Let us not forget≥ developers will go with the service that gives them the best feedback, or buck$$$$ for the money.
If it's Apple (and I believe it will be) - then they will work more closely with Apple, if in fact, they can make more money with Goggle, then I'm sure they will put their energy there, After all, EVERYONE is in it for the money, and that's ALL - which is fine. I'm just saying, the best platform for making the most money - WILL be the clear winner here.
I would much rather have the Apple approach where some level of quality control and monitoring of applications is done before people can start to download them.
Ah, but Apple isn't content doing just that. They have chosen to be your moral guardian, and are already banning apps for *content*. Not technical quality or security.
Not to mention they also ban apps that are too useful, like the tether app.
Google on Thursday afternoon provided first details of a marketplace for phones based on its Android mobile platform -- including word that its store won't be as tightly monitored as the Apple-run shop for iPhones...
Ah, but Apple isn't content doing just that. They have chosen to be your moral guardian, and are already banning apps for *content*. Not technical quality or security.
Not to mention they also ban apps that are too useful, like the tether app.
Not only that, it doesn't seem they are doing this quality control, except after the fact. I wonder if they're even reading the product description because that network tethering program was clearly against their stated rules and they let it through. I wonder if a dev could insert "spreads a virus that explodes your phone battery" somewhere in the middle of the description and still get published.
Ah, but Apple isn't content doing just that. They have chosen to be your moral guardian, and are already banning apps for *content*. Not technical quality or security.
Not to mention they also ban apps that are too useful, like the tether app.
Do you think Apple was the first company to come up with the idea of an application store?
Nokia had/has one. The implementation was not that great but then again they also had Handango as well as other sources for software distrobution. It seems that if Apple's name is not associated with it, then it doesn't happen or hasn't been thought of.
What sucks for Apple is that by taking up the censor's pen, they have taken responsibility for both everything they allow through, and everything they don't. I can see it backfiring on them big time when someone submits e.g. a game on an hot button political issue. (A game with gay marriage featured prominently in the plot, anyone?) Apple would be on hot coals whether they allow or disallow it.
What sucks for Apple is that by taking up the censor's pen, they have taken responsibility for both everything they allow through, and everything they don't. I can see it backfiring on them big time when someone submits e.g. a game on an hot button political issue. (A game with gay marriage featured prominently in the plot, anyone?) Apple would be on hot coals whether they allow or disallow it.
I don't think you understand what type of app allowed and which ones are not! I don't think political issues are part of Apple censorship duty. Apple so far removed few apps (4 or 5 if I am not mistaken). Most were removed for obvious reasons (Didn't think you can get away with paying $30 for tethered data plan instead of $60? ).
It?s great news that Google is planning to deliver a market for mobile software with its own centralized ?Android Market.? It should give Apple?s iPhone Apps Store competitive pressure to continue to innovate, and provide a safety net for smartphone users if Apple fails to deliver progress fast enough. If Apple and Google both fail, users will be stuck with the failed third party software models related to Microsoft?s Windows Mobile and Nokia?s Symbian. Those high stakes make it all the more disappointing to find that the Android Market fails to answer the tough issues correctly.
My sentiments exactly. Competition is a good thing and it keeps Apple "honest" and on the forefront of creativity.
Awesome, now we can see even more crapware in the Android Market than there is in the App Store. I can't wait to be able to download 200 flashlight apps to my android phone too!
With the amount of porn you're going to see, I predict the first big Google app in the store is going to be called Oogle.
You can oogle the porn at the google store.
Oh baby, corporations are going to love THIS idea....
What sucks for Apple is that by taking up the censor's pen, they have taken responsibility for both everything they allow through, and everything they don't. I can see it backfiring on them big time when someone submits e.g. a game on an hot button political issue. (A game with gay marriage featured prominently in the plot, anyone?) Apple would be on hot coals whether they allow or disallow it.
I wouldn't worry too much.
Some of the stuff that Apple is supressing will also be supressed from Google.
By the time the store is actually in use, it will be old hat when it happens so people won't make such a big deal. But Google is going to limit things also, just like Apple.
