Real applications that can turn the iPhone into a real PDA, like the rest of the competition :
- a decent Agenda with professional features - like Agenda Fusion on WM
You are saying the iPhone needs this to be a real PDA tool?
Quote:
- a real GPS like TomTom on WM
Their is good indication this is coming.
Quote:
- and AppStore that you can navigate through without going through hundreds of useless applications
I'm not sure what you are talking about. There are numerous ways to search through the App Store and cull results including a search bar.
Quote:
Something that you can actually use to go through point A to point B safely :
- it should understand the difference between a car, a bike and walking - meaning it won't try to make me walk through highways, avoir crossing through parks when I walk or make the respect one-way streets while I'm on my feet
- it should be able to reroute on the fly if I missed a step or changed my mind
- it should be able to use voice to guide me
- it should be linked with the traffic data to calculate the best route
- where is the 3D view?
Look at what TomTom does. That's what a GPS application should look like.
This isn't GPS. What you are describing is navigation. GPS is simply the general ability to find your location using satellites. I would agree the iPhone has mediocre navigation services.
I don't think the general public has that much expectation from GPS and turn by turn navigation.
To me, it seems that navigation of some sort is the top reason to get a device with GPS. All marketing of any significance that I've seen promote GPS for navigation and nothing else. All the people that I know have a GPS use it for navigation. OK, there's one person that I know using it for geocaching (which iPhone requires a separate program just to display coordinate numbers), I don't know if that person uses the nagivation or not.
Even if a person is generally familiar with an area doesn't mean navigation isn't useful. Being familiar doesn't mean you know where every little subdivision or side street is or a reasonably good route to get there. Heck, just getting to a friend or relative's new house, I don't bother getting directions, too much time spent tediously writing out directions when I just need an address and I'm off.
So far the, what 2 or 3 apps that have been denied did not comply with the iPhone SDK License that they signed and agreed upon.
Not on your life. Except for a couple of developers, there is no hint that developers are being treated poorly or any evidence of a mass movement otherwise is forthcoming. In fact, it is growing. If you were at the last Developer Conference or read any of the news that came from it, it was obvious that the doubled attendance and their exuberance this year, that they were not being denied or hindered by Apples guidelines.
Apple has not stood by a set list of rules as to what apps are approved and which are rejected. All of those apps did not violate SDK agreements. I can understand a developer taking caution with this. It would be extremely bad to dedicate a great deal of time and resources into an app to then have it rejected for some unknown reason.
Isn't this kind of a diversion or unnecessary hair splitting from the perspective of this discussion? I ask this because all the GPS units I've seen lately have a turn-by-turn navigation feature anyway, it's assumed to be a feature that's expected of GPS devices now. From a technical perspective, you're right, but from a consumer perspective, it's missing a very basic feature, I don't think anyone sets out to buy a GPS only to get one that doesn't have dynamic turn-by-turn. These days, it's almost like getting raisin bran without the raisins and still calling it raisin bran.
Not true. Only the ones you see in some Ads are Automotive devices, because they have become popular for cars, and most people have cars.
But that doesn't mean that they are all, or even most of the GPS devices out there.
Here us a page from one maker, Garmin. They make plenty of models that are not intended for turn by turn Unless a manufacturer specializes in just making auto units, there will be a number of handheld models in their line as well.
The suggestion that it's a battery life issue doesn't work for me. If you're in a car, at least you have a good chance of getting power from the car. Of the other possible issues, I think there may be some negotiations going on with one of the established GPS companies, or the feature is not finished yet. Data size is not a problem. Even a 4GB iPhone should have plenty of room.
We don't know the exact reason why a turn program isn't here yet. But, as you know, we do expect a few to come.
I don't think the general public has that much expectation from GPS and turn by turn navigation.
One reason is because most of us spend 80% of our time in our home area. Where you are more familiar and navigation is less necessary.
Another is that mobile carriers typically charge an extra monthly fee on navigation services for the phone. Few people find it that valuable of a service to pay monthly for. I think that stifles the adoption of navigation into the wider market.
