``Paul Kafasis (co-founder of Rogue Amoeba Software) makes the point that this action by Apple will scare talented developers away from the iPhone platform.''
I hope it will, but I doubt it. I hope the talented developers will favor open platforms over closed ones, help create and improve open platforms, and help making the world more open.
I hope the talented developers will favor [profitable] platforms over [unprofitable] ones, help create and improve [profitable] platforms, and help making the world more [profitable].
There, fixed that for ya. Really, when push comes to shove, developers want their proverbial bread on the table as much as anyone else. If openness coincides sufficiently well with developer self-interest, then openness may win out as well. If it doesn't, then there's not much hope for it; ignoring economic incentives (or disincentives) doesn't make them go away.
``If openness coincides sufficiently well with developer self-interest, then openness may win out as well.''
If, at least, developers act in a way that maximizes their self-interest. In practise, that is probably only partially the case. At best, they will act in a way that they _think_ maximizes their self interest... but their thinking can be affected, say, by a clever marketing campaign.
"compared to Apple's gargantuan bite of your work"
If you actually tried to get an application on ANYBODY ELSE'S 'application stores', like handango, or through one of the telco's, you would know the true meaning of gargantuan. Try 60/40 split for THEM. Or worse. As in, you get less than half. Apple has slapped all the other mobile phone application stores upside the face with pricing. And you can offer your app for free if you wish. How many other app stores let you do that?
Now, is there room for another competitor to come in and offer better terms than Apple. Certainly.
Just as a WAG, I would guess Google probably will go for something in the 15%-25% range for their app store, to slightly undercut Apple, while still being a little more than break-even for bandwidth, returns, techsupport and credit-card fees.
that is why i prefer phones with windows mobile. there are no restrictions for applications, the developer have a wide choice of developer tools (vb, visual c++, any.net language with netcf support, third party tools like lazarus).
there is skype for windows mobile (afaik it was the first mobile port of skype), there are other voip apps, starting wm6 there is even a built in voip support.
and i don't get why people whine about the interface. it is pretty much the same well known windows interface. even my mum and dad and my girlfriend can use their windows mobile smartphones (xda, xda II and xda III). if you can cope with windows on your desktop, you'll have no difficulties with wm. i do own an ipod touch (it was a gift) and i don't like the interface at all. if i want to delete an mp3 file, with my htc universal i start up my favourite file manager (total commander in my case), go to the file, open the context menu, chose "delete" and i am done. with the ipod touch i have to delete the file in the itunes on my pc, then synchronise. it sucks.
there are no restrictions for applications, the developer have a wide choice of developer tools (vb, visual c++, any.net language with netcf support, third party tools like lazarus).
Its a pretty sad world when Windows is less anti-competitive then someone else.
Right from day 1, Bill Gates knows that it's 3rd party developers who make his OS successful. That's why Ballmer goes around shouting "developers, developers".
Apple's cut (30%) is extremely low for what you get. Unlimited distribution, completely flexible pricing, international markets, hosting, updates, auto-pariticpation in their "top 100" lists and "feature apps", etc. And the $99 entry fee is also very comparatively low. If you can't make back $99/year on the App Store, you're doing it wrong.
And if the argument is ease of development, Apple definitely has Google beat so far regardless of ones ability to share. I'm no huge fan of XCode, but iPhone development is really easy. So easy that here we are less than two months after release and there's thousands of apps. My guess is that within a few months all the big names will have their stuff ported including Skype. So from a user's point of view.
So it's good for the users, and good for the developers. In return, you occasionally (4 apps so far out of 3000) get slapped down by Apple. I don't think it's going to affect the market much.
The first Android phone, the HTC Dream, will be out "soon" [engadget.com]. Beware the curse of the early adopter however; while the Dream may (or may not) live up to its name, later offerings will surely be better.
Why should it follow that an open design leads to no profit
Uhh, he didn't say that. Weird, you got modded insightful for it. I guess the mods fell for your strawman. What he said was "If openness coincides sufficiently well with developer self-interest, then openness may win out as well." Given MS's success in software, which is far *far* from open, I'd say he's absolutely right.
If they released all their software to Symbian OS, at least S60 with high end device features (e.g. N95) simultaneously, that would teach Apple. It would be a great favour to Symbian users too. I am not speaking about high end,commercial software of course.
Not applying for iPhone competition or WWDC something doesn't match it.
Funny is, there is a huge fight in Symbian scene, people ask Nokia (the Godfather) why they gave up their "Download! for PC" which was working perfectly, years ago before iPhone was even mentioned.
Yes, believe or not, Nokia had "App store" on Windows OS at least and still has it inside every recent S60 phones ROM, not an option even, that app is on every phones root level menu. The result? Still not updated! I think Apple already knows the Symbian platform is not really competitive with current management so they feel comfortable taking decisions like that.
Actually, a friend and I have recently come up with two ideas for fun phone apps, and have been waffling between doing them for iPhone or for Android.
The coolness and market base of iPhone combine to create a strong draw towards iPhone. But at the same time, I'm already a seasoned Java developer and learning Objective-C and Cocoa is a pretty hefty hurdle to overcome when I'd like to get things rolling quickly.
Additional crap like this is making me lean more and more away from iPhone and increasingly toward
The last comment clearly has it right. The iPhone is not a platform, it's Apple's toy that you're allowed to use. Is anybody really surprised?
You're never going to be allowed to use alternative hardware, obviously, and with the subscription status and deals with phone companies, you're going to be seriously restricted when it comes to software. How long did it take them to allow any third party programs on their phone?
That's the problem with language. Once Apple sells the phone, it is no longer Apple's phone - it is the customer's.
Since WHEN has apple ever allowed people to own their own equipment?
Apple has never been about freedom (as in beer, or choice apparently), it has been more like a mortgage company.. Leasing you the use of your home/equipment until such time as they see fit to no longer support it.
