Will you please give some examples of these apps being stifled and/or
otherwise give some basis for your assertion? It sounds like you are
saying that there is a correlation between being innovative and needing
to ignore Apple's rules for participating in the App store. Also, do you
believe that wanting to make a buck and being innovative are mutually
exclusive?
No. The tighter the control and restriction there is on what you can do or even THINK the less innovation there will be period! There is nothing to debate on that point.
Examples of apps being stifled? Have you been paying attention hello? I'm not even going to answer that one.
And who said someone needed to ignore Apple's rules? I'm saying Apple needs to re-evaulate their rules to make sure they are not being too restrictive.
By the letter of that contract, hadn't ad-hoc distribution been explicitly considered a legitimate alternative means of distribution in certain circumstances?
If so, then exactly what circumstances were required for ad-hoc distribution to be permissible? Conversely, what actions constituted failure to meet the requirements for legitimate ad-hoc distribution?
As I understood it*, Apple's Ad Hoc method was for two purposes.
1. For developer teams to distribute apps internally for testing purposes.
2. Mainly for large organizations to distribute closed, organization-specific apps to their employees for use internally within a company.
I never read anywhere that it was suggested that it was going to be a back-door method of allowing developers to bypass the App Store and sell their apps to the public.
*Yes I am a developer. No, I do not have my agreements right in front of me. And I couldn't talk about them with you if I did, anyway (I don't think)
1- Apple hosts your app for free if you are willing to offer it for free, and that is very generous, because you don't have to pay for maintaing a website or try to generate traffic to your site.
2- If you decide to charge money for the app then Apple keeps 30% of that price. Which is also very generous because you don't have to maintain an ecommerce website or spend lots of time, energy, and money advertising, and if you spoke with anyone who worked on Google Click Ads they'll tell you "IT'S NOT CHEAP".
Well... Almerica attempted to circumvent Apple's 30% slice by pretending that the app is for FREE to get the free hosting, then the app would request you to make a payment on Almerica's website.
I don't do software, but my web store costs, including merchant card fees, Google Adsense advertising and the web store service cost about 10% of the sale price. Hosting costs for me is pretty trivial as well, I think I get up to 75GB of transfer for $7.50/mo.
That said, that's a pretty shaky work-around. I wonder if Apple would even allow something like an MMO game, where you might buy the software, but you still need to pay a subscription service to keep your account active.
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie
It certainly is not. That is converting or translating data and displaying the results, nothing to do with third-party code. Too many armchair programmers and lawyers in this thread.
I don't think it's so certain. I've seen and heard plenty of programmers refer to HTML and XML as code.
Interesting how some of you "developers" are for it or against this type of behavior from Apple. Even more interesting are the ones for it, agreeing with Apple even through they never give any official/logical reason on banning the app from A-store. Come on, similar functions to their apps isn't good enough. Apple is leaving an opening for Google's Android...this will be interesting.
In may years of dealing with Apple on many issues, it has always been my experience that if you go about making your case in a civil verifiable manner and genuinely are reasonable, Apple will do the right thing. I have had countless customer satisfaction and technical issues satisfied.
On the other hand, any legal settlement with Apple most likely comes with an NDA, (and they're not unique in this) so you can't actually talk about when reason and civility were not enough to resolve a dispute.
An NDA is the ULTIMATE legal contract. Every EULA should have one.
I refer to the podcast app, it is a feature iphone sorely lacks and needs. It does not compete with Apple apps, it complements them: furthermore, if the stated problem with the app was abuse of bandwidth, I would not have had a problem with the block, I get it, the phone company doesn't want me using their 3g network to download 2GB of podcasts per week (which brings us to a completely different argument about the meaning of words like unlimited) The reason given for the block of the podcast app is the issue, not the fact that it was in fact blocked.
I don't know what reason you're referring to when you say you have a problem with the reason reported. I thought the reason was, they violated the agreement they signed.
