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 sell tethering for $30/month.
Netshare isn't a surprise. It clearly states in the AT&T contract no tethering. I was saying no app should violate carrier contracts.
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.
Very little unlocking involves jailbreaking in the way we are talking about jailbreaking. Also, I'll repeat, very few people who are interested in unlocking, seem to be interested in the jailbreaking aspects.
Those aspects are mostly used by the geeky crowd, either because it really means something to them, or to show off.
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?
That, my friends, is unethical.
-Clive
Actually, it is Apple's job. They have their agreements with AT&T, as well as all the other carriers around the world they're doing business with. Do you really think that all the other phone manufacturers restrict which of their features will work on specific networks haven't done so because the carriers require it? You think that's a choice if theirs ? You aren't that naive.
It's not likely that Apple's contract with these carriers doesn't say something about Apple not making, or allowing to be made, any application that would evade the carriers restrictions in regard to tethering.
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.
You are right Apple is free to allow or reject whatever it wants to the App store. At the same time Apple needs to wield a loose and liberal hand with how it holds the gateway. If the rules appear to unfairly and unexpectedly change will frustrate the developer community.
Apple could cost the iPhone and the end user some really good ideas and great apps by making developers feel gun shy about putting a lot of time into software that could be rejected because of some unforeseen or arbitrary reason. A situation like this is not good for Apple, the iPhone, or the end user.
You are right Apple is free to allow or reject whatever it wants to the App store. At the same time Apple needs to wield a loose and liberal hand with how it holds the gateway. If the rules appear to unfairly and unexpectedly change will frustrate the developer community.
Apple could cost the iPhone and the end user some really good ideas and great apps by making developers feel gun shy about putting a lot of time into software that could be rejected because of some unforeseen or arbitrary reason. A situation like this is not good for Apple, the iPhone, or the end user.
I won't agree with the posters who think Apple isn't allowed to control the apps the way they want, but I agree with you that they need to watch out how they deal with their developers. Apple's typical zero response policy seems to be detrimental here. I know they have replied to Podcaster, but I think they need to be very open about the exact reasons why they are not allowing the app. Perhaps even makes some recommendations as to what they can do to make it a legal app. IMO, this would go a long way to easing some weary developers' concerns.
You are right Apple is free to allow or reject whatever it wants to the App store. At the same time Apple needs to wield a loose and liberal hand with how it holds the gateway. If the rules appear to unfairly and unexpectedly change will frustrate the developer community.
Apple could cost the iPhone and the end user some really good ideas and great apps by making developers feel gun shy about putting a lot of time into software that could be rejected because of some unforeseen or arbitrary reason. A situation like this is not good for Apple, the iPhone, or the end user.
Ah! That's the crux of it though, isn't it?
I'm not saying that I agree with the way Apple is handling it, just the fact that they have the right to.
I'm not against apps that are in poor taste. My former partner would have loved a farting app. Sadly, thats the kind of guy he is.
I understand that Apple must not allow tethering apps, or any app that could cause problems, and that they should have the ability to remotely remove them. That doesn't bother me.
But Apple must show that they will only do this when required.
Is it a good thing to allow apps that will compete with Apple's own apps? Maybe. I realize that they have a problem with deciding that. Allow them now, and you can't disallow them later.
Like many things over the years, Apple might rethink this issue once things settle out.
I won't agree with the posters who think Apple isn't allowed to control the apps the way they want, but I agree with you that they need to watch out how they deal with their developers. Apple's typical zero response policy seems to be detrimental here. I know they have replied to Podcaster, but I think they need to be very open about the exact reasons why they are not allowing the app. Perhaps even makes some recommendations as to what they can do to make it a legal app. IMO, this would go a long way to easing some weary developers' concerns.
That's true too.
I understand that their policy is vague. That's what lawyers like. That way, nothing is off limits. A safety valve. Too specific, and you find you made a mistake that can't be easily corrected.
But, they should tell individual developers why they were excluded with that app.
They should also tell what won't be allowed, while also stating that they reserve the right to add other clauses later, if required.
But, they do give general areas now for exclusion. They should expand on that a bit.
Your smug matter-of-factness is annoyingly egotistical and makes civil dialog almost impossible (though with you, I expect that's what you were going for).
