able to consider monopoly hearings. But as they aren't, that can't happen.
Quote:
Apple's business conduct must conform to the same rules that all business' must, primarily not engaging in anti-competitive practices! The App-Store clearly is since it bars the the apps that compete with Apple's own services from ever reaching what is *supposed* to be an open software platform!
-Clive
Perhaps you should look up what exactly Apple is violating before stating that it is violating something.
I don't anything about the comic book app, but the podcasting app looks to be an issue with the carrier network.
For instance, imagine the late afternoon of October 14th when Apple releases their video podcast of the Mac presentation. All my Apple presentations range from 747MB to 1.21GB. Now consider what would happen if potentially millions of iPhone and iPod Touch users start to DL this ~1GB file over the carrier's network.
It seems to me this is an issue with potential detriment to the carrier's network, nothing more.
I don't really buy that as being a big problem.
For one they could make the app Wifi only. That would eliminate carrier network totally.
For two we are free to download as much YouTube video as we want.
For three, websites already exist that allow streaming podcasts for the iPhone.
Some websites have embedded podcasts that can play on the iPhone such as MacWorld.com and mobile NYTimes has video podcasts for the iPhone. Mobile Podcast USA hosts all of Apple's presentations.
I cannot see a problem with an app that is able to consolidate these podcasts that already exist.
You can't unlock the EDGE iPhone without jailbreaking it first so I see that as an implied, but I know what you are saying and wondered if anyone would pick up on that point
Just caught your post. Jailbreaking and unlocking are two different activities. Thy are also used for two totally different purposes. There is no evidence that unlocked phones are widely used for jailbreaking purposes.
For one they could make the app Wifi only. That would eliminate carrier network totally.
YouTube bitrates aren't that large and usually not long. According to the Podcaster blog it wasn't set to be WiFi only, but they did set a max limit fo 40MB. However, this is 4x the size Apple themselves allow for the App Store apps over the carrier's network and Podcaster stated that would lift the limit in the future. If you were Apple or a carrier under contract with Apple, you wouldn't have a problem with that? I certainly would.
BTW, I do have the Podcaster app but my decision to get does not mean I think Apple or any company should be forced to sell a product.
There is no evidence that unlocked phones are widely used for jailbreaking purposes.
Other way around. I am under the impression through my jailbreaking and unlocking over the past year that in order to unlock the phone via software, you first have to technically jailbreak it. TJust to be clear, the SIM spoofing unlockers are a different method altogether and not what I was referring to.
YouTube bitrates aren't that large and usually not long. According to the Podcaster blog it wasn't set to be WiFi only, but they did set a max limit fo 40MB. However, this is 4x the size Apple themselves allow for the App Store apps over the carrier's network and Podcaster stated that would lift the limit in the future. If you were Apple or a carrier under contract with Apple, you wouldn't have a problem with that? I certainly would.
If this was the point of contention. Why would Apple reject the app because it duplicated iTunes functionality instead of telling the developer it needs to be WiFi only.
Quote:
BTW, I do have the Podcaster app but my decision to get does not mean I think Apple or any company should be forced to sell a product.
I'm sure you do. Because there is a need for such an app.
PodCaster & NetShare are two big ones. The PodCaster one was shut down SPECIFICALLY for overlapping features with iTunes. The NetShare app was not given a reason for being shut down but it's obviously because AT&T sells tethering for $30/month.
Apple has a contract with AT&T, yes but it is not Apple's job to be AT&T's guard dog. If AT&T doesn't have the bandwidth to support it, they should raise/change data pricing to affect those who use more of it.
There are ethical ways to recoup costs of users doing something off-the-radar with a free-reign platform. Some internet companies, for example, surcharge people who download over 250GB/month or some ridiculous amount.
The wrong way to do it is to stifle the free-market by killing consumer choice, like Apple has done.
