PDA

View Full Version : Apple Bans Developer with 800+ Apps from App Store




MacRumors
Aug 4, 2009, 02:39 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/08/04/apple-bans-developer-with-800-apps-from-app-store/)

MobileCrunch has reported (http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/08/03/apple-bans-app-stores-3rd-most-prolific-developer/) that Apple has banned developer Khalid Shaikh from the App Store and removed all 800+ of his apps that were being sold in the App Store. Apple's "Notice of Termination" e-mail to Shaikh describes that third-party intellectual property complaints are the impetus behind the banning:

Pursuant to Section 3.2(d) of the iDP Agreement, you agreed that "to the best of Your knowledge and belief, Your Application and Licensed Application Information do not and will not violate, misappropriate, or infringe any Apple or third party copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy and publicity, trade secrets, patents, or other proprietary or legal rights (e.g. musical composition or performance rights, video rights, photography or image rights, logo rights, third party data rights, etc. for content and materials that may be included in Your Application)." Apple has informed you of numerous third party intellectual property complaints concerning over 100 of your Applications and reminded you of your obligations to obtain the necessary rights prior to submission of your Applications. Nevertheless, we continue to receive the same or similar types of complaints regarding your Applications despite our repeated notices to you. The persistent nature of such complaints has led us to conclude that you are entering into the representations and warranties in the iDP Agreement in bad faith by misrepresenting that you have all the necessary rights for your submissions.

As the MobileCrunch article points out, a search (http://www.appshopper.com/search/?cat=&set=&search=khalid+shaikh) at AppShopper.com shows 854 apps by Shaikh. The majority of Shaikh's apps seemed to be data on a specific subject simply pulled from the web without providing any other original or unique content. Most apps were priced at $4.99 and this banishment could represent lost sales of thousands of dollars per day. Shaikh reportedly has admitted that the goal was not to produce valuable apps but to focus on monetization instead. All of Shaikh's apps have already been removed from the App Store and can no longer be purchased.

The App Store policies and approval process have been under quite a bit of fire lately, most notably with the rejection of the official Google Voice app (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/28/apple-rejects-official-google-voice-iphone-application/), as well as the removal of 3rd-party Google Voice apps from the App Store in recent weeks. Apple has been tight-lipped with the public about such rejections though some affected developers have publicized their communications with Apple and spoken openly of their opinions of App Store practices.

Article Link: Apple Bans Developer with 800+ Apps from App Store (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/08/04/apple-bans-developer-with-800-apps-from-app-store/)



GoCubsGo
Aug 4, 2009, 02:43 PM
Farewell Shaikh. I guess my phone is useless without your wonderful contribution such as Top Sex Ladies <insert some hot chick's name here>. :rolleyes:

I never liked the $5 apps that polled from the web and offered no unique content. Of course people will be up in arms but I for one find this to be a nice move on Apple's part. Google voice ... not so much, Shaikh going down, a ok by me!

In summary ... GOOD! :D

Snide
Aug 4, 2009, 02:45 PM
Good Job Apple - now if only we could do something about Jody Sanders (http://blog.iphone-dev.org/post/68156562/hello-jody)...

-aggie-
Aug 4, 2009, 02:46 PM
Farewell Shaikh. I guess my phone is useless without your wonderful contribution such as Top Sex Ladies <insert some hot chick's name here>. :rolleyes:

I never liked the $5 apps that polled from the web and offered no unique content. Of course people will be up in arms but I for one find this to be a nice move on Apple's part. Google voice ... not so much, Shaikh going down, a ok by me!

In summary ... GOOD! :D

But you loved the Top Sex Guys <insert some hot stud here>. :):rolleyes:

And I'll be glad to see him go as well, but you know someone will take his place.

Unspoken Demise
Aug 4, 2009, 02:47 PM
WEAR I GON GET SXY PR0N WIMINZ NAO?

Good move Apple.

celticpride678
Aug 4, 2009, 02:51 PM
I wonder how long it took for him to develop all those applications.:confused:

TheOrioles33
Aug 4, 2009, 02:52 PM
I agree with all of the above. His apps were crap. Who would pay $4.99 of any of those anyways?

Diode
Aug 4, 2009, 02:53 PM
My guess was copy right violation for the images in his "top sexy" programs.

CTYankee
Aug 4, 2009, 02:53 PM
I wonder how long it took for him to develop all those applications.:confused:
slave labor: 26 employees, 12 hour days, 6 days a week for very low pay. OK, not slave labor, but certainly does show where his priorities were. Profit.

SFStateStudent
Aug 4, 2009, 02:54 PM
Isn't windows and palmpre looking for developers? :eek:

admanimal
Aug 4, 2009, 02:54 PM
I think Apple should find some way of limiting how many apps the average single developer can submit. There is no way one person can create and support even 10-15 truly high-quality apps. Apple needs to encourage quality over quantity to prevent the App Store from being even more of a crap warehouse than it currently is.

uberamd
Aug 4, 2009, 02:55 PM
Good. Any dev that can push 800+ apps into the store (which is a large overall percentage for a lone dev) deserves the boot. Its obvious his apps are of little value.

BPresley321
Aug 4, 2009, 02:55 PM
Makes me wonder if he actually made any decent money off of that crap...

Eraserhead
Aug 4, 2009, 02:59 PM
This is a good move, pulling some of the other apps doesn't look so good.

FreeState
Aug 4, 2009, 03:04 PM
I wonder how long it took for him to develop all those applications.:confused:

Templates - all he has to do is slightly modify the logo and the content (10 to 15 minutes each). There is another developer doing similar with Buddhist apps as well (they are free online books he packages for $.99 and just changes the icon - they all are bad IMO).

Achiever
Aug 4, 2009, 03:07 PM
certainly does show where his priorities were. Profit.

Oh my God! It's one of "them", Hon! It's a CAPITALIST!!!!!!!

What in the hell is wrong with making a profit and when, exactly, did Americans finally start drinking the socialism Kool-Aid?

Look people, if his apps were crap, they wouldn't be purchased and he would lose money and stop making them. If he was making money, then people were finding them useful. If Apple wants to pull the apps for terms of use violations then fine, those are their rules and everyone knew them going in, but I don't begrudge a small business owner who has committed no crime and whose sole motivation is making money. To anyone who does begrudge him of this I issue the following challenge: march straight into your boss' office and demand that they pay you less money. You know, since it's not about "profit".

I didn't think so.

QCassidy352
Aug 4, 2009, 03:18 PM
I don't think MR should have tried to tie this article in to the GV controversy. The tenuous connection of "app store restrictions" is not enough. This guy was (allegedly) stealing intellectual property and violating the terms of the agreement he had with Apple. Bringing up GV again is just trying to fan the flames of an unrelated controversy.

javaGuru
Aug 4, 2009, 03:18 PM
If all of his apps violated the terms of agreement for being an iPhone app developer how in the heck did they all get approved in the first place..while apps like google voice and other worthy apps are rejected?

G4R2
Aug 4, 2009, 03:19 PM
Unlike other dubious apps, this is a clear cut example of someone who was gaming the system.

Well done Apple.

dasmb
Aug 4, 2009, 03:20 PM
I think Apple should find some way of limiting how many apps the average single developer can submit. There is no way one person can create and support even 10-15 truly high-quality apps. Apple needs to encourage quality over quantity to prevent the App Store from being even more of a crap warehouse than it currently is.

Well, the EAs and Googles of the world could kick out a hundred strong apps no issue. But you have a point -- some means of encouraging developers to focus on quality is paramount.

Perhaps your iPhone developer's kit only gives you access to market a handful of apps -- say, 5. Your sixth app would cost a listing fee -- say, a few hundred dollars -- and in exchange, Apple would grant you their cut of the fees until you surpassed a certain sales mark. The incentive to monetize an inferior app based on rich, curious suckers is diminished when you have to bank on a minimum number of these suckers to make the scam work...and the net effect on truly prodigious, quality minded developers is neutral.

Eventually, Apple will need to introduce the concept of a money back guarantee -- one click to remove Khalid's apps from your machine and credit your account. After that, all you need is a way to "vote apps off the island" so it were, and you have a very consumer friendly app store. Again -- the net effect on quality minded developers is minimal, but carpet baggers will have to seek greener pastures.

Chris Rogers
Aug 4, 2009, 03:22 PM
Would be interesting to see what they do with his earnings...I'll take them :D

earnjam
Aug 4, 2009, 03:25 PM
Oh my God! It's one of "them", Hon! It's a CAPITALIST!!!!!!!

What in the hell is wrong with making a profit and when, exactly, did Americans finally start drinking the socialism Kool-Aid?

Look people, if his apps were crap, they wouldn't be purchased and he would lose money and stop making them. If he was making money, then people were finding them useful. If Apple wants to pull the apps for terms of use violations then fine, those are their rules and everyone knew them going in, but I don't begrudge a small business owner who has committed no crime and whose sole motivation is making money. To anyone who does begrudge him of this I issue the following challenge: march straight into your boss' office and demand that they pay you less money. You know, since it's not about "profit".