It's NOT Apple's job to body-guard AT&T's bandwidth, even if they do have a contract with them. It's Apple's job to not develop a tethering app for the iPhone... as well as provide a fair environment for developers so that if a 3rd party develops a violent comic book, a PodCasting app, or - heaven forbid - a tethering app, the consequences are for parents, Apple's software team, and AT&T to deal with, respectively.
Your smug matter-of-factness is annoyingly egotistical and makes civil dialog almost impossible (though with you, I expect that's what you were going for).
It's NOT Apple's job to body-guard AT&T's bandwidth, even if they do have a contract with them. It's Apple's job to not develop a tethering app for the iPhone... as well as provide a fair environment for developers so that if a 3rd party develops a violent comic book, a PodCasting app, or - heaven forbid - a tethering app, the consequences are for parents, Apple's software team, and AT&T to deal with, respectively.
-Clive
I'm sorry if you think I'm smug, but I sound no more so than you. Your statements are showing that you're pretty sure of yourself. I don't agree with you, and I'll say so.
I did say that I don't agree with the way Apple is handling this—except for apps such as tethering.
You seem so sure of yourself in this area. You say it's not their job to prevent tethering apps. I say you're wrong. Like it or not.
It's NOT Apple's job to body-guard AT&T's bandwidth, even if they do have a contract with them. It's Apple's job to not develop a tethering app for the iPhone... as well as provide a fair environment for developers so that if a 3rd party develops a violent comic book, a PodCasting app, or - heaven forbid - a tethering app, the consequences are for parents, Apple's software team, and AT&T to deal with, respectively.
If Apple did allow a tethering app through its app store and onto millions of phones. Exactly what is AT&T expected to do about fixing a situation that clearly violates its contract agreements.
Your smug matter-of-factness is annoyingly egotistical and makes civil dialog almost impossible (though with you, I expect that's what you were going for).
It's NOT Apple's job to body-guard AT&T's bandwidth, even if they do have a contract with them. It's Apple's job to not develop a tethering app for the iPhone... as well as provide a fair environment for developers so that if a 3rd party develops a violent comic book, a PodCasting app, or - heaven forbid - a tethering app, the consequences are for parents, Apple's software team, and AT&T to deal with, respectively.
-Clive
Not that you care, but I think you are way out of line here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
If Apple did allow a tethering app through its app store and onto millions of phones. Exactly what is AT&T expected to do about fixing a situation that clearly violates its contract agreements.
1) They can drop customer contracts if they are in violation and can prove it. This would mean your iPhone 3G would not work in the US and it would be your fault, but they would probably let you sign up again with #2.
2) They could increase the cost of the data plan to compensate. On top of my two AT&T iPhones I pay the standard $60/month for a 3G USB notebook for unhindered internet access.
3) They sue Apple for the damages they have endured by allowing a bandwidth hogging app to be distributed via the App Store.
1) They can drop customer contracts if they are in violation and can prove it. This would mean your iPhone 3G would not work in the US and it would be your fault, but they would probably let you sign up again with #2.
I've thought about that. How would they find out? This is a local use of the phone. I don't think anything gets back to AT&T in this.
Otherwise, it would be great for AT&T. Just state that if a tethering app is used, the customer will be charged AT&T's tethering charge.
Quote:
3) They sue Apple for the damages they have endured by allowing a bandwidth hogging app to be distributed via the App Store.
That's likely what would happen. But it would be for Apple aiding and allowing the violation of AT&T's contract with their customers.
Not that you care, but I think you are way out of line here.
No no, I do value the opinions of others, thank you for saying so. Perhaps I did take quite a jump, probably on account of watching Apple continually tightening the shackles on consumers, most notably the ones who have been their longest supporters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm sorry if you think I'm smug, but I sound no more so than you. Your statements are showing that you're pretty sure of yourself. I don't agree with you, and I'll say so.
I did say that I don't agree with the way Apple is handling this—except for apps such as tethering.
You seem so sure of yourself in this area. You say it's not their job to prevent tethering apps. I say you're wrong. Like it or not.
