The point is that as an iPhone developer, you have no choice but to depend on the AppStore
Wow! You don't have to market nor manage your own infrastructure, bandwidth, etc. All you have to do is come up with a compelling application that drives business to your company.
Come on. Hire some folks with ideas. They do help.
Want to know the most frustrating thing about being an iPhone developer? People who review your app saying it should be cheaper/free. Next most frustrating is people reviewing your app suggesting features the app already has or otherwise saying things that make it obvious they didn't even buy it.
Apple's review policies are way, way down on the list of frustrating things about iPhone development.
The good part is handing off the app to Apple and have them take care of all the work for you, selling your app around the world in all sorts of currencies and distributing it to all localities without needing to monitor any bandwidth, security, credit card clearances, etc. Seriously, at the risk of being called a troll, there are a lot of whiners around...
It's because second rate applications that take years to become solid applications [become solid mainly due to private funding by large corporations with quite a large portion of the code submissions included] from the FOSS community jump up to tout the merits of FOSS without studying the actual behind the scenes stages it took to reach this point.
To the average Linux, OS X, FreeBSD, OpenBSD [nod to Theo's greatly appreciated efforts of his teams] and others never involved in writing software they just somehow think people are willing to work for FREE because it's just too damn cool not to do so.
LINUX is a prime example of it's growth taking off because it's maturity made it possible. Where did this maturity come from? From the billions of dollars IBM, Google, RedHat, Oracle, Novell, et.al invested in developing the platform for you to benefit from and they somehow continue to overlook that set of facts while trumpeting Linux.
I love Linux and of course, OS X--I preferred NeXTSTEP/Openstep but then again I only worked for the companies so what do I know.
It's pathetic that these narcissistic generation XX/YY/ZZ drones whine that your application isn't Free.
I suggest they write their own and give them away, but very few want to actually put up and sure as hell don't want to shut up.
Keep plugging away at your business.
To everyone who whines about legal agreements and these not being GPL'd enough for you, I suggest you work on Android and Linux, but don't be surprised that your "ideas" and efforts run into a major roadblock---key developers of both control the source code like you keep whining Apple is dictating their AppStore, and then some.
Try writing some code for the Linux Kernel, or the User Space and brace yourself when your code gets rejected and dragged through the mud for piss poor quality.
You can always write a GTK+, Qt 4.x, GNUStep/ObjC app, Python, Tcl/Tk, ML, Haskell, etc application and give them away. You'll still get trashed if you don't conform to the GPLv3, even if it's the Next Big Thing.
Writing a piece of software that circumvents a portion of someone else's software, while still taking advantage of that developers services (e.g. accessing their servers to stream podcasts) is like parachuting into your neighbors shed. Its private property. No matter how you got there, its trespassing.
Along these lines, yesterday MochaSofts RDP Lite and RDP full version were removed from the Apps store. Too bad because they were cheaper and worked much more reliably than WinAdmin for remote desktop. I don't know reason why but we are left with still quirky WinAdmin as the only Windows Remote Desktop application for iPhone.
As much as I disagree with Apple in this case they might have a ligitment reason to drop the app.
Yes, the average developer who just wants to make a buck will churn out cute little apps that have some utility. But Apple is keeping the REALLY INNOVATIVE apps from being born and thus stifling innovation.
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
Almerica the creator of podcaster are complete tools. They ignored the guidelines issued to all developers by Apple and because of that they rejected their application.
Basically the problem with his app is that it enables you to 'download' podcasts. This essentially enables downloading of ANY mp3. Like it or not Apple have pretty strict agreements with their music industry partners and for that reason will reject any application that would enable downloading music from sources outside of iTunes.
Now. if they had tweaked the app to only stream podcasts then they could quite happily have resubmitted the app and had it passed but they choose to abuse the developers distribution path and only give the app to people who pay them 10 dollars.
Because of one retarded dev all of the genuine developers have been further restricted.
Now we have a thread comprised of mostly assholes who are in defence of the muppets who couldn't read the fucking dev guidelines.
Others have said it before but it is worth re-stating. If App Store was simply A distribution point for iPhone/iPod touch apps, it would be one thing. But when App Store is THE sole distribution point for those apps, I would assert that the responsibility bar is higher for Apple not to F-CK its developers, or have a whiff of smelling like it is doing same to a sizable constituency of its base, as is the case here.
I wonder to what extent this kind of behaviour is how Apple operates internally. It seems like Apple are working very hard to get the iphone market share to a critical level where developers are forced to play ball in order to access the market.
The iPhone/iTunes link is so embedded in our culture I can't help but wonder if Apple would have to promise to kill a puppy every time a free App was downloaded before it would significantly affect iPhone sales.
I would much prefer that Apple's review process only assessed the following factors:
(1) Does the App fuck up an iPhone?
(2) Does the App perform the function it states?
(3) Does the App comply with standard interface guidelines?
let the peer review process sort the rest out.
I will not be corralled!
(But if I am corralled I reserve the right to hold a grudge and make an angry post about it on the internet)
You do realize that reading and interpreting virtually any data feed: HTML, XML, or any other formatted data file is effectively running interpreted third-party code?
