PDA

View Full Version : Apple Invites Pulitzer Prize-Winning Cartoonist to Resubmit Rejected iPhone Application




MacRumors
Apr 16, 2010, 01:50 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/04/16/apple-invites-pulitzer-prize-winning-cartoonist-to-resubmit-rejected-iphone-application/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/16/144811-fiore_gate_crashers.jpg

Yesterday, the Nieman Journalism Lab reported (http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/04/mark-fiore-can-win-a-pulitzer-prize-but-he-cant-get-his-iphone-cartoon-app-past-apples-satire-police/) that Mark Fiore, who earlier this week won a Pulitzer Prize for his political cartoons, had submitted an iPhone application highlighting his work last year, but was rejected by Apple. The rejection was based on prohibitions in Apple's developer agreement against ridiculing public figures.In December, Apple rejected his iPhone app, NewsToons, because, as Apple put it, his satire "ridicules public figures," a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, which bars any apps whose content in "Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."Fiore, who publishes his animated works on SFGate.com, the online arm of the San Francisco Chronicle, is notable as being the first online-only journalist to win a Pulitzer Prize.

The New York Times today reports (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/apple-invites-pulitzer-winner-to-resubmit-his-iphone-app) that Apple has invited Fiore to resubmit his application for inclusion in the App Store. The application was resubmitted this morning, and Fiore is now awaiting word on a decision from Apple, which refused to comment publicly on the situation.



Article Link: Apple Invites Pulitzer Prize-Winning Cartoonist to Resubmit Rejected iPhone Application (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/04/16/apple-invites-pulitzer-prize-winning-cartoonist-to-resubmit-rejected-iphone-application/)



ChazUK
Apr 16, 2010, 02:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

Let's hope he didn't use a cross compiler when making the app....

dvdhsu
Apr 16, 2010, 02:23 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

Let's hope he didn't use a cross compiler when making the app....

Haha, exactly what I was thinking.

Sometimes, the app store restrictions are a bit ridiculous, and when Apple realizes that they're dealing with people who know what they're doing, they remove those restrictions quickly.

spillproof
Apr 16, 2010, 02:32 PM
So, famous people can do what they want. Nice, Apple.

macduke
Apr 16, 2010, 02:41 PM
Haha, and then they reject it again. Double-rejected, to the face!

But seriously, if I were him, I'd just say "Screw off Apple, you didn't care about me until I was famous!" Then submit my app for Android.

What happened to "Think Different." ?

Apple has their hand in the back pocket of too many politicians, it seems.

BC2009
Apr 16, 2010, 02:42 PM
I can't say I am a fan of Adobe Flash as I am a big supporter of an open web, but I must say that if cross-compiled apps are inferior then the customers in the app store will certainly vote with their dollars to favor the natively written apps.

However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.

Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.

On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.

Shasterball
Apr 16, 2010, 02:58 PM
So, famous people can do what they want. Nice, Apple.

That or they realized it was time to remove their head from you know where because they are not capable of judging an app's true worth...

zemoleman
Apr 16, 2010, 02:58 PM
Is it me or is Apple becoming a silly caricature of its own 1984 ad?

alphaod
Apr 16, 2010, 03:00 PM
But seriously, if I were him, I'd just say "Screw off Apple, you didn't care about me until I was famous!" Then submit my app for Android.


that's kind of a double-sided blade; you say screw Apple while taking yourself out of a market with a lot of potential sales.

bretm
Apr 16, 2010, 03:03 PM
I can't say I am a fan of Adobe Flash as I am a big supporter of an open web, but I must say that if cross-compiled apps are inferior then the customers in the app store will certainly vote with their dollars to favor the natively written apps.

However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.

Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.

On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.

Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.

Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.

bretm
Apr 16, 2010, 03:04 PM
Is it me or is Apple becoming a silly caricature of its own 1984 ad?

Steve looks more and more like the guy on the screen every day!

Marion
Apr 16, 2010, 03:18 PM
Is it me or is Apple becoming a silly caricature of its own 1984 ad?

And hopefully Fiore will do a cartoon about it :p ... well maybe not, his app could be banned again :eek:

kustardking
Apr 16, 2010, 03:26 PM
Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.

Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.

This is a sensible perspective

DaveGee
Apr 16, 2010, 03:39 PM
Is it me or is Apple becoming a silly caricature of its own 1984 ad?

If when you say silly you mean terrifying? Then yes I do... :mad:

dvdhsu
Apr 16, 2010, 03:42 PM
Steve looks more and more like the guy on the screen every day!