It was wrong of me to insult you, so for that I apologize. I think this is an issue upon which we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think I'm fighting more on the side of ethics and you're fighting more on the side of law. What's right legally isn't always what's right ethically and vice versa... So we'll never agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
If Apple did allow a tethering app through its app store and onto millions of phones. Exactly what is AT&T expected to do about fixing a situation that clearly violates its contract agreements.
Charge more to those who use more (bandwidth). Like I said earlier: There's an ethical way to recoup those costs... and stripping customers and other developers of choice is not that way.
It was wrong of me to insult you, so for that I apologize. I think this is an issue upon which we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think I'm fighting more on the side of ethics and you're fighting more on the side of law. What's right legally isn't always what's right ethically and vice versa... So we'll never agree.
No problem. It's the way I write. I like to make clear what I'm thinking.
What I've been saying is that I don't agree with much of what Apple is disallowng. But we have to be careful, because if Apple is oblicated to do this, they have no choice. That's how I see it.
In my response to Solipsism I mentioned that if these apps could "phone home", so to speak, then perhaps AT&T could automatically add the charges that they require. It's doubtful if they do, or even can.
Besides, the people buying them are doing so expressly so that they WON'T have to pay the charges, which is against their contract agreement.
No no, I do value the opinions of others, thank you for saying so. Perhaps I did take quite a jump, probably on account of watching Apple continually tightening the shackles on consumers, most notably the ones who have been their longest supporters.
I don't think any of use in this discussion think Apple isn't making some jackass moves. But we certainly disagree on what it considered a legal and illegal move here.
Quote:
Charge more to those who use more (bandwidth). Like I said earlier: There's an ethical way to recoup those costs... and stripping customers and other developers of choice is not that way.
AT&T will have a tough time actually proving who is using what. What would have to happen is the "unlimited data" for non-tethering phones wold have to go. They would have to figure out the high average a non-tethering iPhone uses and make the cap somewhere around there. Then they would have to either cut you off there, charge you a flat $30 additional fee to match their unlimited plans or start charging you my the MB for going over.
As I've stated, I dont't think Apple is in the wrong as their SDK clearly prohibits this action, as does the AT&T contract, but this would save me $30/month if I could consolidate my tethering into the iPhone.
Comments
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 sell tethering for $30/month.
Netshare isn't a surprise. It clearly states in the AT&T contract no tethering. I was saying no app should violate carrier contracts.
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.
Very little unlocking involves jailbreaking in the way we are talking about jailbreaking. Also, I'll repeat, very few people who are interested in unlocking, seem to be interested in the jailbreaking aspects.
Those aspects are mostly used by the geeky crowd, either because it really means something to them, or to show off.
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?
That, my friends, is unethical.
-Clive
Actually, it is Apple's job. They have their agreements with AT&T, as well as all the other carriers around the world they're doing business with. Do you really think that all the other phone manufacturers restrict which of their features will work on specific networks haven't done so because the carriers require it? You think that's a choice if theirs ? You aren't that naive.
It's not likely that Apple's contract with these carriers doesn't say something about Apple not making, or allowing to be made, any application that would evade the carriers restrictions in regard to tethering.
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.
You are right Apple is free to allow or reject whatever it wants to the App store. At the same time Apple needs to wield a loose and liberal hand with how it holds the gateway. If the rules appear to unfairly and unexpectedly change will frustrate the developer community.
Apple could cost the iPhone and the end user some really good ideas and great apps by making developers feel gun shy about putting a lot of time into software that could be rejected because of some unforeseen or arbitrary reason. A situation like this is not good for Apple, the iPhone, or the end user.
You are right Apple is free to allow or reject whatever it wants to the App store. At the same time Apple needs to wield a loose and liberal hand with how it holds the gateway. If the rules appear to unfairly and unexpectedly change will frustrate the developer community.
Apple could cost the iPhone and the end user some really good ideas and great apps by making developers feel gun shy about putting a lot of time into software that could be rejected because of some unforeseen or arbitrary reason. A situation like this is not good for Apple, the iPhone, or the end user.
I won't agree with the posters who think Apple isn't allowed to control the apps the way they want, but I agree with you that they need to watch out how they deal with their developers. Apple's typical zero response policy seems to be detrimental here. I know they have replied to Podcaster, but I think they need to be very open about the exact reasons why they are not allowing the app. Perhaps even makes some recommendations as to what they can do to make it a legal app. IMO, this would go a long way to easing some weary developers' concerns.