Most of the people I know with iPhone rarely use GPS. Of course we are in NYC. I've seen people think of it as a cute toy, with the blue dot indicating where you are on a map. But so far I haven't seen many people depending on turn by turn as a serious tool.
I think this will eventually change though. Especially when navigation is an app that you pay for once and not an additional monthly fee.
No one uses it because it's inaccurate and doesn't include turn by turn. This is 2008. When people buy a unit for gps they don't buy it so they can spend 20 minutes getting it to find you. They don't buy it so they can hope they are at the right street cuz the stupid Blue dot can't keep up. Me and everyone I know with the new iPhone are still forced to use tom toms ugly interface because of the inaccuracy of the iPhone. My friend has verizon and he has that razr. The first razr with gps and his phone is more Accurate and has turn by turn. That phone came out 2-3 years ago. Anyway yeah cool we can find our location. It's technically doing what a gps does. But if your an average person who travels or needs directions you need a passenger to read the iPhone for you while you drive it's not like quality gps devices or Phones that do it for you.
Garmin XT (supports Windows Mobile, S60 and Blackberry)
TomTom Mobile (supports Windows Mobile, S60 and UIQ)
Those two pieces of software support for 99% of the phones I've seen with integrated GPS in the UK.
It is just a matter of time.
?We have made our navigation system run on the iPhone; it looks good and works very well,? said Dutch-based company TomTom, in a statement to msnbc.com. ?We will have to look more closely to Apple?s strategy before we can say more about what kind of opportunities this will bring us.?
Apple has not stood by a set list of rules as to what apps are approved and which are rejected. All of those apps did not violate SDK agreements. I can understand a developer taking caution with this. It would be extremely bad to dedicate a great deal of time and resources into an app to then have it rejected for some unknown reason.
Yes they did! As the license basically said, you can't use the SDK to develop apps that could affect as defined by Apple, network capacity or bandwidth. Apple itself has exampled this potential issue via its restriction on downloading video and large files via iTunes.
I agree. The WSJ journal article puts it in perspective with Nokia. Nokia holds the largest market share of non-Japanese phones. With a 1% marketshare, 500,000 in sales. 200,000 is really good in comparison.
Let's also remember that most Asian countries have a very protectionist stance against
non-homegrown-tech. I'm talking about consumers, government agencies, phone
carriers, etc.
Apple's iPhone is doing very well in Japan, when you consider all of the pressures it has
No one uses it because it's inaccurate and doesn't include turn by turn. This is 2008. When people buy a unit for gps they don't buy it so they can spend 20 minutes getting it to find you. They don't buy it so they can hope they are at the right street cuz the stupid Blue dot can't keep up. Me and everyone I know with the new iPhone are still forced to use tom toms ugly interface because of the inaccuracy of the iPhone. My friend has verizon and he has that razr. The first razr with gps and his phone is more Accurate and has turn by turn. That phone came out 2-3 years ago. Anyway yeah cool we can find our location. It's technically doing what a gps does. But if your an average person who travels or needs directions you need a passenger to read the iPhone for you while you drive it's not like quality gps devices or Phones that do it for you.
My point wasn't about why navigation on the iPhone isn't used. My point was that the majority of the consumer market doesn't use GPS in general.
If they Apple does, they're probably mostly bogus and easily challengeable in court. Multitouch input is old news, and considerably predates the iPhone. The only things I can easily imagine Apple having a legitimate patent to is some specific hardware mechanism for or possibly related algorithms to capturing the input (neither of which I think they've applied for, at least not from any patents I've seen mentioned on this site).
Multi-touch on a PHONE, not multi-touch in the general sense... that is where Apple has the patent protection (presumably). If you were to file for a patent on multi-touch backscratchers there would likely be no overlapping patents.
Yes they did! As the license basically said, you can't use the SDK to develop apps that could affect as defined by Apple, network capacity or bandwidth. Apple itself has exampled this potential issue via its restriction on downloading video and large files via iTunes.
It appears you are talking about the Podcasting app, since "I'm Am Rich" or the comic book app violate network capacity or bandwidth issues.