Period.
So why would this app be a problem?
Because it can be used to violate ownership issues with content it can download.
(and that could end in Apple being sued out of existance)
Now, if you think it's somehow in the best interest of Apple to take that kind of liability to help out a little Applet on it's handest, forget it.
Keep in mind, the iPhone does not support turn-by-turn navigation on maps.
And everybody went nuts and complained.
Then we see Google coming out with their own OS that is supposed to be wide open and un-fettered development to spur inovation. (Google, you know, the Google Map People)
But Android and Google are suppressing and not allowing turn by turn navigation!
Why?
Exactly the same reason Apple has a problem with an App that can download any copied or unlicensed MP3 file onto a platform with their OS.
This is not a big deal, it's a licensing problem and develpoers know that when they go down these kinds of paths.
I know users may want everything for free, and any one developer to be able to steal or copy another's property so we can have inovation but thank god the world doesn't work that way.
as a shade-tree programmer, looking at cell platforms to toy with, this is a huge strike against Apple for me: I could spend months developing a great app just to be blocked from the marketplace because Apple decides to based on some mysterious standard? and hey, as if that werent enough of a reason, a java app will work on BB and android, Obj-c is iphone only...and frankly, xcode sucks: so why dev for the iphone again?
as a user of the iphone platform, this is frustrating, I want podcasting in the iphone, there is no acceptable excuse why it was left out, and blocking that app was unforgivable.
Apple is on the verge of "jumping the shark" they are treading on MS mid 90s territory here. ala killing netscape as it was a competitor to its own product.
I don't get it though. Why is Apple keeping people from developing for the iphone and ipod touch applications that would truly solidfiy the platform for the long term future?
I'm a Software Engineer by trade but not an iPhone developer...
This whole issue is painting Apple in a bad light! I really like Apple products (8 iPods(1 touch), Apple TV, 4 Macs in my family of five) but this issue with them pulling apps without explanation and using a NDA to keep people from discussing issues is really bothering me. I've wanted an iPhone since they came out but have not been able to justify the expense, especially since the 3G came out. I'm loosing a lot of respect for how they are handling this situation! I understand that they have not done anything illegal and have a right to do what they do... It just leaves a very bad taste towards Apple over this.
I'm loosing some respect for the company because of how they are handling this!
I don't get it though. Why is Apple keeping people from developing for the iphone and ipod touch applications that would truly solidfiy the platform for the long term future?
Easy.
Consider building an application for the iPhone, that will stream NBC content for free.
Now, the content I'm going to stream is also available for sale on iTunes.
That content, from iTunes, provides a revenue stream to Apple and also to the actual owner of the content..... NBC.
Apple has an agreement with NBC over that content.
Apple also has an agreement with me as a developer.
These agreements are meant to keep us all protected and safe.
Now, YOU seem to want to spur "inovation" by allowing me to stream content owned by others for free, in the face of the litigation that it would cause to Apple.
Stealing other people's content and supplying it for free is not inovation.
It's stealing.
The podcast system described can download a lot more than just a podcast and doesn't deal with ownership issues.
NOTE: If you substitute iTunes and NBC above for an example that would be a company providing material via Amazon or some other outlet it doesn't change anything. Apple is not in the business of destroying intellectual property rights or copyright infringment.
If that's the inovation you're looking for, you won't find it here or on Android.
What i dont understand is how they could miss this blatant opportunity.
An app is submitted that either has "limited functionality", competes with one of apples technologies, or they simply dont like it.
Instead of just rejecting it have a special section for them.
Currently to my understanding apple takes 30% of sales from "approved" application.
so apple should allow the application developer the choice of either having the application rejected completly or put on "probation".
Applications on "probation" would be placed in a special category of the app store where they would be sold for the price set by the developer but apple would take an increased cut, say 50% of sales from the application for period of time, say 1 month.
