Perhaps not. I fail to see how protecting intellectual property from copyright infringement equals stifling of choice in your book.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Extends Non-Disclosure to App Store Rejection Letters
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Perhaps not. I fail to see how protecting intellectual property from copyright infringement equals stifling of choice in your book.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; da-dk) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)
Aha. No gmail app because mobileme is not ready for the competition and now you can't air your disapproval either. Ok then. I will now get me a gphone just to support the open approach of google. Apple has crossed my border with this one...
Aha. No gmail app because mobileme is not ready for the competition and now you can't air your disapproval either. Ok then. I will now get me a gphone just to support the open approach of google. Apple has crossed my border with this one...
PORN + Android
I would love to see PORN applications on Android.
I believe PORN and Android are made for each other. The Internet PORN industry is the most successful industry on the internet. PORN makes money. Now without Apple's restrictions, PORN apps should flourish on the Android Market.
The Android Market will not filter like Apple for bad taste or community values, malware, adware, viruses, carrier restrictions, etc. It is the wild wild west.
I would love to see PORN applications on Android.
I believe PORN and Android are made for each other. The Internet PORN industry is the most successful industry on the internet. PORN makes money. Now without Apple's restrictions, PORN apps should flourish on the Android Market.
The Android Market will not filter like Apple for bad taste or community values, malware, adware, viruses, carrier restrictions, etc. It is the wild wild west.
Can't you just download porn videos and put them on the iphone? I don't think this matters.
My 4¢
I've been browsing this board for about 2-3 years now, and just registered to post in this thread, because it's the first one that really got to me. It's unfortunate that it's mostly negative, but here goes
My impression is that Apple is headed in a bad direction with this. I understand that NDAs for them are a necessity they're a company who's main source of income comes from innovation and being first to market with well thought out and integrated products. Not perfect but usually the best that's available at the time they're introduced. I don't consider myself a fanboy, but I've definitely been an Apple fan for about 20 years, and have even "converted" a few people.
But this news troubles me, and cools down my admiration a fair bit. Stifling criticism has never been a good move in the long run, for anyone in a position of power. This will come back to bite them in the rear-end, eventually. Yes, extending the NDA to refusal letters does protect Apple from unfair criticism
but it also protects them from legitimate criticism
bad idea.
After reading all the comments, I see 4 points that urgently need to be addressed by Apple:
1) The approval rules for the iPhone App Store need to be clearly defined. I've been dealing with Canadian immigration for the past 4 years. I know all about hidden agendas and "secret regulations". So I'm not surprised that Apple is keeping their rules "vague". The motivation behind it is probably the same they don't want the public to know what their true agenda is, and especially, what their plans for the future are. The downside is, it's also a very efficient way to breed mistrust and resentment, which I don't think is in Apple's best interest.
2) A consistent pre-approval process needs to be put in place. Expecting developers to finish their application before knowing whether or not they will be allowed to sell it is rediculous. I develop for a niche vertical market. I've heard about how relatively easy it is to create applications for the iPhone, which piqued my interest. But after researching all the restrictions imposed by Apple on iPhone developers, and now this, I'll hold off until Apple becomes more developer-friendly. It's too bad, because my wife and I have a good idea for an original and (we believe) useful iPhone application. But spending a hundred or more hours working on something we may be arbitrarily banned from selling not interested. And I'm sure I'm not the only one with this sentiment. Which is unfortunate it hurts everyone involved: Apple, developers and consumers.
3) Having an official iPhone App Store, with restrictions on what is sold there, is a great idea in theory. It would be be a great idea in practice too if it were managed properly. As with the regular online Apple Store, consumers assume that the products which are sold through Apple are endorsed by the company, and meet minimal quality requirements. I think this is a reasonable assumption, but obviously, it's not the case. The iPhone App Store's inventory seems to be mostly junk. A cleanup is in order. But the more important point is; developers who have produced an application that doesn't meet Apple's "standards" should be allowed to market their products independantly. At the moment, this isn't possible, except in a very limited way. This would encourage developers to come to the iPhone platform, instead of pushing them away which can only benefit Apple and the consumer.
