Apple Rejects iPhone App As Competitive To iTunes 375
DaveyJJ sends news of yet another rejection of an iPhone app by Apple, with perhaps a chilling twist for potential developers of productivity or utility apps. John Gruber of Daring Fireball writes: "Let's be clear: forbidding 'duplication of functionality' is forbidding competition. The point of competition is to do the same thing, but better." 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. And Dave Weiner argues that the iPhone isn't a "platform" at all: "The idea that it's a platform should mean no individual or company has the power to turn you off."
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.
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)
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.
It is not an open platform (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, yeah (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 remember, has focused on proprietary rights.. THEIR rights. It's shown in past computers, it's shown in their software, and now it's showing in this. Quite frustrating and has kept me from even considering owning a Mac. How can I pay money to a company that has only recently started loosening their stranglehold on where their product can be used, and how? When allowing freedom of software choice because financially lucrative and trendy... THEN apple will endorse it. Not a moment before.
Re:tell me again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it costs a lot
Re:Apple Design Awards (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Competition? (Score:2, Insightful)
They seem to have been doing ok running 'exclusive'. So i pose the question again, why should they invite competition?
As a side note, there are some similar non compete restrictions when you buy Visual studio from Microsoft, so this isn't like its a new concept and they seem to be doing well with 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.
Re:Competition? (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: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.
Re:Well, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
It is time for us to start supporting OpenMoko instead of complaining about apple's policies!
--jeffk++
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?
Re:WHY?! (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:Apple stop the insanity! (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 because Apple could just reject your idea, and make their own, better one based on your designs.
Re:Competition? (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. I'm sure I am greatly oversimplifying things but I think this is largely responsible for the general perception that "it was great until it got really popular; now it sucks". I think what we're seeing here is something in-between, as Apple is not a Microsoft-type juggernaut but they're certainly not unknown either.
Wait a second.. (Score:2, Insightful)
They rejected an iPhone app because it COMPETES with the iTunes service?
Hello, antitrust lawsuit. Welcome to Microsoft's shoes, Apple.
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.
I hate arguing semantics, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
"And Dave Weiner argues that the iPhone isn't a "platform" at all: "The idea that it's a platform should mean no individual or company has the power to turn you off.""
I disagree. All of the modern game consoles are clearly platforms, yet you must have approval in order to develop and sell software for them. You have to submit your game to MS, Sony or Nintendo and they have to approve it. They can (and will) refuse authoring and certification of your game if you fail to meet their criteria. Granted, I don't think they've ever refused a game due to competition (only technical issues) but they can still refuse. The iPhone is a de facto platform. Whining about how it isn't open enough won't change that.
This is Apple after all, they've been locking people into developing software *their* way for as long as I can remember. Apple stopped being about openness a long time ago.
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.
Re:Competition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One Can Hope (Score:1, Insightful)
Right, so Asus, Chaintech, and all those other manfacturers lost out by not following IBM's philosophy in proprietary design and instead agreed that motherboard mounts and expansion slot positioning should be an open standard, huh?
Why should it follow that an open design leads to no profit? Generations before us made millions by opening and standardizing physical form factors. When was the last time your standard PC tech at best buy had to deal with an expansion bus card that held expansion cards parallel to the motherboard?
There's been sucessful and unsucessful attempts at open standards, but the concept can not be dismissed automatically as unsucessful.
Re:Non-story (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, you're being fairly silly. While it's probably completely within Apple's rights to do this, it's a total shoot-themselves-in-the-foot move. The computer world is full of competing software, and for every Apple written application out there, there's a big pile of competing apps available. More often then not, the Apple apps are be able to stand successfully on their own. Apple doesn't need to lock out competitors to be successful, they just need to keep making quality software, and that plus their brand name pretty much guarantees them success.
But even if I took your silly "developers should know better than to make a competing application" idea as valid, try to think ahead a little. What if I write a completely original application, and then six months later Apple comes out with their own version. Do they shut down my competing app then? Is my user base then unable to get updates? What if some other third-party developer pays Apple for the right to be the only notepad available? Will Apple kick all the other notepad apps out of the store?
All those questions are valid concerns for developers. A lot of people are motivated to spend the time making things because they're interested in sharing them with others, whether for profit or for free. If they aren't convinced that they'll be allowed to share those apps, then they'll go make their software for a different platform. I don't know why Apple would want that.
Re:Openmoko (Score:1, Insightful)
But can it make phone calls yet?
Re:One Can Hope (Score:2, Insightful)
For people with OS X development experience, the learning curve is minimal to non existent.
Yep, it's exactly like coding for Mac OS X, except you have the extra step of praying to whichever deity you think will help you the most that your app isn't too good.
There's nothing quite like enforced mediocrity.
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.
