The difference here is that the success/failure of a restaurant or many other business ventures is determined by the open marketplace. A closer analogy might be that an otherwise successful small business is denied a space in the only shopping mall in town just because the management of the mall arbitrarily feels the mall doesn't need or want such a business in it. The management opens this mall to great fanfare and invites businesses to open shop there, except for a handful of types they feel are harmful. So, an entrepreneur takes the time to build up a small shop and then tries to open for business only to find the mall management has decided their little shop is too similar to an idea the mall's management might want to someday open themselves and they shut them down.
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.
Engadget says It's time to change Apple's clearly anti-trust violating behavior
- Thread starter Evev12
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The difference here is that the success/failure of a restaurant or many other business ventures is determined by the open marketplace. A closer analogy might be that an otherwise successful small business is denied a space in the only shopping mall in town just because the management of the mall arbitrarily feels the mall doesn't need or want such a business in it. The management opens this mall to great fanfare and invites businesses to open shop there, except for a handful of types they feel are harmful. So, an entrepreneur takes the time to build up a small shop and then tries to open for business only to find the mall management has decided their little shop is too similar to an idea the mall's management might want to someday open themselves and they shut them down.
this argument could go on forever, but in the end it is up to apple. they are a business and the whole point of a business is to make money, some way and somehow this "anti-trust violating behavior" is gonna make them a little more money
I'm sorry, but the developers know full well what they are getting into when they write iPhone apps. Whether we the public agree with the rules of the SDK really doesn't matter. The devs also fully know what apps might push the boundaries of acceptance into the AppStore and if they choose to ignore them than really they can't blame Apple. And even if the decision to bar an app from entry into the store seems completely arbitrary, well, that's just the rules of the game. if you don't like the rules, don't play the game. judging by the number of apps available after a little over 2 months, plenty of devs want to play.
Also, as far as your second point, I'd hardly call the G1 a particularly viable option at this point. It hasn't even proven itself in the marketplace and it does have a lot to prove if its going to compete with the iPhone. While the risk maybe higher for approval in the AppStore, the possible awards are certainly high enough that thousands of devs are willing to take the chance.
So no, I'd hardly call Android the safer bet right now. So far, the G1 looks like a colossal flop, a big fat fail. It's of course really too early to tell, but I'd definitely put my bets on Apple.
The main point they make that I agree with is that only apps that have malicious code should be rejected. Everything else whether in good taste or not should be approved, Period.
see, i just don't get that line of reasoning, why should any and everything be approved?
Nice try, but Apple rejected podcaster for a reason they didn't reveal until AFTER they rejected podcaster.
How can a developer know they're pushing boundaries if they don't know what the boundaries are? It's like walking around in the dark.
That's the question: WHY can't Apple spell out all the rules up front? Why are they making up rules after the fact? Your answer is that the developers should know the hidden rules?
How!?
Because if it doesn't hurt the phone why shouldn't it? If I want a porn app why shouldn't I have it? If I want a fart app why not?
I would rather have an app I consider useless or in poor taste approved then have my chooses needlessly limited. I am an adult I don't need to be protected from myself.
But the FDA has books of rules that spell out when and why they might recall something.
They don't just recall some meat and then make up a reason after they do it. The reason would already be written down in some rulebook.
If Apple is going to make stuff up as they go (as they seem to be doing) then why can't they approve or deny proposals BEFORE all the programing is done? If they don't want podcaster on the iPhone, that's fine! Really, it is! But why can't they tell them that before they spend the time and money making it? What purpose does it serve to make them waste their time? I can't see any reason for that. Can you explain it?
I saw some documentary in Canada (Venture, or W5, or something) about three start-ups trying to get their products into Wal-Mart.
The bottom line was that even after the applications and hoop jumping and rule checking and price slashing and everything, I think only one got a limited run in Wal-Mart. No free market, no "fair" rules, no nothing - Wal-Mart said "no thanks, go away".
Apple is running, what is essentially "The Apple Store ... with friends" - it's their club house. Their choice what happens to it. And, if they make the wrong choices, their fault if it fails.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some crazy amazing sh*t coming from every corner of the earth -- but I know that's not realistic with Apple.
Now, google on the other hand .......
Walmart doesn't have a monopoly on cheap Chinese crap. You can get it at the dollar store and other places. I realize it is Apple's store and they can do what they want but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their philosophy.
The problem is, Wal-Mart doesn't suffer in that case.
If all these apps that Apple rejects go to Android, we'll have a very different situation in 2 years. I'm arguing all this stuff because I'm on Apple's side in all this. In the year 2010, when my friend asks "What should I buy?" I want to be able to say "Get an iPhone."
What if he comes back to me and says "Look at this online survey of the best 10 phone applications. How come only 4 of them are on the iPhone when I can get all 10 on Android?"
