Yes, but maybe it will work only up to one year or untill Apple decides to kill it. Which could happen an hour from now if they decided to pull the kill switch. You need to read the details.
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's App Store Rejection Policies Raise Concerns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but maybe it will work only up to one year or untill Apple decides to kill it. Which could happen an hour from now if they decided to pull the kill switch. You need to read the details.
Now I am understanding why many of you here are responding the way you just did. Understand something, Apple is not your kiddy friend playmate that let you down. This is not 1998 where Apple is a tiny company trying to get people into buying into their Macintosh again after Microsoft strong armed and forced people to use Windows.
Apple is now is one of the largest companies worldwide and they are the king of multimedia. Yes, every company should take pride, but in their customers. Apple shouldn't be taking pride in developers as if the developers were doing them a favor. Remember in the end it's a business for Apple and the developers.
Developers don't make the apps for free for no reason at all, they want to build a business as well. There's a lot of freeware for the Mac OS and Windows but if look at the developers website they generally offer other things that aren't free.
The free app gets their name out there. If they were offering the app for free for no reason they wouldn't attach their name to the app, they would be an anonymous developer.
I think for the sake of us all, those who have created apps for the App store and were rejected should get together and make a case of this in court. Apple's terms that they are can do anything without reason is unbalanced and so, unfair.
And that, my friends, is case closed!
As much as I despise frivolous lawsuits I would have agree'd with you if not for the posting of the agreement they signed.
Unfortunately Apple (if this is indeed the terms they agreed to, I haven't read it) has every right to make the decision.
I find the agreement unfair but every developer agreed to the terms.
Shame on Apple.
a bit OT, but can someone explain a meaningful difference between an app that costs $9.99 and a 'free' one that requires a donation of $9.99 first? Seems a bit bloody semantic to me.
I'm not a software writer, but it feels like Apple's reserving the right to turn down or remove any software at any time for any reason is not at all helpful. The comparison with books and authors, scriptwriters etc doesn't stand scrutiny - at least there the rules and criteria are transparent, even if they are more about commerciality than talent sometimes.
You can't charge for apps distributed using ad-hoc provisioning (i.e. outside of the App Store) according to the SDK licensing terms so while it is entirely semantic it is probably also necessary. Ad-Hoc distribution is limited to 100 devices so I'm not sure how the developer intends to get around that one...
You think Copyright law is simple and transparent? Wow.
No lawyer who specializes in Copyright law will agree with that.
Not sure what you mean by
"more about commerciality than talent sometimes".
Come on...it is for creditability. If we go by your logic, if I watched a TV channel (in the UK, exclude the BBC in this example), then the credits at the end should be empty, because I'm watching that for free, and because they are offering it for free, they have no reason to attach their name to it.
There is people who want to build a business, but most people on the App Store have made apps because they want something like that and it appeals to a lot of people. Doesn't mean that every single person is going to turn it into a business and make money.
I'll say it again: by your logic, in the next few years, every single application on the App Store will be payware, because by then, every developer will have their "name" well known, and people will be willing to pay for their stuff.
I really don't get you at all.
this is an example of a good application. Examples are always wlcome. Apple refuses to learn that's why they are shutting podcaster
Are you kidding? A platform without applications is useless. Applications come from 3rd party developers. People don't buy a computer to just watch the OS move windows around. They want to run apps. The more apps the better!
One thing MS realized long ago, and has for the most part gotten right, is that you need to coddle your developers. Mindshare leads to and sustains market share. Apple has started out the gate strong with the iPhone, but they need to be careful and not screw it up by pushing away developers.
Yes. If Apple started rejecting apps that do more than emulate fart sounds or merely recreate similar functionality, I too would be similarly upset. However, their rejection process may come at the "final hurdle" but is nonetheless perfectly predictable.
I can understand being upset that there is risk involved even in developing a good app because of the final hurdle, but until I hear something other than sour grapes about worthless apps, I fully support Apple. Developers need to think of users. Crapware developers may feel differently, but Apple is thinking of users when they reject crapware. And as a user, I appreciate Apple's judgment.