You do realise that those data files you describe aren't executable code, hence being "data" files. "Code" refers to something executable.
Almerica the creator of podcaster are complete tools. They ignored the guidelines issued to all developers by Apple and because of that they rejected their application.
Basically the problem with his app is that it enables you to 'download' podcasts. This essentially enables downloading of ANY mp3. Like it or not Apple have pretty strict agreements with their music industry partners and for that reason will reject any application that would enable downloading music from sources outside of iTunes.
Now. if they had tweaked the app to only stream podcasts then they could quite happily have resubmitted the app and had it passed but they choose to abuse the developers distribution path and only give the app to people who pay them 10 dollars.
Because of one retarded dev all of the genuine developers have been further restricted.
Now we have a thread comprised of mostly assholes who are in defence of the muppets who couldn't read the fucking dev guidelines.
Right on.
However, the biggest issue was that it allowed downloading "video" podcasts without using Wi-Fi or being directly connected to your computer and syncing via iTunes. As Apple clearly pointed out in the iPhone 3G keynotes and reiterated in the iPhone NDA, it wasn't allowed due to potential issues that could affect the service.
You do realize that reading and interpreting virtually any data feed: HTML, XML, or any other formatted data file is effectively running interpreted third-party code?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot
Checklist checklist checklist, Apple needs to release a checklist for developers before they create their Apps so these things wont happen.
Checklist checklist checklist
Checklist
Rule 1 : Dont have similar function to Apple built in software.
Rule 2 : Dont associate your software with Apple software.
Rule 3 : Dont infringe the provider Term and Condition eg: no tethering.
Something like this, but it should be a checklist rather then rules
What an amazing idea, why didn't Apple think of this? They could set these items out in the Terms and Conditions that developers already have to agree to, couldn't they? Oh, wait...
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.
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?
Most of the blocks so far have been because of a breach of terms and conditions.
Quote:
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 love these Apple/MS comparisons. Exactly which competitor is being "killed" by Apple's behaviour in choosing iPhone apps to block?
They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that they could not distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store, let alone develop an app that circumvented in acquiring video..
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?
Most of the blocks so far have been because of a breach of terms and conditions.
I love these Apple/MS comparisons. Exactly which competitor is being "killed" by Apple's behaviour in choosing iPhone apps to block?
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.
Comments
Hey Apple, I hope you're listening:
F you.
Please stop screwing your developers.
Once again, f you.
What iPhone application do you develop? Which iPhone developers do you speak for?
If you answer no to these questions then what the hell are you whining about?
The point is that as an iPhone developer, you have no choice but to depend on the AppStore
Wow! You don't have to market nor manage your own infrastructure, bandwidth, etc. All you have to do is come up with a compelling application that drives business to your company.
Come on. Hire some folks with ideas. They do help.
Want to know the most frustrating thing about being an iPhone developer? People who review your app saying it should be cheaper/free. Next most frustrating is people reviewing your app suggesting features the app already has or otherwise saying things that make it obvious they didn't even buy it.
Apple's review policies are way, way down on the list of frustrating things about iPhone development.
The good part is handing off the app to Apple and have them take care of all the work for you, selling your app around the world in all sorts of currencies and distributing it to all localities without needing to monitor any bandwidth, security, credit card clearances, etc. Seriously, at the risk of being called a troll, there are a lot of whiners around...
It's because second rate applications that take years to become solid applications [become solid mainly due to private funding by large corporations with quite a large portion of the code submissions included] from the FOSS community jump up to tout the merits of FOSS without studying the actual behind the scenes stages it took to reach this point.
To the average Linux, OS X, FreeBSD, OpenBSD [nod to Theo's greatly appreciated efforts of his teams] and others never involved in writing software they just somehow think people are willing to work for FREE because it's just too damn cool not to do so.
LINUX is a prime example of it's growth taking off because it's maturity made it possible. Where did this maturity come from? From the billions of dollars IBM, Google, RedHat, Oracle, Novell, et.al invested in developing the platform for you to benefit from and they somehow continue to overlook that set of facts while trumpeting Linux.
I love Linux and of course, OS X--I preferred NeXTSTEP/Openstep but then again I only worked for the companies so what do I know.
It's pathetic that these narcissistic generation XX/YY/ZZ drones whine that your application isn't Free.
I suggest they write their own and give them away, but very few want to actually put up and sure as hell don't want to shut up.
Keep plugging away at your business.
To everyone who whines about legal agreements and these not being GPL'd enough for you, I suggest you work on Android and Linux, but don't be surprised that your "ideas" and efforts run into a major roadblock---key developers of both control the source code like you keep whining Apple is dictating their AppStore, and then some.
Try writing some code for the Linux Kernel, or the User Space and brace yourself when your code gets rejected and dragged through the mud for piss poor quality.
You can always write a GTK+, Qt 4.x, GNUStep/ObjC app, Python, Tcl/Tk, ML, Haskell, etc application and give them away. You'll still get trashed if you don't conform to the GPLv3, even if it's the Next Big Thing.