Even if Apple thought the Podcast app would violate network capacity or bandwidth. This rule is being applied unevenly as their are several apps that could potentially use a lot of capacity and bandwidith: Youtube, LastFM, AOL Radio, Pandora, streaming content thru Safari.
Apple did not tell the developer that bandwidth was the problem. They told the developer the Podcast app competes with iTunes. Which further confuses the issue as to the justification of rejecting the app. Which doesn't help with other developers who may fear their app may be rejected.
Apple needs someone to help communicate with developers and offer helpful information. Quite a few of these apps would work perfectly fine as web apps.
Multi-touch on a PHONE, not multi-touch in the general sense... that is where Apple has the patent protection (presumably). If you were to file for a patent on multi-touch backscratchers there would likely be no overlapping patents.
I would have a difficult time believing Apple could patent the entire concept of multi-touch. Apple didn't invent it.
I would believe Apple could only patent the technology it uses for its own implementation of multi-touch.
It appears you are talking about the Podcasting app, since "I'm Am Rich" or the comic book app violate network capacity or bandwidth issues.
The "I Am Rich" and fart app are certainly questionable in many regards and lessen the value of the store. Though Apple's iron fist without a thorough explanation isn't helping how people feel about the App Store, but they certainly have the right to refuse to sell an item for any reason.
Quote:
Even if Apple thought the Podcast app would violate network capacity or bandwidth. This rule is being applied unevenly as their are several apps that could potentially use a lot of capacity and bandwidith: Youtube, LastFM, AOL Radio, Pandora, streaming content thru Safari.
If I watch YouTube, it's not a high quality version version of it. It's also not a continuous stream being downloaded by everyone who has subscribed to it pretty right after it's released. Other apps that stream radio only send relatively low-bit rate audio for one station at a time and only when you are in the app. Podcaster could potentially be very harmful to carrier's network, especially after Apple releases the video the afternoon of marketing presentation. Mine run from 775 to 1.2GB in size. However...
Quote:
Apple did not tell the developer that bandwidth was the problem. They told the developer the Podcast app competes with iTunes. Which further confuses the issue as to the justification of rejecting the app. Which doesn't help with other developers who may fear their app may be rejected.
...I think, from our previous conversation last week, you are correct that Podcaster wasn't canned because of their bandwidth usage. Roughly Drafted makes a solid argument as to why the app could cost Apple money by drawing people away from iTunes Store to get and manage Podcasts since they are synced and stored in their own space, not in the iTunes Podcast library on the iPhone. That does seem to cover the 3.3.3 of the rules.
Quote:
Apple needs someone to help communicate with developers and offer helpful information. Quite a few of these apps would work perfectly fine as web apps.
I don't mind Apple's secrecy in most things and they certainly have a right to protect their App Store business so I see nothing wrong with them removing apps, but I think it would behoove them to be very clear in why they have decided to remove an app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I would have a difficult time believing Apple could patent the entire concept of multi-touch. Apple didn't invent it.
They did get the rights to many patents when they acquired FingerWorks, so they are the inventors, so to speak. I think the patent isn't specifically about multi-touch on a phone, but multi-touch achieved by means of capacitance.
My point wasn't about why navigation on the iPhone isn't used. My point was that the majority of the consumer market doesn't use GPS in general.
Ok I will agree with you on that to a certain extent. I do think that people would like to have a GPS if it was cheap and they didn't have to pay monthly. But like you hear on this apple forum a lot people do want Turn by Turn. So for the few that do want it I think they atleast want it to work. The blue dot... if its going to be a stupid blue dot that doesnt even have an arrow showing which direction your going then the least they could do is make it accurate. I have tried using it a thousand times and always I would miss the street because the names on the map are too small to read and the dot gets there 3-5 seconds after I do. Anyway... I hope this new phone is cool... sad its on t-mobile... I wish it was on verizon. I like the 3g but it just lacks too many basic features I really want a different phone.
Multi-touch on a PHONE, not multi-touch in the general sense... that is where Apple has the patent protection (presumably).
