[heisetax]

Maybe the only people to take the othr side would be Apple executives, you & other people that seem to believe that Apple can do no wrong & that they operate in a vacuum.

It is nice when both sides of an issue is covered. Like real product reviews rather than a restatement of the manufactures advertisements & manual. Only those times that the MacWorld editors totally disagree with me do I wonder if they have their own opinions. When they agree with me I believe that they are great. On this iTunes App store they tend to agree with my thoughts on the subject.

Apple's slogan used to be, "think different." Now that seems to have changed to think the way we want you to or use some other platform. That still allows one to think different than the Windows PC user, but not different from the Apple mandated rules. The more Apple sells the more they are acting like a MS like monopoly.

IF MacWorld would give Apple a new award for the iPod Touch or iPod Classic then I would doubt their thinking ability as the new models are either substancialy the same as the over year old models with only a price decrease on some models. If they would rate some Mac or iPod models at less than 3 mice then I could believe that they actually gave some thought to the review.

It is nice to see that they can have views other than Apple views. We all hope that they are not required to follow a IDG point of view. We want them to be independent of IDG, Apple & the 3rd party manufacturers. Many times that may be difficult to show that is the course being followed. With IDG being the employer & advertisers paying the bills, sometimes it is hard to show real independence.

As a consumer of Apple products, I want to make my purchase from the source that I choose. I want to be able to purchase the product of my choice even if it is the same as something that Apple makes or some other 3rd party makes. Many products may or may not be legal. It is the courts place to determine that, not Apple's or some other companies. I try not to purchase programs that are thought to be illegal. But programs that allow me to make a usable backup to a commercial DVD are said to be illegal by some, legal by others as it allows one to rights that are still available or have been given to the individual user.

If we worry so much about software, why don't we see the same only one source for software on the Mac platform. Probably because the Mac would not sell if all software had to be sold though Apple. If the software divelopers could not talk to other developers, have control of their products, most would develope only for other platforms. We want to see more software & hardware for our iPods/iPhones & Macs, not less. Man people have the fear that Apple will control the iTunes App Store in ways not wanted by those users. These conflicts is just evidence that Apple is already or still sinking to that level of monopolistic operation. Loyal iPod/iPhone/Mac Users do not feel safe with only Apple in control. When I have a problem with my software the manufacturer is the one I usually need to go to for help. With such little firect tak with the software produceer how can this very important link be kept open. Hardware is of little use without software. With Apple curtailing the distribution of software for any of their products, they are curtailing the use of their products by those that purchase them. Those that do not agree with Apple are not for the most part just complainters as your diffinition of a complainter seems to be one that does not agree with you or the offical Apple line of thought. I have purchased many Macs & iPods over the past 24 years. I've operated my income tax/accounting business for those 24 years with a Mac. I never did have an IBM PC or Clone. I went from CP/M on a HeathKit to my Mac. I can remember times when software was very scarce for the Mac. I had to write my own income tax prep program as all left the Mac platform at the professional level back around 1995. I do not want to see the software for the iPod Touch so severely as I wanted to replace my aging Palm PDA with one. I want my cell phone to only be a cell phone as they need to be replaced with too much regularity to be combined with a PDA in my opinion. With the iPhone sales where they are I know that I may be in a minoe=rity on that one.

[Macalways]

So you are saying,

{quote}As a consumer of Wendys' Old Fashion Burgers, I want to make my purchase from the source that I choose. I want to be able to purchase a burger of my choice and a Pepsi, even if it is the same as something that Wendy's makes or some other 3rd party makes. Many products may or may not be legal. It is the courts place to determine that, not Wendy's or some other companies, that I can't get a Pepsi in Wendys or a Coke at Taco Bell. {quote}

Under what constitutional declaration does your right as a consumer fall in, and would make Wendy or Taco Bell to comply?

As kids, we would hear, "If you don't let my little brother play, I am going to take my bat and ball and go home."

Now as adults(?), we read, "If you don't give us what we demand (for the iPhone), we are going to kill you (it)."

Interesting. Thousands of developers, thousands of apps, hundreds million downloads and counting. But unlike RIM, Nokia, Motorola?the iPhone is about to die, unless Apple opens it like Rim, Nokia, Motorola have not done themselves.