I didn't think so.

You hit the nail on the head. People shouldn't be getting up in arms about the profits...seems Americans are doing that in every other industry though (banking, oil, etc). Apple did the right thing because he was violating the terms.

If all of his apps violated the terms of agreement for being an iPhone app developer how in the heck did they all get approved in the first place..while apps like google voice and other worthy apps are rejected?

This is the REAL question here. Why can't they just a grip on this darn system?

javaGuru
Aug 4, 2009, 03:31 PM
Oh my God! It's one of "them", Hon! It's a CAPITALIST!!!!!!!

What in the hell is wrong with making a profit and when, exactly, did Americans finally start drinking the socialism Kool-Aid?

Look people, if his apps were crap, they wouldn't be purchased and he would lose money and stop making them. If he was making money, then people were finding them useful. If Apple wants to pull the apps for terms of use violations then fine, those are their rules and everyone knew them going in, but I don't begrudge a small business owner who has committed no crime and whose sole motivation is making money. To anyone who does begrudge him of this I issue the following challenge: march straight into your boss' office and demand that they pay you less money. You know, since it's not about "profit".



I didn't think so.

Mega dittos! I totally agree with this statement. It seems like we are now living in a society where it's bad and somehow evil to want to better yourself by making a profit. Success and achievement are definitely under attack in the country. Somehow it has become evil and immoral to want to make large profits.

As this relates to this developer who was banned. If he was indeed violating Apple's terms of agreement for submitting apps to the iTunes app store then he should have been banned. I don't think he was banned because he merely wanted to make a profit. He was banned because the content of his apps were not original etc. If banning developers for merely wanting to make a profit there would be no developers left.

bw300
Aug 4, 2009, 03:31 PM
I agree-- Apple needs to develop a scheme to separate the well-designed, useful apps from the crap. Most of the apps are poorly written.

In some cases, I've even seen some the Apple sample code pawned off as original apps (Earthquakes, a metronome app, etc.).

dasmb
Aug 4, 2009, 03:32 PM
I don't begrudge a small business owner who has committed no crime and whose sole motivation is making money.

And I don't begrudge a retailer (Apple) for wanting to clear their shelves of inferior products that decrease public trust in their marketplace. This is one of the reasons why you choose a managed app store over the anarchy of the internet -- there's somebody out there to protect the curious consumer from applications that offer no real value.

Arguments to pure Capitalism fail when you realize this isn't a case of somebody offering an inferior product to a well informed populace with the ability to make cautious decisions. Since you can't evaluate apps before purchasing, every app purchase is an exercise in trust. It's like buying a car based solely on the dealer's description and the sticker price -- only while that is a stupid way to buy cars and there are laws to protect you even if you did, there is no other way to buy apps and your only protection is Apple.

In short: I support Khalid's right to make terrible applications. But even more, I support Apple's right to remove them. The threat of summary removal should be a cue to all developers: write good software, fix your bugs, define your space, service your market and charge a fair price if you want to do business on the iPhone. If you aren't comfortable doing good work for fair pay, this isn't a monopoly: there are many other cell phones you can write terrible software for.

To anyone who does begrudge him of this I issue the following challenge: march straight into your boss' office and demand that they pay you less money.

Lots of people leave high paying jobs that are no longer intellectually or morally rewarding. I myself have done this twice.

Stargaze
Aug 4, 2009, 03:37 PM
Hopefully this is the FIRST of MANY app store cleanouts!! 10,000+ apps in the app store

less than 1000* useful apps



*no research was actually done just a random number i thought of.

Randman
Aug 4, 2009, 03:37 PM
800 down, about 58,000 more useless ones to go ...

Compile 'em all
Aug 4, 2009, 03:41 PM
Makes me wonder if he actually made any decent money off of that crap...

Read the mobile crunch article. He was clearing around 1000 bucks a day. Think about it, he has 900 apps, each app is 5$.

The thing is, there is also another company "brighthouse labs" that has 2000 apps. Hopefully they join el sheikh :D

MooseBlood
Aug 4, 2009, 03:45 PM
Tying this to Socialism.... amazing........

Anyway. I think the point is that people who will churn out crap in order to make a profit should be called to the carpet. When your way of making a profit INFRINGES ON COPYRIGHTS then you are TAKING AWAY from the profit of the person who actually did the work.

That's not socialism to blast a guy for "making a profit". It is capitalism at its finest. People get up in arms when people have the "profit at any cost" mentality, more specifically when that mindset is based on STEALING from other people in order to line your own pockets.

See how profit can be bad? See how it isn't an anti-capitalism rant to say that this joker was just seeing the dollar signs and looking to get rich because he was interested in "monetization"? Get a grip and stop using this board as a place to twist people's comments into some sort of proof that we are all worth of Joe McCarthy's wrath when we bring up a problem with "profit".

Making a profit? Good. Making a profit by stealing the work of others and misrepresenting products to consumers by overcharging and "marketing" the heck out of crap by oversaturation with stolen material in hopes to find a sucker? Bad. And that doesn't make people who blast it Socialists/Communists/Anarchists/or the Anti-Christ. It makes us ethical.

LoganT
Aug 4, 2009, 03:46 PM
First step Apple needs to do is delete the Entertainment category. Those apps are mostly fun for 2 seconds.

iphones4evry1
Aug 4, 2009, 03:46 PM
I agree with all of the above. His apps were crap. Who would pay $4.99 of any of those anyways?

I think the world will now be a better place. :)

I know that Apple likes to boast "over a million Apps" or whatever the number is, but I'm sick and tired of having to sift through all of the useless junk Apps to find the Apps that are actually useful.
Note to Apple: I hope this was just the beginning. Get rid of all the other useless junk Apps while you are at it.

iSimx
Aug 4, 2009, 03:48 PM
what a complete prat.

ct2k7
Aug 4, 2009, 03:51 PM
If Apple exorcised this with every app developer, there wouldn't be too many left.


It's a shame that he's gone, but he did have some good apps, not all of them pulled content from the web, without providing a source.

piodiaz
Aug 4, 2009, 04:02 PM
Hopefully this is the FIRST of MANY app store cleanouts!! 10,000+ apps in the app store

less than 1000* useful apps



I totally agree, I was waiting for this to happen, same thing should happen to the "Travel To" Apps, and all those apps that offer too many apps. What happened to in-apps purchases, Buying a "Travel to" app and inside the app being able to purchase any city you want, but not clog the appstore with crap. this is just an example cause there are a lot more.

Xian Zhu Xuande
Aug 4, 2009, 04:03 PM
Oh my God! It's one of "them", Hon! It's a CAPITALIST!!!!!!!
Did you enjoy your little rant, there?

I'm all for making money, and being a capitalist, but the person to whom you replied was taking issue with the fact that this developer clearly has no interest in contributing worthwhile software to the App Store. His apps are just a money grab with no interest in backing them with quality. Your knee-jerk reaction is totally off-topic and and, well, makes you look like the radical yourself.

By your line of reasoning we should commend someone for scamming money out of the elderly. They're just trying to make a buck, right? There are plenty of other things to consider in deciding how a capitalist should go about making their buck. I'll take a mom and pop store any day over Walmart.

Full of Win
Aug 4, 2009, 04:06 PM
Good for Apple...go after these iLeaches who steal content.

Achiever
Aug 4, 2009, 04:07 PM
And I don't begrudge a retailer (Apple) for wanting to clear their shelves of inferior products that decrease public trust in their marketplace. This is one of the reasons why you choose a managed app store over the anarchy of the internet -- there's somebody out there to protect the curious consumer from applications that offer no real value.


And who decides what is an "inferior product"? Clearly, Apple has the ability to restrict apps from entering their marketplace, but shouldn't it be up to the CONSUMER to decide what is good or not good in the marketplace? Isn't that what drives competition for developers to make things better? I love Apple products, but there are certainly instances where I prefer products - earbuds for example - put out by third-parties, so I purchase them. In a free market, the choice allows me the option for a better experience and also pushes Apple to improve their product so more consumers choose it.

Arguments to pure Capitalism fail when you realize this isn't a case of somebody offering an inferior product to a well informed populace with the ability to make cautious decisions. Since you can't evaluate apps before purchasing, every app purchase is an exercise in trust. It's like buying a car based solely on the dealer's description and the sticker price -- only while that is a stupid way to buy cars and there are laws to protect you even if you did, there is no other way to buy apps and your only protection is Apple.

An absolutely fair point, however this is a flaw in the App Store framework and not necessarily relevant to the critique I was making to the comments of a previous poster.


In short: I support Khalid's right to make terrible applications. But even more, I support Apple's right to remove them.

Me too. It's Apple's playground and we all know it from jump street. They can take the ball and go home whenever they want.