It was a great frustration to me, when I use to service Apple computers (eons ago... Back before the last ice age..) to not be able to order a replacement part from a 3rd party source with ease. Apple, for as long as I can
What sort of Apple hardware parts aren't standardized these days? All of the system internals are relatively "normal," and don't seem to contain a sufficiently higher percentage of proprietary bits than a Dell would.
I'm not a fan of their iPhone strategy, but this other information seems pretty blatantly false. Apple lets its users run Windows on their machines (and helps them do so, a la Boot Camp, and their publicized support of Parallels/VMWare). I ran Ubuntu on my old G4 without a problem. The only major linux support issues on any remotely recent mac have to do with NVidia's lack of open drivers, rather than anything specific to Apple.
The iPhone/iPod software licensing seems a bit draconian, though nobody's forcing you to buy one...
I have a Mac, and I use it as I see fit. I'll probably get a touchscreen iPod once Apple comes to its senses regarding app licensing (which, to be fair, is a lot more liberal than how most phone companies treat 3rd-party apps)
Not only are restrictions placed on the app store, but on the device itself. It wouldn't be a problem if anyone could set up their own app store to distribute software to iPhone users.
no one is bitching about not being able to buy windows vista or a Zen at an apple retail location.
A better analogy would be buying a Mac and then only being allowed to buy software from Apple retail locations.
It wouldn't be a problem if anyone could set up their own app store to distribute software to iPhone users.
I'm also an iPhone owner, people and companies are already doing this.
A vast amount of iPhone users have their phones jailbroken (if this poll posted earlier today [engadget.com] is any indication, it would seem the majority do) thanks to the iphone-dev team. Cydia is a GUI application installed which uses apt at the backend, just like debian/ubuntu, for installing third party software. Pretty much anyone can get an
if this poll posted earlier today [engadget.com] is any indication, it would seem the majority do [have their iPhones jailbroken]
You're not serious? Not only is that statement contrary to all common sense, but that poll has all the statistical reliability of a Slashdot poll. For a start, non-technical users tend not to read Engadget, let alone know how to get an iPhone jailbroken.
I take your point that you can jailbreak your iPhone to allow third-party software, but it's far from the same thing as Apple allowing any third-party software on their phone.
For a start, most iPhone users won't have the first clue who iphone-dev are, what Cydia or even a GUI is, what apt is or what Debian/Ubuntu are. To the average user, iPhone applications come from the app store - that's the end of it. For these users, who I imagine make up the vast majority, Apple controls the software they're allowed to install on their iPhone.
So, hopefully iPhone devs do something about it.
Ars's John Siracusa proposes boycotting the iPhone category at the Apple Design Awards [twitter.com]. Makes sense to me; like he says, it'll cause a blemish on Apple's reputation without damaging the pocketbooks of those devs who have invested in this platform.
(And for Chrissake, yes it's a platform, just a badly restricted one at the moment.)
A boycott of the iPhone Apple Design Awards would undoubtedly send a message to Apple, but I doubt it could be pulled off. Those awards are coveted; it's such a big temptation for developers that they won't miss out on it just for a stand on principles.
A boycott of the iPhone Apple Design Awards would undoubtedly send a message to Apple, but I doubt it could be pulled off. Those awards are coveted; it's such a big temptation for developers that they won't miss out on it just for a stand on principles.
If that be the case, then what they have are not principles at all.
I hope this trend ends soon. The screening of apps started not long ago and I think was a result of the amount of crap that Apple allowed to sell on the store. Between the numerous "flash light" apps and the infamous "I am Rich" app a lot of people were annoyed at the signal to noise ratio. Then there was "Netshare" which was pulled because it violated ATTs terms of service (luckily I got my copy early.)
My guess is that Apple responded to all this by making it some middle manager's responsibility to come up with a set of ground rules to "improve" the situation. He/she/the committe or whatever obviously went way overboard. As a potential iPhone developer it gives me the chills that you could spend months on a project just to have it rejected for a rediculous reason like the one here.
"As a potential iPhone developer it gives me the chills that you could spend months on a project just to have it rejected for a rediculous reason like the one here."
If Apple really wants that tight control, they should allow a way for proposals to be submitted before development begins. That way months aren't wasted on the project, and you would know early on whether your project is bad. (I'm not an Apple Store dev so I don't know if this is currently an option).
Nonsense. The screening of apps starting in the very beginning with a process designed to enable that very thing. Apple stated from the start that they would be screening apps. Only fools believe it's for anything other than Apple's best interests.
Yes it is. Artificial and intentional crippling makes me really angry because this device is capable of doing so much more. It's a beautiful device will horrible restrictions that would make even Microsoft blush. Crippling is enough to make one not become an Apple developer.
I have stated multiple times on Slashdot and have multiple times be called a troll...
THIS is EXACTLY the same behavior Apple exhibited with the Apple and their token program!
Ah, but this is so old news (over 20 years ago) that people tend to have forgotten!
Now Apple is all good and dandy! BS!
Yeah, I know what you mean. I posted on this same story and said that a company which believes in its products isn't afraid of competition; I was almost instantly modded Redundant even though all preceding comments were about whether the iPhone can be considered a "platform". It seems that Apple is another of these near-religious subjects that weak-minded people get all upset over and of course that's your fault for saying something with which they disagree. In a society where many children don't even know who their father is, it seems that there is a lack of calm, collected, strong-minded men not given to this type of childish impulsiveness who could perhaps model a better example of how to live. Make no mistake, it is about how to live; that sort of impulsive, reactionary mentality is not at all limited to this subject or this Web site. If anyone perceives my disdain of it as being caused by a lower score on a Slashdot posting, they have missed my point entirely.
Apple has consistently and predictably followed the same practices for which people condemn Microsoft. The caveat is that Apple has always cultivated a "cult" attitude, as well. I know I'll probably be modded flamebait for this, but the fact is that it's "ok" for Apple to practice competition stifling policies if they continue to also perpetuate the "Cult of Mac" attitude.
