Apple Not Yet Pulling Apps, Helping Developers Meet In-App Guidelines

[RalfTheDog]

I don't trust Apple to make the right decisions. Censorship should be an obvious reason which they have proven to censor apps due to pressure. I wouldn't give the government control to decide what can be sold and what can't why would I trust Apple to do it?

It seems there are a lot of people that think people shouldn't be allowed to make money without Apple getting a cut when in fact the App store is what drives the hardware sells of their phone to begin with. They are getting a cut. I guess everyone here that supports Apple in this would also agree that the ISPs should be allowed to restrict amazon.com and other websites as well and demand 30% of their sells since amazon is getting to make billions of dollars of their backbone network?

You see a problem with Windows, OS X and Android however I don't. I've been using Windows since 3.1 and the openness of the system has been it's greatest attribute. It allows anyone to just start developing apps and getting them to potential customers without having to go have a middle man and that is how it should be. If an app is bad then it won't be successful. If an app is good then it will be and more and more people will find out about it.

No App on any platform should be allowed to connect to a cell network without being vetted. It would be quite easy for a terrorist to write an App that starts dialing 911 every three seconds when a terror strike happens to clog the phone systems. It would also be easy to write an App that makes calls to a 1-900 number at random times to pad someones bank account. That said, even a badly written application can degrade performance for the entire phone. You might run a game in the morning, then that night, have a crash in a weather App. You would think the weather application was the flaw but it was the game.

I will not develop for an open platform because I do not want to take the blame when some moron programmers memory leak kills my App.

Apple has an obligation to it's users to provide any limitations it thinks will improve the quality of it's product. They also have a legal obligation to their shareholders to provide the best platform to make money and they have a legal obligation to implement restrictions that will prevent a risk to public health of safety.

 

[divad1978]

No App on any platform should be allowed to connect to a cell network without being vetted. It would be quite easy for a terrorist to write an App that starts dialing 911 every three seconds when a terror strike happens to clog the phone systems. It would also be easy to write an App that makes calls to a 1-900 number at random times to pad someones bank account. That said, even a badly written application can degrade performance for the entire phone. You might run a game in the morning, then that night, have a crash in a weather App. You would think the weather application was the flaw but it was the game.

I will not develop for an open platform because I do not want to take the blame when some moron programmers memory leak kills my App.

Apple has an obligation to it's users to provide any limitations it thinks will improve the quality of it's product. They also have a legal obligation to their shareholders to provide the best platform to make money and they have a legal obligation to implement restrictions that will prevent a risk to public health of safety.

Freedom > Security

Do you really think that Apple's system is blocking a terrorist from doing what you said?

 

[FearNo1]

You watch too much Glenn Beck with this "terrorist" talk...

No App on any platform should be allowed to connect to a cell network without being vetted. It would be quite easy for a terrorist to write an App that starts dialing 911 every three seconds when a terror strike happens to clog the phone systems. It would also be easy to write an App that makes calls to a 1-900 number at random times to pad someones bank account. That said, even a badly written application can degrade performance for the entire phone. You might run a game in the morning, then that night, have a crash in a weather App. You would think the weather application was the flaw but it was the game.

I will not develop for an open platform because I do not want to take the blame when some moron programmers memory leak kills my App.

Apple has an obligation to it's users to provide any limitations it thinks will improve the quality of it's product. They also have a legal obligation to their shareholders to provide the best platform to make money and they have a legal obligation to implement restrictions that will prevent a risk to public health of safety.

 

[Oletros]

No court in any country will tell any company that they are required to provide free service to their competition and provide in under terms dictated by that competition. "You must give us all free cars, you must also paint all your cars pink (Not just the ones you give us). While you are at it, give us free gas for life." Remember, Amazon is not paying anything for Kindle to be distributed on iOS.

Apple had been fighting DRM from day one. The MPAA demanded Apple put DRM in their music. The DRM did not go away until Apple had the market clout to tell the MP where to shove their AA.

They are not providing free service but my question was what fees are passing apps like Kindle to Apple

You don't think it costs big money to run the App store? Server farms and bandwidth are not cheep.

Do Apple must ban free apps which doesn't provide them revenue? Apple must get a cut from apps which have ads but are free?

