[ChopinBlues]

Everybody: I think you can finally stop debating this issue, as it will soon be moot, the reason being that if those clowns in Washington don't get their act together and agree on a bailout package, no one will have any money, or any jobs, to pay for any of these apps anyway, so it won't matter if any developers are creating new apps or not.

[close]

{quote:}As always, the ball is in Apple’s court. For the sake of the iPhone’s massive potential, here’s hoping that Apple does the right thing, and soon.{quote}
As always, we'll have to wait if Apple will even respond. As always, this will take too long. That's getting more and more annoying.

[Meatleg]

there are iPhone apps that have built in browsers that i could use in place of Safari anytime i wish, some can be use not just for their intended purpose but for actual browsing:
1Password, Sportacular have browsing on my iPhone, although Sportacular doesnt allow searching. the google app allows you to search the internet without using safari, and the search within safari is the only way that safari really makes money for apple, right?

Desktop iTunes has streaming radio built in. This feature is duplicated ON THE IPHONE by Pandora, Stitcher and in a way by Simplify Media.

if Podcaster was really shut down because of duplication of features, none of these other apps should have been allowed.

The shut down of Podcaster was arbitrary and baffling/vexing/irritation/infuriating, because satisfies a need that many people want filled (including myself) and apple is not only refusing to meet that demand, but they are purposely preventing OTHERS from meeting the demand, looking like jerks in the process. THIS is the real problem here, this is the real issue....

[Kontra]

Meatleg said:

there are iPhone apps that have built in browsers that i could use in place of Safari anytime i wish

Don't you think there is a difference here? Do you really think a user
thinks of browsing, say, Macworld Forums and instinctively chooses to
go to 1Password to do it? C'mon.

Browsing is only a byproduct of certain apps like 1Password (since there's no inter-app commmunication) not the their main purpose as in Safari. The vast majority of Mac users have been trained by now to use iTunes to get their podcasts, then comes Podcaster that directly competes with that and creates certain problems in the process (sync, bandwidth, hosting, etc).

[jragosta]

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. A couple of developers chose to ignore that rule and when Apple rejected them, they started their silly crusade.

It's not about competition - there are other apps on iPhone that compete directly with Apple's products. If it were a simple matter of Apple not wanting competition, they wouldn't be there.

I like my phone to be secure and applaud Apple's decision to create and enforce rules that reduce the risks of security leaks.

I'm sure there will be people who claim this is an "Apple can do no wrong" statement. It's not. The fact that Apple is right in this case is not the same as a statement that Apple is always right - they're not. When Apple makes a stupid move, I call them on it. But in this case, all the whining and FUD aside, they're right.

[Meatleg]

of course safari comes to mind first, but for 1password users, safari may come second if you are going to a secure site that you may want not remember a very complicated password.

the logic of "duplicating features" should ban 1password, and the other apps i mentioned in my previous post if that was really the issue.... both claims, apples claim of feature duplication, and my claims from the last post are equal in strengh (which is to say, they are all WEAK claims).

"The vast majority of Mac users have been trained by now to use iTunes to get their podcasts, then comes Podcaster that directly competes with that and creates certain problems in the process (sync, bandwidth, hosting, etc)."
false
1) iTunes does not load podcasts wirelessly. there for there is no competition.
2) problems? limit to wi-fi. limit to video or audio file types. problem solved. (and hosting? are you suggesting that someone is going to HOST podcast files on their iphones? not sure how hosting came into this...)

[Meatleg]

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. A couple of developers chose to ignore that rule and when Apple rejected them, they started their silly crusade.

It's not about competition - there are other apps on iPhone that compete directly with Apple's products. If it were a simple matter of Apple not wanting competition, they wouldn't be there.

I like my phone to be secure and applaud Apple's decision to create and enforce rules that reduce the risks of security leaks.

I'm sure there will be people who claim this is an "Apple can do no wrong" statement. It's not. The fact that Apple is right in this case is not the same as a statement that Apple is always right - they're not. When Apple makes a stupid move, I call them on it. But in this case, all the whining and FUD aside, they're right.

1) Apple SAID it its rejection of Podcaster that it was due to "duplicate features" right? that IS a competition issue.

2) I several programs that securely download things to it its own enclosure thru wi-fi:
textguru
air-sharing
annotator
beatmaker

programs that i do not have that do the samething:
datacase
file magnet

i have other programs that sync to my computer without help from iTunes:
recorder, 1password, evernote (though evernote is strictly to its own servers and back,files are only temorarily stored on the iphone)

all of these programs work without any security issues and Podcaster could be made to do so here as well.