The threat of summary removal should be a cue to all developers: write good software, fix your bugs, define your space, service your market and charge a fair price if you want to do business on the iPhone. If you aren't comfortable doing good work for fair pay, this isn't a monopoly: there are many other cell phones you can write terrible software for.

And now we disagree again. The threat of a failing business model and poor sales should be the cue to all devs to shape up or ship out. That's not Apple's job. Besides, what's good to them isn't always good to the end user. Matte screens anyone? Firewire 400?


Lots of people leave high paying jobs that are no longer intellectually or morally rewarding. I myself have done this twice.

And I genuinely applaud you for it. Having done it twice, at least once you sought another high paying gig. Viva capitalism!

mixel
Aug 4, 2009, 04:07 PM
Good riddance. I'm glad Apple are on top of things like this. Flooding the store with junk like that.. Crazy abuse of the system really. You don't seem to get developers attempting things like this on open platforms.

ucfgrad93
Aug 4, 2009, 04:14 PM
Good move on Apple's part.

parafish13
Aug 4, 2009, 04:18 PM
Well said MooseBlood.

Acheiver, I don't want the market to decide what is good and bad. Look at the success of Transformers 2.

This is a fun thread. Good riddance to the crap apps.

Achiever
Aug 4, 2009, 04:24 PM
I think the point is that people who will churn out crap in order to make a profit should be called to the carpet. When your way of making a profit INFRINGES ON COPYRIGHTS then you are TAKING AWAY from the profit of the person who actually did the work.


Completely agree. Which is why I even stated in my reply to the poster that I had no issue with Apple removing the apps as they violate the terms of use. Again, Apple was NOT wrong to do it. What I took issue with was the commented belief that the developer putting out apps with the intention of making a profit was inherently wrong. I don't agree that that is wrong. I don't believe that an app has to have "value", which is a subjective concept to say the least, to be on the App Store. There is nothing "wrong" with an iFart app. If people like it, it will and should succeed. If they do not, it will not. The iFart guy had to have some belief that he was not adding to the educational value of our country when he submitted the app for approval, but that he would make a profit on a laugh. Good for him.

To the extent that the dev in question in here was stealing content, then there are legit causes of action against him and he should be held to the fire. But his comments don't reflect that, just that he has a desire to be "profitable" and didn't feel the need to "add anything of value". My argument is that this line of thinking is not inherently wrong.

Did you enjoy your little rant, there?

Yes. Yes I did. Thank you.

Frankly, part of my rage on this is living in NY and having a first hand and insiders view to how the public and politicians have wrongly pointed the finger for the underlying reasons for the current financial situation. I won't tangent here, but Main Street had a hell of a lot to do with what happened on Wall Street, though that position is never articulated in the common media. As such, there is a crusade against capitalism going on and I have a bird's eye seat, which disgusts me. When I hear people bemoan profiteering, this is salt on the wound. Profits and profiteering begets a great deal more positive benefit than it does negative. A lack of profiteering leads to USSR circa the 80's and 90s. Ok, I am getting this thread way off topic....


I'm all for making money, and being a capitalist, but the person to whom you replied was taking issue with the fact that this developer clearly has no interest in contributing worthwhile software to the App Store. His apps are just a money grab with no interest in backing them with quality.
Ok. So? Don't buy them. If enough people agree with you, he won't make money and will stop making apps. Easy solution.


By your line of reasoning we should commend someone for scamming money out of the elderly. They're just trying to make a buck, right?
No I never said anything of the sort, but...continue.

There are plenty of other things to consider in deciding how a capitalist should go about making their buck. I'll take a mom and pop store any day over Walmart.

Good for you. That is your CHOICE. I, and others, would like to make that choice for ourselves. Capitalism.

Achiever
Aug 4, 2009, 04:30 PM
Acheiver, I don't want the market to decide what is good and bad. Look at the success of Transformers 2.



Listen, as a child of the 80s, NO ONE had their heart broken more by the suckage that was the first Transformers than me. Hell, I still have the toys from when I was a kid in my attic! I so wanted that movie to be good, and it failed so miserably. So you know what I did? I didn't go see Transformers 2. I went to see the Hangover instead, because the market allowed me to make that choice for myself.

I, like may of you, wish Michael Bay would never make another movie ever again. But, unless and until the market dictates otherwise, he will. And frankly, his movies make enough money to suggest that his crap has "value" to some segment of the population. Just not to me. So I don't spend money on it. But I in no way think that because I find it to be crap, that the million other people who saw it and liked it should be denied their opportunity for enjoyment and as long as a million people did enjoy it, Bay should be able to profit from it. He has added "value" to their lives, if not to ours.

nick9191
Aug 4, 2009, 04:31 PM
10,000+ apps in the app store

65,000 actually, most of them worthless.

nagromme
Aug 4, 2009, 04:43 PM
Oh my God! It's one of "them", Hon! It's a CAPITALIST!!!!!!!

What in the hell is wrong with making a profit and when, exactly, did Americans finally start drinking the socialism Kool-Aid?

On the other hand, what is wrong with the suggestion that profit shouldn't ALWAYS be the number ONE priority? Why should we not praise a developer who focuses on quality first? We should we not criticize one who puts it last? That really IS a bad thing. Money isn't the ONLY good thing in the world.

Nobody said that he doesn't have the right to make money. The scary "socialism" buzzword just gets abused where it doesn't even apply these days :o

I also don't think you understand all the things this developer actually did. It's as though no matter what he did, it's OK as long as money was involved :o

arjaosx
Aug 4, 2009, 04:46 PM
Tying this to Socialism.... amazing........

Anyway. I think the point is that people who will churn out crap in order to make a profit should be called to the carpet. When your way of making a profit INFRINGES ON COPYRIGHTS then you are TAKING AWAY from the profit of the person who actually did the work.

That's not socialism to blast a guy for "making a profit". It is capitalism at its finest. People get up in arms when people have the "profit at any cost" mentality, more specifically when that mindset is based on STEALING from other people in order to line your own pockets.

See how profit can be bad? See how it isn't an anti-capitalism rant to say that this joker was just seeing the dollar signs and looking to get rich because he was interested in "monetization"? Get a grip and stop using this board as a place to twist people's comments into some sort of proof that we are all worth of Joe McCarthy's wrath when we bring up a problem with "profit".

Making a profit? Good. Making a profit by stealing the work of others and misrepresenting products to consumers by overcharging and "marketing" the heck out of crap by oversaturation with stolen material in hopes to find a sucker? Bad. And that doesn't make people who blast it Socialists/Communists/Anarchists/or the Anti-Christ. It makes us ethical.

Very sensible points you have here. It's not wrong to make a profit just as long as you don't rip off other people of their hard work.

JimmyBob
Aug 4, 2009, 04:48 PM
Well, I'd say by all means make a profit... I like money, it gives people choices. Just don't make money at the expense of someone else.

eg.

Apps that syphon off others sites.

Products that mislead as to their intentions and usefulness.

Giving credit to people who have no option but to eventually default.

BTW. What the hell is the stock market good for anyway?!:confused:

iphones4evry1
Aug 4, 2009, 04:49 PM
Good move on Apple's part.

Exactly. :)

I'm sick and tired of all the useless clutter in the App Store these days.

Mr. Zorg
Aug 4, 2009, 04:49 PM
Thank goodness. Now that Apple doesn't have to review this crap, maybe the rest of us smaller app devs can get a fair shake at a decent turnaround time by Apple. :p

Slurpy2k8
Aug 4, 2009, 05:15 PM
Oh my God! It's one of "them", Hon! It's a CAPITALIST!!!!!!!

What in the hell is wrong with making a profit and when, exactly, did Americans finally start drinking the socialism Kool-Aid?

Look people, if his apps were crap, they wouldn't be purchased and he would lose money and stop making them. If he was making money, then people were finding them useful. If Apple wants to pull the apps for terms of use violations then fine, those are their rules and everyone knew them going in, but I don't begrudge a small business owner who has committed no crime and whose sole motivation is making money. To anyone who does begrudge him of this I issue the following challenge: march straight into your boss' office and demand that they pay you less money. You know, since it's not about "profit".

I didn't think so.

The damn point is that he was spamming the app store with 5 new apps a DAY. PER DAY. Thats an insanely high number of apps, with has a negative influence on the app store. In these extreme situations, Apple has every right to boot these kinds of developers, and I think its one of those cases where having this kind of control over the app store is actually a good things for users. This doesnt necessitate your OH NOES SOCIALISM!! spiel. Everything can be abused, and this is one of those cases of extreme abuse of the system. Everything has its limits and needs to have some level of control, including your precious capitalism.

parafish13
Aug 4, 2009, 05:17 PM
I, like may of you, wish Michael Bay would never make another movie ever again. But, unless and until the market dictates otherwise, he will. And frankly, his movies make enough money to suggest that his crap has "value" to some segment of the population. Just not to me. So I don't spend money on it. But I in no way think that because I find it to be crap, that the million other people who saw it and liked it should be denied their opportunity for enjoyment and as long as a million people did enjoy it, Bay should be able to profit from it. He has added "value" to their lives, if not to ours.

