[sheilanolan]

I get really frustrated with Apple and the App Store as there seems to be no logic to it. They will pull apps for no reason, location-based apps appear in the UK store that are totally useless for UK users (e.g. traffic camera apps for US cities), sometimes an app may vanish for a while and no reason is given (e.g. WordPad has temporarily gone). In the beginning, they allowed in a large number of apps that were either rubbish or pointless - anyone remember the "flashlight" apps that were just a coloured screen? Now, it seems they are changing the goalposts. I wouldn't mind if there was somewhere else I could get apps for my non-jailbroken phone, but there isn't (yes I know there is a way of getting podcaster). It seems as if Apple have got us all in a vice over this and can tighten it anytime they want.

[benroethig]

ChopinBlues said:

I'll say it again: this is a tempest in a teapot. There are currently around 3500 apps on the store. Let's see, maybe 5 have been rejected, at least 2 for perfectly valid reasons, leaving 3 that are at best questionable, which means that less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT have been rejected. And you want a developer revolt over that?!!?? Get real.

In this case one bad Apple does spoil the whole bunch. Perception is the most important part of reality, not fact. While only a handful have been banned, the arbitrary way Apple has done it has left developers uneasy. If they think Apple could reject their investment later on for basically no reason, they're going to be less apt to continue iPhone development. If Apple would have a clearly defined set of rules, this would not be happening. Instead, they've left the developers thinking "am I next?" We're not talking the hardcore fanatical Mac users here, we're talking about people trying to put food on the table.

[alderete]

Quote

Funny. Kleiner Perkins just launched the iFund blog today. Not to announce that they were closing it due to Apple's "draconian"app rejection policies, but to embrace the platform. Apparently, the investor of $100 million is willing to fund.

As I wrote in my prior post, it makes for a nice press release. But you can bet that the KP partners looking at deals are thinking long and hard about whether Apple will approve a potential application before they fund something. Look at the stats Matt quoted: 2700 proposals, only five actually funded. Yeah, most of them are crap, but you can be certain that going forward Apple's rejections are going to be used as a lens on new proposals. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were using back channels to get insight into what Apple will and will not approve; to not do so would be foolish, and the KP folks are not fools.

Let me say it again: It is indisputable that Apple is being both inconsistent and uncommunicative in their approvals/rejections/revokations, and that is already having a chilling effect on developers. It may be within Apple's right to behave this way, but long term, it's going to be toxic.

[corumba]

We give Apple a ton of credit for raising the visibility of app downloads. It's helping everyone in the industry, despite the valid complaints being discussed here.

To contribute humbly another option for developers, GetJar has been in the mobile app distribution space since 2004 and has about 14 million downloads/month from web/wap, in Symbian, Blackberry, Java, Windows Mobile, Palm, Flash Lite (and Android coming soon).

The approval process is open and takes 24 hours. We encourage developers not to forget all of the other great platforms and phones that could benefit from their creative ideas.

[natmusak]

Here's a link to that rebuttal by DED to Gruber's blog post on Podcaster:

http://www.roughlydr...caster-defense/

Personally, I find it to be a far better analysis of the issue than both the Daring Fireball post and DED's original post on the subject as well.

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

> Personally, I find it to be a far better analysis of the issue than both the Daring Fireball post and DED's original post on the subject as well.

Except that it's factually incorrect. Clearly Dilger's never used the thing. When he says:

>However, while Gruber dismisses Podcaster?s content distribution as neither features nor functionality, he seems to be unaware that the entire point of Podcaster is to download podcasts rather than stream them in realtime.

he's talking through his hat. Check out my hands on piece about Podcaster. In fact, it does stream podcasts and when you're connected to the Internet it's actually easier to stream podcasts than it is to download them. Yes, it can download too, but his assertion that downloading is the "entire point" of the application is simply wrong.

[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

Except that it's factually incorrect. Clearly Dilger's never used the thing. When he says:

>However, while Gruber dismisses Podcaster?s content distribution as neither features nor functionality, he seems to be unaware that the entire point of Podcaster is to download podcasts rather than stream them in realtime.
he's talking through his hat. Check out my hands on piece about Podcaster. In fact, it does stream podcasts and when you're connected to the Internet it's actually easier to stream podcasts than it is to download them. Yes, it can download too, but his assertion that downloading is the "entire point" of the application is simply wrong.

