[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

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.

It's in the Common Sense clause. :b I think there's one in every contract that's ever been drafted. They're written between the lines.

EDIT

@ Kontra,

No examples needed because your argument makes no sense. Developers are already under NDA. The 3.3.3 section of the guidelines that we've discussed (to death) isn't even really freely available to anyone outside of iPhone SDK devs (at least it shouldn't be; obviously someone leaked it).

[Chris Breen]

Kontra said:

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

No, I don't. Thanks for your restraint.

So, what's your solution then? Developers should sift their tea leaves in the hope they can divine what Apple has in mind for future products and then stay away?

Or would it make more sense for Apple to operate the way it does with the Mac. Let third-parties do their jobs and produce applications and if Apple wants in on a particular market, they develop an app that competes directly with existing apps and drives them out of business (or the developer finds a way to outdo Apple's efforts). Operating in such a way might help deflect complaints of anti-competitive behavior.

[Kontra]

"So, what's your solution then?"
Apple's not paying me to come up with solutions. :-)
"Or would it make more sense for Apple to operate the way it does withthe Mac."
It's utterly unavoidable.
As I mentioned in my essay Microsoft “I’m a PC” ads are channeling Apple’s “Crazy Ones” two parties cannot possibly foresee all possibilities in a contract and thus Apple will never be able to guarantee to not get into an specific are. Technology is extremely fluid and thus this "give us all the rules" nonsense is just really naive. People will have to learn to roll with it.

[Dan Frakes]

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."

Again, 3.3.3 is referring to the distribution of additional application features or functionality through a means other than iTunes. In other words, you can't distribute a "light" version of your app for free through the App Store and then direct users to purchase the full version through, for example, your own Web site.

With all due respect, I don't think Section 3.3.3 is at all unclear or ambiguous when read in context ?it's part of a section on application code, features, and distribution. To interpret 3.3.3 as relating to the distribution of podcasts, you pretty much have to ignore the fact that 3.3.3 is a subsection of 3.3 ;)

OK, no more beating that dead horse...

[natmusak]

Dan Frakes said:

With all due respect, I don't think Section 3.3.3 is at all unclear or ambiguous when read in context ?it's part of a section on application code, features, and distribution. To interpret 3.3.3 as relating to the distribution of podcasts, you pretty much have to ignore the fact that 3.3.3 is a subsection of 3.3 ;)

OK, no more beating that dead horse...

Notice what I underlined, bolded, and italicized there? :D





Now looking at the title of the section, APIs and Functionality, that could be interpreted as addressing APIs and functionality, not API functionality. By that I mean it could be addressing two separate, but related things in the same section: APIs and functionality, emphasis on the and.

Not saying 3.3.3 doesn't apply to your situation about a lite version and all that, it does. But the main purpose of Podcaster is the distribution of podcasts through a mechanism that is "other than iTunes," thus it could apply to that type of situation as well.

Don't you guys think if the SDK guidelines were so terribly difficult to understand and if everyone ignored common sense, we'd already have seen alternate music stores from places like Amazon for downloading music right to the iPhone getting rejected left and right?

[Almerica]

Let's say that Apple did reject Podcaster because of 3.3.3, does that mean that if Podcaster was rebuilt so that it can

only import podcasts from the {font:serif}{size:100%}itunes{size}{font} {font:serif}{size:100%}library{size}{font}, it would get in? That would {font:serif}{size:100%}definitely{size}{font} make Podcaster a non-distribution app.

[Dan Frakes]

natmusak said:

Now looking at the title of the section, APIs and Functionality, that could be interpreted as addressing APIs and functionality, not API functionality. By that I mean it could be addressing two separate, but related things in the same section: APIs and functionality, emphasis on the and.

Given the context, I think it's clear Apple is using the phrase "features and functionality" to comprehensively cover an app's capabilities. (The two terms generally have different meanings in the context of software development.)

Quote

Not saying 3.3.3 doesn't apply to your situation about a lite version and all that, it does. But the main purpose of Podcaster is the distribution of podcasts through a mechanism that is "other than iTunes," thus it could apply to that type of situation as well.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that 3.3.3 did indeed cover the downloading of podcasts. Given that the developer guidelines discuss media downloading and organization in other sections, why would Apple include this specific guideline here, a section otherwise relating specifically to application code, rather than with those other, more-similar, topics? Similarly, why would Apple have approved, and currently offer on the App Store, several other apps that download podcasts?

[natmusak]

That's a very good question. I feel like the answer would be yes, but it would probably be a good idea to seek prior approval, as 3.3.3 asserts.

Just saw THIS story a few minutes ago on Daring Fireball, which reinforces this.

[natmusak]

Dan Frakes said:

Similarly, why would Apple have approved, and currently offer on the App Store, several other apps that download podcasts?

What other apps enable the downloading of podcasts to the iPhone itself in the fashion Podcaster did? Not talking about streaming, but downloading and saving of podcasts to the iPhone.