*This reply has absolutely nothing to do with the actual thread*

Achiever,

I'm not disagreeing with your desire to see the free market in action. I agree that Bay should be able to make his movies and that we should be able to choose to see them. However, I wonder how much of the "value" given to this movie comes from outside factors such as advertising, peer pressure to see "normal" movies, etc. instead of a recognition of the film's quality or lack of it. A million people might see value in "Transformers," but I wonder if we (well, if I) have an obligation, knowing better, to say "no, it sucks, and here is a quality movie (insert better movie here)," trying to take away from others their moviegoing freedom in exchange for...I want to say...a more fulfilling and ultimately better experience (I realize that I'm straddling a dangerous line speaking like this, but it's not necessarily a closed-minded-superiority complex). I just read the great book The Paradox of Choice and it's still on my mind.

Does that make sense? It's been a pleasure to watch and participate in this conversation. Also, great job holding your own!

rdowns
Aug 4, 2009, 05:28 PM
*no research was actually done just a random number i thought of.


There's an app (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=300774910&mt=8) for that. :D

ruinfx
Aug 4, 2009, 05:34 PM
If all of his apps violated the terms of agreement for being an iPhone app developer how in the heck did they all get approved in the first place..while apps like google voice and other worthy apps are rejected?

seriously. was helen keller reviewing/approving his apps?

ortuno2k
Aug 4, 2009, 06:27 PM
Instead of putting the fee on the developer, why aren't all the apps "sold" as "trial" apps that can be fully run for 2-3 times. After the 2nd or 3rd time launched, the app will need to be purchased in order to continue running.

Many times I've bought apps based on the hype or high reviews only to have used them once or twice (games, especially.)

chrisd1974
Aug 4, 2009, 06:34 PM
Achiever. Are you in favor of any of the following?:


Copyright infringement?
Theft of copyrighted content?
Misrepresentation of product capabilities?


As a consumer:

When you go to a restaurant or store do you choose it because of the contents of the restaurant or store? Would you like the store owner to exercise some judgement on the products it chooses to stock or fill the shelves with crap you don't want as well in the name of freedom of choice?

Do you believe apple are trying to offer a premium or quality controlled user experience? And if so, in the name of capitalism do you believe they should have the right to do so?

Would you like apple to be forced to provide OSX to any manufacturer, without any safeguards on compatibility? If so should this be done by free market forces, criminal sanctions, legislation or some other means?

Do you think it is acceptable for forum posters to be happy when crap is removed from a store?

dejo
Aug 4, 2009, 06:37 PM
Would you like the store owner to exercise some judgement on the products it chooses to stock or fill the shelves with crap you don't want as well in the name of freedom of choice?
Are you talking about Walmart? ;)

Brien
Aug 4, 2009, 06:37 PM
There's quite a few devs who flood the store with 1,000s of apps with high prices and little content. I'd be QUITE happy if Apple would ban them, too.

Sure the App Store has 65k apps, but about 40k of them are junk.

wonderbread57
Aug 4, 2009, 06:58 PM
at least they didn't just say "duplicate functionality" they cited some policy.

Cloudane
Aug 4, 2009, 07:27 PM
Sounded like a scandal from the title, but my first impression from the app list was "SPAM".

Good riddance - there's enough ***** on the App Store as it is without spammers jumping in.

wackymacky
Aug 4, 2009, 07:54 PM
The less if this sort of crap in the App store the better! It is the piles of rubbish apps like this in the app store that make finding decent apps hard to find.

a1kim
Aug 4, 2009, 08:00 PM
I had been watching new apps via the Pandora Box app (worth a try if you haven't downloaded it yet), and this idiot's apps were always clogging up the results. What a jackass. Good riddance.

batchtaster
Aug 4, 2009, 10:01 PM
Making a profit? Good. Making a profit by stealing the work of others and misrepresenting products to consumers by overcharging and "marketing" the heck out of crap by oversaturation with stolen material in hopes to find a sucker? Bad. And that doesn't make people who blast it Socialists/Communists/Anarchists/or the Anti-Christ. It makes us ethical.

This.

Gawd, thank you. I almost went off on a tanty about the same thing, but you said it more succinctly, clearly and without the rampant sarcasm that I would have.

bghoward
Aug 4, 2009, 10:10 PM
Apple has been putting up with his junk for the past 9 months. Why ban him now? IANAL, but I suspect Apple received a cease and desist order over his copyright infringement and pulled his apps.

sushi
Aug 4, 2009, 10:30 PM
I suspect Apple received a cease and desist order over his copyright infringement and pulled his apps.
Interesting idea. You might be on to something.

jb510
Aug 5, 2009, 12:37 AM
...Look people, if his apps were crap, they wouldn't be purchased and he would lose money and stop making them. If he was making money, then people were finding them useful.

Ummm... totally bogus logic. If people got to use them first maybe, but they don't. They buy his apps based on the marketing promise of them alone, not their usefulness. Haven't you ever bought something EXPECTING it to be useful, only later to find out it was a $5 pile of crap?

Regardless the question for Apple really should be how did it take 800+ of these pieces of crap before they took action? Maybe it was part of their stratagy to get to 1 billion apps served? I just don't get how their reviewers can take the time to reject apps from reliable trustworthy companies like Google but not the few minutes it'd take to look at one of these and reject it?

Carnivor
Aug 5, 2009, 01:26 AM
Could do with a few thou more going down this route, there is way to much rubbish in the app store, making it harder for the decent apps to become more visible.

Harry Bosch
Aug 5, 2009, 02:01 AM
To anyone who does begrudge him of this I issue the following challenge:

OMG, how boring...

Bronco46
Aug 5, 2009, 02:16 AM
Enough with regulations and watch dogs.
If someone is stupid enough to buy this crap thats their problem.
People have to learn to use their own head and stop looking to
some higher authority to protect them.

Anuba
Aug 5, 2009, 02:39 AM
Oh my God! It's one of "them", Hon! It's a CAPITALIST!!!!!!!

What in the hell is wrong with making a profit and when, exactly, did Americans finally start drinking the socialism Kool-Aid?
Well, you see, Americans settlers brought with them from Europe a Lutheran tradition of valuing hard labor and making an honest living. They don't mind anyone making a profit and swimming in money, as long as they deserved it by being talented, innovative and/or at least hard working.

That's the opposite of a socialist, who is anal about equality and therefore hates the fact that some are born more gifted than others.

Both the former and the latter group hate the third kind, i.e. the ones who only want to make money for money's sake, morals/ethics/talent/innovation/hard labor be damned. That kind has missed the boat completely.

vettori
Aug 5, 2009, 03:44 AM
As a developer that tries to develop useful applications, I think that Apple has done The Right Thing removing these apps that were made just for making money.

Sure I want (and need) to make money from my work as everyone else but I always try to make good apps and the amount of crap that the app store contains does not help.

So why don't develop something useful, Mr. Shaikh ?

Evangelion
Aug 5, 2009, 03:45 AM
The ranting about capitalism is quite pointless. Capitalism works when we have informed buyers making informed purchased. But we all know that buyers are NOT informed! It's quite common these days that inferior products thrive at the expence of superior products. Just look at Bose or Microsoft.

And ranting about socialism makes it quite apparent that there are many (most?) Americans that have been brainwashed in to thinking that socialism = bad. Socialism is an economic system. It has some good points in it, and it has some bad points in it. To make the universal claim that it's bad or that it does not work, is quite stupid. There are plenty of countries that could be considered "socialistic" (Nordic countries for example), and they are doing just fine, even when compared to USA.

And it should be noted that USA is not pure capitalistic society either. Pure capitalism is a pipe-dream, just like pure communism is. Both need huge caveats in order for either of them to function properly, but those caveats do not exist. That is why countries are located somewhere between communism and capitalism when it comes to economic policy.

Cabbit
Aug 5, 2009, 03:58 AM
That's the opposite of a socialist, who is anal about equality and therefore hates the fact that some are born more gifted than others.

Believes everyone is equal and can pay a equal role in society.
i.e. A bin man does not have as nice a job as a doctor but both are equally needed in order for the world to run and if we go as far as communism both would be paid equally.

VulchR
Aug 5, 2009, 05:36 AM
I think Apple did the right thing in ceasing to enable this developer to violate the law. However, I am frustrated that Apple has created a closed system based on their approval, but haven't adequately guaranteed quality control. Apple can't have it both ways - either their approval of an app should mean that the app is useful, advertised accurately, and does not crash or they should open of the app market completely.

Off topic: I find it rather amazing that people from the US equate the worst features of the USSR with socialism. The problem with the USSR was the corruption of power in a one-party system led by dictators, not with the provision of education, health care and social welfare. In the US schools (and at least many universities), law enforcement, fire & rescue services, the armed forces, public health services (PHS, NIH, CDC) etc. are provided by the government rather than the private sector because we all have an interest in the general availability of these essential services. What's so godawful about that?

