[Chris Breen]

Dan Frakes said:

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

And maybe to drive home the point. Imagine if you could obtain your Mac applications only through Apple. How pleased would you be when Photoshop, Lightroom, Office, Disk Warrior, etc, etc, are rejected because they "duplicate features found in Apple applications"?

Probably not very.

[Chris Breen]

Dan Frakes said:

>There's nothing in there about content; it's all about application code.

Exactly. And if this was all about 3.3.3, don't you think someone other than Dilger -- oh, like Apple maybe -- would have used that as an excuse rather than this weak duplication argument? Straw-grasping at its finest.

[natmusak]

[quote name='Chris Breen']
>

Dan Frakes said:

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

And maybe to drive home the point. Imagine if you could obtain your Mac applications only through Apple. How pleased would you be when Photoshop, Lightroom, Office, Disk Warrior, etc, etc, are rejected because they "duplicate features found in Apple applications"?

Probably not very.

The iPhone is not a Mac or Windows PC. It doesn't support things like Flash, copy/paste, a physical keyboard, the downloading of anything and everything of the internet, etc. If you crave more freedom, the jailbreak community will welcome you with open arms.

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

The iPhone is not a Mac or Windows PC. It doesn't support things like Flash, copy/paste, a physical keyboard, the downloading of anything and everything of the internet, etc. If you crave more freedom, the jailbreak community will welcome you with open arms.

"Love it or leave it" isn't an argument, Nat, it's a redneck's bumper sticker. Apple has taken it upon itself to be the gatekeeper for all iPhone and iPod touch applications. As such it's incumbent that it act in a responsible and non-partisan way. And if it's not going to, at least be clear about how it won't be so developers don't waste their time and money. That's all this is about.

[guyncali2]

Whether or not we disagree on the reading of 3.3.3 which I do, making a straight comparison between the mac and the iphone doesn't make sense. Yes, I do believe that the iphone is as close to an OS as you can get in the phone arena. But let's face it, it is a hybrid of the two markets and must be treated in such a manner. What that manner is, I don't really have that answer, but I know it's not to just let everything run free. That will hurt Apple's business model in the end, period. (For those who say that Apple is greedy and should let us do what we want, we bought the product, then shame on you for buying the product before knowing what you got into.)

Don't get me wrong, I wish Apple would let them release this thing, but they didn't and I can see why, whether I like it or not. And I understand it.

[Chris Breen]

guyncali2 said:

I wish Apple would let them release this thing, but they didn't and I can see why

And that's the crux of the biscuit. Apple hasn't been clear about what it will or won't reject so while you may see why, the developer clearly didn't or he wouldn't have wasted his time on it. Developers are asking for clarity. Is that unreasonable?

[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

"Love it or leave it" isn't an argument, Nat, it's a redneck's bumper sticker. Apple has taken it upon itself to be the gatekeeper for all iPhone and iPod touch applications. As such it's incumbent that it act in a responsible and non-partisan way. And if it's not going to, at least be clear about how it won't be so developers don't waste their time and money. That's all this is about.

This is about business, not what Apple should do based on what you think is moral. Taken it upon itself to be the gatekeeper? It's their platform, they can do whatever they want with it.

I agree, however, that 3.3.3 should have been more articulate, and Apple should have cited it specifically for the rejection of Podcaster to avoid confusion.

EDIT

Are we in more agreement than I'm recognizing? :D

[Dan Moren]

natmusak said:

Hmm, ok I understand where you're coming from, but I don't believe these arguments are separate. Let me try to explain.

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."

Now, if I'm not mistaken, the word that is hanging everyone up here is duplication. In all honesty, I don't believe Apple should have used that word because it's pretty obvious the confusion it has caused. It's an unnecessary descriptor that has taken undue attention away from the important part of the statement, "assists in the distribution of podcasts."

See, what I'm not convinced of is that "assists in the distribution of podcasts" is indeed the important part of that statement. Clearly "duplication" was put in there for a reason?I admit, we're getting to a Talmudic-level of examination here?but I think if the matter was as cut and dried as 3.3.3 would seem to be, that the word duplication clearly wouldn't have come up. Regardless, it's there, and I believe it's there for as much of a reason as any other part of the statement.

Quote

At the end of the day, the podcast makes its way onto the iPhone. That equates to a "distribution mechanism" that is "other than iTunes."

Does that make sense? (crosses fingers) :)

Sure, but it some senses, so could streaming, right? I mean, if you stream an audio file, you still get to listen to it, right? It's still being distributed, it's just not being stored. If it's downloading they wanted to prohibit, why wouldn't they say "through download mechanisms other than iTunes"?

Quote

I totally agree with you here. There needs to be an asterisk or something next to distribution that explains distribution = downloading of content that would run around functionality offered in iTunes (an alternate music store, , alternate podcast downloader, alternate application store, etc.) or the iPhone itself (alternate mail downloader, or an alternate way to view video, aka Flash or Java plugins).

Again, only if that's really what they mean. But yes, clearly the language should be clarified. Which is what I think Fraser, myself, and others have been arguing from the start: the language is too vague for developers to know what is prohibited and what isn't. Clearly the developer of Podcaster didn't go ahead spending all that time to develop an app that he knew would be rejected, right?