Apple is no more nor is it any less evil than Microsoft or any of their ilk. Is it any surprise that they're exercising strict control over the iPhone? No. No. No, not at all!! It's the same behavior Apple has exhibited with everything it produces!
"Let's be clear: forbidding 'duplication of functionality' is forbidding competition. The point of competition is to do the same thing, but better."
Sure. Why would they want to possibly put themselves in the position of admitting that someone "did iTunes" better than they do? Their business practices and marketing are almost the same thing; they need to promote "Cult of [Apple]" and to effectively justify their approach they need to be able to say, "No. We did that application/utility better. See what our strict adherence to our policies brought us? A better product." If they can't say that then the millions (billions?) they've spent on their marketing for the last 30 years is worthless.
Apple has created an embedded device and is choosing to tightly control the available applications for it. If you think this is a bad thing, don't develop for it and don't buy an iphone, it's that simple. Things like the gameboy and xbox live tightly control the available content, and I don't see nearly as much bitching about them as I do about the iphone. People jailbreak/develop home brew apps for the devices and don't expect to be embraced by the hardware creators. If you want to develop for an open platform develop for the PC or another device which actually wants and maintains good relationships with independent developers.
I would imagine that the "bitching" is mostly because every other phone/handheld platform out there is more open, and has been for a while now. People have gotten used to it. Now they rightly see the lack of openness as a deficiency in the product, and complain about it. Saying when something sucks when it does is not "bitching".
Here's what's going to happen. It'll happen because it always happens.
Apple gets caught with its pants down. Everyone condemns Apple while its PR teams huddle together to find a way to deal with the issue. Finally, Apple announces that the issue was to do with an oversight caused by a miscommunication caused by an unrelated issue that actually was a case of the application not being approved yet, not that it was really rejected.
People outside of Apple circles will laugh, but then be flamed endlessly for laughing to the point that we no longer want to talk about it any more.
Happened when Apple was using cheap third world labour to build iPods. Happened when Apple stopped releasing source code to Darwin. And it's going to happen again. Apple will, as with those issues, completely reverse itself, while making it sound like it was its policy all along.
So I'm not even going to bother. Here's the thing though: this is Apple's mentality. They will try to lock down iPhone if they can. They do in many areas already, and they will continue to do so. I can swap out a SIM in an iPhone and tether my laptop to a real cellphone instead, and it'll work, but Apple bans applications that allows you to use iPhone for this. I can install any application I want on my Motorola V635 - which isn't even something most people would describe as a "smartphone" but is, thanks to J2ME, completely programmable and has oodles of storage space thanks to microSD - but I can only install "approved" applications on an "smart" iPhone.
So yes, Apple will reverse itself on this issue, and all of you criticizing it now will be criticized as lying Apple haters who misrepresented what Apple was doing. But iPhone will always be a locked down platform. And as long as it is, there will be many of us who will just steer clear of it.
And if what you want is a locked down platform, don't start whining when you hear some app developer has been screwed over because of it.
By the way, I've cut and paste what I found to be relevant to this topic, two paragraphs of the Terms and Conditions of the iPhone SDK download Agreement and the first paragraph of the iPhone Application Submission Agreement.
SDK Terms and Conditions
1. Relationship With Apple Inc. ("Apple"). You understand and agree by becoming a Registered iPhone Developer, no legal partnership or agency relationship is created between you and Apple. Neither you nor Apple is a partner, an agent or has any authority to bind the other. You agree not to represent otherwise. You also certify that you are of the legal age of majority in the jurisdiction in which you reside (at least 18 years of age in many countries) and you represent that you are legally permitted to become a Registered iPhone Developer. This Agreement is void where prohibited by law, and the right to become a Registered iPhone Developer is not granted in such jurisdictions.
9. Apple Independent Development. Nothing in this Agreement will impair Apple's right to develop, acquire, license, market, promote or distribute products, software or technologies that perform the same or similar functions as, or otherwise compete with any other products, software or technologies that you may develop, produce, market, or distribute. In the absence of a separate written agreement to the contrary, Apple will be free to use any information, suggestions or recommendations you provide to Apple for any purpose, subject to any applicable patents or copyrights.
iPhone App Submission Agreement
1. iPhone GTM Programs. The web applications you submit will be considered for inclusion in Apple's iPhone product pages, ADC web pages, Apple eNews programs and other related Apple developer and marketing web pages and programs (collectively "iPhone GTM Programs"). You understand and agree that Apple has complete discretion over whether to include your web applications in any iPhone GTM Program. You also understand and agree that Apple reserves the right, at its complete discretion and without prior notice to you, to remove your web applications from any and/or all iPhone GTM Programs. Should Apple decide to include your web application in one or more iPhone GTM Programs, you agree that Apple shall have the right, and you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive right and license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, reference, link to, and distribute in connection with such iPhone GTM Programs, your web application URL and all related information and materials (including without limitation images, trademarks, and logos) you provide with your submission to Apple (collectively, the "Submitted Materials").
End Result
Apple covered themselves very well on this topic and basically, if you are going to develop an app for the iPhone, you should be well aware of the risks and they are fairly, clearly stated.
Come on in, the water's fine in the Openmoko pool! A truly free platform, and anything compiled for Linux on an ARM CPU will run (assuming the dependencies are also present).
I'm a fan of Apple hardware. I've got an iPod Touch. I'd never use the app in question because I'm happy with the way iTunes handles my podcasts.
But I don't see why Apple should care about this app. I assumed the Slashdot summary was way off base, which more often than not is the case nowadays - but it's pretty accurate in this instance. So why is Apple doing this? As far as I know they don't make money off of podcasts - heck, most of them are free. So why should they care? Are they worried that, somehow, this will be used to move other files onto the iPod/iPhone? I just can't figure it out (and yeah, I'm discounting with prejudice the conspiracy theories that seem to be rampant here today - those don't really stand up to any sort of analysis either).