Re:Well, yeah (Score:2, Insightful)
For those users, every computer comes standard with Windows, Microsoft Word is a text editor, e-mail composer and web page maker, virusses are things you get when you stand in the wind too long, there is also a prince in africa that wants to give them $100,000 and Comic Sans is the best font to use in e-mail conversations and resume's.
Jailbreaking is not that difficult anymore, I've seen less than competent managers do it just so they could load a specific program. Giving them a nice app as a front-end to apt is a good incentive, it gives them what they want, an "app-store" with unofficial programs. If the market or appeal for a product is big enough and the user doesn't mind loading an extra application on their machine (as if they even mind loading that hot-grits-natalie-portman.avi.exe from e-mail) they will do it, Apple will eventually either succumb to it or their app store will die.
Re:One Can Hope (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be happy to favor an open platform if anyone used the devices.
But heres the reality of it, there are millions of iPhones out there and no openmoko or android phones worth meantioning. So while its great to be an idealist and 'do the right thing', I'll have to be honest with you, I'd rather be able to sell my software and eat.
And thats pretty much how everyone else without someone to support them feels as well. It easy to be an idealist living with mommy and daddy, a little harder when you have to feed yourself and possibly others.
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.
Re:Isn't it about time the law did something? (Score:2, Insightful)
The situation's different: Apple is the distributor of these apps, and simply choosing not to sell a product doesn't exactly a monopoly make. Just because your local Ford dealership doesn't sell Chevys doesn't open it up for a lawsuit, and voiding your warranty if you put a competitor's part on your Ford doesn't either.
Yes, it's a car analogy, I apologize.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People are surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now Apple is all good and dandy! BS!
Huh? Who is saying that? Normally pro-Apple blogs are almost universally against this, tech sites like Slashdot are almost universally against this, so who's on Apple's side here?
Perhaps you might like to read some of the comments in this topic today and recalibrate your sense of reality.
Re:One Can Hope (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing about it is, talented developers often find themselves in the "software architect" position on projects; that is, deciding upon which platform to build a project. While popularity of a platform (and therefore the possibility of profit) does have an impact on that decision, many developers find that it's simply easier to code on open platforms, as well as obtain assistance from the community that's built up around them.
Economic reasons are not the only thing looked at, in other words.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are asserting that a platform's amenability to shortened development cycles ("easier to code on") and the availability of a free development support structure ("assistance from the community") aren't "economic reasons" for picking one platform over another?
This isn't so difficult. (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously folks, why in god's name would a company help you take away business from them? Why?
As a society, we value a free market and competition. But those are anathema to businesses. They don't want competition, because they're not in a friendly little game of "who can make the coolest stuff;" they are in the game of "who continues to have food on the table." Individually, there is probably not a single person at Apple who doesn't understand the importance of competition to innovation. But at the business level, it's not about innovation; it's about making money.
The only reason we are lucky enough to have a modicum of competition, ladies and gentlemen, is that our governments require it. We break up monopolies and we put regulations on companies so they don't end up enslaving people like they did before the New Deal. It is not those companies' responsibility to make sure that someone can undercut their profits; it's their responsibility to make as much money as they possibly can for their shareholders and employees. It is government's job to step in every once in awhile to set some ground rules if it would be in everyone's best interest to do so.
If you want to force every company to actually expend time and energy making sure they create ways for other companies to compete with them, then you're going to have to get some legislation written up and passed to do that, because no company on earth wants to spend their money on making sure other people make money. But we all know such a bill would never even be written, let alone passed. Because it is patently insane.
Apple's product is its smooth user experience. It creates this by severely limiting options. You want to do X, Y or Z? Well, according to Apple's market research, you're in a tiny minority and your demographic isn't worth enough to justify opening this, that, or the other, which may end up allowing other companies to gobble some of their profits. That's business. If they find that enough people are finding restrictions frustrating, and the experience is therefore not smooth, and this seems to be losing them sales, then the economics of the situation will change, and so will Apple's policy. As it is now, their number-crunchers have (rightly, I suspect) determined that the danger to the bottom line of opening the platform is greater than the potential benefit of all 4,000 people in the world who wouldn't buy the product otherwise going down to the Apple Store and picking one up.
This isn't a free-market calamity, folks. Apple does not have a monopoly on smart phones, just on the iPhone. I think if you'll be honest with yourself, the real problem is that you want one, but the closed platform bugs you, and that makes you blather on about freedom and standards instead of just shrugging your shoulders and buying something else.
In short, suck it up. Apple is a company and they can do whatever the hell they want. They want their phone to be linked to the whole iTunes/iTMS service package so they can deliver a complete experience at the cost of choice? Fine; it's their product. They don't want to sell competing products through their service? Of course they don't; that's their prerogative. You don't like it? Then don't buy one, or buy one and jailbreak it. But don't whine and complain. It's a luxury product, for chrissakes.
Apple isn't being the "bad guy" here; they're just doing their jobs.
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".
Re:Hence why no iphone for me (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there was NetShare. Granted, AT&T called the shots there, but that doesn't make the application any less banned.