4) Apple needs to open up the iPhone platform itself. Like it did with the Mac platform, when the first iMac was introduced. Restricting when, where and how potential customers can use their iPhone is not a good way to elicit sales. Sure, the iPhone is a great product, but it's also a very closed product. And Apple, of all companies, should know where that leads small market share. My wife and I have been interested in the iPhone since the 1G, but what's holding us back from buying a pair is being forced into using a specific service provider (which would also make traveling with them problematic), and restrictions on what software we can install on them. If Apple doesn't want to support the use of certain providers or applications fine! We can understand that, and will accept those as "use at your own risk". But to purposefully block them that makes no sense, and just lowers the iPhone's appeal. So for now, we'll stick to our current cellphones and my laptop, until Apple wises up. It's for similar reasons that I will not buy music though the iTunes Store. I refuse to "buy" music with lossy compression and locked with DRM. Because then, I'm actually only renting it with restrictions on where and how I can listen to it, and with lower quality to boot. I know the DRM is not Apple's fault it's imposed by the record companies. But it's based on the same type of short-sighted reasoning that Apple is using with the iPhone. So for now, I'll continue to buy CDs (which is unfortunate because they're a waste of resources), and continue to rip to AAC myself (and probably soon to Apple Lossless due to now cheap 1+TB HDs) If Apple opened up the iPhone, it could evolve into the defacto mobile computing platform of the 21st century
like Windows has become de defacto standard OS for PCs. But with their current attitude, I fear it might only become one of the numerous players in the pond
and may eventually become a minor player, like the Mac. Which would be too bad, because the Mac was the technologically superior product. Historical proof that only that is not enough.
I understand that some people who have posted think Apple is doing the right thing with their NDA and iPhone App Store restrictions. I'm not saying they're doing the wrong thing. My position is; they're leaning more towards wrong than right. So I think the best way to get Apple to listen to it's customers on this, is to vote with our dollars. My wife and I will not buy iPhones as long as these silly restrictions are in place. Also, our main computer is an ageing PowerMac G3 (10 years old). I was thinking of putting it into semi-retirement this winter as a file and backup server, to be replaced by a Mac Pro. But I'll put a hold on that too, for now. With a new processor and some bigger HDs, I can probably get a few more years out of the G3 or at least until Apple wises up.
I've been browsing this board for about 2-3 years now, and just registered to post in this thread, because it's the first one that really got to me. It's unfortunate that it's mostly negative, but here goes
My impression is that Apple is headed in a bad direction with this. I understand that NDAs for them are a necessity they're a company who's main source of income comes from innovation and being first to market with well thought out and integrated products. Not perfect but usually the best that's available at the time they're introduced. I don't consider myself a fanboy, but I've definitely been an Apple fan for about 20 years, and have even "converted" a few people.
But this news troubles me, and cools down my admiration a fair bit. Stifling criticism has never been a good move in the long run, for anyone in a position of power. This will come back to bite them in the rear-end, eventually. Yes, extending the NDA to refusal letters does protect Apple from unfair criticism
but it also protects them from legitimate criticism
bad idea. After reading all the comments, I see 4 points that urgently need to be addressed by Apple:
1) The approval rules for the iPhone App Store need to be clearly defined. I've been dealing with Canadian immigration for the past 4 years. I know all about hidden agendas and "secret regulations". So I'm not surprised that Apple is keeping their rules "vague". The motivation behind it is probably the same they don't want the public to know what their true agenda is, and especially, what their plans for the future are. The downside is, it's also a very efficient way to breed mistrust and resentment, which I don't think is in Apple's best interest.
2) A consistent pre-approval process needs to be put in place. Expecting developers to finish their application before knowing whether or not they will be allowed to sell it is rediculous. I develop for a niche vertical market. I've heard about how relatively easy it is to create applications for the iPhone, which piqued my interest. But after researching all the restrictions imposed by Apple on iPhone developers, and now this, I'll hold off until Apple becomes more developer-friendly. It's too bad, because my wife and I have a good idea for an original and (we believe) useful iPhone application. But spending a hundred or more hours working on something we may be arbitrarily banned from selling not interested. And I'm sure I'm not the only one with this sentiment. Which is unfortunate it hurts everyone involved: Apple, developers and consumers.