These are two examples of apps that were shut down for the sole reason that they challenged preexisting systems of Apple and their partners. I suppose if I were to sell a MobileMe-like application to sync one's iPhone with their desktop would be canned as well? Why's that do you suppose? Because it challenge's Apple's existing service, perhaps?
Comments
It is clear what you're trying to say, but I think you've gone a bit far. There are plenty of 3rd party apps available for purchase from 3rd parties. (Just not for the iPhone)
I sympathize with your dislike of corporations wielding too much power over their customers. In one sense, customers aren't "free" to do whatever they want.
On the other hand, I also don't want the government telling people what to do. In this case, "people" also refers to the "people" running companies. If I were running a company, I'd want to be "free" to do business without government intervention.
Without doubt, there is a delicate and debatable, optimal balance between the two "freedoms". I think you'd have more credibility in this debate if you at least acknowledge that it is indeed a tradeoff. Consumer protection and state controlled markets are one and the same. The real question is... where to draw the line?
Has competition been hurt by Apple's entry into the mobile phone market with their entirely vertical device? So far I'd say that the product you're criticizing for being a closed platform, has actually raised consumer choice. The danger comes later, if apple were to kill off the competition, they could use their vertical product to prevent new entrants into the market. US law accounts for this dichotomy by making certain practices illegal for companies in a monopolistic market position.
I definitely understand your point, and I definitely have wondered about that line, but the way I feel is that if buying one product limits me to buying unrelated products (the apps) through the same vendor, I would say that the line is drawn a little too far in favor of the vendor.
You keep coming at this from the position that the iPhone is the only player in town. If you don't like it then you have a right to choose another phone. If I don't like the analog channels my cable company pushes for ch2 thru ch98 I can go with Verizon, satellite providers, OTA digital or nothing at all. If I want a channel that my cable company doesn't provide or one that they only offer for the most expensive cable plans I have the same choices as listed above.
Cydia is just a bonus for those who want more out of their device. The App Store is not something that Apple is required to provide to their customers. It's done simply to add value to the device. If the rules or offering don't appeal to you as a customer you have the right to choose another phone. If the rules don't appeal to you as a developer you have the right to choose a different mobile platform in which to code. The iPhone is not the only game in town. If they rules are too stringent for coders and customers alike then the iPhone's 3000 apps won't be growing much and we'll see other mobile platforms advancing even further in the future.
I would normally agree with you... but the App-Store isn't anything Apple *needed* to do. They did it to broaden the appeal of the iPhone and, unfortunately for Apple, when they launched the App-Store, the function of the iPhone changed from a multi-purpose device, to a platform. The difference, if you catch my drift, is that the pre-app iPhone was basically an over-glorified swiss army knife, limited to a couple of advertised functions... You can slice, you can file, you can clean your fingernails, but in the end, there are still only 12 functions. At this point, of course Apple would have no obligation to allow 3rd party add-ons/apps. Since the launch of the App-Store, however, the iPhone has become, like I said, a platform, very much like the Mac.
On the Macintosh platform, there is a very clear line between what is OS and what is Application. They are two independent entities. You can buy any Mac OS X-compatible application, install and run it at will, no matter how much Apple might want you not to. Apple can't barricade your house from the UPS guy delivering MS Office, they can't DoS-attack Adobe's website to prevent you from buying CS3. Since it is an open software platform, Apple has to allow any 3rd parties to compete against them in the software market.
Enter the iPhone: It's another software platform open to 3rd-party development, just like the Mac. Again, we all know the difference between OS and Application, but a user cannot buy, install and run any iPhone OS X-compatible application he/she wants. Why have the rules changed all of a sudden? Why can Apple say, "Everyone can come develop for the iPhone!!! ......oh, except you... and you... oh, and that app competes with ours, so you can't either."
I'm sorry but Apple can't have it both ways. They either have to deal with all apps or no apps. That's just the way it works.
-Clive
You are all correct that it is not illegal to "unlock" your phone until January 2009 when it will be voted on again.