It is up to customer. If they have rejected to buy iPhone because of how Apple handles it, things could change.
Are they happily buying and lining up? Oh, some percentage of them hacks their iPhone, it doesn't matter to Apple at all. In fact, Apple would be happier since they have all void their warranty;)
I still don't get the point of Android and I am a Symbian/J2ME user. Google should explain why they don't put their force behind Symbian and J2ME instead.
It can also eat away at their bottom line just as easily.
Its a business risk they don't feel is worth doing.
I think that's inherently part of the problem. When you're an upstart company or at least new to a particular market (especially in a market full of established, entrenched competitors), you're more willing to take a risk like that because the very business itself is a risk that could easily fail. When your brand becomes well-known and you become more and more established, there is also a tendency to become more and more conservative because you like your current position and are interested in keeping it.
You can. The problem is that if you want to make money, selling iPhone apps is the way to go, not selling Symbian Apps. At this time there are far more Symbian smartphones out there than iPhones. But for the most part owners don't buy any software that doesn't come with the device.
Apple have made it so easy to purchase applications that lots of people do.
Oh, and I spend years writing Symbian software. The iPhone SDK and tools are about 100 times nicer and faster to work with.
Where is the integrity in a developer knowingly creating an application to do something a product already does? You mean to tell me that in the marketplace of ideas that developers are so bereft of creativity that they cannot think of something unique?
You're either not serious, or out of your mind.
Are you seriously trying to say that a developer should never develop an application that does something another application already does? Even if it does that something much better than the original?
In that case, we don't need Firefox or Opera because we have Safari; we don't need Adium because we have iChat; we don't need VLC because we have Quicktime.
Fuck 'em. There's competition licking at their heals, and short of the semi-retarded Apple fanbois, folks will go to the competition, and leave the mental midgets that dream of giving blow Jobs, Apple will be fucked.
The competition honesty isn't up to scratch yet. The vast majority people care about how well the device works and how the interact with it, not the business policies of the manufacturer and carrier (God knows that no carrier would be in business if that was the case). I'd absolutely love to see more genuine competition in this area, as the iPhone certainly has a number of shortcomings. But most of the companies are just trying to hop on the touchscreen bandwagon and completely miss the point. My iPhone experience has been for the most part very positive (AT&T much less so, but again, that's true of all carriers) - it's got some small things that bother me, but for the most part nothing major (that isn't specific to AT&T).
Now I've got the original model, and the 3G model seems to be having quite a number of other things causing problems so I've been relatively unaffected. I've experienced the slow backups and some unstable apps (some are better than others, to say the least, though on the whole the 1.x jailbreak apps were somewhat more solid for whatever technical reason) which has been mostly addressed by the most recent firmware. My two issues that remain are a lack of CalDAV calendar support directly on the device (the desktop iCal supports it, but you can only sync local calendars and one subscribed calendar via Exchange/MobileMe) and some weird WiFi issue that I think are more related to bad signal strength than something software-related.
Point being that on the whole, the device is fairly solid. Competition is a very good thing, no questions about it. But I've seen and played with the "competition". While some of those devices have things that some people bitch about (MMS and video recording to name two; I care about neither), they still tend to have clunky software interfaces and other arbitrary restrictions put in place by the carrier in order to charge you that much more. Hell, as far as I'm aware Verizon still disables Bluetooth data access on most phones so they can charge you $1.99/mo for their proprietary phonebook syncing (I didn't think to ask despite being in one of their stores today; my father was getting his second-time-broken Blackberry replaced by a lying and mostly incompetent albeit attractive sales rep). That kind of stupid nickel-and-diming BS is half the reason I left Verizon for AT&T in the first place. Of course, they're guilty too for the most part, but Apple negotiated some pretty reasonable deals for the first-gen phone, at least as far as the cell industry is concerned.
I'm NOT defending Apple here - I think blocking an app for this reason is absolutely despicable. I hope competition comes along and applies some real pressure. I hope that Android comes along and starts kicking ass. But that hasn't happened yet. There's no denying that Apple raised the bar on cell phones in quite a number of different areas and they've seen a lot of success as a result - but I certainly hope that information is used against them to create even better products. Like you imply, competition is absolutely a good thing. It's just not all there yet.
... but a "walled garden with land mines." Speaking as a developer, with Apple's terms of service, you not only can't see the land mines in the garden, but you can't even see the walls.
Speaking as a developer, it won't be possible to treat the iPhone as a viable platform for building and running a business until Apple comes clean with its real terms of service and requirements. Right now you have no idea if the app you're working on will ever be allowed to see the light of day.
It's reminiscent of what's happened with eBay over the last few years. Literally thousands of people quit their day jobs to build their businesses around eBay, and now they're finding themselves elbowed aside. eBay altered their deal, and all a small-time seller can do is pray that they don't alter it further. Right now, iPhone developers are in the exact same boat: completely at the mercy of a company whose interests are only coincidentally aligned with the "sharecroppers" who bring the real value to the table.
Hello, antitrust lawsuit. Welcome to Microsoft's shoes, Apple.
I don't think the iPhone is popular enough for that yet. They aren't leveraging a monopoly, because they don't have one.
I think it's much more likely that we will see antitrust action about the lock-in between newer iPods and iTunes (Only iTunes can put music on those, because a special hash has to be generated). Apple is very dominant in the mp3-player market, and they are using that to dominate the market for media player software -- and to promote the iTunes store.
One Can Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
``Paul Kafasis (co-founder of Rogue Amoeba Software) makes the point that this action by Apple will scare talented developers away from the iPhone platform.''
I hope it will, but I doubt it. I hope the talented developers will favor open platforms over closed ones, help create and improve open platforms, and help making the world more open.
Re:One Can Hope (Score:5, Funny)
As an iPhone developer, I hope it will too. Less competition for me. :-)
Parent
Re:One Can Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope the talented developers will favor [profitable] platforms over [unprofitable] ones, help create and improve [profitable] platforms, and help making the world more [profitable].