3) Having an official iPhone App Store, with restrictions on what is sold there, is a great idea in theory. It would be be a great idea in practice too if it were managed properly. As with the regular online Apple Store, consumers assume that the products which are sold through Apple are endorsed by the company, and meet minimal quality requirements. I think this is a reasonable assumption, but obviously, it's not the case. The iPhone App Store's inventory seems to be mostly junk. A cleanup is in order. But the more important point is; developers who have produced an application that doesn't meet Apple's "standards" should be allowed to market their products independantly. At the moment, this isn't possible, except in a very limited way. This would encourage developers to come to the iPhone platform, instead of pushing them away which can only benefit Apple and the consumer.
4) Apple needs to open up the iPhone platform itself. Like it did with the Mac platform, when the first iMac was introduced. Restricting when, where and how potential customers can use their iPhone is not a good way to elicit sales. Sure, the iPhone is a great product, but it's also a very closed product. And Apple, of all companies, should know where that leads small market share. My wife and I have been interested in the iPhone since the 1G, but what's holding us back from buying a pair is being forced into using a specific service provider (which would also make traveling with them problematic), and restrictions on what software we can install on them. If Apple doesn't want to support the use of certain providers or applications fine! We can understand that, and will accept those as "use at your own risk". But to purposefully block them that makes no sense, and just lowers the iPhone's appeal. So for now, we'll stick to our current cellphones and my laptop, until Apple wises up. It's for similar reasons that I will not buy music though the iTunes Store. I refuse to "buy" music with lossy compression and locked with DRM. Because then, I'm actually only renting it with restrictions on where and how I can listen to it, and with lower quality to boot. I know the DRM is not Apple's fault it's imposed by the record companies. But it's based on the same type of short-sighted reasoning that Apple is using with the iPhone. So for now, I'll continue to buy CDs (which is unfortunate because they're a waste of resources), and continue to rip to AAC myself (and probably soon to Apple Lossless due to now cheap 1+TB HDs
) If Apple opened up the iPhone, it could evolve into the defacto mobile computing platform of the 21st century
like Windows has become de defacto standard OS for PCs. But with their current attitude, I fear it might only become one of the numerous players in the pond
and may eventually become a minor player, like the Mac. Which would be too bad, because the Mac was the technologically superior product. Historical proof that only that is not enough.I understand that some people who have posted think Apple is doing the right thing with their NDA and iPhone App Store restrictions. I'm not saying they're doing the wrong thing. My position is; they're leaning more towards wrong than right. So I think the best way to get Apple to listen to it's customers on this, is to vote with our dollars. My wife and I will not buy iPhones as long as these silly restrictions are in place. Also, our main computer is an ageing PowerMac G3 (10 years old). I was thinking of putting it into semi-retirement this winter as a file and backup server, to be replaced by a Mac Pro. But I'll put a hold on that too, for now. With a new processor and some bigger HDs, I can probably get a few more years out of the G3 or at least until Apple wises up.
Riiiggghht! Over 3500 apps in counting so far and the App Store has been in existence only 2+ months. I think Apple has nothing to worry about. Remember the developer who blogged last week about the $250k he cleared creating just one app? He said he has no intention on developing for any other platform including the Google phone as he is making a beautiful living creating for the iPhone.
Even developers who are stark raving p*ssed at the NDA restrictions aren't going to pull their apps. They aren't going to stick their necks out and get singled out by Apple. They need something more anonymous.
The only way Developers are going to get their rights back (lose the NDA on the SDK, etc.) is to show the world just how unhappy they are with these restrictions collectively. At WWDC 2009, or even this coming Macworld, when Ol' Stevo takes the stage and starts talking about how fantastic the app store is and how many apps are selling - The developers in the audience need to be booing him loudly! Will it cause Steve to freak out and bork up the rest of the keynote? Yes. Will it get the Wall Street Journal to run a story on how developers feel unfairly treated by being silenced? Most certainly yes!
Hell, I bet even the fear of a boo from devs would cause Apple to give up the NDA on the SDK. They don't need that much negative press.