LOL...I've been saying that for months. Somehow people got this idea that the otherwise fascist carriers will suddenly see the light and let developers and users do whatever they'd like with their new found hippie phones.
No
Effin
Way
They never allowed that kind of freedom before, they don't allow it now and they're not going to allow it because a few people ported an OS with no market share to a phone.
ever wonder if they just didn't realize the actual value if the app? If I'm looking at hundreds of apps a week and "here's one that says podcaster, well iTunes does that already so let's X that one." They may not have looked at all the features of the app so hopefully drawing some attention will make them takes second look. It has to be exhausting looking at some of these apps and deciding whether or not it would be advantageous for the app store, apple, and consumers to use. I could see an easy oversight.
Apple can and does do anything they want with their creation. That's not the point. The legal blah blah blah isn't the point either. The point is how long will developers put up with this kind of attitude from Apple before figuring it's not worth it and move on? There's no watershed moment, you just notice one day that there's been nothing new in the app store for some time. This incident isn't why developers will say screw it, it's this along with everything else. It's how NetShare just disappeared one day from the store and then started disappearing from user's phones because of a "kill list". It's how the phone was obviously shipped way too early and bug fixes have been slow in coming. It's how everything about Apple oozes arrogance and disgust toward anyone who doesn't drink the kool-aid. So yeah, Apple can do anything they want with anything they've created, so what?
I think we're eventually going to see legal action from one of the software developers against Apple. Is anyone an attorney here? Can you discuss this? How can Apple do this and avoid legal action?
WTF are you talking about? I have never seen anything from the company that oozes anything than being a friggin business. Its the occasional "stereotypical apple user" that gives everyone a bad name, when really thats like what, not even 2% of apple users. Its not the company, its the pricks out there that give it a bad name, when in reality that person is a prick regardless of what type of product they use.
In the words of the majority of my generation "youz a hater".
it sucks.... but apple is very good at what they do. which is being a successful business. if they don't like an app, its their decision. perhaps they are going to add functionality of podcaster into a new update/apple app. who knows.
what really sucks...
google maps and andriod!!!! its good to have some compition i agree. but where the is google transit/google walking directions/google street view for my iphone maps. if it had nothing to do with andriod i'd be amazed. but seriously, i've been waiting, waiting, waiting for google transit on my iphone. in case your not aware of google transit....you ask for directions as you normally would, it then shows you where to get the bus/train/subway, the times, connections, fare. where the hell is this!!! this would be huge!!
i can't find the page now, but i did see a while back (about the time the app store opened up), that on the google transit page that there was a pic of the iphone next to the paragraph about it.....bastards!!!!
what really sucks...
google maps and andriod!!!! its good to have some compition i agree. but where the is google transit/google walking directions/google street view for my iphone maps. if it had nothing to do with andriod i'd be amazed. but seriously, i've been waiting, waiting, waiting for google transit on my iphone. in case your not aware of google transit....you ask for directions as you normally would, it then shows you where to get the bus/train/subway, the times, connections, fare. where the hell is this!!! this would be huge!!
i can't find the page now, but i did see a while back (about the time the app store opened up), that on the google transit page that there was a pic of the iphone next to the paragraph about it.....bastards!!!!
Not really. The owner of the company is about as arrogant as a person can get. He even admits it. Steve Jobs is an arrogant, self-centered prick. So what kind of culture is that going to forment at Apple?
oh so your one of those guilty by association people. I guess this discussion cannot go on.
Nope, and that's my point. It doesn't matter if it's legal. It doesn't matter if it was within Apple's rights. What matters is that it wasn't the correct thing to do and then they throw out some obviously lame excuse that has nothing to do with reality and expect people like me to say "Oh, ok. Well that won't happen to me". It may well happen to me. Or anyone else who steps over the invisible line Apple has drawn. It's never happened with any other platform I've ever written for so why should I waste any more time with this one? That's the point. This probably doesn't bother big software companies, they have the legal and social clout to do whatever they want. But it does affect people like me and since that's where nearly all the software in the store has come from, that store could dry up faster than software for OS/2 if the 800 pound gorilla keeps swinging the ax and expecting people to just roll over and die.