There, fixed that for ya. Really, when push comes to shove, developers want their proverbial bread on the table as much as anyone else. If openness coincides sufficiently well with developer self-interest, then openness may win out as well. If it doesn't, then there's not much hope for it; ignoring economic incentives (or disincentives) doesn't make them go away.
Parent
Re:One Can Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
``If openness coincides sufficiently well with developer self-interest, then openness may win out as well.''
If, at least, developers act in a way that maximizes their self-interest. In practise, that is probably only partially the case. At best, they will act in a way that they _think_ maximizes their self interest ... but their thinking can be affected, say, by a clever marketing campaign.
Parent
Re:One Can Hope (Score:5, Informative)
"compared to Apple's gargantuan bite of your work"
If you actually tried to get an application on ANYBODY ELSE'S 'application stores', like handango, or through one of the telco's, you would know the true meaning of gargantuan. Try 60/40 split for THEM. Or worse. As in, you get less than half. Apple has slapped all the other mobile phone application stores upside the face with pricing. And you can offer your app for free if you wish. How many other app stores let you do that?
Now, is there room for another competitor to come in and offer better terms than Apple. Certainly.
Just as a WAG, I would guess Google probably will go for something in the 15%-25% range for their app store, to slightly undercut Apple, while still being a little more than break-even for bandwidth, returns, techsupport and credit-card fees.
Parent
Re:One Can Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
that is why i prefer phones with windows mobile. .net language with netcf support, third party tools like lazarus).
there are no restrictions for applications, the developer have a wide choice of developer tools (vb, visual c++, any
there is skype for windows mobile (afaik it was the first mobile port of skype), there are other voip apps, starting wm6 there is even a built in voip support.
and i don't get why people whine about the interface. it is pretty much the same well known windows interface. even my mum and dad and my girlfriend can use their windows mobile smartphones (xda, xda II and xda III). if you can cope with windows on your desktop, you'll have no difficulties with wm. i do own an ipod touch (it was a gift) and i don't like the interface at all. if i want to delete an mp3 file, with my htc universal i start up my favourite file manager (total commander in my case), go to the file, open the context menu, chose "delete" and i am done. with the ipod touch i have to delete the file in the itunes on my pc, then synchronise. it sucks.
Parent
Re:One Can Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
there are no restrictions for applications, the developer have a wide choice of developer tools (vb, visual c++, any .net language with netcf support, third party tools like lazarus).
Its a pretty sad world when Windows is less anti-competitive then someone else.
Parent
Developers, Developers, Developers (Score:5, Insightful)
Right from day 1, Bill Gates knows that it's 3rd party developers who make his OS successful. That's why Ballmer goes around shouting "developers, developers".
Parent
Re:One Can Hope (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple's cut (30%) is extremely low for what you get. Unlimited distribution, completely flexible pricing, international markets, hosting, updates, auto-pariticpation in their "top 100" lists and "feature apps", etc. And the $99 entry fee is also very comparatively low. If you can't make back $99/year on the App Store, you're doing it wrong.
And if the argument is ease of development, Apple definitely has Google beat so far regardless of ones ability to share. I'm no huge fan of XCode, but iPhone development is really easy. So easy that here we are less than two months after release and there's thousands of apps. My guess is that within a few months all the big names will have their stuff ported including Skype. So from a user's point of view.
So it's good for the users, and good for the developers. In return, you occasionally (4 apps so far out of 3000) get slapped down by Apple. I don't think it's going to affect the market much.
Parent
Re:One Can Hope (Score:5, Informative)
The first Android phone, the HTC Dream, will be out "soon" [engadget.com]. Beware the curse of the early adopter however; while the Dream may (or may not) live up to its name, later offerings will surely be better.
Parent
Re:One Can Hope (Score:4, Informative)
Why should it follow that an open design leads to no profit
Uhh, he didn't say that. Weird, you got modded insightful for it. I guess the mods fell for your strawman. What he said was "If openness coincides sufficiently well with developer self-interest, then openness may win out as well." Given MS's success in software, which is far *far* from open, I'd say he's absolutely right.
Parent
Re:One Can Hope (Score:4, Interesting)
If they released all their software to Symbian OS, at least S60 with high end device features (e.g. N95) simultaneously, that would teach Apple. It would be a great favour to Symbian users too. I am not speaking about high end,commercial software of course.
Not applying for iPhone competition or WWDC something doesn't match it.
Funny is, there is a huge fight in Symbian scene, people ask Nokia (the Godfather) why they gave up their "Download! for PC" which was working perfectly, years ago before iPhone was even mentioned.
Yes, believe or not, Nokia had "App store" on Windows OS at least and still has it inside every recent S60 phones ROM, not an option even, that app is on every phones root level menu. The result? Still not updated! I think Apple already knows the Symbian platform is not really competitive with current management so they feel comfortable taking decisions like that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, a friend and I have recently come up with two ideas for fun phone apps, and have been waffling between doing them for iPhone or for Android.
The coolness and market base of iPhone combine to create a strong draw towards iPhone. But at the same time, I'm already a seasoned Java developer and learning Objective-C and Cocoa is a pretty hefty hurdle to overcome when I'd like to get things rolling quickly.
Additional crap like this is making me lean more and more away from iPhone and increasingly toward
Well, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
The last comment clearly has it right. The iPhone is not a platform, it's Apple's toy that you're allowed to use. Is anybody really surprised?
You're never going to be allowed to use alternative hardware, obviously, and with the subscription status and deals with phone companies, you're going to be seriously restricted when it comes to software. How long did it take them to allow any third party programs on their phone?
Re:Well, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the problem with language. Once Apple sells the phone, it is no longer Apple's phone - it is the customer's.
