[Dan Frakes]

natmusak said:

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.

As the saying goes, sometimes the simplest explanation is also the right one. In this case, the simplest explanation is that Apple didn't cite Section 3.3.3 because the reason for rejection had nothing to do with Section 3.3.3 ;)

Again, I think it's imperative to read 3.3.3 in the context in which it appears -- a large section about application code and APIs, not content. Remember, this is Apple. If Apple meant what Roughly Drafted is interpreting Section 3.3.3 to mean, Apple would have actually included that specific language. Apple doesn't do vague.

But the bigger point, which this discussion of 3.3.3 is distracting from, is that if a platform's gatekeeper is going to screen software for that platform, developers need clear and precise information about what they can and cannot do. By rejecting Podcaster, as just one example, Apple has created uncertainty and risk. Businesses hate uncertainty and risk. Uncertainty and risk are not the way to build a platform.

[jld3]

I don't care what developers are up against. I care that my Apple hardwares work. If developers are running into walls, so be it. Will it install on my phone, y or n? Thats it.

The developers themselves are also in business, some trying to find an entry point to increase profit and some taking advantage of what they CAN do to get paid. I'm sure if these developers received a handsome offer from Apple to assimilate, they would. Lets not make these developers out to be some sort of angels trying to express peace and harmony. If they were Apple, would they do the same thing or worse?

Apple is doing just fine. If a bartender wants a smoke free bar, will he not expel the smoker? Is budweiser selling miller off the same freighter? My point is that this entire thread is beginning to sound like a political debate, at the end of the day, we are not in a position to change a thing.

So what if so-n-so was shut out. We focus on what we can do, and if something comes along to offer more, as consumers, we'll switch. (I don't see that happening any time soon)

Lets just say, "cool, this works, i've been wanting this" or "aw, that sucks, i was looking forward to this app. dang."

Fishism, "By-Gones"

[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

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.

Rereading my knee-jerk comment to Grapho, I have to agree with you. I'll stick to the actual issues being discussed, rather than using lazy arguments that are really beside the point. With that said, both you and Moren have only presented the same one-sided argument in your articles, which of course, is the side both of you agree with.

Quote

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.
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.

First, I want to readdress the jailbreak community, which, whether you want to admit it or not, does provide a decent alternate path to the user and the funny thing is, it provides more than what BlackBerry, WinMobile, and even Google can provide in their official distribution stores thanks to the unified iPhone/iPod touch platform, the modern hardware of the platform, the modern operating system that is OS X, and the intuitive Cocoa Touch SDK. You have to make sure you don't brick your phone, but then again, people actually interested enough in an alternative podcast mechanism and all other software not condoned by Apple probably won't mind the extra work involved. And look at Podcaster's new distribution model that may be even less risky than full-on jailbreaking. Hardly a redneck bumper sticker.

Apple doesn't have to give developers free reign on the iPhone, just as they don't give them the ability on the Mac to do things like use their Software Update distribution utility for pushing third party updates through.

Finally, the comparisons of Apple to the Kremlin, Microsoft, and now, Jeffrey Dahmer, are comically over the top. Apple is by no means perfect and we all agree that 3.3.3 needs to be far less vague (or a better "amendment" needs to be made), but it's hard to take your and Moren's arguments seriously with this overblown language.

[robsonj1]

3.3.3 has nothing whatsoever to do with Podcaster. Haven't Apple already said that this application wasn't included because it 'duplicated' iTunes functionality ? Why do you think it has anything to do with alternative software distribution methods ?
It's up to Apple if they wish to reserve areas of functionality that they have plans for in the future, but clearly they must have a pre-approval procedure for developers to know what areas are on and off limits.

I use RSS reader applications to subscribe to Podcasts and I listen to them via streaming. It's a very useful utility that makes my iPhone more functional. Clearly Apple don't think this is bad enough to ban them. I presume if any of these utilities provide updates which allow RSS contents to be downloaded then they would duplicate the functionality of Podcaster, and thus be banned. Which is why Apple must be more open with developers as to what they can and can't do.

Jason.

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

First, I want to readdress the jailbreak community, which, whether you want to admit it or not, does provide a decent alternate path to the user and the funny thing is, it provides more than what BlackBerry, WinMobile, and even Google can provide in their official distribution stores thanks to the unified iPhone/iPod touch platform, the modern hardware of the platform, the modern operating system that is OS X, and the intuitive Cocoa Touch SDK. You have to make sure you don't brick your phone, but then again, people actually interested enough in an alternative podcast mechanism and all other software not condoned by Apple probably won't mind the extra work involved. And look at Podcaster's new distribution model that may be even less risky than full-on jailbreaking. Hardly a redneck bumper sticker.

A few problems here.

If you've actually jailbroken your iPhone or iPod touch lately and compare what's available now to what was available prior to the opening of the App Store you'll see there's a world of difference. A good number of the coolest App Store apps were first worked out under Jailbreak. Once the App Store went live, they disappeared. What you're left with is a collection of utilities for getting into the guts of the iPhone and iPod touch (still worthwhile, but hardly the kinds of tools common iPhone users need) and customization tools. What was and what is have very little similarity.

Aside from inventory, the very real difference in jailbroken and App Store apps is that jailbroken apps can disappear with a single iPhone/iPod touch update. The jailbreak community is good about updating their tools, but there may come a time when they can't and jailbreak is a dead end.

Taken together, it's laughable to suggest that the current jailbreak offerings are, in any way, comparable. The App Store is it.

Quote

Apple doesn't have to give developers free reign on the iPhone, just as they don't give them the ability on the Mac to do things like use their Software Update distribution utility for pushing third party updates through.