Which is why I said such patents are bogus. Yes, the US Patent Office gives these bogus patents out. Yes, I would be quite happy to appear as an expert witness in front of USPTO officials or a court of law and explain why they're bogus.
Quote:
If you were to file for a patent on multi-touch backscratchers there would likely be no overlapping patents.
But they would use different technology, interaction techniques, etc. than a multi-touch computing device screen.
If they Apple does, they're probably mostly bogus and easily challengeable in court. Multitouch input is old news, and considerably predates the iPhone. The only things I can easily imagine Apple having a legitimate patent to is some specific hardware mechanism for or possibly related algorithms to capturing the input (neither of which I think they've applied for, at least not from any patents I've seen mentioned on this site).
touchscreen technology is old. multitouch is different.
The "I Am Rich" and fart app are certainly questionable in many regards and lessen the value of the store. Though Apple's iron fist without a thorough explanation isn't helping how people feel about the App Store, but they certainly have the right to refuse to sell an item for any reason.
Yes I agree Apple had a pretty easy to understand reason why those apps were rejected. There is still some room for debate however if Apple should police good taste or let us decide what is tasteful and what is not.
Quote:
If I watch YouTube, it's not a high quality version version of it. It's also not a continuous stream being downloaded by everyone who has subscribed to it pretty right after it's released. Other apps that stream radio only send relatively low-bit rate audio for one station at a time and only when you are in the app. Podcaster could potentially be very harmful to carrier's network, especially after Apple releases the video the afternoon of marketing presentation. Mine run from 775 to 1.2GB in size. However...
The millions of video downloads everyday from YouTube I would bet far eclipse the number of podcast downloads in a year.
As far as I can tell there is no limit to the amount of video one can watch on YouTube. One can stream music from the internet services for hours if they chose. All of that is equally as harmful to the network. But the reality is few people have time to sits around looking at hours of YouTube at one time or streaming hours of internet radio.
On the same token I don't believe people will spend an overly extreme amount of time watching podcasts either. People can already stream podcasts on mobile Safari from RSS feeds and numerous websites that offer it. I honestly don't believe it would be that much of a problem.
Quote:
I don't mind Apple's secrecy in most things and they certainly have a right to protect their App Store business so I see nothing wrong with them removing apps, but I think it would behoove them to be very clear in why they have decided to remove an app.
Doesn't help to leave developers frustrated, angry, and in the dark.
Apple did not tell the developer that bandwidth was the problem. They told the developer the Podcast app competes with iTunes. Which further confuses the issue as to the justification of rejecting the app. Which doesn't help with other developers who may fear their app may be rejected.
And you have verified it from where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Apple needs someone to help communicate with developers and offer helpful information. Quite a few of these apps would work perfectly fine as web apps.
Apple does communicate quite well with its developers. Very well.
As for Podcaster, it does compete with iTunes to some extent. But it does one thing or could do one thing that iTunes is itself not been allowed to do. And that is to download videos and/or large files that Apple has made quite clear, it will not allow.
Think about it. One thing is that is could adversely affect network activity and bandwidth. Something carriers would be concerned about, users would be concerned about and the integrity of the iPhone would be concerned about.
Remember that Apple got the carriers to significantly reduce charges for data usage. In fact, one of the mandatory inclusions of the iPhone was Wi-Fi, so that users would be able to surf the net at not only a faster speed but without encumbering the network, and thus jeopardizing increasing charges in the future.
Another thing. Apple is also going to be very leery of any app that could cause a significant drain on the battery. Afterall, the iPhone has only one obligation. That is for us to be able to easily make a phone call when we want to. All the other things are fluff. To which, others have failed miserably at in the past.
Comments
Real applications that can turn the iPhone into a real PDA, like the rest of the competition :
- a decent Agenda with professional features - like Agenda Fusion on WM
You are saying the iPhone needs this to be a real PDA tool?
- a real GPS like TomTom on WM
Their is good indication this is coming.
- and AppStore that you can navigate through without going through hundreds of useless applications
I'm not sure what you are talking about. There are numerous ways to search through the App Store and cull results including a search bar.