You are right Apple is free to allow or reject whatever it wants to the App store. At the same time Apple needs to wield a loose and liberal hand with how it holds the gateway. If the rules appear to unfairly and unexpectedly change will frustrate the developer community.
Apple could cost the iPhone and the end user some really good ideas and great apps by making developers feel gun shy about putting a lot of time into software that could be rejected because of some unforeseen or arbitrary reason. A situation like this is not good for Apple, the iPhone, or the end user.
Ah! That's the crux of it though, isn't it?
I'm not saying that I agree with the way Apple is handling it, just the fact that they have the right to.
I'm not against apps that are in poor taste. My former partner would have loved a farting app. Sadly, thats the kind of guy he is.
I understand that Apple must not allow tethering apps, or any app that could cause problems, and that they should have the ability to remotely remove them. That doesn't bother me.
But Apple must show that they will only do this when required.
Is it a good thing to allow apps that will compete with Apple's own apps? Maybe. I realize that they have a problem with deciding that. Allow them now, and you can't disallow them later.
Like many things over the years, Apple might rethink this issue once things settle out.
I won't agree with the posters who think Apple isn't allowed to control the apps the way they want, but I agree with you that they need to watch out how they deal with their developers. Apple's typical zero response policy seems to be detrimental here. I know they have replied to Podcaster, but I think they need to be very open about the exact reasons why they are not allowing the app. Perhaps even makes some recommendations as to what they can do to make it a legal app. IMO, this would go a long way to easing some weary developers' concerns.
That's true too.
I understand that their policy is vague. That's what lawyers like. That way, nothing is off limits. A safety valve. Too specific, and you find you made a mistake that can't be easily corrected.
But, they should tell individual developers why they were excluded with that app.
They should also tell what won't be allowed, while also stating that they reserve the right to add other clauses later, if required.
But, they do give general areas now for exclusion. They should expand on that a bit.
Actually, it is Apple's job...
Your smug matter-of-factness is annoyingly egotistical and makes civil dialog almost impossible (though with you, I expect that's what you were going for).
It's NOT Apple's job to body-guard AT&T's bandwidth, even if they do have a contract with them. It's Apple's job to not develop a tethering app for the iPhone... as well as provide a fair environment for developers so that if a 3rd party develops a violent comic book, a PodCasting app, or - heaven forbid - a tethering app, the consequences are for parents, Apple's software team, and AT&T to deal with, respectively.
-Clive
Your smug matter-of-factness is annoyingly egotistical and makes civil dialog almost impossible (though with you, I expect that's what you were going for).
It's NOT Apple's job to body-guard AT&T's bandwidth, even if they do have a contract with them. It's Apple's job to not develop a tethering app for the iPhone... as well as provide a fair environment for developers so that if a 3rd party develops a violent comic book, a PodCasting app, or - heaven forbid - a tethering app, the consequences are for parents, Apple's software team, and AT&T to deal with, respectively.
-Clive
I'm sorry if you think I'm smug, but I sound no more so than you. Your statements are showing that you're pretty sure of yourself. I don't agree with you, and I'll say so.
I did say that I don't agree with the way Apple is handling this—except for apps such as tethering.
You seem so sure of yourself in this area. You say it's not their job to prevent tethering apps. I say you're wrong. Like it or not.
It's NOT Apple's job to body-guard AT&T's bandwidth, even if they do have a contract with them. It's Apple's job to not develop a tethering app for the iPhone... as well as provide a fair environment for developers so that if a 3rd party develops a violent comic book, a PodCasting app, or - heaven forbid - a tethering app, the consequences are for parents, Apple's software team, and AT&T to deal with, respectively.
If Apple did allow a tethering app through its app store and onto millions of phones. Exactly what is AT&T expected to do about fixing a situation that clearly violates its contract agreements.
Your smug matter-of-factness is annoyingly egotistical and makes civil dialog almost impossible (though with you, I expect that's what you were going for).
It's NOT Apple's job to body-guard AT&T's bandwidth, even if they do have a contract with them. It's Apple's job to not develop a tethering app for the iPhone... as well as provide a fair environment for developers so that if a 3rd party develops a violent comic book, a PodCasting app, or - heaven forbid - a tethering app, the consequences are for parents, Apple's software team, and AT&T to deal with, respectively.