You are stealing money from Apple that would have recognized profit from the App Store. So ultimately you are hurting the Apple Community as a whole because great Apps aren't making the store.
-Old Timer
I don't see a huge problem with jailbreaking the phone. It does give people the ability to experiment with software development. Many of the original jailbroken apps have become approved app store apps. As far as I've seen most none of the jailbroken apps compete directly with app store apps.
Apple isn't helping the situation with its approval policies. Apple should not reject apps because of is own personal taste or because they compete with Apple's apps. The only criteria Apple should use in app approval is security, stability, and carrier agreements. Apple should allow the users to set standards among good or bad apps.
Even for violence or sexuality. Apple should tag those apps as mature the way it does music. Parents are able to set their childs phones to not accept mature content.
I haven't jailbroken my own phone because its not all that serious for me. I don't need the complexity. I want the iPhone to simplify my life not make it more complex.
The only criteria Apple should use in app approval is security, stability, and carrier agreements.
The only apps I've seen that don't fit those categories are I Am Rich and the farting app.
I'm sorry but Apple can't have it both ways. They either have to deal with all apps or no apps. That's just the way it works.
-Clive
No, they don't, and it's not the "way it works".
No matter how we may define it, it is still a phone with computer-like functions.
Apple can do whatever they like with the concept.
The only determining factor is how successful it will be.
If it proves to be as successful as they hope, then they don't have to change what they are doing one whit. Only if it proves to not be that successful will they have to reconsider where they are going with it.
THAT'S the way it works.
If you ever want to return your car to the dealer, just remove anything you installed in your car yourself and you're good to go. You can even, in some places, change your current engine if you'd like to. It isn't illegal, it isn't unethical, and it isn't violating or offending anyone.
What's being violated here by Jailbreaking your iPhone are your personal ethics or thoughts and your long-term close relationship with Apple.
Say you're this guy that has been buying Apple products since the beginning, been a loyal customer, never ever bought products from the 'other' company, had customized and kept rare computers from 20 years ago and has never done anything that could harm Apple profits (Or the compay as a whole) in any way.
Jailbreak comes with the iPhone and since modifying the internal firmware from a device to be able to fully take advantage of its potential isn't really new with the iPhone you probably don't care if other people think Jailbreaking is the way to go. You're loyal and never modify the way Apple's told you to run their device.
I'm a loyal Google user since 1998 and Andriod is in the way. Since it's the first Mobile platform from Google I don't really expect much from it. But if Android was to be a closed system there sure be Hack teams ready to exploit its potential and as long as *Jailbreaking* my Android isn't illegal I would go for it regardless of how loyal I've been to Google.
Manipulation.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are people out there who just don't see the benefits of Jailbreaking a device, or just don't want to. Their thoughts of violating a device that was meant to make phone calls, take pictures and browse the web are making them dislike the whole idea of Jailbreak to not only do what it was meant to do but much, much more. They will, somehow, be under the protection of an AT&T agreement and won't do anything that Apple wouldn't want them to do. Useless and pathetic apps are in both Stores and if they think it's useless to Jailbreak it's perfectly fine.
But just as Solipsism said, it is NOT ILLEGAL to jailbreak your iPhone. A lot of people got it wrong from the beginning and think that they are violating the law by doing it. And if they ever find out that you're using a Jailbreaked iPhone you're going to Jail. This is total nonsense. It's a way to explore, to really understand what a Smartphone really is about, to see and witness revolutionary ideas from a simple device that was meant to do so little.
Like the Wii, people like Mr. Lee have done extraordinary stuff out of the Wiimote. He modified and edited firmware, made up special programming for the Wiimote and run his software to really understand the first step to 3-D 'Physical' gaming. It wasn't Illegal or Unethical whatsoever. He opened up new doors for the next generation of gamers.