After that one month is up apple could re-screen the application, if it met a goal (5,000 downloads) it would then be placed in the standard section of the app store and apples cut would be reduced to 30%, if it didnt meet that goal the developer would be given the choice of either having the application de-listed or remain in the app store still on probation.
This way apple gets an increased revenue cut for the determined ammount of time, and the application has a chance to prove itself.
sure it would suck to have apple tking an extra 20% but if it was my application and i had enough faith in it, and the revue process was fair then i would certinaly be willing to give it a shot.
alos it makes the legal situation a little better, right?
Just because you can get media streams, doesn't mean you are stealing them. \
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington
Easy.
Consider building an application for the iPhone, that will stream NBC content for free.
Now, the content I'm going to stream is also available for sale on iTunes.
That content, from iTunes, provides a revenue stream to Apple and also to the actual owner of the content..... NBC.
Apple has an agreement with NBC over that content.
Apple also has an agreement with me as a developer.
These agreements are meant to keep us all protected and safe.
Now, YOU seem to want to spur "inovation" by allowing me to stream content owned by others for free, in the face of the litigation that it would cause to Apple.
Stealing other people's content and supplying it for free is not inovation.
It's stealing.
The podcast system described can download a lot more than just a podcast and doesn't deal with ownership issues.
NOTE: If you substitute iTunes and NBC above for an example that would be a company providing material via Amazon or some other outlet it doesn't change anything. Apple is not in the business of destroying intellectual property rights or copyright infringment.
If that's the inovation you're looking for, you won't find it here or on Android.
By the letter of that contract, hadn't ad-hoc distribution been explicitly considered a legitimate alternative means of distribution in certain circumstances?
If so, then exactly what circumstances were required for ad-hoc distribution to be permissible? Conversely, what actions constituted failure to meet the requirements for legitimate ad-hoc distribution?
No
Before you assume anything else, sign up for the iPhone SDK and read the NDA. You will see that agreeing to its terms, you can not use the SDK to develop an iPhone app and distribute it by any other means than via the iTunes store.
You can develop an iPhone app without agreeing to the NDA, without using any part of the SDK, or without any knowledge you may have acquired from viewing/using anothers' SDK, and you can do anything your little heart's desire with it. Except, that is, distribute it via the iTunes store. And provided that you don't infringe on any of the more than 200 patents that are intrinsic to the iPhone.
If you code like you post then your apps are absolute shit.
It's getting seriously tiresome watching some of these developers circle jerk each other and diss anybody who happens to disagree with them. I'm willing to bet that 99% of these rejects produce nothing or total crapware. What they really want is total coding freedom and no oversight whatsoever so they can foist their dubious apps on an unsuspecting public and get away with it. Apparently many of these anarchists can't even read the licensing agreement, yet they're ready to jump on the coding freedom bandwagon because they read a rant on slashdot or someplace.
I'll like to commend Apple for a job well done, these crybaby developers crying to the press and trying to get symphathy because they got rejected need to be put in their place, it's like corporations have no rights in this modern world.
If you code like you post then your apps are absolute shit.
It's getting seriously tiresome watching some of these developers circle jerk each other and diss anybody who happens to disagree with them. I'm willing to bet that 99% of these rejects produce nothing or total crapware. What they really want is total coding freedom and no oversight whatsoever so they can foist their dubious apps on an unsuspecting public and get away with it. Apparently many of these anarchists can't even read the licensing agreement, yet they're ready to jump on the coding freedom bandwagon because they read a rant on slashdot or someplace.
Well if they don't want to develop for the iphone, there's always Android, that's supposed to be free, a developer's dream, whatever that means.
Before you assume anything else, sign up for the iPhone SDK and read the NDA. You will see that agreeing to its terms, you can not use the SDK to develop an iPhone app and distribute it by any other means than via the iTunes store.