Something that you can actually use to go through point A to point B safely :
- it should understand the difference between a car, a bike and walking - meaning it won't try to make me walk through highways, avoir crossing through parks when I walk or make the respect one-way streets while I'm on my feet
- it should be able to reroute on the fly if I missed a step or changed my mind
- it should be able to use voice to guide me
- it should be linked with the traffic data to calculate the best route
- where is the 3D view?
Look at what TomTom does. That's what a GPS application should look like.
This isn't GPS. What you are describing is navigation. GPS is simply the general ability to find your location using satellites. I would agree the iPhone has mediocre navigation services.
I don't think the general public has that much expectation from GPS and turn by turn navigation.
To me, it seems that navigation of some sort is the top reason to get a device with GPS. All marketing of any significance that I've seen promote GPS for navigation and nothing else. All the people that I know have a GPS use it for navigation. OK, there's one person that I know using it for geocaching (which iPhone requires a separate program just to display coordinate numbers), I don't know if that person uses the nagivation or not.
Even if a person is generally familiar with an area doesn't mean navigation isn't useful. Being familiar doesn't mean you know where every little subdivision or side street is or a reasonably good route to get there. Heck, just getting to a friend or relative's new house, I don't bother getting directions, too much time spent tediously writing out directions when I just need an address and I'm off.
So far the, what 2 or 3 apps that have been denied did not comply with the iPhone SDK License that they signed and agreed upon.
Not on your life. Except for a couple of developers, there is no hint that developers are being treated poorly or any evidence of a mass movement otherwise is forthcoming. In fact, it is growing. If you were at the last Developer Conference or read any of the news that came from it, it was obvious that the doubled attendance and their exuberance this year, that they were not being denied or hindered by Apples guidelines.
Apple has not stood by a set list of rules as to what apps are approved and which are rejected. All of those apps did not violate SDK agreements. I can understand a developer taking caution with this. It would be extremely bad to dedicate a great deal of time and resources into an app to then have it rejected for some unknown reason.
Isn't this kind of a diversion or unnecessary hair splitting from the perspective of this discussion? I ask this because all the GPS units I've seen lately have a turn-by-turn navigation feature anyway, it's assumed to be a feature that's expected of GPS devices now. From a technical perspective, you're right, but from a consumer perspective, it's missing a very basic feature, I don't think anyone sets out to buy a GPS only to get one that doesn't have dynamic turn-by-turn. These days, it's almost like getting raisin bran without the raisins and still calling it raisin bran.
Not true. Only the ones you see in some Ads are Automotive devices, because they have become popular for cars, and most people have cars.
But that doesn't mean that they are all, or even most of the GPS devices out there.
Here us a page from one maker, Garmin. They make plenty of models that are not intended for turn by turn Unless a manufacturer specializes in just making auto units, there will be a number of handheld models in their line as well.
http://www.garmin.com/garmin/cms/site/us/onthetrail
The suggestion that it's a battery life issue doesn't work for me. If you're in a car, at least you have a good chance of getting power from the car. Of the other possible issues, I think there may be some negotiations going on with one of the established GPS companies, or the feature is not finished yet. Data size is not a problem. Even a 4GB iPhone should have plenty of room.
We don't know the exact reason why a turn program isn't here yet. But, as you know, we do expect a few to come.
This is a tempest in a teapot.
I don't think the general public has that much expectation from GPS and turn by turn navigation.
One reason is because most of us spend 80% of our time in our home area. Where you are more familiar and navigation is less necessary.
Another is that mobile carriers typically charge an extra monthly fee on navigation services for the phone. Few people find it that valuable of a service to pay monthly for. I think that stifles the adoption of navigation into the wider market.
Most of the people I know with iPhone rarely use GPS. Of course we are in NYC. I've seen people think of it as a cute toy, with the blue dot indicating where you are on a map. But so far I haven't seen many people depending on turn by turn as a serious tool.
I think this will eventually change though. Especially when navigation is an app that you pay for once and not an additional monthly fee.