Just my $0.02.
What? Are you in the wrong place? This has nothing to do with copyright - read the threads before posting, you're way out of context.
That's what filters are for. In a free-for-all model, as an end user - you simply request to see only Apple approved apps, if thats all you want.
This is less about them wanting to filter the quality of applications, and more about them controlling the applications and functionality as demonstrated by the removal of the netshare(stepping on at&t's toes) and that podcast(redundant functionality...)
Yeh lol I used to work @ FS for a few years. So I can see your point. I think we've all forgotten it's only been only over 2 months that the app store has been up and running. and besides all that the NDA is to protect the developer being rejected right? The "Non-Disclosure Act" to keep the info confidential; it's not like we all need to know why product A or B didn't make it and Product C did. In the long run it's a filter process to get better apps out ther w/o a flood of junk on the shelves. Yes I agree that sometimes they shouldn't reject some apps, because of a "maybe". Anyway this thread has gone all over the place. I think people are getting lost in the overall argument.
By your logic, the Mac desktop and laptop market must also be the wild wild west since freedom of choice to buy/install whatever software you as the user would like to use apparently equates to rampant malware somehow. Yes, it's just amazing how rampant that stuff is on the Linux platform and the Mac desktop too for that matter....
MS wouldn't even do this!
I think that Microsoft would even hesitate to go this far!
dylan
------
http://why-apple-sucks.com
I think that Microsoft would even hesitate to go this far!
dylan
------
http://why-apple-sucks.com
Steve gone nuts?
Has Steve gone nuts?
I think it's pretty obvious that the only limitation on the App Store should be that there will be no malware and no very poorly implemented apps. To me, that's the sole reason why a review of an app is in order before it is distributed.
There's a lot of strong software on the Mac platform. We can use other software than iPhoto and Aperture, Mail.app, Safari etc, and the Mac is a better platfor for it.
Stifling innovation is never a good idea for the long-term survivability of a platform. Your talent pool will move elsewhere if they have a choice.
Has Steve gone nuts?
I think it's pretty obvious that the only limitation on the App Store should be that there will be no malware and no very poorly implemented apps. To me, that's the sole reason why a review of an app is in order before it is distributed.
There's a lot of strong software on the Mac platform. We can use other software than iPhoto and Aperture, Mail.app, Safari etc, and the Mac is a better platfor for it.
Stifling innovation is never a good idea for the long-term survivability of a platform. Your talent pool will move elsewhere if they have a choice.
It's just so they can announce they'll be getting rid of the NDA at a Keynote and get cheers for it.
"There will be no more NDA"
*People go nuts*
"We'll also be providing exact guidelines for Apps to meet approval"
*People go nuts*
*Everyone in the rooms wants to tell Steve Jobs they love him*
I really felt ashamed of being an Apple fan when they all cheered at Steve Jobs for demonstrating texting multiple people on an iPhone at a keynote... welcome to several years ago!
"There will be no more NDA"
*People go nuts*
"We'll also be providing exact guidelines for Apps to meet approval"
*People go nuts*
*Everyone in the rooms wants to tell Steve Jobs they love him*
I really felt ashamed of being an Apple fan when they all cheered at Steve Jobs for demonstrating texting multiple people on an iPhone at a keynote... welcome to several years ago!
Online petition
For those interested in voicing your disapproval of Apple's muzzling tactics, I found this link to an online petition protesting against it.
Online petition against refusal letter NDA
For those interested in voicing your disapproval of Apple's muzzling tactics, I found this link to an online petition protesting against it.
Online petition against refusal letter NDA
Apple will probably make booing part of NDA. No public displays of dissatisfaction!?
Is this the reason
I had a different thought, people are ticked at Apple on this thread because of the NDA and because Apple pulled this podcast app. Getting upset over the NDA is I think pointless. If one doesnt want to be bound by it, dont sign it. Otherwise what point does it make to argue over what one can legally talk about after signing. We dont have to like the rules but if we agree to them in signing, too bad.