Since WHEN has apple ever allowed people to own their own equipment? Apple has never been about freedom (as in beer, or choice apparently), it has been more like a mortgage company.. Leasing you the use of your home/equipment until such time as they see fit to no longer support it. It was a great frustration to me, when I use to service Apple computers (eons ago... Back before the last ice age..) to not be able to order a replacement part from a 3rd party source with ease. Apple, for as long as I can
Re:Well, yeah (Score:5, Informative)
[citation needed]
What sort of Apple hardware parts aren't standardized these days? All of the system internals are relatively "normal," and don't seem to contain a sufficiently higher percentage of proprietary bits than a Dell would.
I'm not a fan of their iPhone strategy, but this other information seems pretty blatantly false. Apple lets its users run Windows on their machines (and helps them do so, a la Boot Camp, and their publicized support of Parallels/VMWare). I ran Ubuntu on my old G4 without a problem. The only major linux support issues on any remotely recent mac have to do with NVidia's lack of open drivers, rather than anything specific to Apple.
The iPhone/iPod software licensing seems a bit draconian, though nobody's forcing you to buy one...
I have a Mac, and I use it as I see fit. I'll probably get a touchscreen iPod once Apple comes to its senses regarding app licensing (which, to be fair, is a lot more liberal than how most phone companies treat 3rd-party apps)
Parent
Re:Well, yeah (Score:4, Funny)
I'm on an iPhone so take this as you will.
my phone, their app store. no one is bitching about not being able to buy windows vista or a Zen at an apple retail location.
Parent
Re:Well, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only are restrictions placed on the app store, but on the device itself. It wouldn't be a problem if anyone could set up their own app store to distribute software to iPhone users.
no one is bitching about not being able to buy windows vista or a Zen at an apple retail location.
A better analogy would be buying a Mac and then only being allowed to buy software from Apple retail locations.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It wouldn't be a problem if anyone could set up their own app store to distribute software to iPhone users.
I'm also an iPhone owner, people and companies are already doing this.
A vast amount of iPhone users have their phones jailbroken (if this poll posted earlier today [engadget.com] is any indication, it would seem the majority do) thanks to the iphone-dev team. Cydia is a GUI application installed which uses apt at the backend, just like debian/ubuntu, for installing third party software. Pretty much anyone can get an
Re:Well, yeah (Score:5, Informative)
if this poll posted earlier today [engadget.com] is any indication, it would seem the majority do [have their iPhones jailbroken]
You're not serious? Not only is that statement contrary to all common sense, but that poll has all the statistical reliability of a Slashdot poll. For a start, non-technical users tend not to read Engadget, let alone know how to get an iPhone jailbroken.
I take your point that you can jailbreak your iPhone to allow third-party software, but it's far from the same thing as Apple allowing any third-party software on their phone.
For a start, most iPhone users won't have the first clue who iphone-dev are, what Cydia or even a GUI is, what apt is or what Debian/Ubuntu are. To the average user, iPhone applications come from the app store - that's the end of it. For these users, who I imagine make up the vast majority, Apple controls the software they're allowed to install on their iPhone.
Parent
Re:Well, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
It is time for us to start supporting OpenMoko instead of complaining about apple's policies!
--jeffk++
Parent
Apple Design Awards (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple Design Awards (Score:5, Insightful)
A boycott of the iPhone Apple Design Awards would undoubtedly send a message to Apple, but I doubt it could be pulled off. Those awards are coveted; it's such a big temptation for developers that they won't miss out on it just for a stand on principles.
If that be the case, then what they have are not principles at all.
Parent
Apple stop the insanity! (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope this trend ends soon. The screening of apps started not long ago and I think was a result of the amount of crap that Apple allowed to sell on the store. Between the numerous "flash light" apps and the infamous "I am Rich" app a lot of people were annoyed at the signal to noise ratio. Then there was "Netshare" which was pulled because it violated ATTs terms of service (luckily I got my copy early.)
My guess is that Apple responded to all this by making it some middle manager's responsibility to come up with a set of ground rules to "improve" the situation. He/she/the committe or whatever obviously went way overboard. As a potential iPhone developer it gives me the chills that you could spend months on a project just to have it rejected for a rediculous reason like the one here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"As a potential iPhone developer it gives me the chills that you could spend months on a project just to have it rejected for a rediculous reason like the one here."
If Apple really wants that tight control, they should allow a way for proposals to be submitted before development begins. That way months aren't wasted on the project, and you would know early on whether your project is bad. (I'm not an Apple Store dev so I don't know if this is currently an option).
Actually, maybe it's not such a great idea be
Re:Apple stop the insanity! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. The screening of apps starting in the very beginning with a process designed to enable that very thing. Apple stated from the start that they would be screening apps. Only fools believe it's for anything other than Apple's best interests.
Parent
Re:Apple stop the insanity! (Score:5, Interesting)
iPhone is neat hardware.
Yes it is. Artificial and intentional crippling makes me really angry because this device is capable of doing so much more. It's a beautiful device will horrible restrictions that would make even Microsoft blush. Crippling is enough to make one not become an Apple developer.
*Crosses fingers* C'MON ANDROID!!!
Parent
People are surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have stated multiple times on Slashdot and have multiple times be called a troll...
THIS is EXACTLY the same behavior Apple exhibited with the Apple and their token program!
Ah, but this is so old news (over 20 years ago) that people tend to have forgotten!
Now Apple is all good and dandy! BS!
Re:People are surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have stated multiple times on Slashdot and have multiple times be called a troll...
THIS is EXACTLY the same behavior Apple exhibited with the Apple and their token program!
Ah, but this is so old news (over 20 years ago) that people tend to have forgotten!
Now Apple is all good and dandy! BS!
Yeah, I know what you mean. I posted on this same story and said that a company which believes in its products isn't afraid of competition; I was almost instantly modded Redundant even though all preceding comments were about whether the iPhone can be considered a "platform". It seems that Apple is another of these near-religious subjects that weak-minded people get all upset over and of course that's your fault for saying something with which they disagree. In a society where many children don't even know who their father is, it seems that there is a lack of calm, collected, strong-minded men not given to this type of childish impulsiveness who could perhaps model a better example of how to live. Make no mistake, it is about how to live; that sort of impulsive, reactionary mentality is not at all limited to this subject or this Web site. If anyone perceives my disdain of it as being caused by a lower score on a Slashdot posting, they have missed my point entirely.