I know!

Totally! :D

mingoglia
Apr 16, 2010, 03:48 PM
I'm not a developer and have no idea what their policies are but will say I think it's a bit lame to have that double standard. If I was the cartoonist I wouldn't have resubmitted it. Or if I did it would have been a cartoon mocking the double standard of Apple.... I'd then blog about the whole experience. :D

DaveGee
Apr 16, 2010, 03:48 PM
And hopefully Fiore will do a cartoon about it :p ... well maybe not, his app could be banned again :eek:

Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:

Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...

This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.

DaveGee
Apr 16, 2010, 03:50 PM
I'm not a developer and have no idea what their policies are but will say I think it's a bit lame to have that double standard. If I was the cartoonist I wouldn't have resubmitted it.

THANK YOU! :)

mingoglia
Apr 16, 2010, 03:51 PM
Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:

Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...

This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.

x2 of what you said.... you verbalized what I was trying to say a lot better than I. :o

ZipZap
Apr 16, 2010, 03:58 PM
Wait....there are rules...but then apple can bend them as they see fit?

The rules should apply to all or to none.

Just another reason I really hate apple and cant wait for jobs to leave.

DaveGee
Apr 16, 2010, 04:02 PM
x2 of what you said.... you verbalized what I was trying to say a lot better than I. :o

Thanks! :)

I wish they included this but I guess it was more detailed then they were willing to broadcast.

After NewsToons was turned down in mid-December, Mr. Fiore did not try to submit it again, “mainly because it seemed like it would be so daunting.”

“It’s not like I had a phone number for someone at Apple,” he said, adding, “interestingly enough, I do now.”

Just goes to show how two-faced they are.. :(

Look, believe it or not I'm a big fan of Apple for the most part but the UGLY way they've handled the APP store was/is just too much for me to not speak my mind about it. Oh and before people start screaming... WELL YOU HAVE A CHOICE... Yea I'm well aware of my rights and freedoms and one of them is to LIKE Apple and their products and STILL speak the truth about their militant behavior they exhibit over the APP store.

djdole
Apr 16, 2010, 04:38 PM
He should give a big SCREW YOU to Apple and make a WinMo, Win7, Android and Pre apps.
Maybe with enough bad publicity Apple won't be such a dick to developers.

MacPhilosopher
Apr 16, 2010, 04:40 PM
Haha, exactly what I was thinking.

Sometimes, the app store restrictions are a bit ridiculous, and when Apple realizes that they're dealing with people who know what they're doing, they remove those restrictions quickly.

What they really need, though, is the ability to recognize items of merit before turning them down. It reminds me of how ridiculous zero tolerance rules are on school campuses. Expelling students for "weapons" that are not really weapons i.e. finger nail clippers, etc. Rules and filters are fine when not implemented in a manner that lacks common sense. However, it comes with the territory now that Apple is in the media distribution game. To enter such and arena, one accepts the inherent danger of becoming a censor. To be completely open to all content would be an irresponsible business decision in terms of PR. Tighten up your filter a little to much and you land on the other end of negative PR. Apple will be adjusting its policies towards content for years and never find a perfectly safe position.

MacTheSpoon
Apr 16, 2010, 04:42 PM
What the hell, how bizarre. This app store stuff is ridiculous. Either allow satire or don't, and say so in your rules.

MacPhilosopher
Apr 16, 2010, 04:44 PM
Yea unless he's awarded another Pulitzer that is... :rolleyes:

Apple is really disgusting me with this $#*(%&*( behavior. They really need to completely reevaluate their criteria and make it CRYSTAL EFFING CLEAR what IS and was IS NOT acceptable and then stand by it. None of this 'reject Google Voice because it duplicates functionality' and then 'approve the Opera web browser'. Reject an APP because it 'ridicules public figures' and then plead that the author to resubmit it once he's awarded a Pulitzer...

This wishy washy crap is really showing everyone just how UNDERHANDED they treat the whole process.

They certainly need to do better, but there is no such thing as "crystal effing clear" in the censorship of media content. They will never make all sides happy. They at least need to keep in line with their history as a company that promotes "Think Different" in their PR. Suppressing ideas and creativity certainly doesn't fall under that flag.

