That would require that Apple was a market leader, or at least high market share. At the moment iPhones share of total european smartphone market is pitifully low. There's absolutely no antitrust issue here.
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
That would require that Apple was a market leader, or at least high market share. At the moment iPhones share of total european smartphone market is pitifully low. There's absolutely no antitrust issue here.
I think Apple may be right on this one though. No one has bothered to ask... where does he get his list of podcasts from? If he's just ripping it from iTunes then Apple has the right to say no. All he can do it ask Apple to expand it to the Phone as well. He wouldn't have the right to just take it away from iTunes himself.
However, if he's built it all from scratch then he has a case.
However, if he's built it all from scratch then he has a case.
He doesn't have a case because Apple's App Store is not a democracy, there are no courts, the people have no say. Apple is judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the App store. All people can do to make their point is to stop giving Apple money, all developers can do is abandon the platform and encourage others to do the same.
Oh c'mon, the apps does not the same things. You can't download podcast on your phone directly now. And anyway, won't be better let the users decide the success or failure of an application? This is terribly Microsoft-style, and I am really worried about not the future af Apple itself, but apple user's.
Simple solution.... or should be.
The easiest way to solve rejections, if Apple agrees, is to send to Apple an APPLICATION PROGRAM PLAN. A copyright document outlining just what the app is intended to do before one line of code is written. If rejected, no harm no foul. If accepted and the developer sticks the "PLAN", follow on accept/reject would be only on technical issues not conflict or competition issues.
The easiest way to solve rejections, if Apple agrees, is to send to Apple an APPLICATION PROGRAM PLAN. A copyright document outlining just what the app is intended to do before one line of code is written. If rejected, no harm no foul. If accepted and the developer sticks the "PLAN", follow on accept/reject would be only on technical issues not conflict or competition issues.
OMG
You are right, imagine living in a world, with content, Apple doesn't approve of!!!Of course if I was one of those nasty men, who wanted to live in that terrifying place called Freedom I could just listen to these civilisation-ending sexy-time podcasts through Safari!
Think through your Apple apology before posting, or else you just look like a candidate for the koolaid!
So how do you then think Apple may be right, if you don't even know?
Apple didn't invent Podcasts, there are loads and loads of online directories, it's just a freakin XML list of URLs, or are the apologists suggesting Apple invented this to?
And the differance to sitting at your desktop and downloading the same URL is what? Are podcasts only going to take off, because of the Podcaster app on the iPhone
And how are you going to get the podcast to someone else, ie thus illegal sharing.Admit it, your first thought was actually wrong.
I guess you are one of the people who thinks that there are apps out there that could bring down the AT&T cellular system, the way that some hacker with a 3G card on his laptop couldn't.
Have you seen the VC funding for Facebook widgets --- they dried up as soon as Facebook arbitrarily copied 3rd party widgets and monetarize their business model.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10041187-62.html
The iFund is not going to give out funding much anymore.
So in the end, the app store for the iphone is thousands and thousands of "to do" apps.
If Apple is going to continue to be picky about what apps get sold on the AppStore, I really like the idea of pre-authorization rules so that developers don't need to potentially waste thousands of hours on a program only to find that the entire concept of it has been rejected.
It's understandable that Apple really wants as much money as it can get with these portable devices, but these policies really put a hamper on their potential.
Side thought: It would be really lame if they decided to implement a system where the only way to get programs on your Mac was to go to the AppStore for OS X Leopard ><.
Let's hope it never comes to that.
It's understandable that Apple really wants as much money as it can get with these portable devices, but these policies really put a hamper on their potential.
Side thought: It would be really lame if they decided to implement a system where the only way to get programs on your Mac was to go to the AppStore for OS X Leopard ><.
Let's hope it never comes to that.
How many times Apple needs to fall to realize that people will add to their iPhones whatever they wanted to..... hello??? Spend your time fixing bugs and frget about apps regulation... where is Snow Leopard? in a regulation department? Where is the Apple I used to know? The rebels / the misfits?? Is all of this part of a Gates Trap to announce that now Microsoft owned Apple by 75%... is this what all is about? selling?? c'mon Steve we don't care if PC rules the market, we love our Macs, lets leave that as it is for now on.... shall we???
Oh please, get over yourself. The app store is a novelty. 3 months ago it didn't even exist and the iPhone had already been one of the biggest selling smartphones in the short time since it's inception. You make it sound like the iPhone's claim to fame is the app store. NOT.
Another poster mentioned a few pages back that the reason for the podcast app to have been swiped by Apple is because it will eat up bandwidth from all the downloads. Since iTunes downloads your podcasts via your internet connection there's no worry, that's what your home internet is for.
Don't forget, the iPhone shares cell phone bandwidth.
Another poster earlier mentioned that he downloads about 50 podcasts per day (For What??) and some of it is video. The servers would get bogged down greatly with downloads like that.
Apple has already been complained about and has been threatened with a lawsuit for the iPhone eating too much bandwidth due to so many phones sold.
Yes, if the bandwidth was really the issue (which I believe it is) then AT&T is the bad guy but we don't know what agreements Apple has with AT&T.
This is the same thing people said about 3rd party development on the Mac when it first came out. I guess Photoshop, Omnifocus are just a "novelty?"