No one uses it because it's inaccurate and doesn't include turn by turn. This is 2008. When people buy a unit for gps they don't buy it so they can spend 20 minutes getting it to find you. They don't buy it so they can hope they are at the right street cuz the stupid Blue dot can't keep up. Me and everyone I know with the new iPhone are still forced to use tom toms ugly interface because of the inaccuracy of the iPhone. My friend has verizon and he has that razr. The first razr with gps and his phone is more Accurate and has turn by turn. That phone came out 2-3 years ago. Anyway yeah cool we can find our location. It's technically doing what a gps does. But if your an average person who travels or needs directions you need a passenger to read the iPhone for you while you drive it's not like quality gps devices or Phones that do it for you.
Garmin XT (supports Windows Mobile, S60 and Blackberry)
TomTom Mobile (supports Windows Mobile, S60 and UIQ)
Those two pieces of software support for 99% of the phones I've seen with integrated GPS in the UK.
It is just a matter of time.
?We have made our navigation system run on the iPhone; it looks good and works very well,? said Dutch-based company TomTom, in a statement to msnbc.com. ?We will have to look more closely to Apple?s strategy before we can say more about what kind of opportunities this will bring us.?
Apple has not stood by a set list of rules as to what apps are approved and which are rejected. All of those apps did not violate SDK agreements. I can understand a developer taking caution with this. It would be extremely bad to dedicate a great deal of time and resources into an app to then have it rejected for some unknown reason.
Yes they did! As the license basically said, you can't use the SDK to develop apps that could affect as defined by Apple, network capacity or bandwidth. Apple itself has exampled this potential issue via its restriction on downloading video and large files via iTunes.
I agree. The WSJ journal article puts it in perspective with Nokia. Nokia holds the largest market share of non-Japanese phones. With a 1% marketshare, 500,000 in sales. 200,000 is really good in comparison.
Let's also remember that most Asian countries have a very protectionist stance against
non-homegrown-tech. I'm talking about consumers, government agencies, phone
carriers, etc.
Apple's iPhone is doing very well in Japan, when you consider all of the pressures it has
been pushing against.
Though I do like AT&T more than tmobile. T mobile had poor (non 3g) service when I had them but that was 5 years ago
I hate to burst your bubble, because I complain about AT&T a lot (in our area, they lack),
but T-Mobile is just about as bad as it gets, even today.
We just had to get my mother off of their horrible network and onto AT&T just
so she could get decent digital services like being able to check her minutes,
and retrieving her voicemail . . . real high-tech stuff [sarcasm].
T-Mobile basically admitted that huge areas of our region of the country
had inferior coverage, and not all of their services were available even where
there was coverage.
With her AT&T phone, calls are clearer, she can use info services, etc.
Now if AT&T would lower their prices and stop charging a fortune for things like SMS . . .
No one uses it because it's inaccurate and doesn't include turn by turn. This is 2008. When people buy a unit for gps they don't buy it so they can spend 20 minutes getting it to find you. They don't buy it so they can hope they are at the right street cuz the stupid Blue dot can't keep up. Me and everyone I know with the new iPhone are still forced to use tom toms ugly interface because of the inaccuracy of the iPhone. My friend has verizon and he has that razr. The first razr with gps and his phone is more Accurate and has turn by turn. That phone came out 2-3 years ago. Anyway yeah cool we can find our location. It's technically doing what a gps does. But if your an average person who travels or needs directions you need a passenger to read the iPhone for you while you drive it's not like quality gps devices or Phones that do it for you.
My point wasn't about why navigation on the iPhone isn't used. My point was that the majority of the consumer market doesn't use GPS in general.
If they Apple does, they're probably mostly bogus and easily challengeable in court. Multitouch input is old news, and considerably predates the iPhone. The only things I can easily imagine Apple having a legitimate patent to is some specific hardware mechanism for or possibly related algorithms to capturing the input (neither of which I think they've applied for, at least not from any patents I've seen mentioned on this site).
Multi-touch on a PHONE, not multi-touch in the general sense... that is where Apple has the patent protection (presumably). If you were to file for a patent on multi-touch backscratchers there would likely be no overlapping patents.