VariCAD is an example: http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show...?content=11539
People there bitch that an actual Professional CAD program isn't FREE. Grow up.
Face it. You can never please all idealogies and you should never cater to any of them unless it makes sound business to do so.
It's pathetic that these narcissistic generation XX/YY/ZZ drones whine that your application isn't Free.
And you would be the old-as-dirt, cynical curmudgeon?
Checklist checklist checklist
Checklist
Rule 1 : Dont have similar function to Apple built in software.
Rule 2 : Dont associate your software with Apple software.
Rule 3 : Dont infringe the provider Term and Condition eg: no tethering.
Something like this, but it should be a checklist rather then rules
Along these lines, yesterday MochaSofts RDP Lite and RDP full version were removed from the Apps store. Too bad because they were cheaper and worked much more reliably than WinAdmin for remote desktop. I don't know reason why but we are left with still quirky WinAdmin as the only Windows Remote Desktop application for iPhone.
As much as I disagree with Apple in this case they might have a ligitment reason to drop the app.
See: Mochasoft Iphone, Ipod app. violates GPL
Yes, the average developer who just wants to make a buck will churn out cute little apps that have some utility. But Apple is keeping the REALLY INNOVATIVE apps from being born and thus stifling innovation.
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?
Basically the problem with his app is that it enables you to 'download' podcasts. This essentially enables downloading of ANY mp3. Like it or not Apple have pretty strict agreements with their music industry partners and for that reason will reject any application that would enable downloading music from sources outside of iTunes.
Now. if they had tweaked the app to only stream podcasts then they could quite happily have resubmitted the app and had it passed but they choose to abuse the developers distribution path and only give the app to people who pay them 10 dollars.
Because of one retarded dev all of the genuine developers have been further restricted.
Now we have a thread comprised of mostly assholes who are in defence of the muppets who couldn't read the fucking dev guidelines.
Perception is reality.
Read - Apple: White Hat, Black Hat
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...ter-perce.html
The iPhone/iTunes link is so embedded in our culture I can't help but wonder if Apple would have to promise to kill a puppy every time a free App was downloaded before it would significantly affect iPhone sales.
I would much prefer that Apple's review process only assessed the following factors:
(1) Does the App fuck up an iPhone?
(2) Does the App perform the function it states?
(3) Does the App comply with standard interface guidelines?
let the peer review process sort the rest out.
I will not be corralled!
(But if I am corralled I reserve the right to hold a grudge and make an angry post about it on the internet)
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?
Netshare?
You do realize that reading and interpreting virtually any data feed: HTML, XML, or any other formatted data file is effectively running interpreted third-party code?
You do realise that those data files you describe aren't executable code, hence being "data" files. "Code" refers to something executable.
Almerica the creator of podcaster are complete tools. They ignored the guidelines issued to all developers by Apple and because of that they rejected their application.
Basically the problem with his app is that it enables you to 'download' podcasts. This essentially enables downloading of ANY mp3. Like it or not Apple have pretty strict agreements with their music industry partners and for that reason will reject any application that would enable downloading music from sources outside of iTunes.
Now. if they had tweaked the app to only stream podcasts then they could quite happily have resubmitted the app and had it passed but they choose to abuse the developers distribution path and only give the app to people who pay them 10 dollars.
Because of one retarded dev all of the genuine developers have been further restricted.
Now we have a thread comprised of mostly assholes who are in defence of the muppets who couldn't read the fucking dev guidelines.
Right on.
However, the biggest issue was that it allowed downloading "video" podcasts without using Wi-Fi or being directly connected to your computer and syncing via iTunes. As Apple clearly pointed out in the iPhone 3G keynotes and reiterated in the iPhone NDA, it wasn't allowed due to potential issues that could affect the service.
You do realize that reading and interpreting virtually any data feed: HTML, XML, or any other formatted data file is effectively running interpreted third-party code?
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.
Checklist checklist checklist, Apple needs to release a checklist for developers before they create their Apps so these things wont happen.
Checklist checklist checklist
Checklist
Rule 1 : Dont have similar function to Apple built in software.
Rule 2 : Dont associate your software with Apple software.
Rule 3 : Dont infringe the provider Term and Condition eg: no tethering.
Something like this, but it should be a checklist rather then rules
What an amazing idea, why didn't Apple think of this? They could set these items out in the Terms and Conditions that developers already have to agree to, couldn't they? Oh, wait...
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.
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?
Most of the blocks so far have been because of a breach of terms and conditions.
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 love these Apple/MS comparisons. Exactly which competitor is being "killed" by Apple's behaviour in choosing iPhone apps to block?
Rule 1 : Dont have similar function to Apple built in software.
that rule is bullshit, competition drives innovation.
example: Google maps on blackberry made Blackberry maps step up their game
They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that they could not distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store, let alone develop an app that circumvented in acquiring video..
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?
Most of the blocks so far have been because of a breach of terms and conditions.
I love these Apple/MS comparisons. Exactly which competitor is being "killed" by Apple's behaviour in choosing iPhone apps to block?
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.