If you think running a recording software, or a fully capable photo camera program, or useless theme customizations, or personalized ringtones are just a pure waste of time then Jailbreaking is not for you. But don't blame the Jailbreak community when you want an app that's only available for Cydia and not the App Store. Remember that not all apps not approved by the App store are illegal or forbidden. And that people not only Jailbreak because they want a Free app instead of spending 99 cents for it. Useful aplications are available in both Stores and I use software from both as well.
If I ever want to change my car's look like when I first bought it I simply click on the restore button and it's good to go. Jailbreaking your phone won't harm anyone, is not illegal, and is not unethical, but if you're concerned about your own personal clean record of never ever violate anythings that's not in the contract then stay with what they want you to have.
[CENTER]-=uɐqɹn=-[/center]
The only apps I've seen that don't fit those categories are I Am Rich and the farting app.
The violent comic book app and now the podcasting app.
I definitely understand your point, and I definitely have wondered about that line, but the way I feel is that if buying one product limits me to buying unrelated products (the apps) through the same vendor, I would say that the line is drawn a little too far in favor of the vendor.
In abstract, I'd agree with this sentiment.
But it is also good to weigh each situation independently. So far... the 1st party app store has been beneficial to consumers. It has raised the bar for all phones in regard to simplicity expected in acquiring additional apps. By controlling the entire widget, Apple has been able to streamline the process.
If apple were to become the dominate market player, and if there weren't other deep-pocketed competitors, then certainly the situation would be ripe for Apple to abuse their monopolistic position. (I'm sure there is an appropriate iPod/iTS analogy in here somewhere)
So I'd agree in so far that the government needs to keep an eye on the situation. If apple comes to control the market, then the net-good on society of their current business model would be different than it does today.
The violent comic book app and now the podcasting app.
I don't anything about the comic book app, but the podcasting app looks to be an issue with the carrier network.
For instance, imagine the late afternoon of October 14th when Apple releases their video podcast of the Mac presentation. All my Apple presentations range from 747MB to 1.21GB. Now consider what would happen if potentially millions of iPhone and iPod Touch users start to DL this ~1GB file over the carrier's network.
It seems to me this is an issue with potential detriment to the carrier's network, nothing more.
No, they don't, and it's not the "way it works".
No matter how we may define it, it is still a phone with computer-like functions.
Apple can do whatever they like with the concept.
The only determining factor is how successful it will be.
If it proves to be as successful as they hope, then they don't have to change what they are doing one whit. Only if it proves to not be that successful will they have to reconsider where they are going with it.
THAT'S the way it works.
Apple may NOT do whatever they please!
Apple's business conduct must conform to the same rules that all business' must, primarily not engaging in anti-competitive practices! The App-Store clearly is since it bars the the apps that compete with Apple's own services from ever reaching what is *supposed* to be an open software platform!
-Clive
Apple may NOT do whatever they please!
Apple's business conduct must conform to the same rules that all business' must, primarily not engaging in anti-competitive practices! The App-Store clearly is since it bars the the apps that compete with Apple's own services from ever reaching what is *supposed* to be an open software platform!
-Clive
They can govern the Apps they want to sell providing they follow US laws. I have seen no a signal questionable violation in any way, shape or form. Podcaster does appear to be abiding by the SDK rule 3.3.15.
Apple may NOT do whatever they please!
Nonsense! Apple has a contract with all its developers. That's how that works. We already know that Apple has assumed the right to determine which apps will be approved. In order to get into the store, that has to be agreed upon. A very few developers may not like that, but that's the way it is. It's not likely the courts would overturn that. Apple isn't acting as a regular store, which still has the right to refuse to sell whatever they want to.
If the iPhone/iTouch were the only devices to do what they do, then, possibly, the Justice department might be able to consider monopoly hearings. But as they aren't, that can't happen.
Apple's business conduct must conform to the same rules that all business' must, primarily not engaging in anti-competitive practices! The App-Store clearly is since it bars the the apps that compete with Apple's own services from ever reaching what is *supposed* to be an open software platform!
-Clive
Perhaps you should look up what exactly Apple is violating before stating that it is violating something.