Brometheus
Apr 16, 2010, 05:56 PM
I can't defend Apple's rejection of this app, because it doesn't make sense to me. However, I can see how Apple's approval policy can lead to unintended consequences. If we view Apple as evil, then of course we will see nothing but malevolent intent. However, if we think about how the process actually works, we should realize that some of these things are predictable. I don't work for Apple, but I expect that like any organization that employs human beings, there will be variation in judgement based on the fact people are different, and the reality that it's impossible to account for every scenario. The idea that Apple can make every prohibited type of app crystal clear does not make sense to me. There are always situations that can't be covered 100%. There are trade-offs as in all of life. Lack of flexibility always comes at a price, so you do the best you can. The reviewers at Apple are like everyone else in society. Some are mature (not necessarily meaning older) people with good insight and can make good judgements when they interpret the rules. Others try to make decisions based on an interpretation of the rules that is not based on what most of us would consider good judgment.

There are situations, such as Apple's attitude regarding Flash on the iPhone OS, when we know where the entire company stands. Sometimes we can't be sure that a decision reflects the entire company. So when people claim that "Apple" is doing something to screw someone over, sometimes it's a specific individual at Apple; someone who may not share the same perspective as the senior leaders at Apple, or even another Apple employee 10 feet away from them.

Andrmgic
Apr 16, 2010, 06:13 PM
They should post a policy and ****ing stick to it, no special cases or exceptions.. NONE of this "because we felt like it" ********.

They need to post EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT in plain language and say explicitly which of the published policies the app did not meet and give an explanation as to why.

This kind of stuff is nothing but bad press for them, especially with all of the public backpedaling they've been doing when they reject someone with the attention of the media.

Also, They should not be able to deny developers access to certain APIs in order to keep their own products more competitive. (pinch to expand for that photo app that got rejected, in-app brightness control, etc.)

If Apple can't compete on their own programming and design merits, then they shouldn't be releasing applications in the store.

Darkroom
Apr 16, 2010, 06:53 PM
way to stand by your principles by resubmitting :rolleyes:

ps45
Apr 16, 2010, 06:57 PM
presumably the mistake to which jobs refers resides in the OTT developer licence agreement, rather than this particular instance in which those rules have been applied? i wish.

wovel
Apr 16, 2010, 08:33 PM
presumably the mistake to which jobs refers resides in the OTT developer licence agreement, rather than this particular instance in which those rules have been applied? i wish.

Interesting thought though. His rejection said it was for ridiculing public figures, but their policy rejects defamatory material. There is certainly a fine line, but the line most certainly exists. You can ridicule someone till the cows come home without engaging in defamation. The distinction is probably too difficult for anyone without extensive legal background to make on a regular basis and in a timely manner.

Apple should just drop the defamation clause, which may be difficult for them to do to.

DavePurz
Apr 17, 2010, 01:52 AM
But seriously, if I were him, I'd just say "Screw off Apple, you didn't care about me until I was famous!"

I could not agree with you more!

My current iPhone is my last! I disgusted with Apple's monopolist stranglehold on the product and apps. They have become total control freaks.

When this phone dies, it will NOT be replaced with another Apple product.

trrosen
Apr 17, 2010, 04:20 AM
They need to post EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT in plain language and say explicitly which of the published policies the app did not meet and give an explanation as to why.
They do and they did. But the fact is the line between ridicule and a humorous commentary is pretty fuzzy. Expecting a first tier employee to get it right 100% of the time while examining 100 other apps is silly. In fact sometimes the only difference is the reputation of the person making the statement. Fior does push the boundaries in his cartoons.


Also, They should not be able to deny developers access to certain APIs in order to keep their own products more competitive. (pinch to expand for that photo app that got rejected, in-app brightness control, etc.)

If Apple can't compete on their own programming and design merits, then they shouldn't be releasing applications in the store. Your a moron. (see now thats ridicule) Limiting access to APIs is part of Apple's design merit. If you allow people to implement thing outside of approved APIs theres no point in having them. APIs are not created as shortcuts for developers they exist to insure compatibility, reliability and consistency. Without then it would all be DOS. If you don't like the rules just write for a platform that doesn't have any...opps sorry there aren't any. The whole point of a platform and a SDK is to give a consistent set of features and limitations thats why every environment limits some API and the usage of others. Even Android has rules, although few outside Google know them as Google has far less transparency then Apple.

PS you do realize that Apple's photo app is free and comes with the iPad right. That sort of makes they theory of them doing it to prevent competition silly doesn't it.

trrosen
Apr 17, 2010, 04:28 AM
I could not agree with you more!

My current iPhone is my last! I disgusted with Apple's monopolist stranglehold on the product and apps. They have become total control freaks.

When this phone dies, it will NOT be replaced with another Apple product.