[Macalways]

Perhaps you should read RIM's and Nokia's NDA/License agreements.

The iPhone SDK License is not much different. All have reservations on what, where and how, disclosures, approval processing and right not to guarantee such, etc.

The only major difference I found was that Apple's was a lot easier to find, get to and obtain. Same for buying and installation of their respective apps.

So far I have 32 apps on my iPhone. I use 10 consistently and another 12 periodically. The remainder seldom, however, I have no intention as yet to remove them.

Compared to all the other smartphones I have owned in the past, including 2 Nokia's, a Treo, Blackberry and my last, a RAZR, I never bought or used any apps except FileMaker Mobile on the Treo. Hell, they (cell phones) were all dogs' breakfasts in comparison to my iPhone when it came to making a phone call, let alone for working, playing or browsing.

I am a software developer. I am currently working on an iPhone app in my limited spare time. Apple's SDK licensing process does not bother me as I, and the likes of 99.9% of my developer colleagues respect their strategy of managed control. Certainly, we did not hear the crap that has permeated in this forum, come out at the WWDC 2008. Admittedly, the 5000 plus attendees were real Mac fanboys, enthusiasts and developers. Unlike, half the naysayers here who, in many cases, don't even own an iPhone.

[Bobapple]

Kind of surprised we haven't heard a chorus on the pre-installed apps you can't get rid of. Apple dictates what you'll have on your phone!

I wanted to commend some of the reasoned contributions to this discussion - I've learned quite a bit about a subject I'd just given cursory attention. My position hasn't really changed - I want Apple involved in the process of making the apps available, to the point of vetting the choices.

Still don't have an answer to my larger concern - when I look in the App Store, I only see 89 pages of apps, none released later than Set. 14. If I dig into the category, I can access newer apps, but not from the main control for All iPhone, All iPod touch and All free.

I'd also like so second the motion on the increased utility of the device versus other smart phones I've seen or owned. The Razr was just horrible it took ages to access anything. I have upgraded my iPhone to be a digital recorder, a remote control, a guitar tuner and an excellent unit conversion utility, all super fast and easy. And I'm ruining my life with Crash Bandicoot....

[Kontra]

KPO said:

They don't even offer GPS software of their own, so what is the reason for not allowing others to do it?

You don't know. Nobody besides Apple knows it. But you'd rather jump to conclusions: evil, draconian, monopolistic, arbitrary, stupid...
You don't owe Apple a thing, and neither Apple does to you.

[Kontra]

bq. KPO'M wrote: "For the record, I do think that they are being arbitrary and draconian...And if Apple does have a killer GPS application on the way, then I'd certainly consider it"
At some point you have to let your logic reconcile with your feelings about Apple. You're very quick to condemn Apple without the benefit of facts on pure speculation, and yet acknowledge the fact that Apple might indeed have a turn-by-turn GPS app of their own in the making, so they wouldn't want to invite competition at this point. There could be other explanations for all this, but as I said, you'd rather condemn Apple. I'm tempted to call this hypocrisy to be charitable, and perhaps bullst to be correct.

[Bobapple]

And I feel obliged to say it again, because i think it's relevant - the 'Gmail' program was MailWrangler - and one of the reasons it was rejected was that it didn't allow account editing - a significant feature for an app of this type. Apple likely passed on it because they didn't think it was ready. I'm glad, if they're taking that approach. In the end, we get better apps and more responsive developers, I think.

[Dan Frakes]

[quote name='Kontra']
>

Dan Frakes said:

What if you happen to come up with something truly innovate, but it turns out Apple is working on something similar?

Yes, for once, could you tell us what would realistically happen at that point?

You think Apple would announce to the world, in writing no less, what product they are actaully working on? Do you not know that, for this very reason, Apple does not accept unsolicited product "ideas" or suggestions from the general public and will return them to the sender. (Recall the story of the little girl.) This is legally unworkable. Apple can't and won't pre-announce its product roadmap in writing. Neither will it write out all potential product categories it will or will not get into in a list to hand over to developers. Get real.