Re:It is not an open platform (Score:3, Insightful)
Corrections (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlimited distribution
not really. It's limited to whoever can buy from the iPhone App Store. You can't -also- distribute it via a third party vendor, or on your own website. Now if you could, then it's unlimited.
You have a mistaken notion of distribution. Just because you cannot physically put the binary on your website and have them download it from you, does not mean you cannot virtually distribute it through your own website, or through an aggregator.
After all, if a user clicks on a link, and gets an application - what difference is it to them if the binary came from Apple or your website? I can place a link on my website that takes them directly to the purchasing page on the phone. I can place advertisements in magazines or online that do the same.
Completely flexible pricing
I would hope so.. it's your app. Or did I miss strong-arming by some mysterious industry when it comes to pricing of Windows Mobile / Symbian apps somewhere?
Do various cell phone companies all allow free apps or do they have a minimum - since after all the phone company gets a cut...
With Windows Mobile you indeed have the freedom to set whatever price you like. After all, only a handful of people will ever even know your app exists. Truly a superior situation, which is why WWDC was full of Windows Mobile developers....
international markets
it's on the web; how much less international can you get
Spoken from someone who has never handled international payments before, or tried to market and distribute internationally. How english centric can you be to declare that simply putting something up on a website is the same as marketing AND DISTRIBUTING internationally. How well is your app going to sell if the web page with the overview is slow as molasses, or even a tiny binary takes a while to get?
hosting
I'll give you that - although if you're serious about your app, then I'm sure the 30% you'd save would go a long way towards hosting your app; these aren't exactly apps that need to be distributed as ISOs.
Hosting is more than just size and bandwidth. It's also availability and redundancy, all of which are expensive. And again we aren't just talking about hosting and distribution but also a channel where the user can easily find your application.
updates
'll give you that as well - although it's not exactly difficult to send your registered users an e-mail, or include automatic update checking (if the platform allows it), or for somebody to write an app for the platform that automatically checks installed apps' versions online.
Users hate marketing email and I hate sending it out (also being a user myself of other apps). Like you say you can work in updating mechanisms, but again this comes down to extra time and effort and more distribution issues.
top 100 list + featured apps
Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. As there -is- only one store for iPhone apps, that store is hugely popular - it could suck ass and it would still be hugely popular, as it is the -only- place you can get (without jailbreaking and so forth and so on) your iPhone apps. So if you were to choose to post your iPhone app on your own site - besides risking getting booted from the iPhoone dev bits - you're not going to be included in the most popular (and only) iPhone app store's rankings.. and people (buyers and sellers alike) looooove them some rankings.
Both of those things are huge sales boosts, but simply like winning the lottery. That is to say, in the practical lives of day to day application developers they are irrelevant. What really matters again is all the infrastructure that Apple is taking care of, and a clear and direct channel to and from the user to your application.
Marketing is much easier if the user has an easier path to act on your message. And that is where Apple has really made things great, by creating what I think is just about the least amount of distance between a user and your application.
Re:One Can Hope (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree - MS has actually done some really cool stuff lately and Apple some really stupid stuff.
I think right now developers are in a good place - MS seems to be reacting to the competition from Apple and Linux/Android by making things better for *us*, which makes it better for the consumers in the long run.
Popfly has gotten my kid finally interested in programming (much like basic did for me), XNA is a blast, and even Studio Express is pretty nice for a free dev studio.
Compared to Apple getting nastier daily, I'd say that things will even out sooner or later.
I still think it's BS to have ANY company control the stuff that I can run on a device I purchased (which is why I'm still pro Linux/BSD). Apple is going the wrong direction on this one.
Re:One Can Hope (Score:3, Insightful)
> I'd be happy to favor an open platform if anyone used the devices.
You should consider Symbian then. Last time I looked, it had 20 times the market share of Apple.
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.
Re:One Can Hope (Score:2, Insightful)
How about being dog slow and unreliable?
Mart
Re:One Can Hope (Score:3, Insightful)
you have to make the operation on a completely different device. if you don't have access to your pc, you are s.o.l. you cannot access your files without your pc and itunes, you cannot install applications without your pc and itunes. it is a much more complicated approach.
Re:It is not an open platform (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One Can Hope (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean there are people here that are sad enough to actually give a shit about their Slashdot karma rating? Oh dear.
Too bad Apple is morphing into Sony (Score:3, Insightful)
The last great truly innovative and OPEN product Apple made was the 12 inch G4 Powerbook IMO. Yes I have an ipod touch and a G5 tower but I won't be getting any more Apple products if they become an entirely closed mainly consumer electronics focused company.
Dual booting XP and Ubuntu isn't THAT bad that I'm not wiling to put up with more of this crap on a computer which is supposed to be a UNIVERSAL Turing machine. It's getting worse than Microsoft who I left to get a Mac in the first place.