[Dan Frakes]

[quote name='natmusak']
>

Dan Frakes said:

> Similarly, why would Apple have approved, and currently offer on the App Store, several other apps that download podcasts?

What other apps enable the downloading of podcasts to the iPhone itself in the fashion Podcaster did? Not talking about streaming, but downloading and saving of podcasts to the iPhone.

Mobility Today is just one example. All the app does is let you download episodes of the Mobility Today podcast and store them within the app for later listening.

What about the more significant question I asked?

> > Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that 3.3.3 did indeed cover the downloading of podcasts. Given that the developer guidelines discuss media downloading and organization in other sections, why would Apple include this specific guideline here, a section otherwise relating specifically to application code, rather than with those other, more-similar, topics?

[natmusak]

[quote name='Dan Frakes']
> [quote name='natmusak']
> >

Dan Frakes said:

> > Similarly, why would Apple have approved, and currently offer on the App Store, several other apps that download podcasts?
>
> What other apps enable the downloading of podcasts to the iPhone itself in the fashion Podcaster did? Not talking about streaming, but downloading and saving of podcasts to the iPhone.

Mobility Today is just one example. All the app does is let you download episodes of the Mobility Today podcast and store them within the app for later listening.

The podcasts are stored "within the app?" I do not believe that Mobility Today downloads and stores podcasts to the iPhone's physical memory in the manner Podcaster does. If Mobility Today replicates the functionality of Podcaster, did the developer get prior written approval? It's pretty obvious Podcaster didn't.

EDIT

Looking closer at Mobility Today, all it appears to do is play Mobility Today podcasts (though it's still unclear whether it actually downloads the audio files to the iPhone's physical memory in the manner of Podcaster or if it just streams them). So that wouldn't likely impact Apple's iTunes business model anyway.

Quote

What about the more significant question I asked?

> > Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that 3.3.3 did indeed cover the downloading of podcasts. Given that the developer guidelines discuss media downloading and organization in other sections, why would Apple include this specific guideline here, a section otherwise relating specifically to application code, rather than with those other, more-similar, topics?

You got me. Maybe because this issue has more to do with distribution mechanisms and functionality than downloading media that doesn't affect Apple's iTunes business model, like Air Share allows. Not saying it's smart categorization on Apple's part, just guessing.

[Dan Frakes]

natmusak said:

> Mobility Today is just one example. All the app does is let you download episodes of the Mobility Today podcast and store them within the app for later listening.

The podcasts are stored "within the app?" I do not believe that Mobility Today downloads and stores podcasts to the iPhone's physical memory in the manner Podcaster does. If Mobility Today replicates the functionality of Podcaster, did the developer get prior written approval? It's pretty obvious Podcaster didn't.

EDIT

Looking closer at Mobility Today, all it appears to do is play Mobility Today podcasts (though it's still unclear whether it actually downloads the audio files to the iPhone's physical memory in the manner of Podcaster or if it just streams them). So that wouldn't likely impact Apple's iTunes business model anyway.

But your argument in this thread is based on the premise that Section 3.3.3 somehow applies to the distribution of podcasts?i.e., downloading them?outside of iTunes. (Side note: MT apparently downloads, not streams.) Mobility Today would violate such a rule. (There's no language anywhere differentiating between an app that does this for one podcast or multiple podcasts. Besides, one-podcast apps have plenty of potential to impact iTunes' business model if there are enough of them.) So clearly this isn't the issue.

A more-likely explanation is that Podcaster's rejection had nothing to do with Section 3.3.3 because Section 3.3.3 has to do with application features and code. But never let it be said that you aren't fighting the good fight on this one ;)

[natmusak]

Dan Frakes said:

But your argument in this thread is based on the premise that Section 3.3.3 somehow applies to the distribution of podcasts?i.e., downloading them?outside of iTunes. (Side note: MT apparently downloads, not streams.) Mobility Today would violate such a rule. (There's no language anywhere differentiating between an app that does this for one podcast or multiple podcasts. Besides, one-podcast apps have plenty of potential to impact iTunes' business model if there are enough of them.) So clearly this isn't the issue.

A more-likely explanation is that Podcaster's rejection had nothing to do with Section 3.3.3 because Section 3.3.3 has to do with application features and code. But never let it be said that you aren't fighting the good fight on this one ;)

If MT does in fact download the audio files, I think you've stumped me. :D I mean, what you suggest about the possibility of anyone being able to create these personal podcast apps and eroding iTunes strength as a podcast repository went through my mind too. While I still think 3.3.3 applies to Podcaster's situation, I'm baffled by MT's availability on the App Store based on what Podcaster was rejected on. Perhaps Apple is mainly concerned with the availability of a singular app that offers the access and downloading of any and all podcasts, as Podcaster provided, rather than individual apps offering access to a single podcast.

Thank you (and Moren and Breen) for being so willing to discuss this at length. I really hope Apple offers up an explanation or "amendment" that resolves this and fast.