Oh, and per legal action...maybe they'll see some if they step on some well funded toes. Otherwise, I figure most developers, myself included, would just say "screw it" and move on. I've been writing for other platforms for years and, relatively speaking, I have nothing invested in this one so it's really not worth it for me to fight Apple in any capacity. Screw it.
Legal in the bussiness world IS the right thing to do.
I honestly beleive people put Apple wayyyyyyy up on a pedestal and anything that they do (THAT ANY OTHER COMPANY WOULD DO AS WELL) that doesnt measure up to that "apple is the can do no wrong" mentality is suddenly worth bitching about. If M$ did this would anyone care? would it even be noteable? i think not.
I'm not sure which is more appalling here, Apple's decision, or the large number of posts by Apple apologists justifying it. Yes, due to the way the contract is specified, Apple is not violating their terms by doing this, but that doesn't make it right. This kind of behavior will definitely hurt the iPhone app ecosystem unless there is some sort of pre-approval process.
I don't know how many of you actually operate in the business world, but there is a huge degree of trust required to do business--contracts exist to try to limit how one party can screw over another, but it is just not possible to nail down every case. This is why people like to do negotiations face to face, and reputations are important. You simply do not enter into a business agreement with a party you think is likely to try and screw you, no matter how bulletproof the contract appears to be.
In this case, Apple's contract is completely lopsided (Apple can do anything they want), so developers currently have to take it on faith that they will be treated fairly when they submit. Big developers such as E.A. of course won't have this problem, because they have leverage (approve our game or we'll pull all EA games from iPhone) and also sufficient capitalization where losing one product won't affect their cash flow, but small developers will be screwed.
This same sort of crap is prevalent in the history of console gaming, especially during periods where one console is in a dominant position, but at least when console makers reject game concepts, it's usually done before much development has occurred.
The iPhone development and distribution model is still a wonderful step towards freeing indy developers from risk-averse publishers, and giving them a real piece of the action. I just hope these types of situations remain the exception and not the rule. The very qualities that make Apple's products so great (arrogant self-confidence, ruthlessness in the design process, a willingness to make unpopular decisions, and holding products to a high internal bar) could make them a poor gatekeeper for a shared distribution channel.
I don't know how many of you actually operate in the business world, but there is a huge degree of trust required to do business--contracts exist to try to limit how one party can screw over another, but it is just not possible to nail down every case. This is why people like to do negotiations face to face, and reputations are important. You simply do not enter into a business agreement with a party you think is likely to try and screw you, no matter how bulletproof the contract appears to be.
In this case, Apple's contract is completely lopsided (Apple can do anything they want), so developers currently have to take it on faith that they will be treated fairly when they submit. Big developers such as E.A. of course won't have this problem, because they have leverage (approve our game or we'll pull all EA games from iPhone) and also sufficient capitalization where losing one product won't affect their cash flow, but small developers will be screwed.
This same sort of crap is prevalent in the history of console gaming, especially during periods where one console is in a dominant position, but at least when console makers reject game concepts, it's usually done before much development has occurred.
The iPhone development and distribution model is still a wonderful step towards freeing indy developers from risk-averse publishers, and giving them a real piece of the action. I just hope these types of situations remain the exception and not the rule. The very qualities that make Apple's products so great (arrogant self-confidence, ruthlessness in the design process, a willingness to make unpopular decisions, and holding products to a high internal bar) could make them a poor gatekeeper for a shared distribution channel.
Not a smart move, but very predictably Apple. They've always sold ease of use over the ability to customize your product, and it hardly surprises me that they're holding the developer market in limbo like this. I'm switching back to my Symbian-based Nokia
you guys do know there is a free podcaster webapp right? It's been out for a long time. It's streaming but it works very well. Create a login and subscribe. It's pretty east to use. Does video and everything. The iPhone comes with a bookmark for the apple webapp directory, just do a search for podcaster
Not a smart move, but very predictably Apple. They've always sold ease of use over the ability to customize your product, and it hardly surprises me that they're holding the developer market in limbo like this. I'm switching back to my Symbian-based Nokia
ur switching back because of the possibility that some random app at some random time might possibly be blocked from the app store?
or is apple holding apps that you desperately need to use ? (that would be a legitimate reason)