You can develop an iPhone app without agreeing to the NDA, without using any part of the SDK, or without any knowledge you may have acquired from viewing/using anothers' SDK, and you can do anything your little heart's desire with it. Except, that is, distribute it via the iTunes store. And provided that you don't infringe on any of the more than 200 patents that are intrinsic to the iPhone.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as though I was making totally unsubstantiated assumptions. I was simply working from Steve Job's public references to the ad-hoc distribution method back at the SDK announcement event.
I am curious as to exactly how that distribution method, announced right out of Steve Jobs' lips, is intended to be applied. Or, as the case may be, whether Apple might have decided to retract that option without fanfare.
Apple starts to become more and more like Microsoft.
It seems the more successful a company gets the more greedy and control-freakishier they get...
I understand that the AppStore shouldn't contain malware. Therefore they like to control whats sold there. But first of all there is no use for a NDA except for eliminating open source groups from forming. Also rejecting software because they think a user might not want it is also not their place to dictate.
They should make their AppStore for premium apps that are checked for not being malware. They should introduce a second way to install software, that everyone can use to install software on their iPhones. Open Source or small apps could just be downloaded from their websites (as in the PC world). If they are malware its the users fault not Apples.
Controling the total software market for their iPhone is just a joke and there is not a single valid argument to back it except for being greedy and wanting to control everything.
I'm starting to get more and more disappointed by Apple. Their image of being the good guys that like to create well working easy to use software and good reliable hardware for competitive prices is more and more falling apart.
These days I think its more like they create good stuff with nice features for hillariously high prices that essentially put the user into the Apple Jail, while at the same time lowering manpower on their PC section.
Stop going along that path, Apple.
The quality of the PC section products has been steadily dropping. The current MacBook is worse than the iBook you could buy a few years ago quality wise. The 20" iMac has a TN display without making any annoucement. Apple is supposed to deliver premium quality not sub-par. The operating system hasn't been working as flawlessly as it used to before the Intel switch. They should get those things fixed and stop wasting all their time with the iPhone line of products, and building a new Microsoft like empire there..
Apple starts to become more and more like Microsoft.
It seems the more successful a company gets the more greedy and control-freakishier they get...
I understand that the AppStore shouldn't contain malware. Therefore they like to control whats sold there. But first of all there is no use for a NDA except for eliminating open source groups from forming. Also rejecting software because they think a user might not want it is also not their place to dictate.
They should make their AppStore for premium apps that are checked for not being malware. They should introduce a second way to install software, that everyone can use to install software on their iPhones. Open Source or small apps could just be downloaded from their websites (as in the PC world). If they are malware its the users fault not Apples.
Controling the total software market for their iPhone is just a joke and there is not a single valid argument to back it except for being greedy and wanting to control everything.
I'm starting to get more and more disappointed by Apple. Their image of being the good guys that like to create well working easy to use software and good reliable hardware for competitive prices is more and more falling apart.
These days I think its more like they create good stuff with nice features for hillariously high prices that essentially put the user into the Apple Jail, while at the same time lowering manpower on their PC section.
Stop going along that path, Apple.
The quality of the PC section products has been steadily dropping. The current MacBook is worse than the iBook you could buy a few years ago quality wise. The 20" iMac has a TN display without making any annoucement. Apple is supposed to deliver premium quality not sub-par. The operating system hasn't been working as flawlessly as it used to before the Intel switch. They should get those things fixed and stop wasting all their time with the iPhone line of products, and building a new Microsoft like empire there..
Well, I guess you're going to LOVE the porn machine from HTC.
Well, I guess you're going to LOVE the porn machine from HTC.
The HTC doesn't look like quality, no. But the Android concept is superior to Apples strategy. And I doubt Apple will continue to be hugley successful without changing it once Android has arrived and there are good handsets for it.
The only reason why Apple is currently succesful is because they stirred up the stale handset hardware and UI market. Once the others have caught up, Apple won't have a chance with their closed/controlled/NDAed market model.