-Clive
Not that you care, but I think you are way out of line here.
If Apple did allow a tethering app through its app store and onto millions of phones. Exactly what is AT&T expected to do about fixing a situation that clearly violates its contract agreements.
1) They can drop customer contracts if they are in violation and can prove it. This would mean your iPhone 3G would not work in the US and it would be your fault, but they would probably let you sign up again with #2.
2) They could increase the cost of the data plan to compensate. On top of my two AT&T iPhones I pay the standard $60/month for a 3G USB notebook for unhindered internet access.
3) They sue Apple for the damages they have endured by allowing a bandwidth hogging app to be distributed via the App Store.
1) They can drop customer contracts if they are in violation and can prove it. This would mean your iPhone 3G would not work in the US and it would be your fault, but they would probably let you sign up again with #2.
I've thought about that. How would they find out? This is a local use of the phone. I don't think anything gets back to AT&T in this.
Otherwise, it would be great for AT&T. Just state that if a tethering app is used, the customer will be charged AT&T's tethering charge.
3) They sue Apple for the damages they have endured by allowing a bandwidth hogging app to be distributed via the App Store.
That's likely what would happen. But it would be for Apple aiding and allowing the violation of AT&T's contract with their customers.
Not that you care, but I think you are way out of line here.
No no, I do value the opinions of others, thank you for saying so. Perhaps I did take quite a jump, probably on account of watching Apple continually tightening the shackles on consumers, most notably the ones who have been their longest supporters.
I'm sorry if you think I'm smug, but I sound no more so than you. Your statements are showing that you're pretty sure of yourself. I don't agree with you, and I'll say so.
I did say that I don't agree with the way Apple is handling this—except for apps such as tethering.
You seem so sure of yourself in this area. You say it's not their job to prevent tethering apps. I say you're wrong. Like it or not.
It was wrong of me to insult you, so for that I apologize. I think this is an issue upon which we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think I'm fighting more on the side of ethics and you're fighting more on the side of law. What's right legally isn't always what's right ethically and vice versa... So we'll never agree.
If Apple did allow a tethering app through its app store and onto millions of phones. Exactly what is AT&T expected to do about fixing a situation that clearly violates its contract agreements.
Charge more to those who use more (bandwidth). Like I said earlier: There's an ethical way to recoup those costs... and stripping customers and other developers of choice is not that way.
-Clive
It was wrong of me to insult you, so for that I apologize. I think this is an issue upon which we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think I'm fighting more on the side of ethics and you're fighting more on the side of law. What's right legally isn't always what's right ethically and vice versa... So we'll never agree.
No problem. It's the way I write. I like to make clear what I'm thinking.
What I've been saying is that I don't agree with much of what Apple is disallowng. But we have to be careful, because if Apple is oblicated to do this, they have no choice. That's how I see it.
In my response to Solipsism I mentioned that if these apps could "phone home", so to speak, then perhaps AT&T could automatically add the charges that they require. It's doubtful if they do, or even can.
Besides, the people buying them are doing so expressly so that they WON'T have to pay the charges, which is against their contract agreement.
No no, I do value the opinions of others, thank you for saying so. Perhaps I did take quite a jump, probably on account of watching Apple continually tightening the shackles on consumers, most notably the ones who have been their longest supporters.
I don't think any of use in this discussion think Apple isn't making some jackass moves. But we certainly disagree on what it considered a legal and illegal move here.
Charge more to those who use more (bandwidth). Like I said earlier: There's an ethical way to recoup those costs... and stripping customers and other developers of choice is not that way.
AT&T will have a tough time actually proving who is using what. What would have to happen is the "unlimited data" for non-tethering phones wold have to go. They would have to figure out the high average a non-tethering iPhone uses and make the cap somewhere around there. Then they would have to either cut you off there, charge you a flat $30 additional fee to match their unlimited plans or start charging you my the MB for going over.
As I've stated, I dont't think Apple is in the wrong as their SDK clearly prohibits this action, as does the AT&T contract, but this would save me $30/month if I could consolidate my tethering into the iPhone.