Anuba
Aug 5, 2009, 06:04 AM
Believes everyone is equal and can pay a equal role in society.
i.e. A bin man does not have as nice a job as a doctor but both are equally needed in order for the world to run and if we go as far as communism both would be paid equally.
Sounds more like social liberalism or social democracy to me. Pure socialism is more of a celebration of mediocrity, and the difference between bona fide socialism and communism is in small print.

A disdain for pure unbridled greed and making money for money's sake, on the other hand, transcends all political ideologies and thus has nothing to do with socialism -- it was always considered despicable and shameful if not downright sinful in all cultures, long before socialism was conceived. The 4th century monk who listed Greed as one of the deadly sins had never heard of socialism. Nor had whoever wrote the part of the Bible where Jesus cleanses the temple of the money changers. Islam also teaches that making money on money (=interest) is sinful. You can be a hardcore right-winger and still have a beef with unethical money-making schemes like this 800+ app dude was running.

Achiever asked "when did Americans start drinking the socialism kool-aid?", which is the wrong question because A) They obviously never did, and B) this has nothing to do with political affiliations. A more appropriate question would be "when did Americans develop a distaste for shameless money-making schemes?", and the answer is that it started long before they were Americans, it dates back to their European roots, and European culture can be traced back to earlier cultures, so... it started a few thousand years ago, minimum.

niuniu
Aug 5, 2009, 06:10 AM
800 apps? That's one busy guy - what sort of apps did he have? Just sex stuff? I didn't know you could have sex apps..

kdarling
Aug 5, 2009, 06:28 AM
1) If we could return apps easily, then I'd be more inclined to let all the junk stay.

2) Apple is just practicing capitalism as well: the part where you try to keep your reputation.

Capitalism is not just about making as much money as you can. That's the simple definition. In actual practice, it's about sales competition, which includes promoting quality and value.

GoCubsGo
Aug 5, 2009, 06:31 AM
800 apps? That's one busy guy - what sort of apps did he have? Just sex stuff? I didn't know you could have sex apps..

More than likely if you read the 72 posts following the OP and stopping at yours you would know that 800+ apps contained many apps that were nothing more than photos of celebrity hotties that you can find on the web yourself (as that is exactly what the app did any way). I wouldn't call it "sex stuff", I'd call it a nice $5.00 app that would do what you could do for free if one was not dense. Anyone who may have spent a dime on this developer clearly had no clue what they were buying.

talkin73
Aug 5, 2009, 06:40 AM
Interesting discussion. I think you reap what you sow... a point that has been made ad nauseum in various forum threads. Apple wants a thunder fist of authority over what apps go on the iPhone... they got it! But, not without the responsibility and accountability. This has to be a total nightmare that they probably did not anticipate with all the backlash and constant criticism over their approval process. The PalmOS, with all its shortcomings never had to deal with this issue because they didn't position themselves as a "middle man" in the delivery process. Hmm. The pros/cons of Apple strategy continue to be highlighted.

It's interesting to hear people's thoughts about how to temper this issue of Apple playing "monkey in the middle". Some really good suggestions. Hopefully Apple can pull useful ideas from threads like these and figure out how to enhance their strategy. Obviously, they are doing something right as evidenced by iPhone sales. But, I agree with others that at some point the scales could easily tip and Apple might begin to seem more like a pariah to even the average consumer... this statement has the implies that most folks on these forums are NOT average consumers ;) For the time being, they certainly seem to be on the winning end (at least financially speaking) of this issue.

Anuba
Aug 5, 2009, 07:08 AM
Apple wants a thunder fist of authority over what apps go on the iPhone... they got it! But, not without the responsibility and accountability. This has to be a total nightmare that they probably did not anticipate with all the backlash and constant criticism over their approval process. The PalmOS, with all its shortcomings never had to deal with this issue because they didn't position themselves as a "middle man" in the delivery process. Hmm. The pros/cons of Apple strategy continue to be highlighted.

I think people would be more accepting of Apple's position if Apple A) showed consistency, and B) worried more about quality control. If I knew that they had removed the worst garbage during the approval process I would be more trusting. But they don't, there's an awful lot of junk on the app store.

As for consistency, they act more like a psychotic bouncer at a club, you never know if he's going to greet you with a broad smile under dilated pupils or send you home with a skull fracture. The process seems to be getting more and more arbitrary by the minute.

niuniu
Aug 5, 2009, 07:16 AM
Well fair play, he spotted an opportunity and took it. It may not be the most high-brow of business practices but it beats the hell out of whinging on a forum all day in my book.

albusseverus
Aug 5, 2009, 07:29 AM
Seems to me that there's other aggregators out there and Safari itself infringes EVERYONE's copyright, so that's those two out of the way - no case, Apple.

If an app was poor quality or limited functionality, approval time would have been the time to maybe, not approve the app, but apparently Apple made this 'mistake' over 850 times, so methinks it wasn't a mistake, pre se.

If the apps didn't do much, chances are, at $5 the developer wasn't going to make much money.

So… what have we got?

apps that apparently have enough functionality to satisfy hundreds of people a day, no matter how trivial the function is, and lets admit, trivial functionality doesn't preclude anyone from the app store
aggregators - are you telling me all other aggregators have licensed their content? Is that even possible?
aggregation is a service is it not? maybe not a huge service, but it does a job for you instead of you typing "boobs" into google and filtering the results yourself
infringes LESS copyright than Safari or any of the other web browsers approved for the app store


All we've got left is the high-ish price, which given the passion with which many pundits seem to be suggesting that app store prices are too low, this developer might be helping the better developers to get more for their labours.

Seems to me there's a lot of fart/cat/dog/lighter/flashlight/dolist developers snickering into their hands right now, that 850+ more useful apps than theirs got kicked out of the app store and they're still in there!

Sorry, but for all the reasons given, nothing justifies the action Apple's taken, no matter how 'right' it feels.

uberamd
Aug 5, 2009, 07:43 AM
1) If we could return apps easily, then I'd be more inclined to let all the junk stay.

Thats one plus Android has, returns. There was this app called aHome on Android that allows you to customize your theme, etc. Cost was around $6. I purchased it, tried it, realized it was crap, and was able to return the app. Google only charges you when the app return window closes. Quite nice.

Seems to me that there's other aggregators out there and Safari itself infringes EVERYONE's copyright, so that's those two out of the way - no case, Apple.

If an app was poor quality or limited functionality, approval time would have been the time to maybe, not approve the app, but apparently Apple made this 'mistake' over 850 times, so methinks it wasn't a mistake, pre se.

If the apps didn't do much, chances are, at $5 the developer wasn't going to make much money.

So… what have we got?

apps that apparently have enough functionality to satisfy hundreds of people a day, no matter how trivial the function is, and lets admit, trivial functionality doesn't preclude anyone from the app store
aggregators - are you telling me all other aggregators have licensed their content? Is that even possible?
aggregation is a service is it not? maybe not a huge service, but it does a job for you instead of you typing "boobs" into google and filtering the results yourself
infringes LESS copyright than Safari or any of the other web browsers approved for the app store


All we've got left is the high-ish price, which given the passion with which many pundits seem to be suggesting that app store prices are too low, this developer might be helping the better developers to get more for their labours.

Seems to me there's a lot of fart/cat/dog/lighter/flashlight/dolist developers snickering into their hands right now, that 850+ more useful apps than theirs got kicked out of the app store and they're still in there!

Sorry, but for all the reasons given, nothing justifies the action Apple's taken, no matter how 'right' it feels.

Maybe Apple was receiving a lot of complaints about these applications from buyers saying it provided no value, etc. That piled on top of possible cease and desist orders caused Apple to give this guy the big ol boot.

millerlite
Aug 5, 2009, 07:45 AM
I'm glad Apple banned this guy. He comes from the same mindset that put our economy in the state it's in. He should be shot.

However, I wonder about Apple's approval process. How did these lame apps get approved in the first place? I think it's a horrible comment on the lack of standards that Apple has for their app store. Boo!

Tenebrous
Aug 5, 2009, 08:04 AM
Oh my God! It's one of "them", Hon! It's a CAPITALIST!!!!!!!

What in the hell is wrong with making a profit and when, exactly, did Americans finally start drinking the socialism Kool-Aid?

Look people, if his apps were crap, they wouldn't be purchased and he would lose money and stop making them. If he was making money, then people were finding them useful. If Apple wants to pull the apps for terms of use violations then fine, those are their rules and everyone knew them going in, but I don't begrudge a small business owner who has committed no crime and whose sole motivation is making money. To anyone who does begrudge him of this I issue the following challenge: march straight into your boss' office and demand that they pay you less money. You know, since it's not about "profit".

I didn't think so.

I totally agree. The issue is that he was violating terms of service and intellectual property. To those who say that Apple wasn't doing a good job in policing his apps, it's my impression that he violated the IP of other parties besides Apple and/or was not providing original content. The latter two are much harder to police than violating Apple's IP.