Comments
Will you please give some examples of these apps being stifled and/or
otherwise give some basis for your assertion? It sounds like you are
saying that there is a correlation between being innovative and needing
to ignore Apple's rules for participating in the App store. Also, do you
believe that wanting to make a buck and being innovative are mutually
exclusive?
No. The tighter the control and restriction there is on what you can do or even THINK the less innovation there will be period! There is nothing to debate on that point.
Examples of apps being stifled? Have you been paying attention hello? I'm not even going to answer that one.
And who said someone needed to ignore Apple's rules? I'm saying Apple needs to re-evaulate their rules to make sure they are not being too restrictive.
By the letter of that contract, hadn't ad-hoc distribution been explicitly considered a legitimate alternative means of distribution in certain circumstances?
If so, then exactly what circumstances were required for ad-hoc distribution to be permissible? Conversely, what actions constituted failure to meet the requirements for legitimate ad-hoc distribution?
As I understood it*, Apple's Ad Hoc method was for two purposes.
1. For developer teams to distribute apps internally for testing purposes.
2. Mainly for large organizations to distribute closed, organization-specific apps to their employees for use internally within a company.
I never read anywhere that it was suggested that it was going to be a back-door method of allowing developers to bypass the App Store and sell their apps to the public.
*Yes I am a developer. No, I do not have my agreements right in front of me. And I couldn't talk about them with you if I did, anyway (I don't think)
I don't see Apple doing anything wrong here. Why?
1- Apple hosts your app for free if you are willing to offer it for free, and that is very generous, because you don't have to pay for maintaing a website or try to generate traffic to your site.
2- If you decide to charge money for the app then Apple keeps 30% of that price. Which is also very generous because you don't have to maintain an ecommerce website or spend lots of time, energy, and money advertising, and if you spoke with anyone who worked on Google Click Ads they'll tell you "IT'S NOT CHEAP".
Well... Almerica attempted to circumvent Apple's 30% slice by pretending that the app is for FREE to get the free hosting, then the app would request you to make a payment on Almerica's website.
I don't do software, but my web store costs, including merchant card fees, Google Adsense advertising and the web store service cost about 10% of the sale price. Hosting costs for me is pretty trivial as well, I think I get up to 75GB of transfer for $7.50/mo.
That said, that's a pretty shaky work-around. I wonder if Apple would even allow something like an MMO game, where you might buy the software, but you still need to pay a subscription service to keep your account active.
It certainly is not. That is converting or translating data and displaying the results, nothing to do with third-party code. Too many armchair programmers and lawyers in this thread.
I don't think it's so certain. I've seen and heard plenty of programmers refer to HTML and XML as code.
An example from Peach-Pit:
http://www.peachpit.com/store/produc...sbn=0321559673
I've found quite a few articles on O'Reilly using "code" with XML.
In may years of dealing with Apple on many issues, it has always been my experience that if you go about making your case in a civil verifiable manner and genuinely are reasonable, Apple will do the right thing. I have had countless customer satisfaction and technical issues satisfied.
On the other hand, any legal settlement with Apple most likely comes with an NDA, (and they're not unique in this) so you can't actually talk about when reason and civility were not enough to resolve a dispute.
An NDA is the ULTIMATE legal contract. Every EULA should have one.
I refer to the podcast app, it is a feature iphone sorely lacks and needs. It does not compete with Apple apps, it complements them: furthermore, if the stated problem with the app was abuse of bandwidth, I would not have had a problem with the block, I get it, the phone company doesn't want me using their 3g network to download 2GB of podcasts per week (which brings us to a completely different argument about the meaning of words like unlimited) The reason given for the block of the podcast app is the issue, not the fact that it was in fact blocked.
I don't know what reason you're referring to when you say you have a problem with the reason reported. I thought the reason was, they violated the agreement they signed.
Period.
So why would this app be a problem?
Because it can be used to violate ownership issues with content it can download.
