[Chris Breen]

Seriously, Nat, I'm done. If you want to pursue this, go private.

[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

Seriously, Nat, I'm done. If you want to pursue this, go private.

Well no hard feelings. :D

While I disagree with you, I will admit (as I should have earlier) that I can see how that single word - entire - would throw up a red flag for some. Does that unglue his entire argument? No, but that wasn't the issue that you brought up (and I tortured you with).

Nate

[guyncali2]

natmusak,

Honestly I think the argument that you are making is all about semantics which really doesn't have anything to do with the issue AT ALL.

If you look at the terms under 3.3.3, then podcaster SHOULD be banned. Regardless of whether or not anyone feels that is what 3.3.3 means or not doesn't matter. The fact is that it CAN be interpreted as such and Podcaster either did not read it or was in denial about it. And while I would love to have this program, I cannot be angry that Apple denied it just because I want it.

I also have Netshare, which I like, but I also cannot be angry with Apple for removing it because tethering is NOT allowed.

I feel both of these programs violate the fine print and Apple has all the right in the world to remove them. We need to be careful about letting our personal opinions in on issues like this.

Now I am not sure what side of the argument you are on as I haven't read all of your posts. However I can say that your play on words doesn't help any cause. Just the facts sir, just the facts.

[leicaman]

Roughly drafted is right. Podcaster is designed to bypass iTunes in the downloading of Podcasts. It's pretty clear it's a violation regardless of what people are claiming. That Apple hasn't said so is kind of a "no duh" situation. Are they going to come out and say "We are protecting our revenue stream?"

As for people who want to send developers the money directly, that's kind of a silly attitude to take. Apple pays for the bandwidth, distribution, and marketing of the applications, and they only take 1/3 of the money (if that seems high, what about professional photographers who turn over 60 to 80 percent of the revenue from their photos to stock photo agencies such as Corbis and Getty), and the developer has access to every non-jail-broken iPhone.

If you don't like Apple's model, write for Android or WM or Symbian. See how far they go to help you reach ALL their customers.

Eric

[robsonj1]

I use a variety of the RSS reader applications to subscribe to podcasts. (Podcasts are just RSS feeds afterall...)

These apps allow me to be notified of new episodes and provide links allowing them to be streamed to the iPhone.

From what people are saying, as soon as any of these apps add the ability to download directly the content linked by an RSS feed, they are 'crossing a line'. This is because the app might then be used to download PODCASTS! (shock!).

Rename Podcaster to 'RSSReader (or similar)' and provide an optional 'download' function. Re-submit the application and I bet it will get through...

Jason.

[George76]

@natsumak

What a shocker that Roughly Drafted would defend Apple. That's all that site does. For the positive spin he (Eran Dan Dilger, the lead writer) tries to put on EVERY Apple decision, I hope he's on the Apple payroll.

[jld3]

I like Apple. Because the keep the reins tight. Why would they not allow functionality type apps? Because they are developing their own, better platform for such funtions. Allowing other parties to step in 1) creates a significant service issue that Apple's only choice to customers would be " sorry, can't help", 2) steers consumers away from Apples inovations. Apple is creating more than a computer and system these days. They are in the baby steps of creating a personalized digital network connecting every facet of an individual's life. You see, in order to accomplish this, they must be the central authority on the way it all connects. Not for power or consumer control, but for the ability to succesfully accomplish the dreams they have. They haven't released these yet, but they plan too, I'm sure of it.
My own idea of their future is being connected with my home network everywhere I go via some type of iPhone style device. I'll just wait and see though.

[sheilanolan]

I've not read all Apple's rules and regulations for apps but I am wondering why all the fuss? As other people have pointed out, you can't get podcasts directly from your iphone but have to go via iTunes on a computer. I have never had to pay for any of my podcast subscriptions so surely no-one is going to lose money over the method of downloading podcasts. Maybe I'm missing something here but I'm only part of Joe Public so if anyone can enlighten me I'd be grateful

[Chris Breen]

sheilanolan said:

I have never had to pay for any of my podcast subscriptions so surely no-one is going to lose money over the method of downloading podcasts.

What's likely really going on is that Apple would like to reserve this capability for itself but can't say so. So they claim a duplication of features, which is currently untrue. It may become a feature, but it isn't right now.

[natmusak]

George76 said:

@natsumak

What a shocker that Roughly Drafted would defend Apple. That's all that site does. For the positive spin he (Eran Dan Dilger, the lead writer) tries to put on EVERY Apple decision, I hope he's on the Apple payroll.

If you read a majority of Daniel Eran Dilger's articles, rather than just his most current stuff, you'd see he gives Apple their share of blame. If you've read his more mild-mannered AppleInsider articles (pseudonym Prince McLean), he has noted shortcomings, like a recent one on MobileMe's security and how Apple aught to use Back to My Mac's IPv6 functionality to encrypt MobileMe's web interface.