I don't think you understand what type of app allowed and which ones are not! I don't think political issues are part of Apple censorship duty. Apple so far removed few apps (4 or 5 if I am not mistaken). Most were removed for obvious reasons (Didn't think you can get away with paying $30 for tethered data plan instead of $60? ).
No, I think it's you who doesn't understand. They already blocked a comic app (comic and integrated browser) for the content of that comic. It's not a surprise or a secret that they would censor content - as I recall, they told that right in the keynote that announced the App Store.
Apple has no solid rules at all for what will be allowed on the store. It's clear that they will disallow anything they don't like, for any reason. Not bound by any objective standard, they can't claim a neutral stance. Whatever content they allow on there has an Apple stamp of approval, while whatever content they block has an Apple stamp of disapproval. If it's political, then Apple has a political stance. That's how it will be seen.
No, I think it's you who doesn't understand. They already blocked a comic app (comic and integrated browser) for the content of that comic. It's not a surprise or a secret that they would censor content - as I recall, they told that right in the keynote that announced the App Store.
Apple has no solid rules at all for what will be allowed on the store. It's clear that they will disallow anything they don't like, for any reason. Not bound by any objective standard, they can't claim a neutral stance. Whatever content they allow on there has an Apple stamp of approval, while whatever content they block has an Apple stamp of disapproval. If it's political, then Apple has a political stance. That's how it will be seen.
They didn't ban the comic app because they didn't like it, they banned it because it violates the SDK:
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
Here are the rules which I think are clear. In my opinion, Apple might ease up these rules once they start fixing some of the iPhone apps crashing bugs. They might include App Store Parental Controls and establish applications age rating system.
They didn't ban the comic app because they didn't like it, they banned it because it violates the SDK:
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple?s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
Here are the rules which I think are clear.
"Rules"? They don't restrict Apple in any way - Apple doesn't explain reasons for bannings - nor do they guarantee that an app gets out there even if the developer sticks to specific limits. The SDK guidelines are kinda like a bad map of minefields an occupying army hands to the local peons. "We put mines in these marked areas, but also elsewhere and didn't bother to mark them. There might be other deadly things around. Also, our dog ate the bottom half of the map. You are now responsible for your own safety. Have fun!"
Furthermore, everything in bold is completely subjective. This "rule" is a catch-all. Spore, for instance, is guaranteed to be found objectionable by a number of users because it depicts evolution.
Apple retains complete control of what gets through and what doesn't. With that power comes responsibility. Even if you laid the minefield for best of reasons, it's you who are responsible for it and not a random guy you gave a bad map to.
"Rules"? They don't restrict Apple in any way - Apple doesn't explain reasons for bannings - nor do they guarantee that an app gets out there even if the developer sticks to specific limits. The SDK guidelines are kinda like a bad map of minefields an occupying army hands to the local peons. "We put mines in these marked areas, but also elsewhere and didn't bother to mark them. There might be other deadly things around. Also, our dog ate the bottom half of the map. You are now responsible for your own safety. Have fun!"
Furthermore, everything in bold is completely subjective. This "rule" is a catch-all. Spore, for instance, is guaranteed to be found objectionable by a number of users because it depicts evolution.
Apple retains complete control of what gets through and what doesn't. With that power comes responsibility. Even if you laid the minefield for best of reasons, it's you who are responsible for it and not a random guy you gave a bad map to.
That's how contracts and agreements are written to protect the 1st party against liability and give them control. Apple provides developers with services similar ro those provided by web hosting services (For example: http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/tos/tos.php).
I agree that Apple have 100% control over what gets published but so does every web hosting service providers. So far Apple has not and will not abuse this power as long as developers use reasonable judgement and follow the SDK guidelines. By law, Apple is responsible for what gets published on their servers.
"Rules"? They don't restrict Apple in any way - Apple doesn't explain reasons for bannings - nor do they guarantee that an app gets out there even if the developer sticks to specific limits. The SDK guidelines are kinda like a bad map of minefields an occupying army hands to the local peons. "We put mines in these marked areas, but also elsewhere and didn't bother to mark them. There might be other deadly things around. Also, our dog ate the bottom half of the map. You are now responsible for your own safety. Have fun!"