Well good luck with that and remember MS has complete control over your WinMo phone, Google has complete control over your Android phone and Palm er... whoever buys palm has complete control over your Web OS phone.

MacMyDay
Apr 17, 2010, 05:08 AM
What people don't appreciate with Apple's terms is that they are there as a legal document to protect Apple. It is absolutely impossible for them to define every single situation where they would or would not approve an app, and the fact that they've admitted they made a mistake and are willing to accept this application again is only a good thing. Why people are turning around and complaining about this is quite surreal, as if you truly wanted Apple to make it crystal clear and avoid any issues, they'd be no point them having any department at all to reassess any apps and this wouldn't even be a topic.

In my companies own terms, we have to rules are unlikely to ever occur or just protecting us - but as with most companies, we're flexible enough to change them if a situation comes up. Is that now suddenly a sign of weakness? It's like in politics: if you refuse to change your mind, you're stubborn and difficult, and if you're willing to budge you're weak. You just can't win, but you'll never win when these discussions are read by people who see the first 10 replies all think the said company (regardless of who it is, cos I see it all the time with Microsoft who get painted a horribly bad picture, which I too disagree with) and are saying how awful they are.

uaecasher
Apr 17, 2010, 05:48 AM
Haha, and then they reject it again. Double-rejected, to the face!



Lol that would be a nice April fool joke

ChazUK
Apr 17, 2010, 05:56 AM
Your a moron. (see now thats ridicule)

PLEASE tell me that was intentional. :eek:

Winni
Apr 17, 2010, 06:17 AM
Is it me or is Apple becoming a silly caricature of its own 1984 ad?

No. They are worse than the IBM caricature that they painted back in 1984.

The good news is that Apple's iPhone OS won't be the dominating mobile platform for much longer. The sales numbers show that Android is quickly gaining momentum, and Google's marketplace is not censored at all and developers can choose whatever development tool they want to produce software for Android.

Apple will soon fall back into that little niche where they came from. And they deserve it because of their megalomaniac behavior and arrogant attitude.

History is going to repeat itself because Apple hasn't learned from their mistakes in the past. They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties. Now they will lose the mobile market to Google.

The WePad is going to ship in July. Even if it might not be as sexy as the over-hyped iPad, it is an OPEN device. And in the end, the open platform will win.

On a more personal note: I do not need and I do not want Apple to tell me what I can read or see on my device. If I want to see naked flesh, then it's none of Apple's business and they have ZERO rights to deny me that. (I'm European - we're not prude here and we prefer sex over violence.) If I want to use software that directly competes with Apple's own offers, then obviously their competition is giving me something that I like better than Apple's software products.

As much as I like Apple's computers, I hate their entire AppStore and iPhone SDK policies with a passion.

kylos
Apr 17, 2010, 07:06 AM
Interesting thought though. His rejection said it was for ridiculing public figures, but their policy rejects defamatory material. There is certainly a fine line, but the line most certainly exists. You can ridicule someone till the cows come home without engaging in defamation. The distinction is probably too difficult for anyone without extensive legal background to make on a regular basis and in a timely manner.

Apple should just drop the defamation clause, which may be difficult for them to do to.

I'd say Fiore flirts with that line often enough, Pulitzer winner or no. I don't know the legal technicalities, but I would think Apple would do themselves a favor by letting the lawyers figure out what's defamation and what isn't. I can't see how they could be held responsible for someone else's words, but I'm not a lawyer.

kiljoy616
Apr 17, 2010, 08:09 AM
Time for steve to get those regulation ironed out, what is objectable to some is just plain funny to others. :rolleyes:

kiljoy616
Apr 17, 2010, 08:17 AM
I can't say I am a fan of Adobe Flash as I am a big supporter of an open web, but I must say that if cross-compiled apps are inferior then the customers in the app store will certainly vote with their dollars to favor the natively written apps.



You really don't know much about consumers do you. You have a lot of psychology to learn, the customer is for the most part dumb and does not vote with their dollars, if they do then you have a really bad marketing department, what a utopian believe haha.

You must remember a product of say 100 dollars is not about selling to the whole world but just a percentage of it, a good product or a bad product its all the same for marketing its about the perception. Just look around your world its full of bad and really bad products and there are still people buying them. Palm sold for years good products and then started selling crap and yet people bought, even today Palm still sells and its their Marketing that really has gone down.