(and that could end in Apple being sued out of existance)
Now, if you think it's somehow in the best interest of Apple to take that kind of liability to help out a little Applet on it's handest, forget it.
Keep in mind, the iPhone does not support turn-by-turn navigation on maps.
And everybody went nuts and complained.
Then we see Google coming out with their own OS that is supposed to be wide open and un-fettered development to spur inovation. (Google, you know, the Google Map People)
But Android and Google are suppressing and not allowing turn by turn navigation!
Why?
Exactly the same reason Apple has a problem with an App that can download any copied or unlicensed MP3 file onto a platform with their OS.
This is not a big deal, it's a licensing problem and develpoers know that when they go down these kinds of paths.
I know users may want everything for free, and any one developer to be able to steal or copy another's property so we can have inovation but thank god the world doesn't work that way.
as a shade-tree programmer, looking at cell platforms to toy with, this is a huge strike against Apple for me: I could spend months developing a great app just to be blocked from the marketplace because Apple decides to based on some mysterious standard? and hey, as if that werent enough of a reason, a java app will work on BB and android, Obj-c is iphone only...and frankly, xcode sucks: so why dev for the iphone again?
as a user of the iphone platform, this is frustrating, I want podcasting in the iphone, there is no acceptable excuse why it was left out, and blocking that app was unforgivable.
Apple is on the verge of "jumping the shark" they are treading on MS mid 90s territory here. ala killing netscape as it was a competitor to its own product.
I don't get it though. Why is Apple keeping people from developing for the iphone and ipod touch applications that would truly solidfiy the platform for the long term future?
This whole issue is painting Apple in a bad light! I really like Apple products (8 iPods(1 touch), Apple TV, 4 Macs in my family of five) but this issue with them pulling apps without explanation and using a NDA to keep people from discussing issues is really bothering me. I've wanted an iPhone since they came out but have not been able to justify the expense, especially since the 3G came out. I'm loosing a lot of respect for how they are handling this situation! I understand that they have not done anything illegal and have a right to do what they do... It just leaves a very bad taste towards Apple over this.
I'm loosing some respect for the company because of how they are handling this!
A concerned Apple fan!
Krreagan
I don't get it though. Why is Apple keeping people from developing for the iphone and ipod touch applications that would truly solidfiy the platform for the long term future?
Easy.
Consider building an application for the iPhone, that will stream NBC content for free.
Now, the content I'm going to stream is also available for sale on iTunes.
That content, from iTunes, provides a revenue stream to Apple and also to the actual owner of the content..... NBC.
Apple has an agreement with NBC over that content.
Apple also has an agreement with me as a developer.
These agreements are meant to keep us all protected and safe.
Now, YOU seem to want to spur "inovation" by allowing me to stream content owned by others for free, in the face of the litigation that it would cause to Apple.
Stealing other people's content and supplying it for free is not inovation.
It's stealing.
The podcast system described can download a lot more than just a podcast and doesn't deal with ownership issues.
NOTE: If you substitute iTunes and NBC above for an example that would be a company providing material via Amazon or some other outlet it doesn't change anything. Apple is not in the business of destroying intellectual property rights or copyright infringment.
If that's the inovation you're looking for, you won't find it here or on Android.
I guess i can understand that.
What i dont understand is how they could miss this blatant opportunity.
An app is submitted that either has "limited functionality", competes with one of apples technologies, or they simply dont like it.
Instead of just rejecting it have a special section for them.
Currently to my understanding apple takes 30% of sales from "approved" application.
so apple should allow the application developer the choice of either having the application rejected completly or put on "probation".
Applications on "probation" would be placed in a special category of the app store where they would be sold for the price set by the developer but apple would take an increased cut, say 50% of sales from the application for period of time, say 1 month.
After that one month is up apple could re-screen the application, if it met a goal (5,000 downloads) it would then be placed in the standard section of the app store and apples cut would be reduced to 30%, if it didnt meet that goal the developer would be given the choice of either having the application de-listed or remain in the app store still on probation.
