Macworld Forums: Apple lets crowd-funded developers sidestep App Store policies - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Apple lets crowd-funded developers sidestep App Store policies here

Not all Kickstarter-funded apps had it so easy. Tapose was held up for months and months with erratic or no response as to why from Apple. Their approval processes are subjective, at best.

wonderl, on 17 May 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

While there are issues on Apple's side, most of the time when there is a major hold up the developer is at least partially at fault. Given that Tapose has been plagued by instability and currently has a two and half star rating on the App Store, I suspect the delayed approval was not simply Apple being difficult.

This post has been edited by Stewsburntmonkey: 17 May 2012 - 10:26 AM

Being the ever broken record on this issue, why should people that want to play "Zombies, Run" on their own property need Apple's permission. Ever.

This post has been edited by klahanas: 17 May 2012 - 01:44 PM

klahanas, on 17 May 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Because it's Apple's model. And for all but a few edge cases, for me the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.

If you want something "completely open" (Which is a fallacy right off the bat) there are plenty of other alternatives for you to choose from.

Then again you already know that and are just complaining, yet again, about something that will never change because it's a major feature of Apple's overall design. Nor do I want it to change. Apple's model leads to stability, predictability and true appliance computing. If you don't like that model then pick another vendor that more fits YOUR wants. But stop trying to limit MY choice because you think Apple should play by everyone else's rules

Stewsburntmonkey, on 17 May 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Exactly. How many readers glossed over the fact that the developers talked with Apple early and often about what they were doing? Even though it was emphasized in the story?

And then the fact that the "evil Apple" actually <gasp> worked with the developers.

Oh noze! That can't be! They must just be fanboi's!

Sigh....

DocNo, on 18 May 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

Because there is nothing, in principle, from both of us having what we want. If you want to be curated, stay App Store only, for me (and other's) remove the obstacle to the options. The only one imposing anything on anybody is you know who...
The position which you support imposes "App Store Only" on everyone. Boolean logic that even a third grader could understand.

This post has been edited by klahanas: 18 May 2012 - 10:01 AM

DocNo, on 18 May 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

Because the developer's shouldn't need to check with anyone about realizing their vision for the the product they intend to produce. They should not have to rely on the good graces of the manufacturer to be "allowed" to produce a program. If you support that position, that ultimately has no impact on you (you can choose to use or not to use), then "Oh noze...".

klahanas, on 18 May 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Dan Frakes rightly mentions Fitt's Law. You would do well to read up on the science behind Usability. One of the other rules is that there is such a thing as "too much choice."

Look at a typical high street or shopping mall. Not a single one of those shops allows random strangers to walk up to the shop's owner and demand that their products be stocked and sold there. So why do you expect Apple to be any different?

If you want a more open ecosystem, go buy an Android phone and install a GNU / Linux distribution on your home computer. That's the only "choice" you are entitled to. I happen to prefer the "gated community" approach taken by Apple over the god-awful "bazaar" preferred by the GNU and FOSS communities. Everyone has their own tastes and many, whether you choose to believe it or not, do NOT agree with the FOSS community's insistence that every company on the planet must worship at the feet of Richard bloody Stallman.

stimarco, on 18 May 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

You misunderstand me being an open source proponent. I have no objection to it (unlike the kind of thinking being defended here). I am a freedom of expression proponent. Even Windows, the second most "closed source" ecosystem, allows ANY content. Here they are copying Apple in the mobile space, and they are subject to the same criticism (though they have more latitude in hardware).

I don't know about Fitt's Law, but I get where your going with this. There can exist a default configuration to fit Fitt's Law. Just as English has become the "standard" language of commerce (it was once French), it's certainly not the only way to do commerce. Commerce is done in all the world's languages. It could be done in Fortan for all I care.


As far as your shopping mall analogy, it's quite appropriate. You miss the point a little bit though. The device is the mall, and the "App Store" is the only allowed store. If you choose to only shop there, be my guest, but don't support "everyone has to shop there". That's equivalent to mandating a mall only have a Walmart (or Target if you prefer).

Regarding choice. In the physical world choice is called entropy. Through the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is maximized, for spontaneous (natural) events. To have maximum choice, is the nature of things. To fight entropy you need to spend energy, so Fitt's Law is by necessity energy intensive.

So in summary, you can have an "optimum for the averages" default configuration, and a more liberal one at the same time. Exclusion is authoritarian.

This post has been edited by klahanas: 18 May 2012 - 12:46 PM

Back on topic please. If you'd like to argue about Apple versus Android policy, please do so via PM.