Regarding the podcast app, it occured to me that if I had bought it and then found out later that iTunes does the same thing for free, I would be a little annoyed that I spent $10 or whatever, when I didnt have to. So maybe Apple is just trying to protect consumers after all?
I had a different thought, people are ticked at Apple on this thread because of the NDA and because Apple pulled this podcast app. Getting upset over the NDA is I think pointless. If one doesnt want to be bound by it, dont sign it. Otherwise what point does it make to argue over what one can legally talk about after signing. We dont have to like the rules but if we agree to them in signing, too bad.
Regarding the podcast app, it occured to me that if I had bought it and then found out later that iTunes does the same thing for free, I would be a little annoyed that I spent $10 or whatever, when I didnt have to. So maybe Apple is just trying to protect consumers after all?
No, I didn't think so. No one here knows the exact reason as to why Apple pulled the app right? All we can do is guess, my post is just one of many possibilities as to why it got pulled. I just posted another more likely reason, stopping consumers from buying apps when they dont have to. If iTunes does podcasts for free and I paid for something to do the same thing because I didnt know...
Next Android Ad?
"Hi, I'm an Android"
"And I'm an iPhone. NDA!"
"..You feeling ok iPhone?"
"Oh, I'm NDA! I'm NDA to NDA at the NDA"
"Sorry?"
"NDA has the NDA on the NDA with the NDA!"
"Wow... on Android you're free to develop what you like, share knowledge with other Android users and developers, and talk about what you like."
"NDA you!"
"Gesundheit.."
"Hi, I'm an Android"
"And I'm an iPhone. NDA!"
"..You feeling ok iPhone?"
"Oh, I'm NDA! I'm NDA to NDA at the NDA"
"Sorry?"
"NDA has the NDA on the NDA with the NDA!"
"Wow... on Android you're free to develop what you like, share knowledge with other Android users and developers, and talk about what you like."
"NDA you!"
"Gesundheit.."
How many times!
I wonder how many different users have to keep posting that Podcaster does NOT do the same thing that iTunes does for free. It does something iTunes cannot do!!! ( It downloads your podcasts WITHOUT the need to connect to itunes, so you can be without your laptop or computer, and still get your podcasts ) Why is that so hard to understand? Is there a reason why you want to be protected from that?
I wonder how many different users have to keep posting that Podcaster does NOT do the same thing that iTunes does for free. It does something iTunes cannot do!!! ( It downloads your podcasts WITHOUT the need to connect to itunes, so you can be without your laptop or computer, and still get your podcasts ) Why is that so hard to understand? Is there a reason why you want to be protected from that?
That sounds great in theory, but unfortunately in practice pre-approval is a complete non-runner.
Imagine how many submissions they would be deluged with if all you had to do was sign up and submit an app proposal. I'm only working on one game, but I have 6 other app concepts I'm fleshing out at the same time.
Would Apple continue to check for duplicate applications? Could they sort through all those applications? It would be impossible to tell from a brief proposal if the final app will be suitable, apps inevitably tend to change as they go through the development process.
If two near-identical app proposals are submitted, do they reject the second one submitted? Or accept the better one? Or accept both, then reject the one that's completed last?
What about the minefield of someone submitting an app concept which Apple already has in development. If Apple reject that app, then releases their own - how does that developer know they didn't just steal his idea?
Sadly, I think the only practical way for this to work is to have extremely clear and precise rule for devs to follow, not "we reject apps on a whim" as currently. And if apps are rejected, the reasons must be made public to avoid other devs sharing the same fate.
No poorly implemented apps as in the myriad of flashlight apps that just show a blank white screen??? Um, I don't think they're doing much in the way of fishing out stupid apps either. They don't know what they're doing, IMO.
I just read the Spore game DRM article on MacWorld (i.e. Sony unauthorized root kit part 2) and frankly, not buying their products that use such things is the only language greedy corporations seem to understand. You can't even sell the game you bought with that thing since it's only licensed to you and is non-transferable. Imagine if Steve decided you can't sell your used iPhone or even your Mac as its software is only licensed to you personally. This crap has to stop. Corporations seem to think they can control everything you do and that you don't own a thing when you pay through the nose for something, not even the disc it comes on since it's invalidated if you sell it.