This way apple gets an increased revenue cut for the determined ammount of time, and the application has a chance to prove itself.
sure it would suck to have apple tking an extra 20% but if it was my application and i had enough faith in it, and the revue process was fair then i would certinaly be willing to give it a shot.
alos it makes the legal situation a little better, right?
Easy.
Consider building an application for the iPhone, that will stream NBC content for free.
Now, the content I'm going to stream is also available for sale on iTunes.
That content, from iTunes, provides a revenue stream to Apple and also to the actual owner of the content..... NBC.
Apple has an agreement with NBC over that content.
Apple also has an agreement with me as a developer.
These agreements are meant to keep us all protected and safe.
Now, YOU seem to want to spur "inovation" by allowing me to stream content owned by others for free, in the face of the litigation that it would cause to Apple.
Stealing other people's content and supplying it for free is not inovation.
It's stealing.
The podcast system described can download a lot more than just a podcast and doesn't deal with ownership issues.
NOTE: If you substitute iTunes and NBC above for an example that would be a company providing material via Amazon or some other outlet it doesn't change anything. Apple is not in the business of destroying intellectual property rights or copyright infringment.
If that's the inovation you're looking for, you won't find it here or on Android.
Just because you can get media streams, doesn't mean you are stealing them.
Just because it's marketed as media streams that are not owned or licensed by anyone else doesn't mean that's all it can do.
If it was limited to THAT, I don't think we'd have an issue.
By the letter of that contract, hadn't ad-hoc distribution been explicitly considered a legitimate alternative means of distribution in certain circumstances?
If so, then exactly what circumstances were required for ad-hoc distribution to be permissible? Conversely, what actions constituted failure to meet the requirements for legitimate ad-hoc distribution?
No
Before you assume anything else, sign up for the iPhone SDK and read the NDA. You will see that agreeing to its terms, you can not use the SDK to develop an iPhone app and distribute it by any other means than via the iTunes store.
You can develop an iPhone app without agreeing to the NDA, without using any part of the SDK, or without any knowledge you may have acquired from viewing/using anothers' SDK, and you can do anything your little heart's desire with it. Except, that is, distribute it via the iTunes store. And provided that you don't infringe on any of the more than 200 patents that are intrinsic to the iPhone.
Hey Apple, I hope you're listening:
F you.
Please stop screwing your developers.
Once again, f you.
If you code like you post then your apps are absolute shit.
It's getting seriously tiresome watching some of these developers circle jerk each other and diss anybody who happens to disagree with them. I'm willing to bet that 99% of these rejects produce nothing or total crapware. What they really want is total coding freedom and no oversight whatsoever so they can foist their dubious apps on an unsuspecting public and get away with it. Apparently many of these anarchists can't even read the licensing agreement, yet they're ready to jump on the coding freedom bandwagon because they read a rant on slashdot or someplace.
If you code like you post then your apps are absolute shit.
It's getting seriously tiresome watching some of these developers circle jerk each other and diss anybody who happens to disagree with them. I'm willing to bet that 99% of these rejects produce nothing or total crapware. What they really want is total coding freedom and no oversight whatsoever so they can foist their dubious apps on an unsuspecting public and get away with it. Apparently many of these anarchists can't even read the licensing agreement, yet they're ready to jump on the coding freedom bandwagon because they read a rant on slashdot or someplace.
Well if they don't want to develop for the iphone, there's always Android, that's supposed to be free, a developer's dream, whatever that means.
No
Before you assume anything else, sign up for the iPhone SDK and read the NDA. You will see that agreeing to its terms, you can not use the SDK to develop an iPhone app and distribute it by any other means than via the iTunes store.
