iPod Touch Owner: I WANT MY APPS!
Hear this Apple!
I paid you good money for TWO iPod Touches
I paid you good money for TWO OS upgrades (x2)
Why are you preventing me from running applications that developers spent many hours and many dollars creating??? AT&T has no business restricting what I can have on my iPod Touch! Period, end of sentence. If this continues to be the standard operation procedure at Apple then I think its about time we start looking at the alternatives and not just buyers but developers too.
Come on, please don't tell me you can't restrict certain applications to only install/run on the iPod Touch (and the tablet if/when that gets released). We both know you can if you wanted to and if you're gonna let AT&T dictate what's allowed and what's not I really think you need to.
Dave
I paid you good money for TWO iPod Touches
I paid you good money for TWO OS upgrades (x2)
Why are you preventing me from running applications that developers spent many hours and many dollars creating??? AT&T has no business restricting what I can have on my iPod Touch! Period, end of sentence. If this continues to be the standard operation procedure at Apple then I think its about time we start looking at the alternatives and not just buyers but developers too.
Come on, please don't tell me you can't restrict certain applications to only install/run on the iPod Touch (and the tablet if/when that gets released). We both know you can if you wanted to and if you're gonna let AT&T dictate what's allowed and what's not I really think you need to.
Dave
Comments
Hear this Apple!
I paid you good money for TWO iPod Touches
I paid you good money for TWO OS upgrades (x2)
Why are you preventing me from running applications that developers spent many hours and many dollars creating??? AT&T has no business restricting what I can have on my iPod Touch! Period, end of sentence. If this continues to be the standard operation procedure at Apple then I think its about time we start looking at the alternatives and not just buyers but developers too.
Come on, please don't tell me you can't restrict certain applications to only install/run on the iPod Touch (and the tablet if/when that gets released). We both know you can if you wanted to and if you're gonna let AT&T dictate what's allowed and what's not I really think you need to.
Dave
So what's your point?
So what's your point?
In short and simple to understand words...
Why is my iPod Touch being held back (restricted) from running software simply because AT&T doesn't happen to like it.
In short and simple to understand words...
Are you talking about?
1) Apps that will only run on the iPhone, and not the iPod touch.
2) Apps that were not accepted by the App store that you need to jailbreak an iPhone/iPod touch.
You're not being clear.
So what's your point?
Yes, sounds like the OP is suffering from mental problems.
AT&T is responsible for blocking applications 3rd party developers have written for us!
Do you, as an iPod Touch owner (who has to pay for each and every new feature Apple rolls out) think its fair that AT&T has a say as to what applications are approved for your iPod? Today AT&T has exactly that kind of power! It's my iPod, its not on your network, you have no business preventing Apple from approving applications written for it.
Yet a number of Applications have been pulled or flat out rejected from ever appearing on the App Store... Not due to adult content, not due to violence, but simply because AT&T doesn't like the applications so Apple is rejecting them, not just for the iPhone but for the iPod Touch as well...
AT&T might have a say when it comes to the iPhone since its on their network..
The iPod Touch however is NOT on the AT&T network and we should not be prevented from installing these applications on our iPods.
D
Yes, sounds like the OP is suffering from mental problems.
Post reported... Personal attacks are not appreciated and should be punished by the mods.
Post reported... Personal attacks are not appreciated and should be punished by the mods.
I was just trying to help diagnose your problem.
In short and simple to understand words...
Oh. I see.
Hear this Apple!
I paid you good money for TWO iPod Touches
I paid you good money for TWO OS upgrades (x2)
Why are you preventing me from running applications that developers spent many hours and many dollars creating??? AT&T has no business restricting what I can have on my iPod Touch! Period, end of sentence. If this continues to be the standard operation procedure at Apple then I think its about time we start looking at the alternatives and not just buyers but developers too.
Come on, please don't tell me you can't restrict certain applications to only install/run on the iPod Touch (and the tablet if/when that gets released). We both know you can if you wanted to and if you're gonna let AT&T dictate what's allowed and what's not I really think you need to.
Dave
You obviously believe that owning these products entitles you to be able to run any software that any developer makes. Walmart will not sell you every product that someone made for retail in hopes that Walmart would sell it. Blockbuster does not sell every movie some producer made. Apple does not sell every app that developers make. It's their store. They can sell or decline anything they wish. If you do not have enough choice to suit you, sell your devices on eBay. Microsoft, Palm, BB, and HTC are are standing by to take your order. I don't think you're wounded sense of entitlement will play well there either, but they are all desperate. It won't hurt to give them a shot.