Furthermore, everything in bold is completely subjective. This "rule" is a catch-all. Spore, for instance, is guaranteed to be found objectionable by a number of users because it depicts evolution.
Apple retains complete control of what gets through and what doesn't. With that power comes responsibility. Even if you laid the minefield for best of reasons, it's you who are responsible for it and not a random guy you gave a bad map to.
As a store owner (physical or electronic), you have the right to choose what products will be on the shelves. Whole Foods has different standards than Walmart, whether they are based on moral grounds or other corporate policies, who knows. Just because it is much easier to fill (virtually unlimited) shelf space in an electronic store does not mean that an e-retailer has to fill the shelves with everything that is being thrown at them. That maybe unpleasant to the developers for Apple's store but they knew the rules before they started developing their apps.
As a store owner (physical or electronic), you have the right to choose what products will be on the shelves. Whole Foods has different standards than Walmart, whether they are based on moral grounds or other corporate policies, who knows. Just because it is much easier to fill (virtually unlimited) shelf space in an electronic store does not mean that an e-retailer has to fill the shelves with everything that is being thrown at them. That maybe unpleasant to the developers for Apple's store but they knew the rules before they started developing their apps.
You mean, the developers knew there are no other rules than that Apple makes up all the rules on the spot. That's true and I agree that no one should force Apple to sell anything they don't want to sell. However, in choosing to censor and pre-screen content, Apple becomes morally responsible for said content. They are going to have to watch their ass because of that choice. Assuming Google truly doesn't block any apps, they won't have this problem - they'll just provide the platform and get out of the way.
What makes the whole thing suck hard for both developers and users is that there is no competition to Apple's store (because Apple doesn't allow there to be, duh). This is totally unlike the comparisons to webhosts and regular stores. If the first store you walk into only sells creation-compatible history books, you can try the competitors. Now it's Apple's morals or nothing. That doesn't make for a healthy computing platform, and not one I want to buy into.
Comments
If it's Apple (and I believe it will be) - then they will work more closely with Apple, if in fact, they can make more money with Goggle, then I'm sure they will put their energy there, After all, EVERYONE is in it for the money, and that's ALL - which is fine. I'm just saying, the best platform for making the most money - WILL be the clear winner here.
Skip
Skip
I would much rather have the Apple approach where some level of quality control and monitoring of applications is done before people can start to download them.
Ah, but Apple isn't content doing just that. They have chosen to be your moral guardian, and are already banning apps for *content*. Not technical quality or security.
Not to mention they also ban apps that are too useful, like the tether app.
Google on Thursday afternoon provided first details of a marketplace for phones based on its Android mobile platform -- including word that its store won't be as tightly monitored as the Apple-run shop for iPhones...
To which I say to Google... PFFFT Whatever.
Ah, but Apple isn't content doing just that. They have chosen to be your moral guardian, and are already banning apps for *content*. Not technical quality or security.
Not to mention they also ban apps that are too useful, like the tether app.
Not only that, it doesn't seem they are doing this quality control, except after the fact. I wonder if they're even reading the product description because that network tethering program was clearly against their stated rules and they let it through. I wonder if a dev could insert "spreads a virus that explodes your phone battery" somewhere in the middle of the description and still get published.
Apple may as well just start a search engine surely the close relationship between the two companies allows Apple to rip of Googles ideas too?
Do you think Apple was the first company to come up with the idea of an application store?
Ah, but Apple isn't content doing just that. They have chosen to be your moral guardian, and are already banning apps for *content*. Not technical quality or security.
Not to mention they also ban apps that are too useful, like the tether app.
Saaa..weeeet........
And oh so true.....
Do you think Apple was the first company to come up with the idea of an application store?
Nokia had/has one. The implementation was not that great but then again they also had Handango as well as other sources for software distrobution. It seems that if Apple's name is not associated with it, then it doesn't happen or hasn't been thought of.
Do you think Apple was the first company to come up with the idea of an application store?
Apple always have a knack of doing things in a way that is new which is then imitated, that is what I was getting at.