Amazon is trying to use their monopoly of online book stores to force Apple to provide services to them at below cost.

It is not complicated. Give it away for free and Apple does not charge. Sell it or use it to sell other stuff and Apple wants a cut. You have the choice of following Apples rules on Apples platform or you can move to a platform with rules you like better.

So, Best Buy, eBay or Amazon apps must pay a cut to Apple.

AA, Lufthansa must pay a cut to Apple? They are selling stuff and making revenue.

 

[hans1972]

I don't trust Apple to make the right decisions. Censorship should be an obvious reason which they have proven to censor apps due to pressure. I wouldn't give the government control to decide what can be sold and what can't why would I trust Apple to do it?

Makes perfect sense. So why would anyone who do not trust Apple be involved in the iOS platform, especially when there are so many good alternatives?

It seems there are a lot of people that think people shouldn't be allowed to make money without Apple getting a cut when in fact the App store is what drives the hardware sells of their phone to begin with.

I don´t really care but Apple seems to try to get a cut anyway they can.
I think Apple basically sees it as this

hardware sales < hardware sales + app sales < hardware sales + app sales + in-app purchases

I guess everyone here that supports Apple in this would also agree that the ISPs should be allowed to restrict amazon.com and other websites as well and demand 30% of their sells since amazon is getting to make billions of dollars of their backbone network?

Here is the problem with that. The ISP market is old and it is somewhat related to the telephone market. There are a lot of history, laws, regulations in that market. People will not accept it in that market. The ISP would not get away with it and they lack the capability to enforce it.

The mobile application market is different. It is new for most people and Apple can set a precedent that it is acceptable that the platform owner gets a large share of the revenue from that platform. Apple wants the iOS platform to be more like the console platforms and less like Windows and OS X.

 

[bsolar]

Makes perfect sense. So why would anyone who do not trust Apple be involved in the iOS platform, especially when there are so many good alternatives?

Nobody should blindly trust Apple, or any company for that matter, but this doesn't mean you cannot accept what they do, this depends on how much you care about these issues and how much they affect or annoy you. I don't like Apple's behaviour at all, but the iPhone 3GS was the best option available at that time at least from my point of view, so I bought it and I am still overall very happy with it.

My opinion is that iOS would be a better platform with more freedom in the hands of the end-users and developers, but of course this is just Mr. Nobody's 2 cents.

If the iPhone5 will be a great device compared to the competitors I will most likely buy it, but the way Apple is handling the iOS platform is one reason pushing me towards Android so if their new device will be on-par to competing phones I will most likely switch.

To be honest I think the former will be the most likely outcome...

 

[JAT]

Well you've heard a bona fide legal opinion, for free I might add. We all have in this thread.

That should have been the end of it.

Which one was that?

They are paid for by the 99$ yearly developer fees and the 30% of the purchase price of apps.

IAP is only a payment processor, and doesn't quite use as much ressources as you hint it does.

It's a protection, not a huge revenue stream.

 

[JAT]

Except IAP is not selling on the App Store, no app store infrastructure is used beyond payment processing. And if you don't use IAP for processing payment for purchases made through your app, you're not even using App Store infrastructure at all.

The Store came about to appease consumers. It seems IAP came about to appease developers. As you say next....

Apple should let IAP stand on its own merit. If it provides enough value to justify the 30% cut they want it to have to simply process payments, then people will use it. If it doesn't, they'll need to adjust.

Thus are the laws of market.

It's up to this group of consumers to decide if it works. People arguing on internet forums are funny. Of course, the battle with Lodsys over their IAP APIs should prove interesting to devs. If Apple wins, that is something else that was paid for by their fee. If not, well....I guess we'll discuss it here.

 

[DiamondMac]

Amazon is trying to use their monopoly of online book stores to force Apple to provide services to them at below cost. Apple should take Amazon to court on anti trust grounds.

As Amazon is trying to move into the tablet/applications market with the Kindle, they are using one monopoly to provide unfair advantage in another market.

Amen. How DARE Amazon give users a cheaper option!

Apple should make it clear that if ANYONE offers something at a lower price than Apple, IT IS NOT LEGAL!

Rather than lower Apple's price to match Amazon's, Apple absolutely needs to take the court route.

Then we as consumers win! Yeah!