Parent
Re:People are surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple is no more nor is it any less evil than Microsoft or any of their ilk. Is it any surprise that they're exercising strict control over the iPhone? No. No. No, not at all!! It's the same behavior Apple has exhibited with everything it produces!
"Let's be clear: forbidding 'duplication of functionality' is forbidding competition. The point of competition is to do the same thing, but better."
Sure. Why would they want to possibly put themselves in the position of admitting that someone "did iTunes" better than they do? Their business practices and marketing are almost the same thing; they need to promote "Cult of [Apple]" and to effectively justify their approach they need to be able to say, "No. We did that application/utility better. See what our strict adherence to our policies brought us? A better product." If they can't say that then the millions (billions?) they've spent on their marketing for the last 30 years is worthless.
They built the cult for a reason.
Parent
It is not an open platform (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It is not an open platform (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
tell me again... (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell me again why this phone is so cool?
Re:tell me again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it costs a lot
Parent
Prepare to be spun (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's what's going to happen. It'll happen because it always happens.
Apple gets caught with its pants down. Everyone condemns Apple while its PR teams huddle together to find a way to deal with the issue. Finally, Apple announces that the issue was to do with an oversight caused by a miscommunication caused by an unrelated issue that actually was a case of the application not being approved yet, not that it was really rejected.
People outside of Apple circles will laugh, but then be flamed endlessly for laughing to the point that we no longer want to talk about it any more.
Happened when Apple was using cheap third world labour to build iPods. Happened when Apple stopped releasing source code to Darwin. And it's going to happen again. Apple will, as with those issues, completely reverse itself, while making it sound like it was its policy all along.
So I'm not even going to bother. Here's the thing though: this is Apple's mentality. They will try to lock down iPhone if they can. They do in many areas already, and they will continue to do so. I can swap out a SIM in an iPhone and tether my laptop to a real cellphone instead, and it'll work, but Apple bans applications that allows you to use iPhone for this. I can install any application I want on my Motorola V635 - which isn't even something most people would describe as a "smartphone" but is, thanks to J2ME, completely programmable and has oodles of storage space thanks to microSD - but I can only install "approved" applications on an "smart" iPhone.
So yes, Apple will reverse itself on this issue, and all of you criticizing it now will be criticized as lying Apple haters who misrepresented what Apple was doing. But iPhone will always be a locked down platform. And as long as it is, there will be many of us who will just steer clear of it.
And if what you want is a locked down platform, don't start whining when you hear some app developer has been screwed over because of it.
SDK Agreement, anyone read it? (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, I've cut and paste what I found to be relevant to this topic, two paragraphs of the Terms and Conditions of the iPhone SDK download Agreement and the first paragraph of the iPhone Application Submission Agreement.
SDK Terms and Conditions
1. Relationship With Apple Inc. ("Apple"). You understand and agree by becoming a Registered iPhone Developer, no legal partnership or agency relationship is created between you and Apple. Neither you nor Apple is a partner, an agent or has any authority to bind the other. You agree not to represent otherwise. You also certify that you are of the legal age of majority in the jurisdiction in which you reside (at least 18 years of age in many countries) and you represent that you are legally permitted to become a Registered iPhone Developer. This Agreement is void where prohibited by law, and the right to become a Registered iPhone Developer is not granted in such jurisdictions.
9. Apple Independent Development. Nothing in this Agreement will impair Apple's right to develop, acquire, license, market, promote or distribute products, software or technologies that perform the same or similar functions as, or otherwise compete with any other products, software or technologies that you may develop, produce, market, or distribute. In the absence of a separate written agreement to the contrary, Apple will be free to use any information, suggestions or recommendations you provide to Apple for any purpose, subject to any applicable patents or copyrights.
iPhone App Submission Agreement
1. iPhone GTM Programs. The web applications you submit will be considered for inclusion in Apple's iPhone product pages, ADC web pages, Apple eNews programs and other related Apple developer and marketing web pages and programs (collectively "iPhone GTM Programs"). You understand and agree that Apple has complete discretion over whether to include your web applications in any iPhone GTM Program. You also understand and agree that Apple reserves the right, at its complete discretion and without prior notice to you, to remove your web applications from any and/or all iPhone GTM Programs. Should Apple decide to include your web application in one or more iPhone GTM Programs, you agree that Apple shall have the right, and you hereby grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive right and license, to use, reproduce, publicly display, reference, link to, and distribute in connection with such iPhone GTM Programs, your web application URL and all related information and materials (including without limitation images, trademarks, and logos) you provide with your submission to Apple (collectively, the "Submitted Materials").
End Result
Apple covered themselves very well on this topic and basically, if you are going to develop an app for the iPhone, you should be well aware of the risks and they are fairly, clearly stated.
Openmoko (Score:4, Funny)
Come on in, the water's fine in the Openmoko pool! A truly free platform, and anything compiled for Linux on an ARM CPU will run (assuming the dependencies are also present).
I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a fan of Apple hardware. I've got an iPod Touch. I'd never use the app in question because I'm happy with the way iTunes handles my podcasts.
But I don't see why Apple should care about this app. I assumed the Slashdot summary was way off base, which more often than not is the case nowadays - but it's pretty accurate in this instance. So why is Apple doing this? As far as I know they don't make money off of podcasts - heck, most of them are free. So why should they care? Are they worried that, somehow, this will be used to move other files onto the iPod/iPhone? I just can't figure it out (and yeah, I'm discounting with prejudice the conspiracy theories that seem to be rampant here today - those don't really stand up to any sort of analysis either).
It just doesn't make sense.
Re:Competition? (Score:5, Interesting)
To ensure that developers keep using their platform?