What's factually inaccurate about that statement you quoted? Dan isn't saying Podcaster can't stream podcasts, he's stating that the reason why Apple likely banned it is due to its unique ability to download podcasts "through mechanisms other than iTunes."

That is Podcaster's major selling point, otherwise Apple wouldn't have banned it and you probably wouldn't have bothered to do a hands on with it, not simply because there would have been no controversy surrounding it, but because it's really nothing special without the downloading functionality.

[Chris Breen]

>the entire point of Podcaster is to download podcasts rather than stream them in realtime.

That bit. In fact, it is not "the entire point." If he'd taken the time to use it he would have known that. He clearly hasn't.

[richcon]

If downloading podcasts is the entire point or not isn't important. Section 3.3.3 bans downloading additional features outside of iTunes. The feature here is the ability to download podcasts, which comes with the original program. Podcasts themselves aren't features. Last I checked, podcasts don't themselves do anything, they're just audio and sometimes video data played by a program.

Sorry, Roughly Drafted is wrong here.

[natmusak]

This is pretty simple guys. What does Podcaster allow that AOL Radio, Pandora, and other audio-streamers don't: downloading of audio files to the iPhone itself. In Podcasters case, podcasts audio files. That constitutes as a distribution mechanism other than the iTunes Store.

Chris, repeating your claim doesn't make Dan's statement that you quoted any less right. Yes, Podcaster can also stream podcasts, so can Safari, so can NetNewsWire and other RSS readers. Whoop de doo! That ain't Podcaster's major selling point. That functionality doesn't set it apart.

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

Chris, repeating your claim doesn't make Dan's statement that you quoted any less right.

No repeating it doesn't make it any less right. The content of it does, however. When he says entire and that's not true, then he's mistaken. He could have chosen any number of other words -- main, primary, etc. Part of the punditry racket is that you're careful about your word choices. He either was and felt that giving an inch would undercut his argument (which I find weak) or he didn't fully grasp what the program does (and given that he apparently hasn't used it, that's likely).

[natmusak]

Just sounds nitpick-y to me. Considering Macworld's own review of NetNewsWire for iPhone didn't include any reference to its ability to stream audio podcasts, I guess Dan Frakes was talking out of his hat too. Jason Snell never brought up that Safari could stream audio podcasts in his reviews of the iPhone 2G, or the iPhone 3G either.

Podcast streaming is nothing special, all RSS readers can do it.

[Chris Breen]

Nat, I appreciate that you're trying really, really hard to win this one -- even to the extent of flinging around this kind of left field stuff. Failing to mention a feature is not the same thing as being wrong.

I stated that Dilger's characterization of Podcaster was wrong. It is. To pretend that it isn't and pass it off as nitpicking is intellectually dishonest. You want to support his other arguments, fine. But you're going nowhere with this one.

I suggest if you want to keep hammering on this one we do it via private message. I'm sure people who are interested in the article and its ramifications find this little sidebar has exhausted its entertainment value.

[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

Nat, I appreciate that you're trying really, really hard to win this one -- even to the extent of flinging around this kind of left field stuff. Failing to mention a feature is not the same thing as being wrong.

I stated that Dilger's characterization of Podcaster was wrong. It is. To pretend that it isn't and pass it off as nitpicking is intellectually dishonest. You want to support his other arguments, fine. But you're going nowhere with this one.

Where does he say "Podcaster can't stream podcasts?" Obviously, if a program can download podcasts, it can stream them. Do you really believe Dan doesn't know that? He wasn't writing a hands-on impression, like you. He didn't mention the search-field either. That's because the whole point of Podcaster is to download podcasts, bypassing iTunes completely. Nobody would think much of Podcaster if it only streamed podcasts, like any RSS reader can. Nowhere does DED say the entire functionality or feature set is to download podcasts, just the entire point, as in selling point or point of distinction.