Apple not only makes good things but they have a top notch marketing department. ;)

feszty
Apr 17, 2010, 09:51 AM
So he won the price and apple re-invited him. But what about the other hundreds of developers who are banned from the App store with no clear explanation why they were rejected? I like this 1984 reference in the previous comments, I couldn't agree more. Looks like it is time for change.
As for the artist, he is not showing too much artistic integrity. He has been rejected on BS reasons, calling his art ridiculous, then he resubmits immediately. He should have stood up agains the AppNazi and tell them to shove their censorship up their butts.

macUser2007
Apr 17, 2010, 11:42 AM
Well good luck with that and remember MS has complete control over your WinMo phone, Google has complete control over your Android phone and Palm er... whoever buys palm has complete control over your Web OS phone.

Speaking of morons, you definitely appear to be one.

I used to have a couple of WinMo phones before my iPhones, and WinMo is fully customizable. MS is not trying to lock it with every minor upgrade, and there are whole open communities cooking customized ROMs.

Same for Android - OEMs can customize it, users can customize it, and Google doesn't actively try to break these customizations with every minor update.

And yes, my current 3G Ss are my last iProducts. I will continue to buy Apple monitors, iMacs and Mac Book Pros, because of their design, but I've had it with the iPhone. And I am staying away from the iPad, waiting for the Android slates,

As to the magnanimous invitation to "resubmit," Fiore should have told Jobs to go ****** himself. At the very least, the honors should be on Apple to re-review the application, not on Fiore to resubmit, hat in hand.

sjo
Apr 17, 2010, 12:15 PM
Speaking of morons, you definitely appear to be one.

I used to have a couple of WinMo phones before my iPhones, and WinMo is fully customizable. MS is not trying to lock it with every minor upgrade, and there are whole open communities cooking customized ROMs.


They are moving quickly into that direction with windows phone 7 and kin.

str1f3
Apr 17, 2010, 12:16 PM
The good news is that Apple's iPhone OS won't be the dominating mobile platform for much longer. The sales numbers show that Android is quickly gaining momentum, and Google's marketplace is not censored at all and developers can choose whatever development tool they want to produce software for Android.

Just because they went from 2.5% to 5.2% in the US means nothing. Apple is at 25%. It is a lot harder to get into the higher market. All that they've been showing is that they can take some of Palm and WM6 marketshare.

http://www.tipb.com/images/stories/2010/02/marketshare-comscore-400x282.png

Apple will soon fall back into that little niche where they came from. And they deserve it because of their megalomaniac behavior and arrogant attitude.

History is going to repeat itself because Apple hasn't learned from their mistakes in the past. They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties. Now they will lose the mobile market to Google.

Do you mean history will repeat itself like the Mac/PC wars or like the iPod? Maybe I'm missing something when you say "They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties" because what comes to my mind is ActiveX and DirectX.

The WePad is going to ship in July. Even if it might not be as sexy as the over-hyped iPad, it is an OPEN device. And in the end, the open platform will win.

You do realize that no one is really mentioning the WePad (lol) except pretty much Germany. Go look at the current success of the iPad. If you think you can just blow up Android apps and it will be just like the iPad you're fooling yourself.

As for your Android is "OPEN" comment, I don't think you know what "open" actually means.

Is Android Evil? (http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/04/is-android-evil/)

1. Private branches. There are multiple, private codelines available to selected partners (typically the OEM working on an Android project) on a need-to-know basis only.

2. Closed review process. All code reviewers work for Google, meaning that Google is the only authority that can accept or reject a code submission from the community.

3. Speed of evolution. Google innovates the Android platform at a speed that’s unprecedented for the mobile industry, releasing 4 major updates (1.6 to 2.1) in 18 months. OEMs wanting to build on Android have no choice but to stay close to Google so as not to lose on new features/bug fixes released.

4. Incomplete software. The public SDK is by no means sufficient to build a handset. Key building blocks missing are radio integration, international language packs, operator packs – and of course Google’s closed source apps like Market, Gmail and GTalk.

5. Gated developer community. Android Market is the exclusive distribution and discovery channel for the 40,000+ apps created by developers; and is available to phone manufacturers on separate agreement.

6. Anti-fragmentation agreement. Little is known about the anti-fragmentation agreement signed by OHA members but we understand it’s a commitment to not release handsets which are not CTS compliant.

7. Private roadmap. The visibility offered into Android’s roadmap is pathetic. At the time of writing, the roadmap published publicly is a year out of date (Q1 2009). To get a sneak peak into the private roadmap you need Google’s blessing.

8. Android trademark. Google holds the trademark to the Android name; as a manufacturer you can only leverage on the Android branding with approval from Google.