The original claim to fame was not due to 3rd party apps, but I contend along with 3G, this is the reason for the big rise on the iPhone version 2.
Besides, the app store is now there, and it is now an important part of the iPhone. If it isn't, I'd like to hear why you think it isn't. Especially when Apple themselves like to call the iPhone 3rd party development as a "platform."
Then why didn't the rejection letter just say that? If this was the case, then there would be a means for the developer to re-adjust his appliction. However, this is *not* what the rejection letter says. The rejection letter says that his app "duplicates the podcast section of iTunes." It says nothing about "taking up too much bandwidth."
So, back to the "duplication" portion of the rejection, this is what we're complaining about as well as the complete lack of clarity of what is truly acceptable and not acceptable in the app store. How do you expect great developers to develop apps if they don't even know if their app will be approved or not? Why waste the time and effort? Why then does Apple call this a "platform" then? This is what the problem is.
Let's use Steve Jobs himself then: "VOIP apps are ok as long as they just use wifi only."
Ok, but doesn't a VOIP app essentially duplicate the central most app on the iPhone, the phone? How about all of those calculator type apps from tip calculators and onward, doesn't this just replicate the functionality of the calculator?
See the problem?
How about IM apps? Don't they essentially replicate and ADD functionality to the SMS app on the iPhone?
Again, read the rejection letter again.
You keep mentioning bandwidth, but the rejection had nothing to do with bandwidth.
Yeah now we will only see 1000s of tip calculators and I am Rich apps on the AppStore. No decent developer will spend money to develop an app to have it rejected in the end.
I think Apple is going to be quite busy with lawsuits if this keeps up. Unless the app is malicious, they shouldn't reject it. There should be a Digg type rating system where people who actually PURCHASED the app can rate it up or down.
Fail Apple
I think Apple is going to be quite busy with lawsuits if this keeps up. Unless the app is malicious, they shouldn't reject it. There should be a Digg type rating system where people who actually PURCHASED the app can rate it up or down.
Fail Apple
As I mentioned earlier (which you conveniently DIDN'T quote) we don't know Apple's agreement with AT&T. Here's just a theory, Apple may have agreed with AT&T to take full responsibility for the apps in the app store, meaning if for example the Podcast app takes up too much bandwidth then Apple cannot publicly blame AT&T for the app being swiped.
The only solution at this point would be for Apple to swipe the app, tell the developer that that iTunes already performs this function leaving the bandwidth load on the customer's internet provider.
This was just my theory, however if you want to go on record as ignoring that this could be a possibility then you are just being closed minded as many people here are in order to just complain and rant.
I agree with everyone that if the real reason isn't about competing with iTunes then Apple should be more upfront but again we don't know the agreement Apple has with AT&T.
I didn't read all 15+ pages of posts to see if someone commented on this, but if this is true...I think this guy has his priorities backwards. He shouldn't be messing around with the App Store...let alone have a Mac or an iPhone (with a contract). He needs to forget about this app, sell his Mac and his iPhone and go get a job to support his family. Once he takes care of business...maybe he can return to this.
Apple on the other hand should accept conceptual documents that describe apps before development begins. Of course the developer would retain all rights to that app and Apple would be under a sort of NDA with the developer.
i love how posters like you make it seem like there are thousands of apps being rejected.
And you speak for every person who wishes to develop on the iphone? Amazing, i had no idea that you were so well organized.
since people seemingly want advance approval, the only way to do it would be to require a complete design doc submitted in advance. If the finished app did not follow the design doc that was pre-approved 100% it would automatically be disallowed. This would be so slow and so expensive as to be completely unviable. I know some of you think that apple should have a list of things disallowed and if the app does not violate those it is automatically ok. This is unresonable.
No company can in advance predict what thousands or millions of people might do. No reasonable company is going to handcuff themselves because they can predict every possible eventuality. This is clearly what some here expect of them and it will never happen.
This is who lot of you are defending. Someone who invested so much time and energy they failed to even take the time to google the name of their own app.
At least reserve your outrage and defensiveness for someone who deserves it.
I guess since they could not be bothered to spend the 5 seconds on the name it is folly to think they would have considered the legitimacy of the app. There is little chance this developer even read the guidelines.
I don't see how that is relevant - most people haven't been defending Podcaster per se but raising concerns about Apple's policies.
As I stated earlier in this thread, it would cost me as a business owner around $30,000 in real money to develop an application (salary costs, loss of other income while developing, etc, etc) and because of this unclear policy the end result is less and less companies will push the boundaries of what the iPhone can do.
Devs will keep developing for the iPhone (as we will) because it can generate good income, but the App Store will likely stagnate into thousands of simple utilities because businesses would rather spend time and money on something they can guarantee will be published than something that may never see the light of day through decisions they can't control.
Another thing to bear in mind is that businesses are there to make money - few have any brand loyalty: If a platform comes along with a similar marketing strategy / App Store (such as Android, or even Windows Mobile) but gives them more freedom and more money making opportunities they'll disappear in a heartbeat. Apple could end up creating a new market and then losing out due to their desire to control every little aspect of it.
and the resistance jailbreak their iphones and torrent the apps. QuickPwn ftw.1984