Yes, folks, there will be growth pains. Get used to it. Get over it. Apple is not perfect and you should stop dumping your drawers every time some hysterical headline hits the Net.

millerlite
Aug 5, 2009, 08:11 AM
Seems to me there's a lot of fart/cat/dog/lighter/flashlight/dolist developers snickering into their hands right now, that 850+ more useful apps than theirs got kicked out of the app store and they're still in there!

Sorry, but for all the reasons given, nothing justifies the action Apple's taken, no matter how 'right' it feels.

How about those fart/cat/dog... developers were actually creating their own content, not stealing it from some web source? THAT is the real issue here. I get really pissed when people don't understand that someone's creative/intellectual property is actually something that they own and you're not supposed to just take it and do whatever you want with it. I agree that fart apps aren't that original, but the developers are trying to put their own spin on their own original content. They didn't steal fart sounds from another app (and if they did, they should be banned like anyone else).

rlvdijk
Aug 5, 2009, 09:25 AM
I totally agree with Apple on this one; a developer who 'dumps' 800+ applications in the Apps Store should get a life-long ban !

Of course, I understand the money-making argument, but come on, aren't there better ways to do this ?!??!

For example: by making QUALITY apps instead of those lazy rip-from-the-web things ?

The most annoying is not the money paid by users for his apps, but that this kind of developers put a dark shadow on the hard working, user centered and quality concious professionals !

Achiever
Aug 5, 2009, 09:25 AM
*This reply has absolutely nothing to do with the actual thread*

Achiever,

I'm not disagreeing with your desire to see the free market in action. I agree that Bay should be able to make his movies and that we should be able to choose to see them. However, I wonder how much of the "value" given to this movie comes from outside factors such as advertising, peer pressure to see "normal" movies, etc. instead of a recognition of the film's quality or lack of it. A million people might see value in "Transformers," but I wonder if we (well, if I) have an obligation, knowing better, to say "no, it sucks, and here is a quality movie (insert better movie here)," trying to take away from others their moviegoing freedom in exchange for...I want to say...a more fulfilling and ultimately better experience (I realize that I'm straddling a dangerous line speaking like this, but it's not necessarily a closed-minded-superiority complex). I just read the great book The Paradox of Choice and it's still on my mind. Does that make sense?
** This post is intended as a direct reply to a thread conversation with parafish13 and is not really intended to further the general thread much beyond that. Sorry to interfere.**

Yes it does, and you raise a fair question. To me, however, I differentiate based on how I (we) define "value". I truly believe the concept of value is a very subjective one - eye of the beholder through and through. The persons who enjoyed Transformers 1 & 2 probably found it had "value" for reasons such as they were looking for a pure popcorn movie or they simply like loud explosions and CGI or they just have that big a crush on Megan Fox. Whatever. They were looking fro something very different from their two hours in that theater than you or I might.

What I believe you are suggesting - an obligation to point out that something stinks and offer an alternative - has a significant flaw: the persons who found the value in Transformers is no lock to see the more fulfilling value in the other movie. The 13 years-olds who swamped that theater will never understand why Citizen Kane is a top all-time movie. Hell, a lot of adults don't really understand it. And there is nothing wrong with that. There is room in this world and market for the lowest common denominator appeals and the high brow appeals. I don't feel I need to "educate" people who enjoyed the Transformers on why they should not have enjoyed it or spent their money elsewhere. They all saw previews of the movie and/or read the reviews (which were terrible). If they still chose to throw down their $10, more power to them. Some were satisfied, others were not and word of mouth flows from there. All I can do is talk up what I liked and why and let others decide for themselves. I don't believe I, anyone else or Apple in the case of the app store, should be deciding what has "value" for everyone.

Final example: my wife, an educated woman, loves her crappy romantic-comedies. They have no real redeeming value but she enjoys them. I have sat her down to watch what I consider the good stuff - Citizen Kane, for example. Some she likes and others, like CK, she doesn't really enjoy. To her, there was no value in CK, while there is value in anything with Jennifer Aniston. Different strokes for different folks. That's why I like variety in the marketplace.


It's been a pleasure to watch and participate in this conversation. Also, great job holding your own!
Agreed to your first point and thank you for your second.

uberamd
Aug 5, 2009, 09:48 AM
my wife, an educated woman, loves her crappy romantic-comedies. They have no real redeeming value but she enjoys them. I have sat her down to watch what I consider the good stuff - Citizen Kane, for example. Some she likes and others, like CK, she doesn't really enjoy. To her, there was no value in CK, while there is value in anything with Jennifer Aniston. Different strokes for different folks. That's why I like variety in the marketplace.


Here is how I see what this guy did, using a movie analogy. This guy sat in a movie theater with a video camera and recorded the movie. Then, he went home, used his computer to add a border (or a frame) around the movie to make it look slightly different than the original movie, and charged $5 more for it than the original movie to customers. Is that wrong to do?

Analogia
Aug 5, 2009, 09:58 AM
I wonder how much money he's got before they banned him?:rolleyes:
Sounds strange, they will loose great profit.

kingtj
Aug 5, 2009, 10:03 AM
Being a Capitalist is perfectly ok. But in the real world, you produce your product and negotiate to find yourself a store that will actually buy it from you and stock it. If you can't (as MANY can't), then you have to invest your own money in marketing it yourself.

With something like Apple's app store, Apple is the "store owner" who gets to decide what they'd like to "stock" on their virtual shelves. And just like a real store, they ALSO can opt to initially stock your item, but decide it's not something they want to continue to sell after a little while, and drop you.

And yes, I understand that the entire iPhone app thing is a "walled garden", where people can't just shop in OTHER app stores. But so what? We all know the iPhone works that way from the get-go. Developers have PLENTY of other platforms they can develop for. They're not "shut out" of marketing software for "smartphones" just because Apple won't help them sell it.

When you buy an iPhone from Apple, you're buying into the entire idea that you're getting hardware with Apple's imposed limitations on it (no carrier allowed besides AT&T, etc. etc.). (You know, sort of like buying a Sony Playstation 3 means you're going to be using Sony's Playstation Network for downloading content for it, and for setting up your Internet-based multi-player games. It's all part of the "package deal", so no, you can't shop on Microsoft's online store for XBox 360's or Nintendo's store for a Wii.)

And when Apple just starts allowing anyone and everyone to peddle garbage apps on their app store, it makes the shopping experience that much worse for everyone. Sure, the guy's crap might not sell ... but in the meantime, it clutters up my searches and app browsing. And when he goes from just releasing a few apps to making THOUSANDS of things, based of the same templates, it becomes a real problem.


Oh my God! It's one of "them", Hon! It's a CAPITALIST!!!!!!!

What in the hell is wrong with making a profit and when, exactly, did Americans finally start drinking the socialism Kool-Aid?

Look people, if his apps were crap, they wouldn't be purchased and he would lose money and stop making them. If he was making money, then people were finding them useful. If Apple wants to pull the apps for terms of use violations then fine, those are their rules and everyone knew them going in, but I don't begrudge a small business owner who has committed no crime and whose sole motivation is making money. To anyone who does begrudge him of this I issue the following challenge: march straight into your boss' office and demand that they pay you less money. You know, since it's not about "profit".

I didn't think so.

Achiever
Aug 5, 2009, 10:10 AM
Oh my God! It's one of "them", Hon! It's a CAPITALIST!!!!!!!

What in the hell is wrong with making a profit and when, exactly, did Americans finally start drinking the socialism Kool-Aid?

Look people, if his apps were crap, they wouldn't be purchased and he would lose money and stop making them. If he was making money, then people were finding them useful. If Apple wants to pull the apps for terms of use violations then fine, those are their rules and everyone knew them going in, but I don't begrudge a small business owner who has committed no crime and whose sole motivation is making money. To anyone who does begrudge him of this I issue the following challenge: march straight into your boss' office and demand that they pay you less money. You know, since it's not about "profit".

I didn't think so.

Believe it or not, when I wrote the above comment, I had no intention of making some larger social point or of dominating this thread in any way. However I believe my intentions have been misinterpreted and in some cases twisted so I want to clear up a few lingering misconceptions and get back to living my life. I fully anticipate this being my last post on this topic and this thread.

My initial post, quoted here and unedited from it's original form, was NOT a response to the article posted by MR. Further, it was NOT an indictment on Apple for having pulled the app. In fact, if you read my post, I SUPPORT Apple having pulled the app for terms of use violation (but not for the reasons of lack of "value" or for the volume of apps this developer has in the store as has been articulated by others on this thread). Finally, at NO POINT do I condone or even suggest that it is appropriate, ethical, admirable or legal behavior for anyone to infringe on copyrights, steal content from another or in any way illegally profit from any such actions. In fact, if the developer HAS profited from any illegal behavior he should be lawfully sued by those who have suffered the damages and turn over the ill gotten funds to them. It has NEVER been my contention that a perpetrator should be entitled to keep his money and run.