You can develop an iPhone app without agreeing to the NDA, without using any part of the SDK, or without any knowledge you may have acquired from viewing/using anothers' SDK, and you can do anything your little heart's desire with it. Except, that is, distribute it via the iTunes store. And provided that you don't infringe on any of the more than 200 patents that are intrinsic to the iPhone.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as though I was making totally unsubstantiated assumptions. I was simply working from Steve Job's public references to the ad-hoc distribution method back at the SDK announcement event.
I am curious as to exactly how that distribution method, announced right out of Steve Jobs' lips, is intended to be applied. Or, as the case may be, whether Apple might have decided to retract that option without fanfare.
Apple starts to become more and more like Microsoft.
It seems the more successful a company gets the more greedy and control-freakishier they get...
I understand that the AppStore shouldn't contain malware. Therefore they like to control whats sold there. But first of all there is no use for a NDA except for eliminating open source groups from forming. Also rejecting software because they think a user might not want it is also not their place to dictate.
They should make their AppStore for premium apps that are checked for not being malware. They should introduce a second way to install software, that everyone can use to install software on their iPhones. Open Source or small apps could just be downloaded from their websites (as in the PC world). If they are malware its the users fault not Apples.
Controling the total software market for their iPhone is just a joke and there is not a single valid argument to back it except for being greedy and wanting to control everything.
I'm starting to get more and more disappointed by Apple. Their image of being the good guys that like to create well working easy to use software and good reliable hardware for competitive prices is more and more falling apart.
These days I think its more like they create good stuff with nice features for hillariously high prices that essentially put the user into the Apple Jail, while at the same time lowering manpower on their PC section.
Stop going along that path, Apple.
The quality of the PC section products has been steadily dropping. The current MacBook is worse than the iBook you could buy a few years ago quality wise. The 20" iMac has a TN display without making any annoucement. Apple is supposed to deliver premium quality not sub-par. The operating system hasn't been working as flawlessly as it used to before the Intel switch. They should get those things fixed and stop wasting all their time with the iPhone line of products, and building a new Microsoft like empire there..
I think this is quite sad...
Apple starts to become more and more like Microsoft.
It seems the more successful a company gets the more greedy and control-freakishier they get...
I understand that the AppStore shouldn't contain malware. Therefore they like to control whats sold there. But first of all there is no use for a NDA except for eliminating open source groups from forming. Also rejecting software because they think a user might not want it is also not their place to dictate.
They should make their AppStore for premium apps that are checked for not being malware. They should introduce a second way to install software, that everyone can use to install software on their iPhones. Open Source or small apps could just be downloaded from their websites (as in the PC world). If they are malware its the users fault not Apples.
Controling the total software market for their iPhone is just a joke and there is not a single valid argument to back it except for being greedy and wanting to control everything.
I'm starting to get more and more disappointed by Apple. Their image of being the good guys that like to create well working easy to use software and good reliable hardware for competitive prices is more and more falling apart.
These days I think its more like they create good stuff with nice features for hillariously high prices that essentially put the user into the Apple Jail, while at the same time lowering manpower on their PC section.
Stop going along that path, Apple.
The quality of the PC section products has been steadily dropping. The current MacBook is worse than the iBook you could buy a few years ago quality wise. The 20" iMac has a TN display without making any annoucement. Apple is supposed to deliver premium quality not sub-par. The operating system hasn't been working as flawlessly as it used to before the Intel switch. They should get those things fixed and stop wasting all their time with the iPhone line of products, and building a new Microsoft like empire there..
Well, I guess you're going to LOVE the porn machine from HTC.
Well, I guess you're going to LOVE the porn machine from HTC.
The HTC doesn't look like quality, no. But the Android concept is superior to Apples strategy. And I doubt Apple will continue to be hugley successful without changing it once Android has arrived and there are good handsets for it.
The only reason why Apple is currently succesful is because they stirred up the stale handset hardware and UI market. Once the others have caught up, Apple won't have a chance with their closed/controlled/NDAed market model.