On a more personal note: I do not need and I do not want Apple to tell me what I can read or see on my device. If I want to see naked flesh, then it's none of Apple's business and they have ZERO rights to deny me that. (I'm European - we're not prude here and we prefer sex over violence.) If I want to use software that directly competes with Apple's own offers, then obviously their competition is giving me something that I like better than Apple's software products.

As much as I like Apple's computers, I hate their entire AppStore and iPhone SDK policies with a passion.

What you want is a bigger walled garden. You are primarily to only use Google services on Android. I don't like the App Store policies but to simply put out that with Android "is all about choice" is naive. To use half the apps in the Android marketplace your phone has to be rooted (jailbroken).

Ultimately I'd like for Apple to allow third party apps to be downloaded outside of the App Store and can understand why Jobs doesn't want to offer questionable apps on iTunes.

akac
Apr 17, 2010, 02:32 PM
I could not agree with you more!

My current iPhone is my last! I disgusted with Apple's monopolist stranglehold on the product and apps. They have become total control freaks.

When this phone dies, it will NOT be replaced with another Apple product.

They have become? :) They have always been control freaks. That's why the platform is so good...

akac
Apr 17, 2010, 02:41 PM
No. They are worse than the IBM caricature that they painted back in 1984.

The good news is that Apple's iPhone OS won't be the dominating mobile platform for much longer. The sales numbers show that Android is quickly gaining momentum, and Google's marketplace is not censored at all and developers can choose whatever development tool they want to produce software for Android.

They can also produce malware (as they have) as easily. And Android is much harder to develop for. And the sales are 1/100th of the same app on iPhone.

We develop on nearly every mobile platform and the iPhone is the best for us. Not just because its fun to develop on, the APIs are great, the sales are great, but because frankly the entire thing is just a step above every other app store, platform, and company we've worked with in the last 10 years of the mobile space.

When users try to get in the midst of what developers have to deal with, they only get a very filtered view that does not encapsulate the true view.

Apple will soon fall back into that little niche where they came from. And they deserve it because of their megalomaniac behavior and arrogant attitude.

I strongly doubt it. As a mobile developer for 10 years I've got a pretty good handle of how these markets work and have been right most of the time. Android has way more major issues for devs and users to deal with than Apple. Its just that Apple's gets the press.

We develop for Android. I like Android compared to WinMobile. I like WebOS compared to WinMobile. But none of them compare to how much all of my engineers prefer developing on iPhone. And using the iPhone.

The biggest reason why Android will not overtake the iPhone in app sales is that the iPhone is consistent in its OS revisions. Android's open-ness which is a strength is also its biggest weakness. As a developer its a small nightmare to test and develop for it because of so many unknowns.

One day there may be more Android phones sold than iPhones, but app sales on the iPhone is still going to blow Android out the water.

Look at Symbian and Windows Mobile. For years Windows Mobile's smartphone software outsold their Pocket PC 10-1, yet app sales were reversed with the Pocket PC users buying software 10-1 for smartphone. Symbian app sales are nearly non-existent yet it blows every current Smartphone out of the water for unit sales.

Android's unit sales are 60k a day according to Google, yet software sales relative to iPhone shows that Android users simply don't buy apps at the same rate the iPhone users do.

ChazUK
Apr 17, 2010, 03:07 PM
The biggest reason why Android will not overtake the iPhone in app sales is that the iPhone is consistent in its OS revisions.
Are we not forgetting that the market for apps is going to start to fragment come OS4? With 1st gen iPhone and iPod touch owners stuck without an update and iPad owners stuck on 3.2 until "Fall", development for iPhone may start to become a pain soon if you want to maximise customer base. I'm not sure how backwards compatible an app developed for the iPhone and OS4 would be when running on the iPad if it uses API's not available on 3.2.

Then we have the potential of 3 different OS4 capable phones which may vary in features come the next gen iPhone. 3G can't multitask and will undoubtedly mis some OS4 features, the 3GS will do everything Apple has shown so far and I expect the next iPhone to have some more features over the last two.

Android's open-ness which is a strength is also its biggest weakness. As a developer its a small nightmare to test and develop for it because of so many unknowns.

Are we talking software or hardware wise here?

It must be a pain in the arse developing for Android and working out things like, does it have a trackball or D-pad, what processor & how much RAM the device has, what size screen does it have, which OS revision is it using....