My post was in direct response to a comment made by a previous thread poster, and which was quoted by me in my response. That thread post pretty clearly articulated that the motivation of profit was an inherent wrong that motivated this developer. My response was one of disagreement to this line of thinking. That's it. That's all. If you read my aversion to the content of the post I quoted as some sort of moral indignation at Apple for having pulled the applications, you read incorrectly. If you believe that my initial or subsequent posts touting the concept of and admiration for capitalism as some sort of statement that the developer should be allowed to lie, cheat and steal his way to profit, then you believe incorrectly. You are thinking of Machiavelli, not me. There are rules to life and rules to being on the App Store. I note the latter quite clearly in my post. My ONLY issue with the poster I was responding to, was their belief that the pursuit of profit was a misguided or unethical goal. To the contrary, the goal is morally and ethically proper; it is the path to that goal which must be scrutinized. But that scrutiny was misapplied by the posted I responded to. They didn't question the path, they questioned the goal.

I will now go back to work so I can continue making profits. Lawfully. That, in my opinion, is a very noble, admirable and ethical goal.

admanimal
Aug 5, 2009, 10:53 AM
Seems to me that there's other aggregators out there and Safari itself infringes EVERYONE's copyright, so that's those two out of the way - no case, Apple.



I really hope this remark was sarcastic.

Ironduke
Aug 5, 2009, 12:35 PM
Yeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaa

I love it when Bottom Feeders Like this get taken down.:cool:

alchemistmuffin
Aug 5, 2009, 02:42 PM
If you have any of those app, expect the KILL SWITCH to be turned on any min now.

admanimal
Aug 6, 2009, 12:59 AM
If you have any of those app, expect the KILL SWITCH to be turned on any min now.

I highly doubt they would do that. The kill switch is for malicious apps. If they were going to have a happy trigger finger they would have killed apps like NetShare, but it will still run on devices that have it installed.

kdarling
Aug 6, 2009, 12:09 PM
Just a guess...

Maybe so many people were asking for refunds after buying his apps, that Apple began to really pay attention to his stuff.

MadMacxxx
Aug 11, 2009, 10:35 PM
I think Apple should find some way of limiting how many apps the average single developer can submit. There is no way one person can create and support even 10-15 truly high-quality apps. Apple needs to encourage quality over quantity to prevent the App Store from being even more of a crap warehouse than it currently is.

totally, the app store is so full of CRAP

Pika
Aug 11, 2009, 10:40 PM
We need more iFart and Flashlight developers!

I have hard time trying to find the right flashlight color and the right fart... most of them sounds fake.

fishstacks
Aug 13, 2009, 04:39 PM
That guy just posted spam. All his apps were crap.

crackbookpro
Aug 13, 2009, 05:17 PM
I am totally fine with Apple having strict guidelines for their app store :)

...the only thing that worries me is when they are discrete to the developer about the hiccup in accepting the 3rd-party app :confused:

...and I am sure the big fuss about not allowing Google Voice app - is hopefully, because they having something in the works :cool:

MikesGravity
Aug 20, 2009, 02:31 AM
I love me some Apple but they are (kind of) turning into app store Nazis!

jdylan
Aug 21, 2009, 09:12 PM
To anyone who does begrudge him of this I issue the following challenge: march straight into your boss' office and demand that they pay you less money. You know, since it's not about "profit".

I didn't think so.

I did, but the First Sergeant said it wasn't in his ability, that he'd have to demote me in rank, but since I hadn't done anything wrong, he couldn't. We compromised that I would just give him half my pay, and how it's all cool.

dZp
Sep 20, 2009, 10:10 AM
Apple has banned developer Khalid Shaikh from the App Store and removed all 800+ of his apps that were being sold in the App Store. Apple's "Notice of Termination" e-mail to Shaikh describes that third-party intellectual property complaints are the impetus behind the banning:
Funnily enough, it looks like that same developer has reappeared under the name askone. Same type of simple apps (10 at the moment), same price point.
http://ax.search.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/search?media=all&term=askone

Xibalba
Sep 20, 2009, 12:56 PM
people like this saturate the market and make finding quality apps difficult.

ChazUK
Sep 20, 2009, 03:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.5; en-gb; HTC Hero Build/CUPCAKE) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)

Late to the thread but well done apple. If the app store is flooded with crap it will only harm the app store

Target362
Sep 20, 2009, 07:37 PM
to be honest most of the apps are useless. I found one that must have been created by some kid. some cartoon with a banana singing about a PB&J sandwhich. (bad graphics too) Are you ****in kidding me? how did apple alow that?

Angelo921
Sep 21, 2009, 04:29 PM
Is there a list anywhere which shows all the apps that are currently in the app store?

hsotnicam8002
Sep 21, 2009, 04:37 PM
Funnily enough, it looks like that same developer has reappeared under the name askone. Same type of simple apps (10 at the moment), same price point.
http://ax.search.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/search?media=all&term=askoneLook here: http://www.askone.us/ Smack!

Mr. Gates
Sep 21, 2009, 09:56 PM
to be honest most of the apps are useless. I found one that must have been created by some kid. some cartoon with a banana singing about a PB&J sandwhich. (bad graphics too) Are you ****in kidding me? how did apple alow that?

I LOVE THAT APP !!!

" were he at,.were he at,.were he at,.were he at,..........
Now there he goes,. there he goes,. there he goes,. there he goes,. ..

PEANUT BUTTER JELL -AY "

http://www.cwabba.com/Photos/2006/PeanutButterJellyTime.jpg

cretony38
Sep 24, 2009, 04:34 PM
I gotta get a Zune to get those SEXAY LADAAY Apps!

shauncampbell
Nov 3, 2009, 11:25 PM
I remember when the first iPhone "fart" apps caused a scandal. Ever since Apple began relaxing their content standards the app store has continued it's downward spiral into a warehouse of dollar-gimmicks.

There's over 100,000 apps on the App Store now. One Hundred Thousand. How many are even worth waiting for the download to finish, let alone shelling out money for?

RazHyena
Nov 4, 2009, 12:11 AM
You hit the nail on the head. People shouldn't be getting up in arms about the profits...seems Americans are doing that in every other industry though (banking, oil, etc). Apple did the right thing because he was violating the terms.



This is the REAL question here. Why can't they just a grip on this darn system?

Oh, they got a grip, alright. A little too clenched, I'd say. :(

undheim
Nov 5, 2009, 10:25 AM
... just to put a needle into the haystack is not the smartest thing I have done in my life :). 800 seems like a high number to me, lowering it would probably not remove anything of value from the store, it would help the consumers and inspire disillusioned developers to new efforts.

mtbgtr
Nov 12, 2009, 09:14 PM
800+ illegal apps got approved and they cant get off their collective arses and approve Trillian ? If droid becomes as popular a developer platform as the iPhone and they still have a draconian approval process I may just go droid and give my iPhone away.

iSponge
Aug 19, 2011, 10:43 PM
I agree that customer satisfaction of users of iOS based products should take priority over third party app distributors because apps are a feature that iOS users can benefit from. But applications can only be as successful as the market.

Developing for smart phones is as practical as relying on Vegas as a retirement plan. In my free time over the last year, I have submitted plenty of apps. I was not able to even break even after paying the tax penalty. In effect, I paid out of pocket to submit these apps. And I'm reminded weekly with customer concerns.

I address every concern. But why? I had prescribed to the vanity of smart phones. After the glamour wore off, I still feel an ethical obligation to take care of the people that I paid to provide apps for. This IS more the norm than the exception.


Here's what it boils down to:
A) When Apple comes up with a profitable model for developers you will see an increase in the quality of applications. This will not happen until Apple releases a product beyond the realm of shiny gadgets that fill the void. In the mean time, you will find me working on innovative technology that will actually solve real world problems.

B) After seeing how most posts indicate iOS users feel they've been taken advantage of, I refuse to continue to support you. If you really need to cast stones, start at the Apple-defined business model that programmers have to work within.

C) I applaud this guy for defining a sustainable business model where he didn't have to win the lottery to be successful.


Enjoy your void.

kingtj
Aug 20, 2011, 01:07 AM
iSponge: Developing for smartphones is only as practical as your software concept. THAT is the real problem in almost every case I see where a developer whines and moans about not being able to make a decent profit on the platform! A whole LOT of people went crazy when the hype was at its peak for the iPhone and said, "I gotta get me a piece of THAT action!"

Fact is though, there's not really all THAT much you can create for a given smartphone that isn't just a rehash of stuff that's been done before, or is just plain useless junk for cheap laughs or thrills.

I'm a LONG time computer user and got on board with "smartphones" back when the best you had was a PalmOS based Kyocera phone with a greyscale screen and a stylus that crashed daily, requiring pulling the battery out to reset it.

The single BIGGEST reason the iPhone was successful in the first place was the fact it was finally a STABLE smartphone with a nice multitouch interface that even grandma could manipulate after a little practice. When it first came out, Apple wasn't even really interested in other people writing apps to run on the thing. They were emphasizing "web apps" where you just made an icon on the phone and sent it to some web site that served everything up!

