Not a lawyer, did have some commentary earlier (post #203). By signing the agreement with Apple, you agree to abide by their rules, so in theory you would have no way to object to said rules.
Thank you for the response.
Not a lawyer, did have some commentary earlier (post #203). By signing the agreement with Apple, you agree to abide by their rules, so in theory you would have no way to object to said rules.
The comparison is valid. The intelligent and experienced developers are not going to be bowed by this. It is part of doing business and if scares off some potential naive competitors all the more money for them. Those with experience and season or even just those with real ability and confidence won't hesitate for a second to try and get their piece of the app store pie.
Of course, Apple did initially approve "I am rich", maybe because they could get $300 per sale, and they have also approved although I believe they are free applications which makes the screen bright white to make your iPhone a torch. hmmmm.....
The biggest question in my mind is why this developer imagined the app would ever make it onto the AppStore. Certain things are pretty obvious non-starters. It's the same reason no one would invest a lot of time coding a really nice Terminal app. If you absolutely have to make apps that'll make Apple angry, then there is a small but substantial market in the jailbreak community.
Dave Winer and a bunch of others are crying foul, saying it doesn't make sense to code for the platform if you don't know whether you'll be approved or not. Which is sort of like deciding not to play guitar because you're not guaranteed a distribution deal.
It's a disgrace.
Are you saying that Adobe, Sun and company shouldn't even try to make these apps because Apple is goiing to reject their business model anyway.
It's not about crying foul or not --- it's about certain business certainties. They can't go to the bank to borrow money. They can't go to the venture capitalists to get funding.
did you miss that whole part about apple reserving the right to refuse any app?
its the same thing as a store reserving the right to refuse service to anyone.
Yet a store can't refuse service to someone on the grounds of race, skin colour, age or the like.
And frankly, the reason they gave wasn't of course akin to discrimination, but it certainly wasn't a valid reason either if it were a valid reason, many other apps should have been refused, but they're not. How come?
What sticks out here, is that Apple obviously used a "reason" that's not true at all, when going by what's in the iTS as it is, so the developers can't learn from this, other than the fact that Apple isn't playing straight.
Whether or not they have legal ground to refuse in the manner they did isn't really the crux of this discussion, although someone would like it to be. This is about ethics, and no matter if they're within their legal rights to do as they please, doesn't mean we should all think it's all fine and dandy.
Simply put, Apple's move favors Apple's coffers but is completely anticompetitive and hurts the users.
Exactly! With your logic, nobody would have a job. According to you why bother applying for a job, going through several interviews, being led to believe that the company in question likes you but then you don't know if you will be accepted or not?
My point is you have to be prepared for the worst and these developers are complete idiots if they aren't. It's bad enough that hardly 1% even reads the terms and conditions before creating apps.
its the same thing as a store reserving the right to refuse service to anyone.
I can see what Apple decided to reject this application. It is so easy to abuse. How long would it be before music, packaged as a podcast, would be all over the net for download directly to your iPhone/iPod Touch?
This guy needs to suck it up and move on.
Authors and screenwriters toil over books and film scripts for years never knowing if they'll even get an agent to read it let alone give the project the green light.
They can't just ring up Random House and say "If I write a book about xxxxx will you publish it?"
It's just not the way the world works.
You put in the time and hope it gets a go. If it doesn't, you move on to the next project.
I can see what Apple decided to reject this application. It is so easy to abuse. How long would it be before music, packaged as a podcast, would be all over the net for download directly to your iPhone/iPod Touch?
This was the very first thing I thought of when I heard about the program. It is piracy waiting to happen.
Spurious excuse for Apple behaviour #99... any more?
I'm appalled at the people apologising for Apple on this, and even moreso at the silly reasons dreamed up. Here's a newsflash for those of you going on about porn, sex, or music - it's all available on the internet for free right now on your iphone, there's no need for a special app and banning a podcasting app has nothing to do with moral rectitude.
It's unreasonable to demand payment up front and then reject apps based on vague criteria which are not revealed.
This hurts consumers short-term by restricting choice on the store, but more importantly long-term as developers avoid the platform.
The uncertainty surrounding their platform hurts Apple long term (if only they could see it), by putting off developers and making them an afterthought for development, as they are on the desktop.
Apple needs to sort out their attitude on this, as they did on the SDK when enough people complained. They have the right (I'd use the word ability myself) to refuse anything they like on their store, but too many refusals for bizarre or spurious reasons will chill development on the platform, and make many users reconsider their choice of phone/desktop OS as well.
If this is the future of Apple, I want no part of it.
This could be rewritten as this... "it duplicates the functionality [Any past, present or future Apple Application]." Here lies the problem, who knows with Apples secrecy. Why would you create anything innovative, when apple can just say "No, because... [insert an anti competitive excuse here]"."it duplicates the functionality [of some Apple application]."
For the average developer, the situation is much different. You don't need venture capital to make a silly little game or a simple utility. But as we've seen, that silly game or simple utility can rack up a ton of sales. On the off-chance that you have an idea for the iPhone that's so ambitious that you need funding, there's the iFund, which is set up specifically for iPhone projects. So...
I still don't understand the outrage.