What am I suposed to say to him then? I don't want to be put in that position. I like my iPhone and I want to keep suggesting it to people (I know 4 people who bought theirs after I got mine). If things turn out that way in the future, I probably won't have an answer to that question and that would suck.
And Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphone apps. There are far more WinMob, Palm, Blackberry, Symbian, Brew, et.al. devices out in the market currently. I know several iPhone developers that have apps on multiple of those platforms. And a few of those smartphone platforms are far harder on which to get an app distributed than the iPhone.
No, they don't on smart phone apps. I will agree with you there but they have an almost monopoly on what you put on the iPhone unless you void your warranty.
It would be like if Walmart said my warranty on cheap tampons and their liability for selling me something is invalid if I buy cheap tampons elsewhere.
I agree about the choices of other platforms. If other platforms had something more comparable to the iPhone's elegance, I'd certain jump on them. My only concern with Apple's behavior here is (I'm guessing) similar to "Small White Car's" concern. I'd like Apple and iPhone to succeed as I believe it will be a long while before something else is available to beat it. However, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot a bit here by not making the developers eager to develop great apps of all types. By closing the platform in a sense, I think they are going to marginalize themselves in a way similar to what they did with the Mac all those years ago. PC's weren't as elegant as Macs early on, but they were more accessible and that made the choices of apps far greater. This, in turn, made PC the way to go if you wanted lots of app choices, but at the sacrifice of an elegant user experience.
Apple has a fantastic opportunity to deliver a vast selection of great apps AND an elegant user experience. They already have a good head-start in the marketplace, compared to the other smartphone platforms. Android is brand new, so it's got to catch up. WinMo is older, but not elegant. Symbian is older, but also not as elegant.
nice try back at you home boy. the rule of the SDK, the NDA, and anything else Apple through the way of the devs is that Apple holds the ultimate authority in determining what is and isn't allowed into the AppStore. If you are making an app that is similar to the iPod app, there might be a good chance Apple has some plans for it, especially for a podcasting app.
And seriously, WTF do you really care anyway? People are just bitching for the sake of bitching and it is getting really old.
Ryanwarsaw: why shouldn't you have a fart or porn app? Because Apple doesn't want it on there. It's not up to you. Sorry.
seriously, people, do you want some cheese with that whine? i make and sell cheese for a living, so all i need is your address.
it's nice to see that some people have Apple's interest in mind with this, I guess. but i'm pretty certain they have a good idea on how to move forward with their products. they've done a pretty good job so far. honestly, i think its more of a case of people wanting what they aren't getting, and to that i say, T-Mobile has just introduced the ugliest smartphone in the world with your name all over it. i don't think the iPhone is going to suffer because they don't let porn apps, bandwidth hogs, and all the other apps they've rejected into the AppStore. Less than 1% of submit apps have been banned. this issue is blown way out of proportion. if they let anything go, iPhone OS is going to end up looking a lot like Vista.
How dare you insinuate impropriety on Apple's behalf. Apple Inc. has been like a brother to us all! So what if you can't get a fart app, you have the greatest phone/ipod/internet/email/social networking/lightsabre/gaming/camera/GPS device ever created! The fact that my AAPL stock has lost 30% of its value in a month is meaningless! MEANGINGLESS I tell you!
There's no comparison to this situation.
One obvious difference is that those developers could go to other stores besides WalMart and sell what they had created.
Apple, on the other hand, has deliberately made their store the exclusive way to market to every iPhone owner.
first of all, not what i said. i was referring to a post by SmallWhiteCar talking about his reason for his argument including the fact that he wants Apple to open up the AppStore more so that the iPhone succeeds.
seriously though, if you are so upset at Apple and think that they are trying to rape you out of your money, why do you even own an iPhone? and why are you part of a forum community called MacRumors? they are a business, of course, and a business wants to make money. that's a good thing, incentive-based economy and all. the better they do, the more great computers and gadgets i get to use.
the iPhone is never going to be all things to every person. if you like i, great. if you hate it, great. but there has to be a point where the incessant bitching about Apple's so-called anti-trust behavior with their products has got to end. Apple has always guarded their products closely. that's a positive in my book.
As others have said, there are other stores, and platforms, and audiences for developers to aim for and sell to. Some of them much bigger than Apple's, in fact (as I'm sure you know). And the google marketplace will be pretty crazy too, I bet. Lots of places to sell. Apple doesn't have to do you any favors.
It's Apple's store, that's it. It's their store. Call it the "Apple App Store", if you must. They choose what gets sold, and what doesn't. Bottom line. Why do people hate that idea, or just not get it, or whatever? They can do what they want. If Apple succeeds, good for them, they were right - if Apple fails, too bad for them, they were wrong.
And honestly ... Apple's "closed mindedness" will only encourage other companies to be even more "open and free".