So far as unified hardware goes, the iPhone has been king so far, I agree. :)

Have you got any Android projects currently in development?

fairpro
Apr 19, 2010, 09:54 AM
don't like apple? then treat apple like an ex wife or girlfriend.

get a divorce!

then go find somebody else to vent your frustrations on.

sportsfan
Apr 19, 2010, 10:03 AM
Are they given a formal training by apple? Even if they are, every approvers view will be slightly different.....perhaps this app was one that should have been approved from the start but was rejected by an approver who likes to abuse power?

ChazUK
Apr 19, 2010, 01:12 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

don't like apple? then treat apple like an ex wife or girlfriend.

get a divorce!

then go find somebody else to vent your frustrations on.

To like Apple, you don't have to 100% agree with everything they do.

Paulr62
Apr 19, 2010, 02:03 PM
How many others has this happened to?

Brometheus
Apr 19, 2010, 02:31 PM
On a more personal note: I do not need and I do not want Apple to tell me what I can read or see on my device. If I want to see naked flesh, then it's none of Apple's business and they have ZERO rights to deny me that. (I'm European - we're not prude here and we prefer sex over violence.) If I want to use software that directly competes with Apple's own offers, then obviously their competition is giving me something that I like better than Apple's software products.

As much as I like Apple's computers, I hate their entire AppStore and iPhone SDK policies with a passion.

My impression is that Apple does not want to tell you what to watch on your iPhone. If Apple had built tools into Safari that prevented you from visiting x-rated sites or somehow made it impossible to for you to transfer adult content from your computer to your iPhone, then you definitely could accuse them of trying to control what you watch on your phone. My sense is that Apple cares about the reputation of their app store. They don't want it to be known for pornography. I can envision a situation in which pornography could dominate the top paid and free apps list. I can easily understand why Apple would not want that. Another important thing to consider is that in today's world it doesn't take much for a media frenzy to develop if your product is linked to some kind of sensational crime or scandal. That could undo all of their years of working to create a certain image. You can certainly watch pornography or other sexual content on your iPhone. Apple simply does not want you to use the apps in the app store to do it.

macUser2007
Apr 19, 2010, 03:00 PM
My impression is that Apple does not want to tell you what to watch on your iPhone. ... They don't want it to be known for pornography. ... Another important thing to consider is that in today's world it doesn't take much for a media frenzy to develop if your product is linked to some kind of sensational crime or scandal.....

What does ANY of this have to do to Apple rejecting a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist from the App Store?

Brometheus
Apr 19, 2010, 03:09 PM
What does ANY of this have to do to Apple rejecting a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist from the App Store?

Nothing, directly. I was responding to a previous comment as you can see. There is an indirect connection to the cartoonist issue. My feeling is that there's a general failure to understand why Apple has a restrictive policy regarding what types of apps can appear in the app store. My post addressed the issue regarding the prohibition of pornography, instead of the issue of what defines an app with defamatory content as was the case with the cartoonist. There's also, in my opinion, a failure to appreciate that the lack of consistency in the app approval process is a result of Apple being unable to anticipate every scenario and nuance that is presented by certain apps, and the fact that Apple hires people to review apps. You can't realistically expect different people to always agree on situations that are slightly different. In order to respond to the explosion of submitted apps, Apple must have had to hire a lot of new reviewers. That means that you may have less control over the quality and experience level of the people that you have working as reviewers.

macUser2007
Apr 19, 2010, 04:27 PM
Nothing, directly. I was responding to a previous comment as you can see. There is an indirect connection to the cartoonist issue. My feeling is that there's a general failure to understand why Apple has a restrictive policy regarding what types of apps can appear in the app store. My post addressed the issue regarding the prohibition of pornography, instead of the issue of what defines an app with defamatory content as was the case with the cartoonist. There's also, in my opinion, a failure to appreciate that the lack of consistency in the app approval process is a result of Apple being unable to anticipate every scenario and nuance that is presented by certain apps, and the fact that Apple hires people to review apps. You can't realistically expect different people to always agree on situations that are slightly different. In order to respond to the explosion of submitted apps, Apple must have had to hire a lot of new reviewers. That means that you may have less control over the quality and experience level of the people that you have working as reviewers.

This is a whole lot of excuses, for a policy which is simply inexcusable.

There are many other companies which sell applications and content, which don't resort to such draconian measures. When I download a new version of Firefox on my desktop, I don't get a warning that it may provide access to inappropriate content. Neither Apple, nor MS arbitrarily ban desktop applications from being purchased or distributed.