Quote

Yeah, that's a good question. I honestly don't know. :D The part in 3.3.3 about "prior approval" could be a factor here. If Podcaster's developer had simply asked for permission to provide this alternate podcast downloading mechanism, or as you propose, making it so it even tied into iTunes' own podcast directory, Apple might have given it the green light. DED brought this point up in his follow-up article:

"Any developer wanting to set up some sort of app that might act as a ?distribution mechanism other than iTunes,? for example an alternative to MobileMe for data sync or a way to share or sell media files, would definitely want to pursue prior written consent. Apple has approved of a number of things that do compete with its business, from its own Exchange Server support to YouTube and Flicker and other integrations in its products."

Sure, in retrospect, asking for Apple's permission might have been a good move. But again, given the way it's worded, I think it's understandable that he didn't. Not to mention that Apple has not exactly been quick to respond to many developers with questions. Plus, it's another hoop for developers to jump through, and if everyone who thinks their application might potentially violate some term of Apple's agreement has to ask for clarification, you're still going to see a whole bunch of quality developers who simply think it's not worth their time.

What it comes down to for me, is that we can agree that the rules need clarification. Clearly there are many potential readings of what this rule means, and it would be nice if Apple would spell out what they intend. We can argue til the cows come home whether or not a rule should be in place, but if we don't even know what the rule we're arguing about means, then what's the point?

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

This is about business, not what Apple should do based on what you think is moral. Taken it upon itself to be the gatekeeper? It's their platform, they can do whatever they want with it.

I'm sure Microsoft felt exactly the same way about what could and couldn't be done with Windows. That didn't work out so well for them.

[Grapho]

[quote name='natmusak']
>

Chris Breen said:

> "Love it or leave it" isn't an argument, Nat, it's a redneck's bumper sticker. Apple has taken it upon itself to be the gatekeeper for all iPhone and iPod touch applications. As such it's incumbent that it act in a responsible and non-partisan way. And if it's not going to, at least be clear about how it won't be so developers don't waste their time and money. That's all this is about.
This is about business, not what Apple should do based on what you think is moral. Taken it upon itself to be the gatekeeper? It's their platform, they can do whatever they want with it.

Not quite, because it is a business, and ticking off your developers, might not be good for business.
[quote]I agree, however, that 3.3.3 should have been more articulate, and Apple should have cited it specifically for the rejection of Podcaster to avoid confusion.

EDIT

Are we in more agreement than I'm recognizing? :D

[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

I'm sure Microsoft felt exactly the same way about what could and couldn't be done with Windows. That didn't work out so well for them.

I'm not following, no offense.

@Grapho,

Considering how many apps are in the App Store, the number of total downloads, and the microscopic number of rejected apps, they're obviously doing something right.

[Grapho]

[quote name='natmusak']
>

Chris Breen said:

> I'm sure Microsoft felt exactly the same way about what could and couldn't be done with Windows. That didn't work out so well for them.
I'm not following, no offense.

@Grapho,

Considering how many apps are in the App Store, the number of total downloads, and the microscopic number of rejected apps, they're obviously doing something right.

I will not deny that, but considering the competition, which will be getting a bit tougher as time passes buy, and the inception of new competing platforms. Apple already has a good head start, as you have noted, but things could change and no matter how good the platform, if developers are thinking they are being mistreated, they can simply jump ship. You have to remember that developers are half of what is making this aspect about the iPhone exciting, not just Apple's gadget (Which I though was pretty cool since version 1.0). Asking Apple for better guidelines should not be a big deal, and it would go a long way to insuring a dominant position in the future by keeping everybody happy. This is not about morals, ethics, this is about business and all parties involved should be getting along in the best possible fashion.

Apple owns the ball, but it still needs other to be able to play.

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

I'm not following, no offense.

Ah okay. I'm talking about an anti-competitive environment where a company leverages its exclusivity to promote its own products and services. There currently is no legitimate alternative means of distribution for applications as Apple's made it a closed shop. If Apple has denied Podcaster access because it's promoting its own services (and that "duplication" bit certainly hints at it) one could question just how Apple wields its control.

> Considering how many apps are in the App Store, the number of total downloads, and the microscopic number of rejected apps, they're obviously doing something right.

Right, and considering that Jeffrey Dahmer murdered and ate only a miniscule percentage of the population it's clear that he was a pretty good Joe.

Nat, no one's denying that the App Store is popular and people have used it a lot. I'm certainly among those people. But heavens, building the most tenuous arguments based on vague clauses in the SDK (when even Apple won't go there) strikes me as abject fanboism. Apple does some wonderful things, but it's hardly above reproach.

[sheilanolan]

I'd agree with what you're saying Chris. Apple does have a really tight hold on the apps. I was told that the long awaited update for Twinkle was being submitted to Apple on Monday, it's now Thursday and there's no sign of it, WritingPad was also removed and there was no explanation from Apple (although I think this might be a temporary removal by the developers). Yes, what they've got in the app store is great but delays, removing apps and denying apps can be very frustrating for the consumer.