What sucks for Apple is that by taking up the censor's pen, they have taken responsibility for both everything they allow through, and everything they don't. I can see it backfiring on them big time when someone submits e.g. a game on an hot button political issue. (A game with gay marriage featured prominently in the plot, anyone?) Apple would be on hot coals whether they allow or disallow it.
I don't think you understand what type of app allowed and which ones are not! I don't think political issues are part of Apple censorship duty. Apple so far removed few apps (4 or 5 if I am not mistaken). Most were removed for obvious reasons (Didn't think you can get away with paying $30 for tethered data plan instead of $60?
It?s great news that Google is planning to deliver a market for mobile software with its own centralized ?Android Market.? It should give Apple?s iPhone Apps Store competitive pressure to continue to innovate, and provide a safety net for smartphone users if Apple fails to deliver progress fast enough. If Apple and Google both fail, users will be stuck with the failed third party software models related to Microsoft?s Windows Mobile and Nokia?s Symbian. Those high stakes make it all the more disappointing to find that the Android Market fails to answer the tough issues correctly.
My sentiments exactly. Competition is a good thing and it keeps Apple "honest" and on the forefront of creativity.
Awesome, now we can see even more crapware in the Android Market than there is in the App Store. I can't wait to be able to download 200 flashlight apps to my android phone too!
With the amount of porn you're going to see, I predict the first big Google app in the store is going to be called Oogle.
You can oogle the porn at the google store.
Oh baby, corporations are going to love THIS idea....
What sucks for Apple is that by taking up the censor's pen, they have taken responsibility for both everything they allow through, and everything they don't. I can see it backfiring on them big time when someone submits e.g. a game on an hot button political issue. (A game with gay marriage featured prominently in the plot, anyone?) Apple would be on hot coals whether they allow or disallow it.
I wouldn't worry too much.
Some of the stuff that Apple is supressing will also be supressed from Google.
By the time the store is actually in use, it will be old hat when it happens so people won't make such a big deal. But Google is going to limit things also, just like Apple.
I don't think you understand what type of app allowed and which ones are not! I don't think political issues are part of Apple censorship duty. Apple so far removed few apps (4 or 5 if I am not mistaken). Most were removed for obvious reasons (Didn't think you can get away with paying $30 for tethered data plan instead of $60?
No, I think it's you who doesn't understand. They already blocked a comic app (comic and integrated browser) for the content of that comic. It's not a surprise or a secret that they would censor content - as I recall, they told that right in the keynote that announced the App Store.
Apple has no solid rules at all for what will be allowed on the store. It's clear that they will disallow anything they don't like, for any reason. Not bound by any objective standard, they can't claim a neutral stance. Whatever content they allow on there has an Apple stamp of approval, while whatever content they block has an Apple stamp of disapproval. If it's political, then Apple has a political stance. That's how it will be seen.
No, I think it's you who doesn't understand. They already blocked a comic app (comic and integrated browser) for the content of that comic. It's not a surprise or a secret that they would censor content - as I recall, they told that right in the keynote that announced the App Store.
Apple has no solid rules at all for what will be allowed on the store. It's clear that they will disallow anything they don't like, for any reason. Not bound by any objective standard, they can't claim a neutral stance. Whatever content they allow on there has an Apple stamp of approval, while whatever content they block has an Apple stamp of disapproval. If it's political, then Apple has a political stance. That's how it will be seen.
They didn't ban the comic app because they didn't like it, they banned it because it violates the SDK:
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
Here are the rules which I think are clear. In my opinion, Apple might ease up these rules once they start fixing some of the iPhone apps crashing bugs. They might include App Store Parental Controls and establish applications age rating system.
They didn't ban the comic app because they didn't like it, they banned it because it violates the SDK:
"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple?s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."
Here are the rules which I think are clear.
"Rules"? They don't restrict Apple in any way - Apple doesn't explain reasons for bannings - nor do they guarantee that an app gets out there even if the developer sticks to specific limits. The SDK guidelines are kinda like a bad map of minefields an occupying army hands to the local peons. "We put mines in these marked areas, but also elsewhere and didn't bother to mark them. There might be other deadly things around. Also, our dog ate the bottom half of the map. You are now responsible for your own safety. Have fun!"