If you had read the sentence after the one you quoted, you'd have seen that was part of my point:

You could find your app shut out of the App Store?and you may not even know why.

[Kontra]

Dan Frakes said:

You could find your app shut out of the App Store—and you may not even know why.

My question was about Apple, my concern, not the developer, your concern. I want to know what happens when a developer submits an app similar to what Apple had been working on? Does Apple say, "Sorry, we're about to introduce a similar app soon." thereby pre-announcing their product plan to the rest of the world? You think that's realistic for a company like Apple? You're really not thinking through this.

[Dan Frakes]

twoply said:

You tie innovation together with finance, as if the two are implicitly intertwined. I suggest that the two can exist idependently of each other.

They can, especially in a world where everyone has unlimited resources...and ponies ;-)

But seriously, for most people working on apps as more than a hobby, the financial side of things is a huge issue. They need to know that if they're going to spend the time, money, and other resources developing a new and unique app, that they'll have a place to sell it. (See below.)

Quote

How many developers with a great idea are willing to walk away from their idea so quickly without even trying over the fear of potentially not being approved, but having the ability to revise and resubmit? If one rejection meant no ability to revise, then I would be more sympathetic.

But that's the problem. Several unique apps have been rejected completely. No "here's what you can do to be accepted" email; just a "sorry, no dice." If Apple's guidelines were clearer, this wouldn't be a problem. But they're not. Since developers don't really know what the "complete" guidelines are, they're left to look to the store itself: what's been accepted.

In other words, in a system with such uncertainty, there's incentive to work on apps that are similar to ones you know have been accepted. There's disproportionate risk?or at least perceived risk?in working on something truly unique.

[Dan Frakes]

adobephile said:

Publishing companies have the absolute right to pick and choose not only what titles to publish, but which authors they want to work with. It's up to the author to satisfy the publisher, not the other way around.

Actually, it's both. Authors don't work with bad publishers; publishers don't work with bad authors.

But even beyond that, book publishing is a bad analogy. At least in the tech industry, no one writes an entire book in the hopes that a publisher will publish it. It's a collaborative process, and each side is involved from start to finish. There's little chance that once you finish the book, the publisher will reject it.

[Dan Frakes]

jragosta said:

It's interesting that in 7 pages of Apple bashing, no one mentions the real issue here.

Apple's rules very clearly stated from the beginning that third party apps could not download content to the device for security reasons.

This is not accurate. Apple's rules do not say this.

jragosta said:

A tiny number of developers (apparently considerably less than 1%) tried to violate Apple's rules, got caught, and started stirring up a huge controversy in order to try to force their will on Apple. That's just plain wrong.

"Tried to violate Apple's rules"? You've missed the entire point: they didn't violate Apple's rules, because no such rules existed. That's what this is really about, at least from my end: making the rules clear enough that developers aren't spending resources developing apps that are rejected for undocumented reasons.

[Dan Frakes]

heisetax said:

It is nice to see that they can have views other than Apple views. We all hope that they are not required to follow a IDG point of view. We want them to be independent of IDG, Apple & the 3rd party manufacturers. Many times that may be difficult to show that is the course being followed. With IDG being the employer & advertisers paying the bills, sometimes it is hard to show real independence.

This is admittedly a side issue, but for the record, we can show whatever we want, as our editorial department is, and always has been, independent of advertising.

[Dan Frakes]

Kontra said:

Out of thousands of apps, so far less than a handful have been rejected, some by the way with suggestions for improvement for subsequent submission.

Ah, truthiness.

At least a handful have been rejected outright?i.e., "and don't come back."
Far more than a handful have been rejected with suggestions for improvement.

And to be clear, neither of those situations is inherently bad. The issue, IMO, is when the former are rejected for reasons Apple hasn't outlined.

Kontra said:

Get real.
You're really not thinking through this.
Because, obviously, you know better...
You make up facts and then weave whole cloth and convince yourself.
Do you not understand this?
Let's make this simple, so that even a child can understand
Some people perform unnatural mental gymnastics

I was about to respond to a few other messages from you, but after reading the rest of the thread, it's clear from the above comments and many more like them that you're not interested in discussion. I'll pass.