Podcaster-Gate is being grouped in with NetShare (which was banned due to AT&T's anti-tethering policy) and ludicrous apps like I Am Rich and lowbrow trash like Pull My Finger, in addition to being wrongly compared to AOL Radio and Pandora, both of which only stream audio and don't provide a "distribution mechanism" that is "other than iTunes." iTunes is a podcast distribution mechanism and Podcaster was duplicating that functionality.

[Dan Moren]

natmusak said:

Podcaster-Gate is being grouped in with NetShare (which was banned due to AT&T's anti-tethering policy) and ludicrous apps like I Am Rich and lowbrow trash like Pull My Finger, in addition to being wrongly compared to AOL Radio and Pandora, both of which only stream audio and don't provide a "distribution mechanism" that is "other than iTunes." iTunes is a podcast distribution mechanism and Podcaster was duplicating that functionality.

Wait, which argument are you making? Because Apple told Podcaster's developer: "it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes."

Roughly Drafted claims that it violates the section of the agreement that reads: "an Application may not provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the iTunes Store."

That's not the reason that Apple gave for rejecting the application. These are two separate arguments.

As to Pandora and AOL Radio, I guess it depends what you define as a "distribution mechanism." There's nothing in Apple's agreement to say that distribution mechanism equals downloading but does not equal streaming. If that's the case, then this goes back to my original point that Apple should state that. The term "distribution mechanism" is pretty damn vague if you ask me.

Let me pose another question: if Podcaster had allowed people to download podcasts to the iPhone via the iTunes Store's podcasting section, would that have been valid? To be honest, I'm not sure if that's technically feasible or not, but I'd be interested to know if it would fly or not.

[natmusak]

[quote name='Chris Breen']
>

natmusak said:

>Apple's App Store's lack of transparency

Let's just stop there. This we agree on. If Apple becomes more transparent, the problem goes away to the extent that developers at least know what they're in for. The SDK argument is bogus. Dilger's the one person making it through what appears to be a deliberate misinterpretation of its content to excuse Apple. Unless you're the guy's cousin or owe him money, I wouldn't hitch my wagon to it.

Agreed. :D

I'm not paid by Dan, I just agree with his bogus argument because it seems less bogus when you look at it how I do:

Apple says:

"Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes."

Part 3.3.3 of the SDK says:

"Without Apple?s prior written approval, an Application may not provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the iTunes Store."

Also, In your comment above to Kontra's nonsensical post, you said:

Quote

Developer X [Alex Sokirynsky] submits Application Y [Podcaster], which is rejected with a bogus claim that the application duplicates a capability that doesn't exist on the iPhone or iPod touch

Which makes me question your frame of reference. The point is that Podcaster replicates functionality in iTunes, not that it provides non-existent functionality on the iPhone/iPod touch itself.

Not trying to drag this discussion out any further though, honestly. :D

[Dan Frakes]

richcon said:

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.

Exactly.

The funny thing is, I could understand -- not necessarily agree, but understand -- if Apple were to put in a rule that said, essentially, "You can't write an app that takes the place of a feature of iTunes; for example, for syncing or copying media to an iPhone or iPod touch." But the much-touted Section 3.3.3 doesn't say that, despite Roughly Drafted's creative reading of it. Section 3.3.3 specifically addresses an application's own functionality and is there to keep developers from distributing a limited version through the App Store that can later be "unlocked" via some other mechanism. This is clear not only from the wording of Section 3.3.3, but also from the context in which 3.3.3 appears -- 3.3, "APIs and Functionality," and the other rules directly before and after it. There's nothing in there about content; it's all about application code.

Apple specifically told the developer that the reason the app was rejected is that it "duplicates functionality of iTunes." Roughly Drafted, and too many other people, are trying to fit that round peg into the square peg of Section 3.3.3. But it won't fit. And that's the point here -- Apple's stated reason for rejecting the app doesn't mesh with developer guidelines. If Apple did have an official rule like the one I mentioned above -- "no replacing iTunes features" -- I think developers would be OK with that. They wouldn't waste time developing apps that violate that rule. The fact that an app can be rejected post hoc, for undocumented reasons, is a Bad Thing for the platform.

[Dan Frakes]

waveracr said:

the cries over not enough openness (and some of the developer hysterics) are silly and overheated.

The iPhone is a platform, and the App Store is currently the only way (jailbreaking and ad-hoc distrubtion aside) to distribute for that platform. By controlling what gets sold in that store, Apple is essentially the gatekeeper for iPhone software. There is no one else.

Because of this, Apple must make it perfectly clear what the guidelines are. If they don't, developers are going to stop writing software for the iPhone. Each time Apple rejects an app, and especially when they reject an app that appears to conform to Apple's guidelines, other developers notice. No one wants to spend hundreds or thousands of hours to develop a product that may, at the final stage of distribution, be disallowed for reasons that aren't specific or clear. Real software platforms make such requirements clear before development starts.

This isn't about individual developers. It's about the iPhone as a platform.