Yes they did! As the license basically said, you can't use the SDK to develop apps that could affect as defined by Apple, network capacity or bandwidth. Apple itself has exampled this potential issue via its restriction on downloading video and large files via iTunes.
It appears you are talking about the Podcasting app, since "I'm Am Rich" or the comic book app violate network capacity or bandwidth issues.
Even if Apple thought the Podcast app would violate network capacity or bandwidth. This rule is being applied unevenly as their are several apps that could potentially use a lot of capacity and bandwidith: Youtube, LastFM, AOL Radio, Pandora, streaming content thru Safari.
Apple did not tell the developer that bandwidth was the problem. They told the developer the Podcast app competes with iTunes. Which further confuses the issue as to the justification of rejecting the app. Which doesn't help with other developers who may fear their app may be rejected.
Apple needs someone to help communicate with developers and offer helpful information. Quite a few of these apps would work perfectly fine as web apps.
Multi-touch on a PHONE, not multi-touch in the general sense... that is where Apple has the patent protection (presumably). If you were to file for a patent on multi-touch backscratchers there would likely be no overlapping patents.
I would have a difficult time believing Apple could patent the entire concept of multi-touch. Apple didn't invent it.
I would believe Apple could only patent the technology it uses for its own implementation of multi-touch.
It appears you are talking about the Podcasting app, since "I'm Am Rich" or the comic book app violate network capacity or bandwidth issues.
The "I Am Rich" and fart app are certainly questionable in many regards and lessen the value of the store. Though Apple's iron fist without a thorough explanation isn't helping how people feel about the App Store, but they certainly have the right to refuse to sell an item for any reason.
Even if Apple thought the Podcast app would violate network capacity or bandwidth. This rule is being applied unevenly as their are several apps that could potentially use a lot of capacity and bandwidith: Youtube, LastFM, AOL Radio, Pandora, streaming content thru Safari.
If I watch YouTube, it's not a high quality version version of it. It's also not a continuous stream being downloaded by everyone who has subscribed to it pretty right after it's released. Other apps that stream radio only send relatively low-bit rate audio for one station at a time and only when you are in the app. Podcaster could potentially be very harmful to carrier's network, especially after Apple releases the video the afternoon of marketing presentation. Mine run from 775 to 1.2GB in size. However...
Apple did not tell the developer that bandwidth was the problem. They told the developer the Podcast app competes with iTunes. Which further confuses the issue as to the justification of rejecting the app. Which doesn't help with other developers who may fear their app may be rejected.
...I think, from our previous conversation last week, you are correct that Podcaster wasn't canned because of their bandwidth usage. Roughly Drafted makes a solid argument as to why the app could cost Apple money by drawing people away from iTunes Store to get and manage Podcasts since they are synced and stored in their own space, not in the iTunes Podcast library on the iPhone. That does seem to cover the 3.3.3 of the rules.
Apple needs someone to help communicate with developers and offer helpful information. Quite a few of these apps would work perfectly fine as web apps.
I don't mind Apple's secrecy in most things and they certainly have a right to protect their App Store business so I see nothing wrong with them removing apps, but I think it would behoove them to be very clear in why they have decided to remove an app.
I would have a difficult time believing Apple could patent the entire concept of multi-touch. Apple didn't invent it.
They did get the rights to many patents when they acquired FingerWorks, so they are the inventors, so to speak. I think the patent isn't specifically about multi-touch on a phone, but multi-touch achieved by means of capacitance.
My point wasn't about why navigation on the iPhone isn't used. My point was that the majority of the consumer market doesn't use GPS in general.
Ok I will agree with you on that to a certain extent. I do think that people would like to have a GPS if it was cheap and they didn't have to pay monthly. But like you hear on this apple forum a lot people do want Turn by Turn. So for the few that do want it I think they atleast want it to work. The blue dot... if its going to be a stupid blue dot that doesnt even have an arrow showing which direction your going then the least they could do is make it accurate. I have tried using it a thousand times and always I would miss the street because the names on the map are too small to read and the dot gets there 3-5 seconds after I do. Anyway... I hope this new phone is cool... sad its on t-mobile... I wish it was on verizon. I like the 3g but it just lacks too many basic features I really want a different phone.
