Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Bans Developer with 800+ Apps from App Store

niuniu said:
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..
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
talkin73 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
kdarling said:
1) If we could return apps easily, then I'd be more inclined to let all the junk stay.
Click to expand...

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.

albusseverus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Great job!

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!
 
Achiever said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
albusseverus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
I totally agree with Apple!

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 !
 
parafish13 said:
*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?
Click to expand...
** 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.


parafish13 said:
It's been a pleasure to watch and participate in this conversation. Also, great job holding your own!
Click to expand...
Agreed to your first point and thank you for your second.
 
Achiever said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
I wonder how much money he's got before they banned him?:rolleyes:
Sounds strange, they will loose great profit.
 
That's not really the point, though....

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.


Achiever said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Achiever said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
alchemistmuffin said:
If you have any of those app, expect the KILL SWITCH to be turned on any min now.
Click to expand...

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.
 
admanimal said:
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.
Click to expand...

totally, the app store is so full of CRAP
 
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.
 
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:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back