To make sure that the Latest and Greatest apps are developed, first and foremost, for the iPhone and not for the Android or another platform?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is up to customer. If they have rejected to buy iPhone because of how Apple handles it, things could change.
Are they happily buying and lining up? Oh, some percentage of them hacks their iPhone, it doesn't matter to Apple at all. In fact, Apple would be happier since they have all void their warranty ;)
I still don't get the point of Android and I am a Symbian/J2ME user. Google should explain why they don't put their force behind Symbian and J2ME instead.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From a business standpoint, why should they allow it?
1) Make iPhone more useful
2) Sell more iPhones
3) Profit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It can also eat away at their bottom line just as easily.
Its a business risk they don't feel is worth doing.
I think that's inherently part of the problem. When you're an upstart company or at least new to a particular market (especially in a market full of established, entrenched competitors), you're more willing to take a risk like that because the very business itself is a risk that could easily fail. When your brand becomes well-known and you become more and more established, there is also a tendency to become more and more conservative because you like your current position and are interested in keeping it.
Re:Fiefdom (Score:5, Insightful)
You can. The problem is that if you want to make money, selling iPhone apps is the way to go, not selling Symbian Apps. At this time there are far more Symbian smartphones out there than iPhones. But for the most part owners don't buy any software that doesn't come with the device.
Apple have made it so easy to purchase applications that lots of people do.
Oh, and I spend years writing Symbian software. The iPhone SDK and tools are about 100 times nicer and faster to work with.
Parent
Are you serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is the integrity in a developer knowingly creating an application to do something a product already does? You mean to tell me that in the marketplace of ideas that developers are so bereft of creativity that they cannot think of something unique?
You're either not serious, or out of your mind.
Are you seriously trying to say that a developer should never develop an application that does something another application already does? Even if it does that something much better than the original?
In that case, we don't need Firefox or Opera because we have Safari; we don't need Adium because we have iChat; we don't need VLC because we have Quicktime.
Screw competition! Right?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck 'em. There's competition licking at their heals, and short of the semi-retarded Apple fanbois, folks will go to the competition, and leave the mental midgets that dream of giving blow Jobs, Apple will be fucked.
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Interesting)
The competition honesty isn't up to scratch yet. The vast majority people care about how well the device works and how the interact with it, not the business policies of the manufacturer and carrier (God knows that no carrier would be in business if that was the case). I'd absolutely love to see more genuine competition in this area, as the iPhone certainly has a number of shortcomings. But most of the companies are just trying to hop on the touchscreen bandwagon and completely miss the point. My iPhone experience has been for the most part very positive (AT&T much less so, but again, that's true of all carriers) - it's got some small things that bother me, but for the most part nothing major (that isn't specific to AT&T).
Now I've got the original model, and the 3G model seems to be having quite a number of other things causing problems so I've been relatively unaffected. I've experienced the slow backups and some unstable apps (some are better than others, to say the least, though on the whole the 1.x jailbreak apps were somewhat more solid for whatever technical reason) which has been mostly addressed by the most recent firmware. My two issues that remain are a lack of CalDAV calendar support directly on the device (the desktop iCal supports it, but you can only sync local calendars and one subscribed calendar via Exchange/MobileMe) and some weird WiFi issue that I think are more related to bad signal strength than something software-related.
Point being that on the whole, the device is fairly solid. Competition is a very good thing, no questions about it. But I've seen and played with the "competition". While some of those devices have things that some people bitch about (MMS and video recording to name two; I care about neither), they still tend to have clunky software interfaces and other arbitrary restrictions put in place by the carrier in order to charge you that much more. Hell, as far as I'm aware Verizon still disables Bluetooth data access on most phones so they can charge you $1.99/mo for their proprietary phonebook syncing (I didn't think to ask despite being in one of their stores today; my father was getting his second-time-broken Blackberry replaced by a lying and mostly incompetent albeit attractive sales rep). That kind of stupid nickel-and-diming BS is half the reason I left Verizon for AT&T in the first place. Of course, they're guilty too for the most part, but Apple negotiated some pretty reasonable deals for the first-gen phone, at least as far as the cell industry is concerned.
I'm NOT defending Apple here - I think blocking an app for this reason is absolutely despicable. I hope competition comes along and applies some real pressure. I hope that Android comes along and starts kicking ass. But that hasn't happened yet. There's no denying that Apple raised the bar on cell phones in quite a number of different areas and they've seen a lot of success as a result - but I certainly hope that information is used against them to create even better products. Like you imply, competition is absolutely a good thing. It's just not all there yet.
Parent
Why? The App Store isn't just a "walled garden".. (Score:4, Insightful)
... but a "walled garden with land mines." Speaking as a developer, with Apple's terms of service, you not only can't see the land mines in the garden, but you can't even see the walls.
Speaking as a developer, it won't be possible to treat the iPhone as a viable platform for building and running a business until Apple comes clean with its real terms of service and requirements. Right now you have no idea if the app you're working on will ever be allowed to see the light of day.
It's reminiscent of what's happened with eBay over the last few years. Literally thousands of people quit their day jobs to build their businesses around eBay, and now they're finding themselves elbowed aside. eBay altered their deal, and all a small-time seller can do is pray that they don't alter it further. Right now, iPhone developers are in the exact same boat: completely at the mercy of a company whose interests are only coincidentally aligned with the "sharecroppers" who bring the real value to the table.
Parent
Re:Wait a second.. (Score:5, Informative)
Hello, antitrust lawsuit. Welcome to Microsoft's shoes, Apple.
I don't think the iPhone is popular enough for that yet. They aren't leveraging a monopoly, because they don't have one.
I think it's much more likely that we will see antitrust action about the lock-in between newer iPods and iTunes (Only iTunes can put music on those, because a special hash has to be generated). Apple is very dominant in the mp3-player market, and they are using that to dominate the market for media player software -- and to promote the iTunes store.
Parent