Multi-touch on a PHONE, not multi-touch in the general sense... that is where Apple has the patent protection (presumably).
Which is why I said such patents are bogus. Yes, the US Patent Office gives these bogus patents out. Yes, I would be quite happy to appear as an expert witness in front of USPTO officials or a court of law and explain why they're bogus.
If you were to file for a patent on multi-touch backscratchers there would likely be no overlapping patents.
But they would use different technology, interaction techniques, etc. than a multi-touch computing device screen.
If you were to file for a patent on multi-touch backscratchers there would likely be no overlapping patents.
Except for any patents on how the multi-touch itself works.
If they Apple does, they're probably mostly bogus and easily challengeable in court. Multitouch input is old news, and considerably predates the iPhone. The only things I can easily imagine Apple having a legitimate patent to is some specific hardware mechanism for or possibly related algorithms to capturing the input (neither of which I think they've applied for, at least not from any patents I've seen mentioned on this site).
touchscreen technology is old. multitouch is different.
The "I Am Rich" and fart app are certainly questionable in many regards and lessen the value of the store. Though Apple's iron fist without a thorough explanation isn't helping how people feel about the App Store, but they certainly have the right to refuse to sell an item for any reason.
Yes I agree Apple had a pretty easy to understand reason why those apps were rejected. There is still some room for debate however if Apple should police good taste or let us decide what is tasteful and what is not.
If I watch YouTube, it's not a high quality version version of it. It's also not a continuous stream being downloaded by everyone who has subscribed to it pretty right after it's released. Other apps that stream radio only send relatively low-bit rate audio for one station at a time and only when you are in the app. Podcaster could potentially be very harmful to carrier's network, especially after Apple releases the video the afternoon of marketing presentation. Mine run from 775 to 1.2GB in size. However...
The millions of video downloads everyday from YouTube I would bet far eclipse the number of podcast downloads in a year.
As far as I can tell there is no limit to the amount of video one can watch on YouTube. One can stream music from the internet services for hours if they chose. All of that is equally as harmful to the network. But the reality is few people have time to sits around looking at hours of YouTube at one time or streaming hours of internet radio.
On the same token I don't believe people will spend an overly extreme amount of time watching podcasts either. People can already stream podcasts on mobile Safari from RSS feeds and numerous websites that offer it. I honestly don't believe it would be that much of a problem.
I don't mind Apple's secrecy in most things and they certainly have a right to protect their App Store business so I see nothing wrong with them removing apps, but I think it would behoove them to be very clear in why they have decided to remove an app.
Doesn't help to leave developers frustrated, angry, and in the dark.
Apple did not tell the developer that bandwidth was the problem. They told the developer the Podcast app competes with iTunes. Which further confuses the issue as to the justification of rejecting the app. Which doesn't help with other developers who may fear their app may be rejected.
And you have verified it from where?
Apple needs someone to help communicate with developers and offer helpful information. Quite a few of these apps would work perfectly fine as web apps.
Apple does communicate quite well with its developers. Very well.
As for Podcaster, it does compete with iTunes to some extent. But it does one thing or could do one thing that iTunes is itself not been allowed to do. And that is to download videos and/or large files that Apple has made quite clear, it will not allow.
Think about it. One thing is that is could adversely affect network activity and bandwidth. Something carriers would be concerned about, users would be concerned about and the integrity of the iPhone would be concerned about.
Remember that Apple got the carriers to significantly reduce charges for data usage. In fact, one of the mandatory inclusions of the iPhone was Wi-Fi, so that users would be able to surf the net at not only a faster speed but without encumbering the network, and thus jeopardizing increasing charges in the future.
Another thing. Apple is also going to be very leery of any app that could cause a significant drain on the battery. Afterall, the iPhone has only one obligation. That is for us to be able to easily make a phone call when we want to. All the other things are fluff. To which, others have failed miserably at in the past.