You obviously believe that owning these products entitles you to be able to run any software that any developer makes. Walmart will not sell you every product that someone made for retail in hopes that Walmart would sell it. Blockbuster does not sell every movie some producer made. Apple does not sell every app that developers make. It's their store. They can sell or decline anything they wish. If you do not have enough choice to suit you, sell your devices on eBay. Microsoft, Palm, BB, and HTC are are standing by to take your order. I don't think you're wounded sense of entitlement will play well there either, but they are all desperate. It won't hurt to give them a shot.
"wounded sense of entitlement"
All I'm asking for is for Apple to treat the App Store like they said they would... Fair and above board... They made mention that adult content could be problematic but the applications I'm taking about do not even remotely fall into that category.
Apple's app store is the only way 3rd party developers can get its SDK developed software to end users and Apple has made promises to its developers (and iPod buyers) that the application review & acceptance process would be fair and processed as quickly as possible.
Now do you feel its fair that:
iFart was (eventually) accepted with open arms, yet professionally written and backed applications like SlingPlayer need to be crippled before they get accepted and other applications like Qik and the Google Voice client (written by Google) for the iPhone are simply not available period.
You feel an Application Store that behaves the way Apples App Store does is acceptable and buyers should just sit down, shut up and smile because we're not allowed to voice our displeasure with the way Apple has changed its app store policy.
Well thankfully Dictator Mac Voyer isn't ruling the world...
Remember, Apple breaking promises to developers about application approvals and yanking previously accepted applications from the store is a relatively new thing.
If people don't voice their concerns with it things will only get worse and someday an application you DO happen to care about will be the one getting the AXE (after the app has already been written no doubt) but by then all the people you'd expect to be behind you supporting you're anger over it have all been shouted down long ago by people... by people JUST LIKE YOU!
Dave
Two counterexamples I can come up with: SlingPlayer and Skype. They don't use the cellular connection for their heavy traffic. They weren't axed because of any carrier, you use it on a WiFi connection.
You obviously believe that owning these products entitles you to be able to run any software that any developer makes. Walmart will not sell you every product that someone made for retail in hopes that Walmart would sell it. Blockbuster does not sell every movie some producer made. Apple does not sell every app that developers make. It's their store.
It's not a good comparison. In the long-tail digital distribution world, the space limitation of brick and mortar doesn't compare with a few bits on a server somewhere.
It's not a good comparison. In the long-tail digital distribution world, the space limitation of brick and mortar doesn't compare with a few bits on a server somewhere.
I respectfully disagree. I believe it is a good comparison because the retail outlets I mentioned do not restrict product categories on the basis of space; they do so on the basis of company policy and culture. They are entitled to do that. You don't have to like their policy and culture. The fact that you don't does not make it wrong. The free market allows you to vote with your dollars. You can spend them elsewhere. The manufacturers of products can open there own sales channels if they believe in them that much. The one who owns the sales channel decides what goes through.
Dave, I understand your frustration. I believe you know that Apple is perfectly within their rights regarding their actions with the app store. But your complaint is less about rights and more about your desire for Apple to change its policies in a way that would be more favorable to you. I get that. I'm with you. Voice your outrage. Good luck with that. I have less outrage perhaps because I remember life before the iPhone. I have a historical sense of what Apple has accomplished in a very short time. My expectations were met before there was an SDK. Now, everyone has an expectation of what the iPhone and the app store should be. As a consumer, you can promote change by where and how you spend your money. Obviously enough people are satisfied with what Apple is doing. That may change at some point and you are free to start the consumer revolt. But you will never win by demanding "rights" that you do not have. I suspect Apple will make many of the changes you want within the next few months and years as consumers demand even more and competition becomes more fierce. That is the nature of the marketplace.
One last thing, you should spare a little of your outrage at the competitors for not having the savvy to come up with something better. Apple is not suppressing the market in any way. Palm is wasting their efforts trying to piggy back on Apple's work rather than building up their own infrastructure. BB has their head up business' backside. Google and MS are pushing a hardware partnership model that always plays to the lowest common denominator. Apple is the only one who actually did something different in this space and it has paid off spectacularly. The industry seems to be hanging on to failed business models or waiting for Apple's next move. They are the one's you should be angry with. We don't need a better iPhone or a better apps store, or even better laws; we need better competition.