Who suggested that anyone is asking Apple to give them free rein? Again, developers are simply asking what the rules are so they don't have to guess, guess wrong, and have their application rejected for what appears to be a capricious reason.

Quote

Finally, the comparisons of Apple to the Kremlin, Microsoft, and now, Jeffrey Dahmer, are comically over the top.

Of course they are. They were offered as response to comical excuses for Apple doing exactly what it likes when it holds this kind of power over iPhone application distribution. Justifications such as:

"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."

"It's their platform, they can do whatever they want with it."

Imagine someone attributing these statements to Microsoft rather than Apple. How quickly would you condemn them?

[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

A few problems here.

If you've actually jailbroken your iPhone or iPod touch lately and compare what's available now to what was available prior to the opening of the App Store you'll see there's a world of difference. A good number of the coolest App Store apps were first worked out under Jailbreak. Once the App Store went live, they disappeared. What you're left with is a collection of utilities for getting into the guts of the iPhone and iPod touch (still worthwhile, but hardly the kinds of tools common iPhone users need) and customization tools. What was and what is have very little similarity.

Aside from inventory, the very real difference in jailbroken and App Store apps is that jailbroken apps can disappear with a single iPhone/iPod touch update. The jailbreak community is good about updating their tools, but there may come a time when they can't and jailbreak is a dead end.
Taken together, it's laughable to suggest that the current jailbreak offerings are, in any way, comparable. The App Store is it.

A lot of good points. JB still provides an alternative, but I agree, I overstated its ability to provide a decent alternative and of course, it could all go south tomorrow. I'd be interested to know what you think about Podcaster's developer sort of going around both JB and the App Store by simply providing donators (i.e. buyers) with the app and a key. If Apple was so intent on restriction, they likely would have revoked his developer signature (or whatever; yes, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details).

Quote

Who suggested that anyone is asking Apple to give them free rein? Again, developers are simply asking what the rules are so they don't have to guess, guess wrong, and have their application rejected for what appears to be a capricious reason.

Sorry, I was reiterating my point about Podcaster in general. Podcaster provides a mechanism for distribution that is "other than iTunes," whether or not you agree or disagree that section 3.3.3 is referencing that. By arguing that Podcaster's functionality wouldn't affect Apple's business model through your and Moren's 1-sided articles, you are the ones suggesting Apple cede this power to third party developers.

But I think we already agreed to disagree on the validity of Podcaster, so I shouldn't have brought it up again. :D

>> {quote:title=I said:}{quote} Finally, the comparisons of Apple to the Kremlin, Microsoft, and now, Jeffrey Dahmer, are comically over the top.

Quote

Of course they are. They were offered as response to comical excuses for Apple doing exactly what it likes when it holds this kind of power over iPhone application distribution. Justifications such as:

"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."

"It's their platform, they can do whatever they want with it."

Imagine someone attributing these statements to Microsoft rather than Apple. How quickly would you condemn them?

Except that both of my points are true/realistic. BUT neither of my two points should have been made in the first place because they are beside the point(s): Apple's App Store's lack of transparency and the SDK's vague 3.3.3 clause, in addition to the confusing language they used in the rejection of Podcaster.

[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.

[Kontra]

>If Apple becomes more transparent, the problem goes away...


That's like saying "If Apple becomes more transparent with its product roadmaps..."


Not happening.


Think about it: developer asks for pre-approval for an app for doing XXX. Apple says no. If Apple gives no explantion, the next day The Sreet or ZDNet banners declare, "Apple soon to release product XXX." If Apple gives explanation, it'd be pre-announcing its plans to competitors. A degree of opaqueness is unaviodable.

[Chris Breen]

Kontra said:

> That's like saying "If Apple becomes more transparent with its product roadmaps..."

No, saying "If Apple becomes more transparent with its product roadmaps..." is like saying 'If Apple becomes more transparent with its product roadmap...." in that they're the same. Suggesting that Apple clearly lay out the rules for what is and isn't acceptable is not the same thing as telling developers what products Apple has in mind for the future.

Let's take your scenario a step further. Apple doesn't provide developers with a clear notion of what is and isn't acceptable. Developer X submits Application Y, which is rejected with a bogus claim that the application duplicates a capability that doesn't exist on the iPhone or iPod touch. In the following week, the New York Times calls Apple's vetting process "capricious," the vast majority of the tech press issues the thumbs down, and a goodly number of developers get spooked.

Which is more harmful? Website Z shoveling out another Apple rumor or the tech world at large giving Apple the hairy eyeball?

[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 like 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 duplicates 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

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

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."

And as others have pointed out, Pandora, AOL Radio, etc, etc duplicate the functionality of the Radio section of iTunes yet....

Again, it's a straw, and a very, very weak one, particularly given the context of where it appears in the SDK (see Frakes' posts on this point).

Quote

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

> 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 duplicates functionality in iTunes, not that it provides non-existent functionality on the iPhone/iPod touch itself.

See previous point about Pandora, AOL Radio, etc, etc. See PCalc, clock apps, more etc, etc.

[natmusak]

Ah right, because internet radio, calculators, and clocks are all major components of Apple's iTunes business model.

/sarcasm

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

Ah right, because internet radio, calculators, and clocks are all major components of Apple's iTunes business model.

I must have missed the bit in Apple's "duplication" note where they said "Features of this application duplicate portions of our business that we think we can eventually make money from." Either it duplicates or it doesn't. Some apps that are clear duplicates skate. This one doesn't even match that level of clarity.

[Kontra]

"Suggesting that Apple
clearly lay out the rules for what is and isn't acceptable is not the
same thing as telling developers what products Apple has in mind for
the future."

It absolutely can be.

(I don't think you want me to give you mundane answers to illustrate that.)