It's not likely the courts would overturn that.
"Fart App vs.Apple, Inc."
I would love for that to groundbreaking legal case.
I don't anything about the comic book app, but the podcasting app looks to be an issue with the carrier network.
For instance, imagine the late afternoon of October 14th when Apple releases their video podcast of the Mac presentation. All my Apple presentations range from 747MB to 1.21GB. Now consider what would happen if potentially millions of iPhone and iPod Touch users start to DL this ~1GB file over the carrier's network.
It seems to me this is an issue with potential detriment to the carrier's network, nothing more.
I don't really buy that as being a big problem.
For one they could make the app Wifi only. That would eliminate carrier network totally.
For two we are free to download as much YouTube video as we want.
For three, websites already exist that allow streaming podcasts for the iPhone.
npr
Mobile Podcast USA
Some websites have embedded podcasts that can play on the iPhone such as MacWorld.com and mobile NYTimes has video podcasts for the iPhone. Mobile Podcast USA hosts all of Apple's presentations.
I cannot see a problem with an app that is able to consolidate these podcasts that already exist.
Apple bans a comic book, firestorm ensues
I don't really buy that as being a big problem.
For one they could make the app Wifi only. That would eliminate carrier network totally.
Maybe they can't make it WiFi only.
You can't unlock the EDGE iPhone without jailbreaking it first so I see that as an implied, but I know what you are saying and wondered if anyone would pick up on that point
Just caught your post. Jailbreaking and unlocking are two different activities. Thy are also used for two totally different purposes. There is no evidence that unlocked phones are widely used for jailbreaking purposes.
I don't really buy that as being a big problem.
For one they could make the app Wifi only. That would eliminate carrier network totally.
YouTube bitrates aren't that large and usually not long. According to the Podcaster blog it wasn't set to be WiFi only, but they did set a max limit fo 40MB. However, this is 4x the size Apple themselves allow for the App Store apps over the carrier's network and Podcaster stated that would lift the limit in the future. If you were Apple or a carrier under contract with Apple, you wouldn't have a problem with that? I certainly would.
BTW, I do have the Podcaster app but my decision to get does not mean I think Apple or any company should be forced to sell a product.
There is no evidence that unlocked phones are widely used for jailbreaking purposes.
Other way around. I am under the impression through my jailbreaking and unlocking over the past year that in order to unlock the phone via software, you first have to technically jailbreak it. TJust to be clear, the SIM spoofing unlockers are a different method altogether and not what I was referring to.
YouTube bitrates aren't that large and usually not long. According to the Podcaster blog it wasn't set to be WiFi only, but they did set a max limit fo 40MB. However, this is 4x the size Apple themselves allow for the App Store apps over the carrier's network and Podcaster stated that would lift the limit in the future. If you were Apple or a carrier under contract with Apple, you wouldn't have a problem with that? I certainly would.
If this was the point of contention. Why would Apple reject the app because it duplicated iTunes functionality instead of telling the developer it needs to be WiFi only.
BTW, I do have the Podcaster app but my decision to get does not mean I think Apple or any company should be forced to sell a product.
I'm sure you do. Because there is a need for such an app.
Apple has a contract with AT&T, yes but it is not Apple's job to be AT&T's guard dog. If AT&T doesn't have the bandwidth to support it, they should raise/change data pricing to affect those who use more of it.
There are ethical ways to recoup costs of users doing something off-the-radar with a free-reign platform. Some internet companies, for example, surcharge people who download over 250GB/month or some ridiculous amount.
The wrong way to do it is to stifle the free-market by killing consumer choice, like Apple has done.
These are two examples of apps that were shut down for the sole reason that they challenged preexisting systems of Apple and their partners. I suppose if I were to sell a MobileMe-like application to sync one's iPhone with their desktop would be canned as well? Why's that do you suppose? Because it challenge's Apple's existing service, perhaps?
That, my friends, is unethical.
-Clive