I disagree with yout that security is the real issue, i think the real issue here is apple stringing this developer along for weeks or months only to reject him at the VERY last stage, costing him thousands of dollars in time.... apple was WRONG to do that... if it was really a security issue, why wasnt it rejected outright from the beginning?

[heisetax]

Get you head out of the sand & see that Apple can do other than right.

Normally a writer has a choice of of printers for their story. If one writer doesn't like it they can go elsewhere. If no one likes it they can do their own printing & marketing. But this is not how things works with the iTunes App Store. There is no publishing alternative. One can not choose to do their own publishing. They only have the iTunes App Store to do their publishing. They're not even allowed to talk to other iPod Touch./iPhone software developers. Because of this narrowing of choice Apple controls things that only a monopoly really wants to control. The iTunes App Store shows that Apple can be just as BAD as Microsoft can be.

There must be an alternative to the iTunes App Store. If not Apple must stop being the dictator that a normal publisher can be & serve all. So far they have shown that they can not serve all. Until either there is an alternative or Apple learns to not be the MS style dictator I am staying away from the iPod Touch/iPhone group of hardware. Then I can skip Apple's version of Microsoft.

[heisetax]

Because Apple is taking their business model for the iTunes App Store from MS. That means that only those developers that have time & money to throw away should develop for the iPod Touch/iPhone area. This will allow Apple to put this area of their business to a second or third class citizen way of life just like the Mac has been in the past & still is in many areas.

[jragosta]

"Get you head out of the sand & see that Apple can do other than right.

Normally a writer has a choice of of printers for their story. If one writer doesn't like it they can go elsewhere. If no one likes it they can do their own printing & marketing. But this is not how things works with the iTunes App Store. There is no publishing alternative. One can not choose to do their own publishing. They only have the iTunes App Store to do their publishing. They're not even allowed to talk to other iPod Touch./iPhone software developers. Because of this narrowing of choice Apple controls things that only a monopoly really wants to control. The iTunes App Store shows that Apple can be just as BAD as Microsoft can be.

There must be an alternative to the iTunes App Store. If not Apple must stop being the dictator that a normal publisher can be & serve all. So far they have shown that they can not serve all. Until either there is an alternative or Apple learns to not be the MS style dictator I am staying away from the iPod Touch/iPhone group of hardware. Then I can skip Apple's version of Microsoft."

Talk about a head in the sand!!!

There are plenty of alternatives to iTunes App Store. If you don't like developing for the iPhone, you can write software for Windows Mobile. Or Symbian. Or Android. Or Blackberry. Or any number of other smart phones.

Apple's control of their own product is not even remotely related to Microsoft's control of the entire industry. That kind of analogy calls your logical thinking processes into question.

[Chris Breen]

adobephile said:

What's at stake is both the integrity of the iPhone/iPodTouch and the integrity and repute of Apple Inc. Apple is intent on protecting both.

Where have I heard this argument before? Oh, that's right, when you claimed that allowing third-parties to develop for the iPhone would threaten the integrity of Apple. (At least you did until Apple announced that third-party development would be supported, at which time you pulled an impressive 180.)

Quote

Publishing companies have the absolute right to pick and choose not only what titles to publish, but which authors they want to work with.

Of course they do. But for you to get there it has to be true that the App Store is nothing but one of a number of publishing companies. In the publishing world if an author is unhappy with a publisher, he or she goes to a different publisher. Where exactly do you propose developers of iPhone software go?

Quote

The concept that Apple is driving developers away might be true if it means driving away unqualified developers, but is
otherwise ridiculous.

Right, so Apple's actions concern such know-nothings as Wil Shipley, Craig Hockenberry, Paul Kafassis, etc and that means nothing?

Dude, I can smell the kool-aid from here.

[SpinThis!]

jragosta said:

There are plenty of alternatives to iTunes App Store. If you don't like developing for the iPhone, you can write software for Windows Mobile. Or Symbian. Or Android. Or Blackberry. Or any number of other smart phones.

Or ad-hoc distribution. People forget about this option.

[Chris Breen]

SpinThis! said:

> Or ad-hoc distribution. People forget about this option.

People who have been following this understand that ad-hoc is not a solution. Apple lowered the boom on Podcaster for exactly this kind of distribution -- no more, said Apple, and that was that.

[tewha]

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. A couple of developers chose to ignore that rule and when Apple rejected them, they started their silly crusade.

This is not true. The rules specify code, not content.