Furthermore, everything in bold is completely subjective. This "rule" is a catch-all. Spore, for instance, is guaranteed to be found objectionable by a number of users because it depicts evolution.
Apple retains complete control of what gets through and what doesn't. With that power comes responsibility. Even if you laid the minefield for best of reasons, it's you who are responsible for it and not a random guy you gave a bad map to.
"Rules"? They don't restrict Apple in any way - Apple doesn't explain reasons for bannings - nor do they guarantee that an app gets out there even if the developer sticks to specific limits. The SDK guidelines are kinda like a bad map of minefields an occupying army hands to the local peons. "We put mines in these marked areas, but also elsewhere and didn't bother to mark them. There might be other deadly things around. Also, our dog ate the bottom half of the map. You are now responsible for your own safety. Have fun!"
Furthermore, everything in bold is completely subjective. This "rule" is a catch-all. Spore, for instance, is guaranteed to be found objectionable by a number of users because it depicts evolution.
Apple retains complete control of what gets through and what doesn't. With that power comes responsibility. Even if you laid the minefield for best of reasons, it's you who are responsible for it and not a random guy you gave a bad map to.
That's how contracts and agreements are written to protect the 1st party against liability and give them control. Apple provides developers with services similar ro those provided by web hosting services (For example: http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/tos/tos.php).
I agree that Apple have 100% control over what gets published but so does every web hosting service providers. So far Apple has not and will not abuse this power as long as developers use reasonable judgement and follow the SDK guidelines. By law, Apple is responsible for what gets published on their servers.
"Rules"? They don't restrict Apple in any way - Apple doesn't explain reasons for bannings - nor do they guarantee that an app gets out there even if the developer sticks to specific limits. The SDK guidelines are kinda like a bad map of minefields an occupying army hands to the local peons. "We put mines in these marked areas, but also elsewhere and didn't bother to mark them. There might be other deadly things around. Also, our dog ate the bottom half of the map. You are now responsible for your own safety. Have fun!"
Furthermore, everything in bold is completely subjective. This "rule" is a catch-all. Spore, for instance, is guaranteed to be found objectionable by a number of users because it depicts evolution.
Apple retains complete control of what gets through and what doesn't. With that power comes responsibility. Even if you laid the minefield for best of reasons, it's you who are responsible for it and not a random guy you gave a bad map to.
As a store owner (physical or electronic), you have the right to choose what products will be on the shelves. Whole Foods has different standards than Walmart, whether they are based on moral grounds or other corporate policies, who knows. Just because it is much easier to fill (virtually unlimited) shelf space in an electronic store does not mean that an e-retailer has to fill the shelves with everything that is being thrown at them. That maybe unpleasant to the developers for Apple's store but they knew the rules before they started developing their apps.
As a store owner (physical or electronic), you have the right to choose what products will be on the shelves. Whole Foods has different standards than Walmart, whether they are based on moral grounds or other corporate policies, who knows. Just because it is much easier to fill (virtually unlimited) shelf space in an electronic store does not mean that an e-retailer has to fill the shelves with everything that is being thrown at them. That maybe unpleasant to the developers for Apple's store but they knew the rules before they started developing their apps.
You mean, the developers knew there are no other rules than that Apple makes up all the rules on the spot. That's true and I agree that no one should force Apple to sell anything they don't want to sell. However, in choosing to censor and pre-screen content, Apple becomes morally responsible for said content. They are going to have to watch their ass because of that choice. Assuming Google truly doesn't block any apps, they won't have this problem - they'll just provide the platform and get out of the way.
What makes the whole thing suck hard for both developers and users is that there is no competition to Apple's store (because Apple doesn't allow there to be, duh). This is totally unlike the comparisons to webhosts and regular stores. If the first store you walk into only sells creation-compatible history books, you can try the competitors. Now it's Apple's morals or nothing. That doesn't make for a healthy computing platform, and not one I want to buy into.