Obviously, they gave in on that idea and slowly came around to an entire app ecosystem, and IMO, it's a pretty good one. Unlike Android, people don't have to worry that much about malware and other nonsense, and Apple rather wisely restricted some of the things you were allowed to access on the phones in your code. (Again, devs whine and moan -- but the iPhone remains the most stable of the smartphones on the market, and this is one reason why!)

If you don't have something that will really "wow" people on a smartphone and make them say, "I can use THAT app every day!", you don't have anything you should count on profiting from. That's just the way it is. The phone already comes with a good email app, a calendar/scheduler, and most importantly, a pretty good web browser. That covers a BIG chunk of what people demand out of a smartphone to begin with. So much other stuff people write is, honestly, useless "fluff". Tons of apps that are just pretty front-ends to the SAME services you can access over the web browser directly. (All fine and good, but not worth PAYING for 99% of the time.)

And if you honestly think what you wrote is "Pretty cool, but not something I might sell a lot of if I don't price it under $5."? Yeah, it's not really that cool after all, ok? It's just ok, and again, you shouldn't expect to make a living off the thing.




Developing for smart phones is as practical as relying on Vegas as a retirement plan. In my free time over the last year, I have submitted plenty of apps. I was not able to even break even after paying the tax penalty. In effect, I paid out of pocket to submit these apps. And I'm reminded weekly with customer concerns.

I address every concern. But why? I had prescribed to the vanity of smart phones. After the glamour wore off, I still feel an ethical obligation to take care of the people that I paid to provide apps for. This IS more the norm than the exception.


Here's what it boils down to:
A) When Apple comes up with a profitable model for developers you will see an increase in the quality of applications. This will not happen until Apple releases a product beyond the realm of shiny gadgets that fill the void. In the mean time, you will find me working on innovative technology that will actually solve real world problems.

B) After seeing how most posts indicate iOS users feel they've been taken advantage of, I refuse to continue to support you. If you really need to cast stones, start at the Apple-defined business model that programmers have to work within.

C) I applaud this guy for defining a sustainable business model where he didn't have to win the lottery to be successful.


Enjoy your void.

iSponge
Aug 20, 2011, 02:13 PM
kingtj: I agree with all except the necessity of apps. My experience, and my visibility into other companies suggests that users buy just to buy when it comes to apps less than five bucks. I suspect most buyers don't even read the app description if it costs less than five bucks.

Aside from than this, what you say is complimentary to what I wrote, if not redundant. If I came off as some whiny smart phone developer that was upset because I didn't make a profit, I failed to make my point.

The motivation for my post came to be because I've largely read consumer side complaints. I think it's worth considering the developer side, and how Apple's mandates makes it difficult for third party distributors to make a profit. The best way I knew to do this was to tell my story: my lessons learned.

And you have considered it. Thank you.

Apple's developer policies clearly guide development. The only reason to exclude them from this topic is 'in apple we trust'; which is not in my mantra. They do have there benefits, in line with what you stated. But I don't think they were designed to necessarily push developers down the path they want them to follow. Companies will find the path of least resistance towards a profit within the rules of the system. This touches on one aspect of why this thread is in this forum...which I find more interesting than bye bye sexy.

But I can only speculate at this point. It sounds like you have a great deal more insight into this than I. So I'm curious if and how you feel this system could be more intelligently designed, as to make it less appealing for companies like the subject company to operate the way is has.




iSponge: Developing for smartphones is only as practical as your software concept. THAT is the real problem in almost every case I see where a developer whines and moans about not being able to make a decent profit on the platform! A whole LOT of people went crazy when the hype was at its peak for the iPhone and said, "I gotta get me a piece of THAT action!"

Fact is though, there's not really all THAT much you can create for a given smartphone that isn't just a rehash of stuff that's been done before, or is just plain useless junk for cheap laughs or thrills.

I'm a LONG time computer user and got on board with "smartphones" back when the best you had was a PalmOS based Kyocera phone with a greyscale screen and a stylus that crashed daily, requiring pulling the battery out to reset it.

The single BIGGEST reason the iPhone was successful in the first place was the fact it was finally a STABLE smartphone with a nice multitouch interface that even grandma could manipulate after a little practice. When it first came out, Apple wasn't even really interested in other people writing apps to run on the thing. They were emphasizing "web apps" where you just made an icon on the phone and sent it to some web site that served everything up!

Obviously, they gave in on that idea and slowly came around to an entire app ecosystem, and IMO, it's a pretty good one. Unlike Android, people don't have to worry that much about malware and other nonsense, and Apple rather wisely restricted some of the things you were allowed to access on the phones in your code. (Again, devs whine and moan -- but the iPhone remains the most stable of the smartphones on the market, and this is one reason why!)

If you don't have something that will really "wow" people on a smartphone and make them say, "I can use THAT app every day!", you don't have anything you should count on profiting from. That's just the way it is. The phone already comes with a good email app, a calendar/scheduler, and most importantly, a pretty good web browser. That covers a BIG chunk of what people demand out of a smartphone to begin with. So much other stuff people write is, honestly, useless "fluff". Tons of apps that are just pretty front-ends to the SAME services you can access over the web browser directly. (All fine and good, but not worth PAYING for 99% of the time.)

And if you honestly think what you wrote is "Pretty cool, but not something I might sell a lot of if I don't price it under $5."? Yeah, it's not really that cool after all, ok? It's just ok, and again, you shouldn't expect to make a living off the thing.

kingtj
Aug 20, 2011, 06:38 PM
I have to admit that when I read your original post, I hadn't followed back through all of the previous messages in the thread. So I may have misunderstood you as being among those who felt Apple was mishandling the "app store" in some way, causing you to waste time and money developing for the platform.

I think you're probably right, too, that a lot of people will just "impulse buy" apps that have low prices (under $5). But I have to wonder if the money made that way isn't offset with heartache and hassle fielding emails and negative reviews from people who weren't happy with what they got, after the fact? I'd hate to be in the position of being a dev who released several "throw away" apps for $1 each or so, and then wound up fighting a negative perception of my name and my development skills when I worked hard to release a major app, later on.

I think I see what you're saying (and yes, definitely, most users never consider the developer's point of view). But then, can one really blame them? That's how the marketplace always works. How often does a buyer at the grocery store stop and consider the grocery store owner's point of view when he/she is upset about them being out of a product, or deciding not to carry an item anymore, or not honoring a coupon? How often does a new car buyer really concern him/herself with the situation the dealership is in? That's why I think software developers really need to do a lot more Q.A. on the things they release, BEFORE v1.0 leaves the door. That's also why I think some apps just should be reconsidered instead of developed at all. Everyone would really be better off if we had fewer software titles, but more assurance that each one we had really worked solidly, did everything it claimed, and was easy and enjoyable to use. The alternative means consumers will get bitchy and demanding (often over stuff a developer never even made enough money from to be worth supporting!), and they wind up throwing away money to buy more solutions to their same problems, trying to find "better" alternatives. Lose, lose on both sides.



kingtj: I agree with all except the necessity of apps. My experience, and my visibility into other companies suggests that users buy just to buy when it comes to apps less than five bucks. I suspect most buyers don't even read the app description if it costs less than five bucks.

Aside from than this, what you say is complimentary to what I wrote, if not redundant. If I came off as some whiny smart phone developer that was upset because I didn't make a profit, I failed to make my point.

The motivation for my post came to be because I've largely read consumer side complaints. I think it's worth considering the developer side, and how Apple's mandates makes it difficult for third party distributors to make a profit. The best way I knew to do this was to tell my story: my lessons learned.

And you have considered it. Thank you.

Apple's developer policies clearly guide development. The only reason to exclude them from this topic is 'in apple we trust'; which is not in my mantra. They do have there benefits, in line with what you stated. But I don't think they were designed to necessarily push developers down the path they want them to follow. Companies will find the path of least resistance towards a profit within the rules of the system. This touches on one aspect of why this thread is in this forum...which I find more interesting than bye bye sexy.

But I can only speculate at this point. It sounds like you have a great deal more insight into this than I. So I'm curious if and how you feel this system could be more intelligently designed, as to make it less appealing for companies like the subject company to operate the way is has.

thermodynamic
Aug 21, 2011, 04:18 PM
I agree-- Apple needs to develop a scheme to separate the well-designed, useful apps from the crap. Most of the apps are poorly written.

In some cases, I've even seen some the Apple sample code pawned off as original apps (Earthquakes, a metronome app, etc.).

And yet Apple's massive vetting system approved them for their store... hmm...

----------

I agree-- Apple needs to develop a scheme to separate the well-designed, useful apps from the crap. Most of the apps are poorly written.

In some cases, I've even seen some the Apple sample code pawned off as original apps (Earthquakes, a metronome app, etc.).

And yet Apple's massive vetting system approved them for their store... hmm...