Apple wants to be a publishing distributor. If they can object to and ban the cartoon today, why not object to and ban an article in The Economist tomorrow?

Apple has become Big Brother. It wants to control every purchase and every download, so it doesn't miss a single dollar you may otherwise spend outside the walled garden. And these are the predictable consequences.

mj1108
Apr 20, 2010, 01:28 AM
Are they given a formal training by apple? Even if they are, every approvers view will be slightly different.....perhaps this app was one that should have been approved from the start but was rejected by an approver who likes to abuse power?

This makes me wonder...and I apologize if this info is out there somewhere that I haven't seen yet....but do we know exactly what process Apple uses to approve apps? How many people see/try/evaluate the app during the approval process? The way it sounds it's as though there's a ton of apps in a large queue and an intern grabs one, tries it, thinks "this looks good" or "this can't pass", puts a stamp on it and goes to the next.

hagjohn
Apr 20, 2010, 01:18 PM
Is it me or is Apple becoming a silly caricature of its own 1984 ad?

It's not just you.

desigarms
Apr 20, 2010, 02:20 PM
Wait....there are rules...but then apple can bend them as they see fit?

The rules should apply to all or to none.

Just another reason I really hate apple and cant wait for jobs to leave.

Exactly!!! I'm sick of Apple's crap. I went to Android and not looking back.

guifa
Apr 25, 2010, 10:07 AM
As for your Android is "OPEN" comment, I don't think you know what "open" actually means.
2. Closed review process. All code reviewers work for Google, meaning that Google is the only authority that can accept or reject a code submission from the community.
That may, but at least code submissions are possible. When was the last time you heard of Apple accepting community-submitted iPhone OS code? Oh, right. Not possible. Someone still needs to oversee core code submissions, and that's how ALL software works. In this case, Google is the lead developer so they oversee those submissions.
3. Speed of evolution. Google innovates the Android platform at a speed that’s unprecedented for the mobile industry, releasing 4 major updates (1.6 to 2.1) in 18 months. OEMs wanting to build on Android have no choice but to stay close to Google so as not to lose on new features/bug fixes released.
Valid point. They have updated it pretty quickly, but it seems to be a bit slower now.
4. Incomplete software. The public SDK is by no means sufficient to build a handset. Key building blocks missing are radio integration, international language packs, operator packs – and of course Google’s closed source apps like Market, Gmail and GTalk.
There are language packs available, and as a user, you can translate core apps if you need to and submit them to be added.
5. Gated developer community. Android Market is the exclusive distribution and discovery channel for the 40,000+ apps created by developers; and is available to phone manufacturers on separate agreement.
Wrong.. Unlike the iPhone, on Android you can install any application you want from any source you want. Does the Market make things easier? Yes. Is it required for app installation and distribution? No.
6. Anti-fragmentation agreement. Little is known about the anti-fragmentation agreement signed by OHA members but we understand it’s a commitment to not release handsets which are not CTS compliant.
Little is known about a lot of stuff. But in this case, if it hasn't negatively affected users or developers in any noticeable way, what's the problem with the higher-up business deals/agreements?
7. Private roadmap. The visibility offered into Android’s roadmap is pathetic. At the time of writing, the roadmap published publicly is a year out of date (Q1 2009). To get a sneak peak into the private roadmap you need Google’s blessing.
It'd be nice to see what's coming up, but

8. Android trademark. Google holds the trademark to the Android name; as a manufacturer you can only leverage on the Android branding with approval from Google.
And said approval has already been given: http://www.android.com/branding.html

What you want is a bigger walled garden. You are primarily to only use Google services on Android. I don't like the App Store policies but to simply put out that with Android "is all about choice" is naive. To use half the apps in the Android marketplace your phone has to be rooted (jailbroken). I'll take the 10 sq mi garden over the 10 sq ft garden any day.

Ultimately I'd like for Apple to allow third party apps to be downloaded outside of the App Store and can understand why Jobs doesn't want to offer questionable apps on iTunes. This can be done today on Android. In fact, you could make your own marketplace-like app for specialized distributions on Android if you wanted (like those scary things that Apple won't allow -- political commentary, "offensive" things, etc)

krwan basha
Apr 25, 2010, 02:11 PM
goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood job

rhett7660
Apr 25, 2010, 03:19 PM
What does ANY of this have to do to Apple rejecting a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist from the App Store?

Probably the same reason "what does the original post have to do with the Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist getting his app rejected." This person was merely commenting on another posters post.

I am waiting to see if the app gets rejected a second time before I lay judgment.