Perhaps its why I'm so frustrated with some of their decisions as of late...
The idea of an OS/device developer to go out of its way to deny/restrict (etc) an application from running on their device is very upsetting to me. Why would they not want me to run a program that a developer put forth the effort to create? I've been a Mac users since its introduction and our biggest problem has always been... Yea, that software looks cool... too bad we'll likely never see in on our Macs.
Yes yes yes... I get it... This isn't Kansas anymore Toto...
The world is a very different place than it was when I first started playing with Pet CBM's & PDP11's... Old as dirt? Almost...
So anyway, the concept of Apple telling a developer we don't want your software to run on our hardware (no matter what our customers think) is still very foreign and frankly more that a little frightening to me.
I guess I was hoping these (outlandish to me) concepts about denying users the ability to run applications no matter how they felt was shared by more people.
Evidently I'm very much in the minority and most people are perfectly fine with a hardware maker having the ultimate say as to what you can and can't run on your computer (iPod or not, the touch is still a computer in my eyes).
I guess I'm always thinking how many times can Apple pull moves like this...
Allowing developers to invest their dollars in writing software for a device only to have all that money go down the drain at the 11th hour because Apple just didn't like what you wrote.
...before developers start to think that developing anything truly cutting edge simply isn't worth doing on the iPhone/iPod OS.
After all, would you invest potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars on a truly game changing application for the iPhone? I know I'd have to advise against it... What so Apple can kill it before it even gets a chance... No, I'd have to advise developers to develop on a platform where you know you're program will see the light of day and then get around to doing an iPhone version only after it was successful and even then don't be shocked when Apple smacks it down anyway.
Dave
I guess I'm always thinking how many times can Apple pull moves like this...
Allowing developers to invest their dollars in writing software for a device only to have all that money go down the drain at the 11th hour because Apple just didn't like what you wrote.
...before developers start to think that developing anything truly cutting edge simply isn't worth doing on the iPhone/iPod OS.
After all, would you invest potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars on a truly game changing application for the iPhone? I know I'd have to advise against it... What so Apple can kill it before it even gets a chance... No, I'd have to advise developers to develop on a platform where you know you're program will see the light of day and then get around to doing an iPhone version only after it was successful and even then don't be shocked when Apple smacks it down anyway.
Dave
I can appreciate, even agree with your concern in general. But I believe the case is being grossly overstated. According to Apple, 95% of all apps submitted are approved within a week, 98% within two weeks. No way can that be described as a problem of epic proportions. I wonder what the rejection rate is for other stores. Apple is likely the only store making the news because it is the only store that matters. As for the 2% that don't make it, I bet most of those are porn apps or something similar. The tiny fraction of a percentage that remains does not represent an unacceptable risk for good developers.
There are some app categories that will have a higher rejection risk than others. Stay away from apps that try to change or compete with Apple's interface and core functionality. Making a better email client or web browser is frowned upon. Doing things that are likely to upset AT&T or heavily use their network will bring closer scrutiny. Providing easy access to obscenity or none family friendly material will get a second look. These are things that people should know up front. They should make such applications at their own risk as they have a high likelihood of being rejected. It is the same as making a racy made for DVD movie hoping that blockbuster will pick it up. They might, but it is a high-risk business. The vast majority of apps are not in that high-risk space. I see no reason for app developers to fear just yet. Apparently, neither do they.
Having said that, it would be great if a developer could submit the app idea for approval before writing the app. I suspect even that would not solve the problem. More apps would be rejected because Apple would have time to consider the app before it was made. Half the apps in the store would never pass such close scrutiny. Who at Apple is going to approve iFart as a good idea to make? It would also increase the amount of time it takes for apps to go to market. There is no perfect solution but Apple could do better. Still, we are talking mostly about outliers right now.
Before you say it, even Google should have known better than to write an app that offers a different phone dialer and change the nature of how calls are made. This is not something you do with an app submission to a locked down device with a contractual relationship with an even more locked down partner. What Google wants to do is fundamentally change the mobil communications industry without building their own devices or infrastructure. I hope Google succeeds, but they are going to have to invest a lot more effort and resources into it than just writing an iPhone app. As I said in my previous post, we do not need better iDevices, apps stores, or laws, we need better competitors.